Abstract
While previous studies have investigated the evolution of political discourse in the Russian language, limited attention has been given to specific lexico-grammatical innovations and their implications in contemporary political communication. To fill this gap, this study analyzed grammatical innovations and psycholinguistic aspects in speeches delivered by members of the Russian Government and the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. A cognitively oriented synchronous-diachronic approach was employed to examine linguistic subsystems and their constituent units, combining linguistic description and observation with component, comparative, and lexicographic analyses. The analysis identified morphological, derivational, syntactic, and lexical-semantic innovations that characterize the linguistic subsystem under study, as well as essential elements of politicians’ lexicon. Particular attention was given to a group of lexico-grammatical innovations formed through thematically reoriented semantic neologisms, along with their psycholinguistic implications. The findings indicate a reduction in the use of specialized professional language components, which may contribute to diminished effectiveness in current Russian political communication.
Plain Language Summary
This study analyzed the grammatical innovations and psycholinguistic aspects of current political communications of Russian speakers, showing tendencies toward informality and standardization in syntactic structures and lexical units. This study used the methodology of complex, cognitively oriented synchronous-diachronic analysis of linguistic subsystems and their constituent units, linguistic description and observation methods, and component, comparative, and lexicographic analyses. Speeches by members of the Russian Government and Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation were analyzed. The analysis aimed to reveal morphological, derivational, syntactic, and lexical-semantic innovations that identify the investigated subsystem and essential elements of the politicians’ thesaurus. Thematically reoriented semantic neologisms formed a particular group of lexico-grammatical innovations. This study highlighted lexico-grammatical innovations and psycholinguistic aspects that identify the subsystem under study and necessary elements of politicians’ thesaurus. It is concluded that the inadmissibly decreased professional language components lead to ineffectiveness in the current political communications of Russian speakers.
Keywords
Introduction
Language is a living, dynamic system that continually evolves, reflecting changes in society, political systems, and interpersonal relations. While many researchers have delved into the broader shifts in political discourse, there remains a noticeable gap in literature focusing on intricate lexico-grammatical innovations. This study addresses this gap by conducting a comprehensive analysis of such linguistic developments and their influence on Russian political discourse. Political discourse, as a distinct form of communication, is a tool that can be used to gain and maintain political power and exert social control. Inherent in sociopolitical relations, it encompasses a specific set of lexical units, knowledge, and communicative actions, implemented through both verbal and non-verbal means. Moreover, extralinguistic factors, shaped by the axiological orientation of communication and cognitive structures, also influence the conditions in which this discourse exists.
Over the past 10 to 15 years, historical transformations have taken place in Russia’s economic, cultural, political, scientific, and legal spheres, as well as in public attitudes, which are reflected in the vocabulary of the Russian language. The intensification of communicative processes in current Russian political discourse has accelerated the formation of new words and expressions. As the boundaries of linguistic norms are revised, verbal and non-verbal ways of constructing meaning increasingly complement each other and are interchanged. These innovations are especially evident in politics, where discourse aims to harmonize conflicting social, economic, and cultural interests and needs through effective dialogue between citizens and authorities.
The acceleration of language change—reflected in linguistic creativity—is shaped by a range of factors: political realities; increased interlingual communication; the rapid development of electronic media; specific features of mass media language; the influence of advertising; the growing popularity of spontaneous, improvised speech across social strata; and experimental uses of language in literature, among others. These factors together contribute to the increase of lexical units and activation of grammatical resources—that is, the expansion of the compatibility and functionality of language units.
In linguistic research, grammatical phenomena are increasingly presented against the backdrop of contemporary linguistic processes characterized by innovation. This focus reflects the view that grammar is not only governed by compulsory or strict rules but also allows for regular variation, determined by the categorical semantics and stylistic nature (genre) of a text as a whole (Kurochkina, 1999). Within modern political linguistics, grammatical innovations are understood as ways of actualizing grammatical meanings—uses of grammatical forms that acquire structural, semantic, aesthetic, or pragmatic significance (Remchukova, 2011).
Grammatical innovations in political discourse include various phenomena—such as grammatical occasionalisms, contrasts, series, variability, reflexives, and metaphor—that enhance the expressiveness of speech and influence voter perceptions (Cotteret, 1973; Dieckman, 1975). Russian political discourse emphasizes Russian identity through multiple communication channels, including propaganda outlets, interviews with political figures, and Russian television programs. Discourse adopted at the national level often focuses on foreign policy, while regional discourse is directed to economic issues rather than security. Moreover, as “…discussions of the world order appear to be event-driven” (Frear & Mazepus, 2021, p. 1234), Russian leaders frequently present narratives that highlight Russia’s distinct position compared to other states and demonstrate its greatness and importance to the international community. Foreign policy discourse by political leaders functions to communicate the country’s interests and priorities while simultaneously detailing the elite’s worldview (Zavarzina, 2019). It also serves to justify certain policies and position the country on the global political map according to policymakers’ interpretations (Svarin, 2016). Overall, Russian political discourse reflects both the country’s perceived role in international affairs and its place in the international order.
In this regard, the discourse of political leaders is of particular interest given its visibility and influence both domestically and abroad (Sedykh et al., 2020). In Russia, national identify is frequently framed in contrast to an extra-national world portrayed as intrinsically dangerous. In particular, the strategies of patriotic popular music integrate apparently different signifying practices, often evoking Orthodox faith and principles, imagery and narratives tied to Tsarist and Soviet history (Kanzler & Scharlaj, 2017), as well as visual styles that emulate both professional advertising and big-budget Hollywood productions. In this context, state-controlled political communication has portrayed events such as Crimea and Russian military activities as patriotic, contributing to the idealization of the national self. Such discourse employs different linguistic and semiotic strategies, and studies have noted that top-ranking publications tend to use more semantically transparent and syntactically flexible expressions (Wang & Soler, 2021), which are not typically observed in Russian political discourse.
Literature Review
Conceptualization and Context of Political Discourse
Political communication plays a pivotal role in shaping societal perspectives and beliefs. To analyze its nature and functions, researchers in political linguistics have developed various conceptual frameworks, such as political discourse (Baranov, 1997; Baranov et al., 2004; Sheigal, 2000; Van Dijk, 1997), language of public thought (Karasik, 1998), propagandistic-political speech (Chudinov, 2001), sociopolitical speech (Panova, 2004), language-in-action (Blommaert, 2005), and political language (Vorobyova, 2011).
