Invective vocabulary in a bilingual environment | Статья в журнале «Молодой ученый»

Отправьте статью сегодня! Журнал выйдет 5 февраля, печатный экземпляр отправим 9 февраля.

Опубликовать статью в журнале

Автор:

Рубрика: Филология, лингвистика

Опубликовано в Молодой учёный №1 (396) январь 2022 г.

Дата публикации: 10.01.2022

Статья просмотрена: 4 раза

Библиографическое описание:

Нурлыбай, М. М. Invective vocabulary in a bilingual environment / М. М. Нурлыбай. — Текст : непосредственный // Молодой ученый. — 2022. — № 1 (396). — С. 279-283. — URL: https://moluch.ru/archive/396/87221/ (дата обращения: 26.01.2022).



Modern expert invectologists fix the need for a holistic study of invective vocabulary, the implementation of a specific typology of invective expressions, the accumulation of the precedent base of expert decisions, according to the problems related to the systematization of the pejorative nature of the expression (word).

Speech aggression is an illocutionary process of communication, aimed at contributing to the emergence of a negative emotional state in the subject of speech.

As a rule, speech aggression is expressed in communicative disagreements, conflicts among communicants [1, p. 148–176]. A variety of configurations of speech aggression wording is caused by several factors, including genre-role specificity of conflict communicative condition, also individual-communicative features of portraits of individuals, etc.

The invective function of language is one of its essential functions, inseparably connected with the possibility of creative application of the word. Along with the addressee, to the same extent, the addressee of invective vocabulary could use a verbal response, not to allow the insult to his address.

Some words are removed from profanity deliberately, because of rudeness or inappropriateness of pronunciation. This method is used by writers and poets, as well as by the printing establishments that publish their works. Rude, obscene expressions, which are found in proverbs, are in the daily use of spoken language: сенген қойым сен болсаң, күйсеген аузыңды ұрайын (разочарование в человеке); тышқан көтін көріп жаралы бопты (перебарщивание ситуации чутким человеком); иттің боғы дәрі болса, дарияға барып тышады (зазнаться) [2, c. 29].

The study and research of the Kazakh obscene vocabulary and swear words remains a kind of taboo. The Kazakh obscene vocabulary became a subject of research in the XIX century (A. Divayev), the first attempt to write a systematic work on this subject was undertaken by A. Seydimbek (1942–2009). An attempt of a Kazakh writer to write a systematic work on Kazakh foul words under the title «Бейпіл сөздер: қазақтың эротикалық фольклоры» was met negatively and did not gain popularity among readers [2]. The fact that the study of Kazakh «erotic folklore» lags the demands of the time is also recognized by the author of the book.

Guided by the works that have studied emotionally expressive words in the Kazakh language, researcher Sh. Nurgozhina classifies emotionally expressive vocabulary in spoken language into six types: general vocabulary, simple words, household vocabulary, obscene, uncensored words, dialogues, vararisms [3].

According to linguistic research, in Russian there are eight groups of insulting vocabulary, the presence of which in a text is a sure sign of insult (hereinafter — typology of invective vocabulary). The following is a classification of Kazakh and English invectives:

1) words and expressions denoting antisocial, socially condemned activity: swindler, cheater, prostitute — алаяқ, қалташы, ұры, суайт, жезөкше, жәлеп, ойнасқор, шыбжық, жырбық ;

2) words with a pronounced negative evaluation, which actually constitutes their main meaning, also denoting a socially condemned activity or position: racist, double-crosser, traitor — нәсіпшіл, сатқын, екіжүзді, маскүнем ;

3) names of some professions used in figurative meaning: executioner, butcher — баскесер, сайқымазақ ;

4) zoosemantic metaphors emphasizing negative human properties: uncleanness or ingratitude (pig), stupidity (donkey) — шошқа, есек (-бас, ишак), ит, иттің баласы, қаншық, тауық, ат, сұр жылан, ешкі, маймыл;

5) verbs with condemning meaning or direct negative evaluation: to steal — ұрлау, (қалтасына) түсіру ;

6) words containing an expressive negative assessment of behavior, without reference to the reference to a specific activity: scoundrel, boor — оңбаған, арсыз, бетпақ, ұятсыз, көргенсіз, жексұрын, жауыз, сұмпайы, арам, ләғанат ;

7) euphemisms for words of the first category that nevertheless retained a negative evaluative character: woman of easy behavior, inter-girl — жеңіл жүрісті әйел ;

8) special negative-evaluation puns: commies, shitheads ;

9) the use of obscene words as facial characteristics — ұсқынсыз, сиықсыз, жұмыртқабас, боқмұрын [4].

