Euphemisms with positively connotated vocabulary in the Russian and English languages: A functional classification

The aim of the article is to classify euphemisms containing ameliorative (positively connotated) vocabulary. The relevance of the chosen topic is due to the interest in the problem of euphemization with an insufficient number of works affecting the role of such units in this process. The material of the study is the Dictionary of Euphemisms of the Russian Language by E.P. Senichkina and How Not to Say What You Mean: A Dictionary of Euphemisms by R. Holder. The source analysis method, the classification method and the statistical method are applied. The introduction provides a brief overview of existing approaches to the typology of euphemisms in Russian and foreign linguistics. The predominance of functional-motivational classifications was revealed. The next section demonstrates the relevance of ameliorative vocabulary in the structure of the euphemism, substantiating the stylistic compatibility of these language phenomena. For this purpose, interpretations of the concept “euphemism” in the scientific and reference literature are considered (based on the works of Russian and British authors, in accordance with the material of the study). It is established that, as a rule, euphemisms include not only emotionally neutral vocabulary, but also units that have positive, negative or mixed connotations (from barely noticeable to very distinct). Then a functional classification is proposed, according to which euphemisms with a positively connotated vocabulary are divided into three groups: true (softening the denotation evaluation), comic (“playing out” the denotation) and manipulative (distorting the denotation idea, disinforming). Within these groups, thematic categories are identified, with examples from the used dictionaries. Individual euphemistic constructions, which seem to be not quite successful or have a controversial status within the proposed classification, are analyzed. In Senichkina's dictionary, the most numerous euphemisms are true ones related to the topic of death (“Bog pribral”, “dusha otletaet”, “ukhodit' k luchshey zhizni”); in Holder's dictionary, these are true ones related to the sexual sphere (“love affair”, “romantic entanglement”, “to take pleasure”). Both dictionaries lack well-known euphemisms denoting specific diseases and syndromes (“bozhestvennaya bolezn'”/“the sacred disease”, “laskovyy ubiytsa”/ “the tender murderer”, “plyaska svyatogo Vitta”/“Saint Vitus' dance”). The English-language source includes several times more manipulative euphemisms. It is noted that the units related to military activity (“adekvatnyy otvet”, “mirotvorcheskaya operatsiya”; “defensive victory”, “to liberate”) are the most abundant within this functional group. The number of euphemisms with ameliorative vocabulary in all functional groups and thematic categories is shown in the table at the end of the article. The prospects for the study are seen in applying the proposed classification to euphemisms that do not contain positively connotated words. The authors declare no conflicts of interests.

Keywords

Authors

References