Van Dijk (2006) advocates a multidisciplinary, socioculturally contextualized approach to problem-oriented critical discourse analysis. Discourse can be viewed both as a communicative event between an addressee and author and as the product of such an event. Political discourse may encompass, for instance, government debates, parliamentary proceedings, party programs, and politicians’ speeches (Baranov, 1997), typically produced in institutional settings such as parliamentary sessions, government meetings, and political party congresses.
Political Language and Psycholinguistics
Language is a means of exercising power. For politicians, this requires the careful selection of words and expressions to convey their thoughts and political positions. According to Sirotinina (2000), political language is both a professional sublanguage and a national language variant.
Psycholinguistics provides tools for analyzing political language. Osgood and Sebeok (1965, p. 4) argue that “psycholinguistics deals directly with the processes of encoding and decoding as they relate states of messages to states of communicators.” From this perspective, psycholinguistic analysis can reveal how linguistic choices affect communicators, thereby identifying the effectiveness of speech influence techniques (Issers, 2009; Parshin, 1986; Pocheptsov, 1999; Van Dijk, 1997). However, the precise mechanisms by which language used by authorities shapes public perception remain incompletely understood.
Verbal manipulation refers to the strategic selection of linguistic means aimed at persuading the addressee to accept certain statements as true without considering other arguments. It employs psychological and psycholinguistic tools to reduce critical evaluation, foster certain illusions or delusions, and encourage actions that benefit the communicator’s objectives.
Previous Studies and Identified Research Gaps
Recent research has examined the linguistic features of Russian political discourse from multiple perspectives. For instance, Chudinov (2006), Feldman (2018), and Zhou (2023) analyzed the lexico-grammatical features of political texts in Russian, emphasizing the role of language in shaping public opinion. Similarly, Zavarzina (2019) and Basko (2016) explored the morphological intricacies of political language, focusing on how neologisms develop and are integrated into everyday use.
While these studies offer invaluable insights into the structure and evolution of political discourse in Russian, an evident gap concerning the impact of contemporary societal changes on lexico-grammatical innovations remains. Buzinova et al. (2023) and Guan (2022) touched upon the influence of global events on language change in political contexts; however, their research was limited to a few case studies without a broader analysis of systematic patterns. Moreover, there is a paucity of literature examining the incorporation of verbal creativity from other societal spheres into political language, the interaction between oral techniques and written political discourse, and the increasingly blurred boundaries of linguistic norms in political communication.
Our research aims to address these gaps by conducting an in-depth analysis of recent lexico-grammatical innovations in Russian political discourse, tracing their origins, and understanding their role in political communication. By examining specific political texts and their linguistic features, this study endeavors to shed light on the dynamic relationship between language and political activity in contemporary Russia.
Historical Perspectives and Models of Political Communication
Many scholars (e.g., Bessonov, 1971; Dotsenko, 2000; Kakorina, 2008; Schiller, 1980; Shostrom, 1992; Voitasik, 1981; Volkogonov, 1983) have defined speech manipulation as linguistic influence used to implicitly introduce goals, desires, intentions, or attitudes into the addressee’s mind that differ from their existing perspectives (Bykova, 1999).
Early models of political communication, as developed by Bertalanffy (1968), Shannon and Weaver (1971), and Wiener (1983), conceptualized the communicative process as simple information transfer without considering broader social and cultural aspects. Building on the cybernetic model of communication, Demyankov (2003) examined political communication through the roles and statuses of decision-makers in politics. Lasswell (2021), Lazarsfeld and Henry (1973), Lazarsfeld et al. (1968), and Popova (2004) interpreted political communication in terms of mass consciousness and mass media.
Language Transformations and Political Communication
Research on language transformation in various sociocultural spheres includes studies by Bykova (1999), Denisov (1998), Epstein (2007), Gasparov and Kupina (2014), Gridina (1996), Namitokova (1986), Nikolina (2013), Norman (2013), Petrova and Ratsiburskaya (2011), Panova (2004), Radbil (2017), Rogova (2018), Sirotinina (2000), and Vorobyova (2011). Kakorina (2008), Kitaigorodskaya and Rozanova (2010), Kostomarov (1994), Larionova (1993), and Podchasova (1998a, 1998b) analyzed the functions and transformations of language in the fields of economics and mass media. In parallel, Arutyunova (1990), Demyankov (2003), Karasik (1998), Kubryakova (2000), and Van Dijk (1997) studied various aspects of language functioning within the framework of discourse theory, while Baranov et al. (2004), Bazylev and Andrasilnikova (2004), Budaev and Chudinov (2006), and Sheigal (2000) focused specifically on political discourse.
Political communication comprises networking between political actors who pursue their interests by implementing political power. Schwartzenberg (1988) viewed this process as the transmission of political information circulating in the political system and society as a whole, with political structures, individuals, and social groups as communicants.
In this sense, politics are deeply intertwined with linguistic mechanisms. Policymakers not only convey information but also shape public opinion and policy agendas through speech, texts, and other communicative acts, underscoring the power and importance of linguistic choices in the political domain. As Burke (1966) observed, most of our reality is formed through verbal communication of symbols, with only a minimal part cognized through direct experience. Concepts like democracy or justice, which are inherently abstract, are constructed and understood by societies and political entities through a complex interplay of verbal symbols and discursive practices. The same can be said about most political phenomena.
Rogova (2018) highlighted the importance of grammatical semantics in modern linguistic research on the interaction between language and thought. Grammatical creativity and wordplay may appear when communicators go beyond established linguistic boundaries, influenced by emotional intensity and opposing points of view. Kibrik (2016) indicated that the “natural” grammar of Russian emerges in spontaneous, often every day, dialogue, where oral discourse involves the manifestation of subjective linguistic taste and expressive vocabulary, expanding the range of permissible linguistic deviation.
Drawing on this literature, the present study defines political discourse as communicative in nature, characterized by speech, evaluative and sometimes aggressive elements, and thematic certainty. In modern Russian political communication, the ideological component plays a central role, often manifesting as confrontational exchanges between opponents. This research explores current trends in lexico-grammatical innovation and the psycholinguistic aspects of current Russian political discourse, with particular emphasis on their effect on internal dynamics and semantic changes.