V. I. Zhelvis singles out 27 functions of invective vocabulary [5, c. 75]. These functions can be considered in relation to the Kazakh invectives. Some invectives serve singular functions (crossed-out words were included in the survey for the Kazakh-speaking population):

— the function of profanation of speech: « Ақымақ қалташылар хайуандар тепсе темір үзетін жігітсіндер ғой не тірлік мынау мисыздар » — «Stupid pickpockets, creatures such tough guys but what do these brainless ones?», «казирги заманда еркектер азаиып кетти онын орнына хайуандар кобеиип кетти тарбиелеитин акенин жоктыгынан» — «Nowadays, there are few real men left. Instead of them, the number of creatures has increased, since there is no one to bring up as a father», «хайуан, ата-анасы жок па бул жалептын?» — «critter, what, this sh*t has no parents?», «енди журейк сен сиякты акымакты тындап» — «let's now listen to fools like you», «осы қыздың ағалары еркек емес мал ғой осындай қызды осылай шығарып қойған» — «these girls' brothers are not men, but animals who let them go out like that», «таза топастар жынды хайуанаттар» — «real dumbasses, crazy creatures», «акеси уяттан жерге кирген шыгар топас» — «probably, this fool's father burned with shame», «топастар ехх омир отип кетеди ахыреттерин не болар екен» — «stupid people, eh, life will pass, what will meet you in the afterlife», «мына топас әкесі, ағасы жоқ па? Ұятсыз» — «This dumbass has no father? She's unconscionable», «ещектер казактын намысы жок кыздары» — «the donkeys, the Kazakhs without honor», «Нурали қаңғыбас ит күшік қайда неге тиіп алмады саған» — «where is this tramp, this dog, this puppy Nurali, why did he not marry you», «сен мини юпка киіп журсен?сенин аган інін папан саган айтпаймане ей койшиш уялшиш...мени уялтпа олай арнамысты таптама деп айтпайма саган?егер олай деп айтпаса онда сенин аган інін папан намыссыз ит болып тур» — «If you're wearing a miniskirt, don't your brothers and father tell you to stop it, shame on you, don't make me blush? If they don't tell you that, then they're dogs without honor», «миғұласың ба, әлде өтірік істеп тұрсың ба?» — «are you a fool, or are you pretending?», «аузын қу шөппен сүртетін жарымес мақтануға дым таппағандықтанда қай ұлттың ұлы екенін айтып мақтанады» — «a lunatic, If he finds nothing to be proud of, he starts talking about his nation», «бес адамды өлтірген жауыз қылмыстық жауапкершілікпен құтылды» — «The villain who killed five people was free of criminal responsibility», «қойшы, ойбай, тұла бойың қ*тақ болса да, аулақ жүрші, әрі!» — «yeah, stop it, even if your whole body is ch*n, get off, go away»

the function of establishing contact: «ешбір малғұн оның маңайына жуымайды» — «no ignorant person will approach him», «урааа шаш аламыз а то маймыл болып кеттик» — «hurray, let's get a haircut, because we have become completely monkeys», «мынау болашақ үйімнің сырт бітімі, мынау қонақ бөлме, мынау ас үй, мынау жатын орнымыз, осындай үйді ұнатып тұрмсаң тұр, тұрмасаң, әкеңді ұрайын, кет әрі!» — «this is the exterior of my future house, this is the living room, this is the kitchen, this is our bed, if you like this kind of house, live, if not, f**k you, walk in the woods»

the function of friendly encouragement: «бұл дүние өтер-кетер, кемпір к*тіңді көтер» — «this life will pass quickly, raise your ass, old woman»

dueling superiority function: «мына қыздардың өздерін қалай ұстағаны ұнап тұр ма? Әйелдің осындай қылық көрсетсе, саған бәрі бір сияқты ақымақ!» — «do you like the way these girls behave? Like if your wife starts acting like that, you don't care, you fool!»; «хайуан озин пк мен ойнаш бырыншы бот боласынго пк менойнау деген киыннын киынын» — «bitch, try to play through the pk yourself, you will be the first bot, playing through the pk is the hardest thing»

function of civilization: «өле алмай жүрсіндерме жолға қара соткаға емес ақымақтар» — «do you want to die, look at the road, not at the phone, fools», «намысы жоқ хайуандар» — «dishonest creatures», «егер жылауыңды қоймасаң, шешеңді с*гемін» — «if you do not stop crying, I will fuck your mother»

Other invectives have two or three functions in a certain context:

«таазааа абыройын шаштың ғой,оңбаған» — «you ruined all her honor, you useless weasel», «онбаган каншыктар турлерын курсын» — «scoundrels, bitches, damn your faces» — function of profanation and function of civilization

