Discussion Questions of the “Aggressive Field” of Diminutivity: Semantic Dominants of Irrelevant Communication in Pedagogical Practice

Introduction. The article is devoted to the understanding of speech facts related to the unjustified expansion of the functional and semantic field of diminutives in speech communication, contextually irrelevant for the lexical culture of the educational and professional space. There is a gap in the scientific literature which is devoted to the study of this topic in the context of the educational process at the university.

Objective. Study of the problem of the evaluative impact of the diminutive labeling of lexemes on the educational and communicative dialogue and the “improvement” of the sociolinguistic culture of the subjects of educational activity – the teacher and the student.

Materials and methods. Linguistic empirical methods were used: the method of partial sampling of scientific articles and the method of linguistic description of issues related to the influence of the evaluative function of diminutives on the communicative process in the field of educational and educational-industrial relations; a qualitative research method for studying specific cases based on linguistic observation of the range and frequency of inclusion of diminutive categories in educational communication.

Results. The main diminutive units used in the communicative practice of teachers are collected and systematized; analysis of these units was carried out by their estimated function as a marker of the teacher’s speech literacy boundaries.

Discussion. Exploring the language segment of the functioning and impact of the objective and emotional evaluativeness of diminutives on human consciousness and emotions, we emphasize the speaker’s attitude to reality, to the subject of speech, to the object of speech. The influence of the sociolinguistic factor and the pragmatic properties of the category of diminutivity on the speech act can generate a subjectively negative attitude towards the speaker’s linguistic personality. According to the results of the study, methodological guidelines on speech culture are given in order to increase speech behavioral competence in educational communication.

1. Bylkova, S. V., Chubova, E. P., & Kolmakova, V. V. (2018). Problem-based learning as a method of developing the critical thinking of undergraduate students when writing a reasoned essay. Modern Studies of Social Issues, 9(3), 74–90.

2. Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2022). Diminutives as a social index: "put on a mask" and "the machine is served". Terra Linguistica. 13(3), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.18721/JHSS.13306

3. Dressler, W. U., & Merlini Barbaresi, L. (2001). Morphopragmatics of diminutives and augmentatives: On the priority of pragmatics over semantics. In Kenesei I., Harnish R. M. (eds.) Perspectives on semantics, pragmatics and discourse: A Festschrift for Ferenc Kiefer (43–58). John Benjamins.

4. Fufaeva, I. V. (2016). The expansion of expressive deminutives in the Russian language. Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod University named after N.I. Lobachevsky, 3, 257–266.

5. Kempe, V., Brooks, P., & Gillis, S. (2007). Diminutives provide multiple benefits for language acquisition. In I. Savickiene, W. U. Dressler (eds.) Acquisition of diminutives: A cross-linguistic perspective (pp. 319–342). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lald.43.14kem

6. Kuzmenkova, V. A. (2007). Diminutive as a means of expressing the implicit meanings of a statement. Language. Conscience. Communication. MAX Press, 38–50.

7. Menkova, N. V. (2018). Diminutives as a speech failure. Verhnevolzhski philological bulletin, 4 (15), 127–136. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:126255833

8. Nikolenko, O. V., Zakharchuk, O. E. (2016). Conversion as a mechanism of speech influence in the learning process. In Problems of education in modern Russia and in the post-Soviet space: collection of articles of the XXV International Scientific and Practical Conference, 92–96.

9. Nikolenko, O. V., Zakharchuk, O. Е., Babakova, L. D., & Morenko, B. N. (2019). The 'I' of the author and its persuasive function (as exemplified by the complex sentence with homogeneously collateral sub clauses). SHS Web Conferences. 69, 00081. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20196900081

10. Odaryuk, I. V., Kolmakova, V. V. (2017). The pragmalinguistic aspect of personality socialization. Philology. Theory & Practice. 11-2, 127–129.

11. Protasova, E. Yu. (2001). The role of diminutives in modern Russian. Works on Russian and Slavic philology. Linguistics. New Series, V, 72–89.

12. Pushkin, A. S. (1995). The complete works. At 17 vol. 3, book 1. Voskresenie, 541–556.

13. Rylov, Yu. A. (2006). Aspects of the linguistic picture of the world: Italian and Russian languages. Gnosis, 143–144.

14. Saltykov-Shchedrin, M. (2018). Messrs Golovlevs. Rech.

15. Spiridonova, N. F. (1999). Russian diminutives: problems of education and meaning. The Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Studies in Literature and Language, 2, 20–45.

16. Voeikova, M. D. (2020). Structural functions of deminutives in modern Russian and the productivity of their use. Voprosy Jazykoznanija, 5, 38–56. https://doi.org/10.31857/0373-658X.2020.5.38-56