Materials and Methods
Research Sources and Materials
To comprehensively capture the nuances of political discourse, this study focuses on specific lexical units—key building blocks of larger political narratives that can offer insights into the intricacies of political communication. These units were drawn from three main sources:
Educational and scientific literature on political science, state and administrative (municipal) management, political management theory, and public administration.
Lexicographic resources, including general and specialized encyclopedic dictionaries, Russian-language dictionaries, and dictionaries of foreign words and neologisms.
Contemporary online and print media, covering the Internet discourse of Russian government administration (e.g., www.kremlin.ru, government.ru, president.rf, putin.rf, duma.gov.ru, russiancouncil.ru, etc.), news websites (ng.ru, rbc.ru, lenta.ru, russian.rt.com, rg.ru, politforums.net, expert.ru, fontanka.ru, interfax.ru, and themoscowtimes.com), and major newspapers aimed at a broad audience.
These sources have captured the rapid transformation of all spheres of public life in modern Russian.
Methodological Framework
Given the multifaceted nature of political discourse, a singular methodological approach might overlook crucial details. Therefore, we employed a multi-method design incorporating the following specific techniques:
Linguistic description: Detailed examination of lexico-grammatical innovations in political texts.
Observation methods: Continuous monitoring of political text sources to identify and track lexical trends and innovations.
Component analysis: Dissection of lexical units to understand their structure and formation.
Comparative analysis: Comparing lexical units and constructions across different texts and contexts.
Lexicographic analysis: Utilizing dictionaries and lexicographic resources to analyze new words and expressions.
Complex analysis: Combining multiple methods for a more comprehensive investigation.
Statistical analysis: Applying statistical tools to analyze the frequency and distribution of lexical units.
The chronological period for collecting and analyzing linguistic material spans 2017 to May 2021. This integrative and holistic approach enables the study to consider lexical and semantic features within a broader historical and cultural context, revealing deeper layers of meaning and influence in political discourse.
This methodological stance aligns with Belkova (2018), who emphasized the importance of analyzing lexical units within the broader framework of meaning production as shaped by specific cultural contexts. In this study, we also consider the expressive similarities between oral dialogue and political texts, recognizing the interconnections between these two meta-verbal domains.
Analytical Model
This research employs a qualitative analytical model to investigate lexico-grammatical innovations in Russian political discourse. The analysis focuses on identifying and categorizing neologisms, usage of root and auxiliary morphemes, and other grammatical innovations, with particular attention to their role shaping emotional expressiveness, internal dynamics, and thematic reorientation in political communication.
The analysis process proceeds as follows:
Collection of diverse political texts, including speeches, articles, and official documents.
Identification and extraction of lexico-grammatical innovations within the texts.
Classification of these elements based on their linguistic characteristics and functions.
Examination of their impact on political discourse, particularly in terms of hidden influence and manipulation.
Interpretation of the findings in the context of contemporary Russian political activities and communication.
By systematically applying these steps, the study identifies specific grammatical tools that political actors use to influence and potentially manipulate addressees and covertly introduce goals, opinions, and attitudes.
Interdisciplinary Approaches and Theories
In the analysis of political discourse, Zemskaya’s (1996) categorical framework and semiotics methodology, alongside Huizinga’s (2011) theory of play, offer a promising interdisciplinary approach with considerable heuristic potential. The strength of these methods lies in their applicability to the synchronic–diachronic examination of one of the dominant lexical-semantic subsystems of modern Russian—a subsystem currently undergoing dynamic and active development. Furthermore, lexical-semantic analysis provides valuable insights for studying other areas of Russian linguistic consciousness and the Russian language as a whole.
The emergence of grammatical political innovations also indicates a particular sensitivity to linguistic effects among speakers who represent elite and middle-literary types of verbal political culture. However, within our corpus, which includes both lexical-semantic and word-formation neologisms, grammatical units are notably less frequent.
Analytical Techniques and Grammatical Exploration
This study is grounded in a systemic approach, which renders linguistic research anthropocentric, allowing the analysis to go beyond language as a mere system of signs and into its realization within specific domains of human and social life. In the context of political communication, the systemic approach facilitates a deeper exploration into grammatical innovations by examining their socio-linguistic motivations, patterns of emergence, and underlying authorial intentions. Further, it also allows for analysis of the phenomenological manifestation of such speech innovations, clarifying their causes, the social context in which they occur, and their relationship to the author’s communicative intentions.
Grammatical and Semantic Analytical Techniques
In analyzing specific examples of grammatical innovation, the study draws on the principles of functional and communicative grammar, focusing on the interaction of grammatical units with other textual elements, as well as the mental and verbal activity of both producers and addressees. The research is also informed by the theory of active grammar, as developed by theorists of functional grammar (Shcherba, 1974; Vinogradov, 1972; Zolotova et al., 1998). This theory underscores the dynamic relationship between linguistic forms and the cognitive processes of both producers and recipients of discourse.
To delineate the semantic scope of the analyzed texts, we utilized the concept of the functional-semantic field, which pertains to the way language is used in specific social situations. We also applied a combination of general scientific methods (synthesis and analysis, abstraction, comparison, and generalization) and specialized linguistic techniques (direct linguistic observation, and component and contextual analyses). The empirical component of the study was implemented using corpus linguistics techniques. In the initial research stage, we used the National Corpus of the Russian Language and the General Internet Corpus of the Russian Language to establish a foundational understanding, despite their limited capacity for capturing novel lexical units.
In this study, the corpus is regarded not merely as an organized collection of electronic texts but as a rich reservoir that reflects the dynamism of political language over time. It facilitates detailed linguistic analysis and the tracing of shifts in political discourse. The corpus is compiled from Russian-language online sources of political information.
Results
Any verbal sign capable of producing the required effect on the addressee in a certain context can function as a verbal manipulation tool (VMT). At the grammatical level, VMTs utilize syntactic and morphological features—including elliptical language, choice of a grammatical form, types of sentences, and figures of speech. Among morphological strategies, the use of the passive instead of the active voice is notable. This structure obscures the agent(s) responsible for the action. For example:
“The outcome of the local elections was closely watched in Moscow after the exclusion of many opposition candidates triggered the biggest protests there in nearly a decade” (Reuters, 2019a).
