THE LINGUOXENOPHOBIC DIMENSION OF RUSSIAN GEOPOLITICAL DISCOURSE (AS EXEMPLIFIED IN USAGE OF SOVIET TOPONYMS AS XENOPHOBIA MARKERS)

Abstract

The article analyzes the linguoxenophobic dimension of Russian geopolitical discourse as the tool of consciental war that Russia is waging against Ukraine and other independent countries that were previously parts of the Soviet Union. The article is aimed at proposing a definition of linguoxenophobia and defining it dimensions on examples of Soviet toponyms usage in Russian geopolitical discourse. The author proposes to introduce the “linguoxenophobia” term into linguistic circulation. This term is interpreted as a concealed form of verbal aggression that is being implemented through communication strategies of devaluation of accomplishments, humiliation of other nations and organized political communities (states), as well as through demonstration of one’s own nation’s (community, state) superiority. It is proved that linguoxenophobia differs from hate speech by the following parameters: concealed verbal aggression, ostentatious politeness, lack of potential violence instigating. The content analysis of Russian-speaking media outlets has proved the misuse of the toponyms of Soviet origin – “Moldavia”, “Belorussia”, “Kirgizia” – instead of legislated and recognized by the international community official names “Moldova”, “Belarus” and “Kyrgyzstan”. There is also reported usage of the “Pribaltika” toponym marking the Baltic States – Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia, that has mostly negative connotation in discourses dedicated to the Western support of Ukraine in the war that has been waged by Russia. Totalitarian labeling of Russian geopolitical discourse can also be traced on the grammatical level – using the “on” preposition with the “Ukraine” toponym. According to the grammar rules of Russian language, the “in” preposition is used with administrative and geographical names in the accusative and locative cases. The “on” preposition is used as a designation of relocation within the state. Therefore, Russian geopolitical discourse views our country as a territory (mainly Russian), but not as a sovereign state. Therefore, Soviet toponyms in geopolitical discourse of RF serve as markers of the following communication strategies: (1) RF demonstrates its superiority and relevance in relation to other countries, (2) humiliation and devaluation of the nations that had fled out of the Kremlin control, and (3) strategy of keeping the states that may potentially make their way out of the Kremlin control.