— «сыраханадан басқа жерде жұмыс құрып қалыппа? өзіде оңбаған адам болар... Біз білмейміз ғо» — «Is there no other place left but the beer garden? Maybe he himself is a bastard, we do not know» — the function of profanization and the function of establishing contact

«мал мына объявленияларынды өшір, мақұлық» — «animal, delete your ads, idiot», «топастар әуелі қалаулымдыы жауып жөнге салыңдар!» — «dumbasses, first close this «Kalaulym» (show), «бұл қыздың басын елдің алдында алып тастау керек басқаға сабақ болу үшін айналайын қарындастарым, әпкелерім бұндай ШАЙТАНДАРҒА еліктемеңдер» — «We should chop this girl's head off in front of all the people so that it would be a lesson for the others. Dear sisters, don't imitate such devils» — a function of profanation and a function of increasing the effectiveness of the speech act

«таза ешак б*я олип калгыр б*я ешо ашык киімен жүреді» — «real donkey f**k you to death still walks vulgarly so» — the function of profanization and the use of invectives as interjections and to fill pauses in speech

«неге жалоба жбермейсің ата анаңды мына итке қорлатып қойғанша» — «why don't you send a complaint than make your parents tolerate this dog», «осындай иттерге мықты шара қолдану керек» — «we should take enhanced measures against such dogs», «маймылдар зоопарктен кашып кеткен ба?» — «have the monkeys escaped from the zoo?», «кім біледі мынау маймылдар қайда тұрады екенін» — «who knows where these monkeys live?» — — the function of profanation and the function of establishing contact at the expense of oppression

Тhe number of functions depends on the context, which, in turn, is interconnected with the situation of communication. Therefore, in many cases, invectives of the Kazakh language, as well as in Russian, perform a number of functions at oncе.

Examples were taken from the social networks YouTube, Vkontakte (published in 2019, 2020) and the work of A.Seydimbek [2].

Also the analysis of the lexemes presented in the Dictionary of frequency of the Kazakh language, published in 2016 (Almaty) [6], was carried out to find out the frequency of use of the invectives selected for the sociological survey. This dictionary consists of 36265 words. the most frequently used invective lexemes. absolute frequency indicators from 45 to 2205, also from 57.5448 % to 96.23144 % coverage of the text group of words. The following are the word groups:

мал — animal (absolute frequency — 2205, percentage of text coverage — 57.54 %)

ит — dog (absolute frequency — 1575, percentage of text coverage — 63.62 %)

ақымақ — fool (absolute frequency — 1012, frequency — 71,01 %)

ешкі — goat (absolute frequency — 501, percentage of text coverage — 80,17 %)

есек — donkey (absolute frequency — 361, percentage of text coverage — 83,89 %)

шошқа pig (absolute frequency — 269, percentage of text coverage — 86.52 %)

арам — scoundrel (absolute frequency — 252, percentage of text coverage — 87.09 %)

маймыл — monkey (absolute frequency — 1194, percentage of text coverage — 89.03 %)

хайуан — beast (absolute frequency — 1080, percentage of text coverage — 94.06 %)

мақұлық — idiot (absolute frequency — 958, percentage of text coverage — 95.4 %)

сайтан — devil (absolute frequency — 853, percentage of text coverage — 95, 71 %)

топас — dumbass (absolute frequency — 645, percentage of text coverage — 96.23 %)

нақұрыс — moron (absolute frequency — 47, percentage of text coverage — 98.85 %)

шірік — schmuck (absolute frequency — 66, percentage of text coverage — 97.61 %)

оңбаған — stupid weasel (absolute frequency — 668, percentage of text coverage — 98.23 %)

жарымес — half-witted (absolute frequency — 213, percentage of coverage — 98.69 %)

малғұн — ignoramus (absolute frequency — 314, percentage of coverage — 98.66 %)

The survey titled « The survey among young people to gather information about swear words in the Kazakh language» showed the attitude of the young generation to the use of certain insults in their speech. Kazakh-speaking young people were involved in the electronic questionnaire. The number of questionnaires was 128 people. The aim of the experiment was to answer the question about the tendency of Kazakh offensive words to be stable on the scale of invective degrees. The informants were asked to choose the most offensive of the invectives.

1) Choose the most unpleasant word from this list

–30.5 % миғұла (dummy)

–29.7 % мақұлық (idiot)

–19.5 % топас (dumbass)

–19.5 % есалаң (moron)

–0.8 % ақымақ (stupid)

2) Choose the three most unpleasant words from this list

–75 % малғұн (ignoramus)

–68 % мал (animal)

–53.9 % нақұрыс (stupid)

–39.1 % жарымес (crazy)

–27.3 % топас (dumbass)

–26.6 % есалаң (retard)

3) Which words from this list seem unpleasant to you, but not offensive? The vast majority chose топас, мақау, есалаң, жарымес.