“Prominent Kremlin critic Lyubov Sobol and journalist Ilya Azar said on Tuesday they had been charged with organising the protest last weekend. Both were briefly detained by police and then freed late on Monday” (Balmforth & Osborn, 2019).
“ Hundreds of thousands of Afghans have been displaced inside their country due to conflict and drought” (Glinski, 2021).
In these examples, the actor is camouflaged through the passive forms was watched, had been charged, were detained and freed, is linked, and have been displaced. This can contribute to an appearance of objectivity or neutrality by shifting focus away from the responsible actor.
The choice of grammatical form may also foster reader empathy. For instance, the historical present is often used to create a sense of immediacy, while continuous tense forms (e.g., is planning, are taking place, and is suffering) indicate that events are in development and can add dynamism and emotionality. This choice serves to emphasize that the action is unfolding dynamically in the context of another, potentially inappropriate, situation. Examples include:
“Vedomosti’s latest account comes amid reports that the Kremlin is planning another reshuffle of regional leaders ahead of next year’s gubernatorial elections and looking for ‘pristine’ candidates for the 2021 State Duma vote.” (“Disappointed Kremlin Won’t Entrust,”2019).
“In all, elections are taking place in 85 Russian regions, but the main focus is on Moscow” (Reuters, 2019b).
“United Russia’s popularity is suffering from discontent over a move to raise the retirement age at a time of steadily falling incomes…” (Stolyarov & Osborn, 2019).
Modal verbs are another common device used in political discourse, particularly those expressing the possibility, necessity, obligation, or desirability of action, as seen in the following excerpts:
“Political leaders across the world must ensure that aid organizations have the resources they need to provide life-saving assistance to those who need it” (Glinski, 2021).
“The ease with which London ‘designates’ perpetrators and determines their ‘punishment’ can’t be called anything other than an attempt to interfere in another state’s internal affairs and exert pressure on the Russian justice system” (“Russia Bars Entry to ‘Anti-Russian’ Britons,”2021).
“Analysts said Pyongyang may be using sharp rhetoric to boost its leverage in future talks, wring concessions from South Korea, or distract from domestic economic crises” (Cha & Smith, 2021).
The selection of pronouns in political discourse also plays a role in shaping public opinion. Policymakers frequently choose pronouns to reflect their worldview and ideology, dividing the world into friend or foe by using opposing pronouns like we–they, us–them, and ours–theirs. The pronoun we is especially versatile in terms of semantic content and thus often becomes a means of influencing public opinion, especially during election campaigns (Laskova & Reznikova, 2011). The inclusive we implies the unity, fraternity, and commonality between politicians and the audience, while the excessive use of the pronoun I emphasizes the speaker’s individualism, as seen in the following examples:
“‘The Russian navy today has everything it needs to guarantee the protection of our country and our national interests,’ he said. ‘We can detect underwater, surface or aerial enemies and target them if a lethal strike is necessary’” (AFP, 2021).
“‘Today, given the challenges and threats that exist in the world, oil and gas are not our advantages,’ [Volodin] said. ‘As you can see, both oil and gas can fall in price’” (“Duma Speaker,”2020).
Regardless of how they are conveyed to their audience, political texts tend to be as close as possible to oral speech in both style and presentation. Linguistic innovations in such texts can be lexical, semantic, morphological, and grammatical. However, these categories cannot be fully separated, as any transformation of the verbal form inevitably affects the meaning of a word, its usage, and its interpretation. Linguistic creativity enriches the language by expanding the stock of lexical units and activating its grammatical resources—enhancing the compatibility and functionality of language units (Epstein, 2007). Moreover, linguistic creativity reveals the hidden potential of a language that is not realized within standard norms, enabling playing with meaning and expressive possibilities (Gridina, 1996).
Grammatical innovation can differ in origin. A substantial portion is associated with derivational affixation, in which affixes and affixoids are used in ways that blur the distinction between the stem and affix (Balandina et al., 2016). Prefixes of both Russian and foreign origin have penetrated Russian political communication and have become firmly embedded in it. Paradoxically, significantly fewer Russian prefixes versus foreign ones can be found in political texts.
Among the Russian prefixes most commonly employed in word formation are bez- and za-. Bez- indicates the lack of the quality indicated by the word root, as in bezalternativenost’ (“lack of alternatives”), bezvariantnost’ (“lack of options”), bezinitsiativenost’ (“lack of initiative”), bezvremenie (“period of stagnation”), bezotkatka (“recoilless cannon, rifle, gun”), and beznalichka (“cash-free”). Za- is most often used to form verbs and has several different meanings: 1) bringing an action to effective completion, for example, zavizirovat’ (“to endorse,”“to sign off”); 2) bringing an action to an extreme degree, for example, zapiarit’ (“to hype up,”“bullhorn”) and zashkalivat’ (“to go off-scale,”“to overshoot” [devices], “to run high,”“to spill over” [emotions]); 3) acting in advance, for example, zaplanirovat’ (“to evolve a plan,”“to schedule”); and 4) creating barriers or obstacles, for example, zaballotirovat’ (“to vote down,”“to fail to elect,”“to reject”) and zabanit’ (“to ban,”“to suspend from”).
