КТО НАЗЫВАЕТ ВЕЩИ, ТОТ ОВЛАДЕВАЕТ ИМИ: РУССКИЙ VS. РОССИЯНИН, РУССКИЙ VS. РОССИЙСКИЙ В ДИСКУРСЕ ПРЕЗИДЕНТОВ РОССИИ
THE ONE WHO NAMES THE THINGS, MASTERS THEM: RUSKIJ(3) VS. ROSIJANIN(4), RUSKIJ(5) VS. ROSIJSKIJ(6) IN THE DISCOURSE OF RUSSIAN PRESIDENTS

Summary/Abstract: (3) a Russian (4) a citizen of Russia (5) Russian adj. (6) of Russia For some time in certain groups of society the words ruskij (a Russian) and rosijanin (a Citizen of Russia) became some kind of markers – a person is either an insider or outsider. Self-identifying themselves as patriots, people name themselves as ruskije (the Russians), the adherents of liberal values call themselves as rosijanin (citizens of Russia). Thus, the use of such self-definitions began to imply the expression of certain ideological positions. More neutral contexts (parent forums) can contain both ruskij and rosijanin (self)‑namings without any implication and spearker’s expressions of conscious ideology i.e. the Russian word rosijanin has become a part of realia of modern Russian speech. The aim of this paper is to analyze the Russian presidential addresses to the Federal Assembly of the last decade (2000–2010) and to determine the following: do the Vladimir Putin’s and Dmitry Medvedev’s presidential addresses refer to ruskije (the Russians), the commonwealth‑forming nation of multinational Russia? Do they continue the tradition of Yeltsin to carry on a dialog with the Russians? Which objects are characterized in the discourse of the presidents as ruskije (Russian) and which ones as rosijskije (of Russia)? The text analysis of the Russian presidents’ addresses showed: 1) the frequency of ideologeme rosijanin used in 90-ies is low; 2) to the maximum extent, i.e., wherever it is possible, the term rosijskij instead of alternative nominations is used; the word ruskij gradually starts to perform a role of a link word, except the word language which (today) cannot be combined with the word rosijskij; 3) the national characteristicsof the recipient (as well as the characteristics of the object and subject of speech) level off by the expansion of the terms rosijskaja nacija (Russian nation) and rosijskaja kultura (Russian culture). At the end of the article, for the comparison sake, the author provides analogous information on the functioning of the terms (lietuvis, lietuvių (Lithuanian, of Lithuanian)) in the annual addresses of the presidents of Lithuania. They contain such addresses as piliečiai, žmonės, tauta (citizens, people, nation) of Lithuania, and these addresses demonstrate similarity to the intentions of the presidents of multinational Russia. The only difference here is that Lithuanian presidents’ addresses may contain the appeal to ethnic pride. The author of the article maintains that the choice of words and phrases to describe important concepts can change not only the names of these concepts, but also their content. These are the examples of language policy in practical use.

• Details
• Contents