4) Choose the three most unpleasant words from this list.

–82 % хайуан (beast)

–51.6 % жексұрын (scoundrel)

–39.8 % сұмырай (bastard)

–34.4 % шірік (scum)

–34.4 % жауыз (villain)

–25.8 % албасты (crazy)

–19.5 % оңбаған (stupid prankster)

5) Which words from this list seem unpleasant to you, but far from offensive? The vast majority chose the words албасты, оңбаған, шірік, арам

6) Choose the three most unpleasant words from this list:

–85.9 % сайтан (devil)

–82 % шошқа (pig)

–64.1 % сұр жылан (viper)

–48.4 % есек (donkey)

–16.4 % ит (dog)

–6.3 % ешкі (goat)

–6.3 % маймыл (monkey)

–2.3 % ат (horse)

–2.3 % тауық (chicken)

7) Which words from this list do you find distasteful but not offensive? The vast majority chose the words ат, ит, маймыл, ешкі

These invectives in the above examples often perform the function of profanation, that is, lowering the social status of the addressee through insulting comparisons, accusations of violations of moral and social norms, also through harsh statements about the bodily and mental disabilities of the addressee, also to increase the effectiveness of the speech act.

Only certain broadcasts and periodicals can be used as a model of literary-normative speech. An even more influential spreader of this linguistic phenomenon (invective) are modern performers of various genres of music, since music has the ability to have a unique impact on human consciousness. Songs are a means of educating a person's speech culture with significant effect. For the younger generation, music serves as an integral part of their lives. However, young people stop thinking about the meaning of the lyrics of the songs they choose. The vast majority of such songs contain speech errors. Scientists note that songs with harsh words in the lyrics have a negative impact on listeners [7, p. 44].

The musical culture is uncontrollably unconscious, and for young people the profanity of the speech becomes exemplary. Now many, when listening to a new piece of music, are often taken to imitate the wave of fashionable styles of music, not understanding or not paying attention to the meaning of the piece. The word has a strong influence, and if the right context is chosen, it is aligned with the listener's state and thoughts. If, however, young people have adapted to listening to works with sparse, non-literary speech, they will not notice how the vocabulary of given texts programs their speech culture.

An analysis of the musical predilections of today's youth makes predictive sense. Today, what appeals to the younger generation is rapidly becoming mainstream and commonplace. Young people associate most of their time with music.

Among today's youth, songs that contain a variety of invective vocabulary are popular. The extraction of words belonging to non-literary language and their use leads to an internal decline in both the culture of speech and the personal status of the speaker.

That is why the lyrics of such quite famous youth personalities as Adil Kulmagambetov (Skriptonit), Danil Shirokov (Proxx), Bekbolat Khaidarov (Hiro), Darkhan Zhumabek (Sour-sweet), Ablay Syzdykov (Bohan), Sayan Zhimbaev (Truwer), Captown groups, Irina Kayratovna are considered. The immediate factor for the study of the texts of the above-mentioned performers is the fact that they are particularly popular among the Kazakh youth and the younger generation, gathering large audiences. If the most popular of the list A. Kulmagambetov in «YandexMusic» has more than 2 million users, and his YouTube videos get from 48 to 21 million (some tracks — 79 million) views, then this indicator of S. Zhimbayev, just promoting his works, getting the speed in different music charts, makes more than 33 thousands in «YandexMusic» and from 3 thousands to 2.5 million views on YouTube for the last 10 months.

References:

  1. Gorelov I. N., Sedov K. F. Fundamentals of Psycholinguistics: Textbook. — Moscow: Labirint, 2004.
  2. Seydimbek A. Бейпіл сөздер. Қазақтың эротикалық фольклоры. — Almaty, 2000.
  3. Nurgozhina Sh. I. Fundamentals of Journalism. — Almaty: Kazakh University, 2012.
  4. Aggression in Language and Speech / ed. by I. A. Sharonov. — M.: RGU, 2004.
  5. Zhelvis V. I. Rude: Problems of Classifying the Lexicon. — Moscow: Kostroma, 2008. — С. 71–76.
  6. Frequent Dictionary of the Kazakh Language. / ed. by S. Orazbekov. — Almaty: Dauir, 2016.
  7. Cherkasova M. N. Grammatical markers of Russian speech forms with aggressive semantics (on the example of media texts) // The World of Russian Word. — 2010. — № 4. — С. 42–47
Основные термины (генерируются автоматически): RGU.


Задать вопрос