Prefixes of foreign origin often undergo drastic semantic shifts in Russian political language (Belkova, 2018). For example, the prefix de- completely changes the meaning of a word, denoting absence, cancellation, or elimination (e.g., demobilizatsiya, “demobilization”; degazatsiya, “degassing”) or downward movement/decrease (e.g., devalvatsiya, “devaluation”). Lexemes with de- are widely used not only in oral speech but also in official communications:
“Prinyat zakon Prezidenta o chastichnoy
“Slovom, ya zhdu, uvazhayemyye kollegi, ot vas nastoyashchego proryva v
The prefixes a- and anti- have very similar meanings. In Russian, a- denotes negation or absence of a quality; it is productive for adjectives but not for verbs and nouns, as in amoralnyy (“immoral, lacking morality”) and apolitichnyy (“apolitical, indifferent to politics”). Anti- conveys opposition, negation, or the semantics of untruth and falsehood and is widely used in political discourse, as in antifeministka (“anti-feminist”), antiprezidentskiy (“anti-presidential”), antizapadnichestvo (“anti-Westernism”), antiterroristicheskiy (“anti-terrorist”), antiglobalizm (“anti-globalism”), and antirossiyskiy (“anti-Russian”). For instance:
“Profilaktika
“V usloviyakh pandemii COVID-19 populistskiye zapadnyye politicheskiye sily poluchili ser’yeznyy argument dlya podtverzhdeniya svoikh
The prefix post- has a meaning similar to the Russian posle- (“after”), denoting something existing or occurring after a particular event, as in post-inauguratsionnyy (“post-inaugural”), postchernobyl’skiy (“post-Chernobyl,” referring to events after the 1986 accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant), post-kovidnyy (“post-COVID,” referring to events after the COVID-19 pandemic), and postislamizm (“post-Islamism,” a tendency toward the resecularization of Islam after the decline of political Islam). For example:
“
“Poslaniye vryad li poradovalo by nostal’giruyushchikh storonnikov klassicheskoy industrial’noy ekonomiki I dolzhno obodrit’ storonnikov
The prefix ultra- denotes something exceeding a typical degree, intensity, or extent, often indicating an extreme manifestation of a certain quality or characteristic, as in ul’trasovremennyy (“ultra-modern”), ul’trareaktsioner (“ultra-reactionary”), ul’trakonservativnyy (“ultraconservative”), ul’traliberalizm (“ultraliberalism”), and ul’tranatsionalizm (“ultranationalism”):
“No net nichego khuzhe ul’tranatsionalizma, kotoryy vmesto yedineniya podymayet odni natsii protiv drugikh i ne tol’ko delit ikh sily, no privodit k bessmyslennym voynam mezhdu nimi” (“But there is nothing worse than ultranationalism, which, instead of uniting, raises some nations against others and not only divides their forces but leads to senseless wars between them”) (Shostrom, 1992).
“I pravda li, chto v sovremennoy Rossii bol’she net nastoyashchikh ul’trapravykh, tol’ko melkiye khuligany?” (“And is it true that in modern Russia, there are no more real
The prefixoid psevdo- (“pseudo-”) is frequently used to convey pretense, deceit, or imitation. Examples include psevdopatriot (“pseudo-patriot”), psevdodemokrat (“pseudo-democrat”), psevdonauka (“pseudoscience”), psevdonarodnyy (“pseudo-national”), psevdosobytie (“pseudo-event,” an event staged for media attention, such as political conventions or presentations regarding company earnings):
“Mozhno vydelit’dve gruppy
“V Rossii nablyudayetsya vesenneye obostreniye
The prefixoid eks- (“ex-”), with the meaning “former,” is commonly used with words denoting titles, positions, or individuals in a broad sense (identified by profession, occupation, place of residence, marital status, and other characteristics). Examples include eks-kommunist (“ex-communist”), eks-gubernator (“ex-governor”), eks-prem’yer (“ex-prime minister”), and eks-prezident (“ex-president”), as in the following excerpt:
“V. P. podpisal zakon o rasshirenii garantiy
Prefixoids have semantic autonomy, functioning as root morphemes. For example, the prefixoid yevro- (“euro-”) is associated with concepts in geopolitics and political ideology, such as yevropolitika (“European policy”), yevroparlament (“European Parliament”), yevroregion (“Euroregion,” a transnational cooperation structure), and yevrointegratsiya (“Euro-integration”). It also applies to terms related to the European Union and its financial and monetary systems, such as yevroobligatsiya (“Eurobond,” an international bond denominated in a non-native currency for the issuing country), yevrodollar (“Eurodollar”), and yevrovalyuta (“Eurocurrency”). For example:
“Evropeyskiye analitiki utverzhdayut, chto Moskva yakoby stremitsya ustanovit’ mnogopolyarnost’, chtoby ne dopustit’
The prefixoid bio-, originating from Ancient Greek, means “life.” While it is more common in scientific and economic texts, in recent years—amid growing concerns about the emergence and possible use of new types of weapons—it has entered socio-political discourse. Examples include biokonservatism (“bioconservatism”) and biooruzhiye (“bioweapons”):
“Pervyy zamestitel’sekretarya Soveta bezopasnosti Rossii Yuriy Aver’yanov zapodozril SSHA v vovlechenii drugikh stran v sozdaniye
“V ryade sluchayev pandemiya COVID-19 vyyavila negotovnost’ natsional’nykh sistem zdravookhraneniya k svoyevremennomu reagirovaniyu na krizisnyye situatsii podobnogo roda, obnazhila imeyushchiyesya v nekotorykh stranakh uyazvimyye ili, drugimi slovami, slabyye mesta v plane terroristicheskoy zashchishchennosti, zastavila mezhdunarodnoye soobshchestvo otnosit’sya k etoy probleme yeshche boleye ser’yezno, khotya koronavirus sam po sebe i ne otnositsya k yavleniyu
The prefixoid neo- means “new” but often signals a reinterpretation of classical ideological concepts. Examples include neostalinizm (“neo-Stalinism”), neofashizm (“neofascism”), neoimperializm (“neoimperialism”), and neokonservatizm (“neoconservatism”):
“Osobnyakom stoyat
In political discourse, suffixal innovations often form verbal nouns denoting abstract concepts, ideological terminology, and socially significant phenomena. The suffixes -atsiya (“-ation”) and -izatsiya (“-ization”) are major examples; they denote an act or condition, as in denatsionalizatsiya (“denationalization”), globalizatsiya (“globalization”), institutionalizatsiya (“institutionalization”), and sekyuritizatsiya (“securitization”):
“Po mneniyu amerikanskogo lidera, vspyshka koronavirusa pokazyvayet, chto era
“Dlya oboznacheniya protsessa
The Russian suffixes -nik, -chik/-shchik, and -ets form nouns denoting actors—namely, supporters of a person, party, or cause—or members of a team or community. In political discourse, these suffixes produce a distinct linguistic layer: ofshornik (person engaged in offshore business), yablochnik (member of the Yabloko Party), belodomovets (representative of the group of People’s Deputies of the Russian Federation who opposed President Boris Yeltsin in 1993; a member of the Government of the Russian Federation; a U.S. Presidential Administration officer), partiyets (ordinary member of any party), zhirinovets (member of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, headed by Vladimir Zhirinovsky), and piarovets/piarshchik (PR expert, promoter, etc.). Examples in the corpus include:
“Polittekhnologii i internet svyazany v Rossii davno,
The suffix -izm (-ism), which entered Russian—much as it did English—via Greek through Latin, often conveys disdain, adding negative connotations to neologisms created by attaching it to a stem. Political neologisms such as Obamunizm, Bushizm, Palinizm, Afrocentrizm, Americentrizm, Eurocentrizm, collaborationizm, and minoritarianizm typically carry negative connotations. In 2016, a new term, Trampizm (“Trumpism”), appeared in political discourse, echoing the name of the U.S. presidential candidate from the Republican Party. The noun acquired two distinct meanings. First, it describes the policy pursued by Donald Trump—resistance to the political establishment and upholding the national interests of the United States. Second, it denotes contradictory or provocative statements attributed to the billionaire. Researchers have compared this word to other political neologisms, including Reaganomics and Thatcherizm (Kommersant, 2016). These examples again indicate the closeness of political discourse to colloquial speech, as such terms often have a pronounced emotional connotation, internal dynamism, and call to action.
The dynamism of political discourse is also maintained through a group of grammatical innovations involving the adhesion of words to denote complex concepts. Such contracted words are used to improve speech fluency and facilitate the perception of complex sociopolitical categories rather than reduce the number of characters:
“General’nogo direktora sotsseti TikTok v Rossii Sergeya Sokolova priglasili v
“Znayet li V. P., chem dolzhna zakonchit’sya eta global’naya
Political discourse also employs various syntactic tools for persuasive or manipulative purposes, with elliptical and parallel constructions, inversion, and isolation being among the most common. Ellipsis—the omission of a word or words that can be understood from contextual clues—encourage communicators to mentally fill in gaps, making them, to some extent, co-authors of the discourse and thus more receptive to the author’s position. Elliptical constructions add dynamism, emphasize key points, and enhance expressiveness (Yartseva, 2002), for example:
“The clear aim is to use P.’s higher approval rating—57% according to the same poll—to help detoxify United Russia’s brand. Or, rather, to make voters think of P. instead of the party when voting” (Noble, 2021).
“…it was time to recognize that the Minsk process had run its course—and may if anything be blocking any more meaningful dialogue” (Galeotti, 2021).
Parallelism in syntactic structure—similarity in the arrangement of words or phrases in successive sentences or clauses—focuses communicators’ attention on certain elements of the expression:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall
“The future of work won’t be about degrees. More and more, it’ll be about skills” (Kasriel, 2018).
Inversion performs an emphatic function by emphasizing the communicative core of the expression at the grammatical level, often for psycholinguistic effect:
“From his observation that P. is seated farther and farther from Xi Jinping at each year’s Belt and Road Summit, Macron has concluded for some reason that P. finds the ‘Eurasian project’ unacceptable because China already dominates in the region and Russia can hope for nothing more than to become a ‘vassal of Beijing’” (Frolov, 2019).
Placing the indirect object at the beginning of the sentence enables the author to highlight what they consider the most important or informative part of the statement.
Sentence type is another means of influencing perception. Declarative sentences are the norm for conveying information, while simple sentences often suggest sincerity or transparency, such as “This is a balance of terror” (“Vbros [Stuffing]”, n.d.). However, complex sentences are more typical of political discourse, with clause arrangement affecting interpretation. If a subordinate clause follows the main clause, information is presented in a natural and logical order: the main point comes first, followed by additional information. Reversing this order allows the author to withhold key information until a strategic point in discourse.
Interrogative sentences also play a role in political communication, particularly rhetorical questions, which function as implicit statements, and special questions, which directly engage the audience:
“Who ever said elections in Russia were boring?” (Noble, 2021)
“Is a peace plan that seems to be going nowhere better than no peace plan at all? Is it more dangerous to face grim facts or to pretend to believe comforting fictions? When applied to the Minsk peace process over the Donbass conflict, these seemingly philosophical quandaries have a weekly toll in blood and treasure.” (Galeotti, 2021).
Finally, exclamatory and imperative sentences are also widely used in political discourse. In exclamatory sentences, the main idea is accompanied by an expression of the author’s feelings, conveyed through interjections, exclamation terms, and/or intonation. Imperative sentences express will or encourage action, typically using a verb in the imperative mood.
Discussion
Language operates at multiple levels to influence its audience. Lexical and grammatical levels provide particularly meaningful tools for manipulation.
Using a closed corpus created specifically for this research, we examined grammatical innovations characteristic of contemporary Russian-language political discourse. Our analysis identified word-formation affixation and word fusion as the primary forms of grammatical creativity. The examples of political texts incorporated both Russian and foreign affixes and affixoids. For example, prefixes (de-, a-, anti-) change the meanings of words; Russian affixes (bez-, raz-, -shchik, and -ets) enhance expressiveness; and neo- and euro- convey notions of innovation and ideological framing. Additionally, word blending contributes dynamism and facilitates comprehension of complex political concepts.
Several lexico-grammatical innovations emerged from our analysis:
Lexical-semantic innovations reflect radical shifts in power structures, economic conditions, worldviews, value systems, social attitudes, and everyday life in contemporary Russian society, in addition to the intensification of negative societal phenomena. These innovations expand the semantic scope of lexical units by creating new meanings. Examples include: • Vbros (commonly translated as “stuffing”): This refers to the covert dissemination of information intended to provoke a strong public uproar, widespread discussion, and, ideally, public condemnation (“Vbros [Stuffing]”, n.d.). In its media-related usage, it denotes the disclosure of controversial or fabricated information, as in vbros dannykh o kandidate v mery (“dumping damaging material about a mayoral candidate”). In political contexts, the term applies to electoral manipulation, particularly the adding of unrecorded ballots to affect election results, as in ustal ot vbrosa byulleteney na vyborakh i podkupa izbirateley (“tired of ballot stuffing and vote-buying”). • chistka (“cleaning, purge”): Refers to personnel reductions within government or party structures, as in chistka partiynykh ryadov (“cleansing of the party ranks”); “Bol’shaya chistka: Iz pravitel’stva ubirayut lyudey Sobyanina” (“big purge: Sobyanin’s people are being removed from the government”) (Perla, 2020). • nastroyka (“adjustment”): Describes governmental restructuring, as in nastroyka pravitelstva (“setting up government after recent personnel changes”); “Nastroyka na rezul’tat. V penzenskom pravitel’stve proshli pervyye uvol’neniya” (“Adjustment for the result. The first dismissals in the Penza government”) (Savankova, 2021). • prodavit’ (“to press/squeeze through”): Denotes forcing a decision of the government, as in prodavit’ zakonoproekt (“jam a bill through”); prodavit’ svoyu povestku (“pursue one’s agenda”). • propikhivanie (“bullying, pushing into” [with difficulty or illegally]): Refers to difficult or illicit implementation efforts, as in Yeshche v 80-ye gody XX veka amerikanskiye politologi, pytayas’ ponyat’ znacheniye sovetskogo termina “vnedreniye,” stali perevodit’ yego kak “propikhivaniye” (“Back in the 1980s, American political scientists, trying to understand the meaning of the Soviet term ‘introducing,’ began to translate it as ‘bullying’”). • razgresti (“to rake aside, clear out”): Indicates resolving a problem, as in my “razgrebli” okolo 12 000 zavisshikh intsidentov, byli bol’shiye dorabotki protsessov (“we ‘cleared out’ about 12,000 frozen incidents, there were major improvements to the processes”) (Sharapov, 2017). • zatochit’ (“to sharpen”): Describes targeting the state apparatus for a specific goal, as in “togda udalos’ khot’ kak-to “zatochit” gosapparat pod uslozhnivshuyusya strukturu ekonomiki (“then, it was possible to somehow ‘sharpen’ the state apparatus for the increasingly complex structure of the economy”); Vse, chto sozdayet riski dlya zatochki pod opredelennogo postavshchika (“anything that creates risks for cooperating with a particular supplier”) (“Peskov, Commenting on the Resignation”, 2017).
New verbal signs in political discourse serve to denote conceptual units of the systemic-structural organization of public administration, including institutional functions (e.g., zadeystvovat’: “to employ, mobilize”; protolknut’: “to expedite, ram through [a bill]”; prodavit’: “to squeeze through”; zaostrit’: “to sharpen”), regulatory processes (e.g., propisat’: “to spell out, specify”); cultural and professional activities (e.g., narabotat’: “to develop, try and test”); functionally objective and regular subsystems (e.g., prozvonit’: “to announce or check by ringing,”otsledit’: “to trace”); and public administration methods and technologies (e.g., otmyt’: “to launder,”zamalchivat’: “to conceal, maintain a wall of silence”).
Furthermore, a wide range of linguistic derivatives has emerged in political discourse. These new lexical items are often formed and adopted as part of single-root word families or “word-formation nests” (Kadyrova, 2014), consisting of verbs, nouns, adjectives, and adverbs. Examples include:
chistit’ (verb: “to cleanse, purge”) →chistka (noun: “cleansing, purge”).
otmyvat’ (verb: “to launder”) →otmyvaniye/otmyv (noun: “the process of money-laundering”), otmyvochnyy (adjective: “money-laundering”), antiotmyvochnyy (as in antiotmyvochnoye zakonodatel’stvo [“anti-money-laundering legislation”]).
zatochit’ (verb: “to adjust, aim to do something”) →zatochka (noun: “the process or result of adjusting”), zatochennyy (adjective: “adjusted, aimed to do something”).
propikhnut’ (verb: “to push into, bully, force through”) →propikhivanie (noun: “bullying, pushing through”), propikhnutyy (adjective: “pushed through, bullied”).
piar (noun: “public relations, publicity”) →piarit’, propiarit’, zapiarit’, otpiarit’, raspiarit (verb: “to seek publicity, promote somebody to various degrees of success”), piarshchik (noun: “PR expert, promoter”), piarmenedzher (noun: “PR manager”), piarnyy, piarovskiy, piarskiy, (adjective: “characteristic of PR,” as in piarskaya ulovka [“PR ploy”]).
In addition, a distinct category of thematically reoriented semantic neologisms has developed in modern Russian political discourse (Zagorovskaya & Zavarzina, 2012; Zavarzina, 2015, 2019; Zavarzina et al., 2020), which are borrowed from non-political domains, such as:
Economics: pul (“pool”), as in Kremliovsky (Prezidentskyy) pul (“the President’s pool” or “the Kremlin’s pool,” referring to a group of Russian journalists who regularly cover activities of the Russian President and key Russian officials); proplatit,’ (“to transfer funds through a bank to pay for something”) (Lazarsfeld et al., 1968), as in proplatit’ vybory (“to finance elections”).
Medicine: donor regions (regions in Russia whose tax revenues to the federal budget exceed the sum of federal transfers received); nesteril’nyy (“dishonest, accompanied by law violations”), as in nesteril’naya demokratiya (“dishonest democracy”); perekryt’ kislorod (“to shut off the air supply, choke off”), metaphorically meaning to deprive someone of vital resources or suppress activity, usually in the context of power games, as in, “Zelenskiy poobeshchal “perekryt’ kislorod” meshayushchim nezavisimosti Ukrainy” (“Zelensky promised to ‘cut off the oxygen’ to those hindering the independence of Ukraine”) (“Zelensky Promised to,”2021).
Computer technology: format, denoting a style of communication or event, as in, “konstitutsionnyye polnomochiya glavy gosudarstva vo vneshnepoliticheskoy oblasti prakticheski realizuyutsya v formate razlichnykh tekushchikh meropriyatiy” (“The constitutional powers of the head of state in the foreign policy area are practically implemented in the format of various ongoing events”) (President of Russia, n.d.).
Sports: ralli (“rally”), used to describe intense competition or rapid development, as in pre-election rally; skameyka zapasnykh (“substitute bench”), referring to a reserve of candidates for key government positions, as in, “Kreml’ imeyet dostatochno dlinnuyu skameyku zapasnykh dlya naznacheniya na razlichnyye dolzhnosti molodykh kharizmatichnykh professionalov” (“The Kremlin has a strong substitute bench to appoint young, charismatic professionals to various positions”) (Sharapov, 2017).
2. Grammatical or morphological innovations in political discourse primarily involve the creation of new lexical units through affixation, which is ranked first in terms of frequency among word-formation processes. These innovations can be broadly classified into two main categories:
• Suffixation is typical for forming nouns and adjectives, for example upravlenets (“government official”) and federalist (“federalism supporter”). Among foreign-language suffixes, words are primarily produced through the suffixes -izm (“-ism”), -(iz)atsia (“-ization”), meaning foreign origin with abstract semantics, and the English-language morpheme -geit (“-gate”), a suffixoid denoting “political scandal.” Examples include katastrofizm (“catastrophism”), putinizm (“Putinism”), chipizatsiya (“chipization”), derusifikatsiya (“de-Russification”), Trampgeit (“Trumpgate”), and Afgangeit (“Afghangate”).
• Prefixation is highly productive in verb formation, with frequent use of Russian prefixes such as za-, pro-, and pere-, for example: zavolokitit’ (“to stall or delay”), zadeystvovat’ (“to press into service, mobilize”), zavizirovat’ (“to endorse, sign off”), zavetirovat’ (“to veto”), profinansirovat’ (“to finance, fund”), perenaznachit’ (“to reappoint”), perepodchinit’ (“to allot again or differently”), and poreshat’ (“to sort out, handle”). Although in recent decades, nominal prefixation has been extensively employed due to both intralingual and extralinguistic factors, throughout the 1990s, previously indivisible borrowed word stems began to be transformed into divisible ones. Consequently, many borrowed morphemes were actively combined with Russian stems, and vice versa, which produced numerous neologisms.
Additionally, foreign-language prepositive units, such as anti-, de-, counter-, post-, super-, ultra-, and ex-, increasingly function as prefixoids. Examples include:
mezh- (“inter-”-), as in mezhetnicheskiy (“interethnic”), mezhkonfessional’nyy (“interconfessional”), and mezhfraktsionnyy (“interfactional”).
ul’tra- (“ultra-”), as in ul’tralevyy (“ultra-left”), ul’trapravyy (“ultra-right”), ul’trareaktsionnyy (“ultra-reactionary”), and ul’traortodoksal’nyy (“ultraorthodox”).
eks- (“ex/former”), as in eks-kommunist (“ex-communist”), eks-gubernator (“ex-governor”).
mega- (“large, powerful”), a recently revived affixoid of Greek origin, as in megatsentr (“megacenter”), megaproekt (“megaproject”), and megastruktura (“megastructure”).
The findings show that the grammatical and word-formation levels are closely connected. New lexical units often undergo changes in part-of-speech classification, while derivational processes create new paradigmatic relations.
Finally, results indicate that lexico-grammatical innovations can enrich political vocabulary by drawing on resources from both classical and modern languages. These innovations reflect priority areas of public discourse, facilitating navigation in the political space. Importantly, linguistic units function not only as descriptive tools but also as instruments of influence on public consciousness. Language in political contexts plays a persuasive and motivating role, enabling policymakers to achieve their goals—provided these goals are effectively verbalized. In a rapidly changing informational environment, the verbalization of sociopolitical change is crucial for its comprehension, as a clear nominative system allows society to perceive and respond to new realities.
Conclusions
The composition of Russian political discourse has notably expanded and evolved in recent years due to the emergence of various lexico-grammatical innovations. These innovations are driven by two main factors—the necessity for one-word designations of complex sociopolitical phenomena and the need to name new realities, phenomena, or concepts that arise from changes in political activity and public communication in Russian society.
Political communication acts as both a means of information exchange between actors in the political field and a sphere of linguistic creativity. As political activity is mainly verbal, the language of politics borrows techniques of verbal creativity from other spheres of society, including oral discourse. Thus, political discourse fundamentally blurs the boundaries of linguistic norms, offering a high level of linguistic freedom, unlike scientific and literary discourse.
The study found that the largest category of lexico-grammatical innovations consists of neologisms formed through internal word-formation mechanisms. Root and auxiliary morphemes, particularly prefixes and prefixoids, play a critical role in highlighting the relevance of a certain concept. Political texts frequently use both Russian and foreign affixes to update word meanings, enhancing emotional expressiveness and creating a sense of internal dynamics. Additionally, thematically reoriented semantic neologisms—borrowed from areas outside of politics—are increasingly integrated into political discourse, expanding the lexical vocabulary.
The research also revealed that syntactic innovations like elliptical and parallel constructions, inversion, isolation, and choice of sentence type are used in political discourse as VMTs. These grammatical devices may be employed to exert influence, allowing authors to shape public perception and subtly introduce desired goals, opinions, and ideological attitudes that favor certain politicians.
Currently, grammatical innovation in Russian political vocabulary is experiencing accelerated development. Innovation in modern Russian politics as it performs its organizational, administrative, and official functions in society is, in parallel, leading to the creation of professionally oriented lexical units in political discourse. These terms denote new managerial methods, technologies, principles of public administration, and organizational forms. The lexical-semantic subsystem of political discourse is thus evolving toward lexical enrichment through various lexical-semantic and grammatical (i.e., morphological and syntactic) innovations.
While this study provides valuable insights into lexico-grammatical innovations in contemporary Russian political discourse, certain limitations should be noted. First, the analysis is based on selected textual examples, which might not fully encompass the vastness of political discourse. Future research should adopt a more exhaustive corpus-based analysis, potentially utilizing computational methods, to capture a broader spectrum of linguistic innovations. Second, the exclusive focus on the Russian language, though comprehensive in its depth, narrows the scope in terms of linguistic diversity. Comparative studies involving other major world languages could unearth commonalities and divergences in political linguistic innovations, facilitating a more global understanding. Third, with political discourse rapidly migrating to digital platforms, an emerging need exists to investigate lexico-grammatical shifts in online political communications, including social media, blogs, and digital news outlets. Lastly, an interdisciplinary approach incorporating sociological, psychological, and media studies perspectives might offer a more holistic view of the interplay between language, politics, and society.
Footnotes
Consent to Participate Statement
Not applicable
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, Ievgenii Stepanov; Formal analysis, Shaoxiong Chen; Methodology, Ievgenii Stepanov; Project administration, Shaoxiong Chen; Writing – original draft, Shaoxiong Chen; Writing – review and editing, Shaoxiong Chen and Ievgenii Stepanov. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Data Availability Statement
No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable