Neologisms with the suffix -oid in modern Russian language

Full Text

Introduction

The word-formation boom in the Russian language of the recent period, since the 1990s, has already been analyzed in considerable depth and comprehensively in linguistic studies. The most productive word-formation types include analytical compound formation, abbreviation and truncation, the hyperproductivity of suffixes and prefixes of Greco-Latin origin, as well as the gamification of word-formation processes, which is often a consequence of language convergence or Anglo-Russian hybridization (Gabdreeva, Ageeva, 2025).

Among the formants facilitating the creation of neologisms, prefixal units (супер- ‘super-‘, мега- ‘mega-‘, extra- ‘экстра-‘, гипер- ‘hyper-‘, etc.) attracted the greatest interest. They were considered within the general context of the influence of English as a donor language in globalization processes (Petrukhina, 2017; Shkapenko, Shapovalenko, 2020), as well as in onomasiological, sociocultural, linguistic-cognitive, and axiological aspects (Radbil, Jaszay, Palosi, 2022; Ratsiburskaya, 2025). The analysis of new trends in suffixal word formation has primarily focused on describing the functions performed by English affixes in the Russian language: -инг ‘-ing’ (Levina, 2023), -ция ‘-tion’ (Shaposhnikova, 2021), -ер ‘-er’ (Dibirova, Kazimova, 2023), and others.

Only recently, scientists began to be paid to how suffixes of Greco-Latin origin form neologisms. For example, the Latin suffix -at ‘-ат’ has been studied in the context of the terminological derivatives когнитариат ‘cognitariat’, прекариат ‘precariat’, and салариат ‘salariat’ (Shkapenko, Strelchuk, 2025). The increased use of the suffixes -ум ‘-um’ and -ус ‘-us’ in creating new names was viewed as an effort to intellectualize the names of various educational institutions in commercial naming (Zubritskaya, 2024: 180). At the same time, questions regarding the activated Latin or Greek suffixes, which previously served as terminological elements and are now (since the early 21th century) used in neologisms as evaluative-pragmatic markers, remain under-researched. The study of word-formation models of neoderivatives with the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ and linguo-cognitive foundations for the pragmatization of this formant necessitate a thorough examination of factual data within a long-term chronological perspective. This is due to the need to employ “a dynamic approach to the study of word formation, which allows us to bridge the gap between synchronic and diachronic word formation and to approach the study of word-formation relationships from a historical perspective” (Erofeeva, Lukoyanova, 2025: 259).

The aim of the study is to identify derivational models with the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ from a synchronic-diachronic perspective, to systematize the main word-formation models of derivatives with this formant in modern Russian, and to describe the linguo-cognitive mechanisms underlying negative pragmatization of word meanings constructed according to the N + -oid model.

Methods and materials

In accordance with the aim, this study employed word-formation, onomasiological, etymological, functional-semantic, and linguo-cognitive methods of analysis. The material consisted of lexemes with the affix -оид ‘-oid’ recorded in the Russian National Corpus (hereinafter RNC)^[1]. Their total number in the Main Corpus of the RNC from 1772 to 2022 amounted to 344 lexemes. These data were obtained using semantic-grammatical restrictive parameters which divided the derivatives into inanimate (250 lexemes for the query *оид, (S) & (m) & (inan)) and animate nouns (94 lexemes matching the query *оид, (S) & (m) & (anim)). Most recent derivatives with the formant -оид ‘-oid’ was also found in neographic dictionary sources (New Words and Meanings^[2], New in Russian Lexis (NRL)^[3]) and materials from open internet resources. The analysis of the word-formation model productivity used the corresponding tools in the Main Corpus of the RNC.

Results

The evolution of word-formation models for nouns with the formant -оид ‘-oid’ is described from a long-term historical perspective. It has been established that the word-formation formant has moved beyond strictly terminological naming, where it denoted a referent similar to, but not identical with, the meaning of the motivational base.

The main types of word-formation models with the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ in modern Russian language are identified and classified. These include anthroponymic, ethnonymic, toponymic, chrematonymic derivation, as well as formation from appellatives serving as names for well-known linguistic concepts or linguistic-cultural types.

It has been established that the pragmatic function of negative evaluation predominates in neoderivatives with the suffix -оид ‘-oid’. The linguo-cognitive mechanisms of the transition of the formant -оид ‘-oid’ from a non-evaluative denotative function in term formation to pejorative axiologization in the newest derivatives are described. These include the prototypical semantics of similarity, perceived by everyday consciousness as a deviation from the standard or norm and, consequently, creating an algorithm for perceiving oidness as the cognitive basis for the pejorative evaluation of the referent.

Discussion

The Functioning of the -оид ‘-oid’ Formant as a Terminological Element in Scientific Discourse

The -оид ‘-oid’ formant derives from the Latinized Greek morpheme -oeidēs (from the Ancient Greek word εἶδος “kind, form, image,” the Proto-Indo-European root *weid “to see,” Sanskrit veda (védas), Proto-Slavic *vidъ (cf. Russian vid), Old English wit^[4], etc.). Containing an iconic component, prototypical semantics becomes the linguo-cognitive basis for the developing within the morpheme of the meaning of “likeness,” which is required by various sciences for the classification of homogeneous objects. The necessity of their naming because of natural ontology receives a stable word-formation marker via the suffix -оид ‘-oid’. This formant is used in words denoting “an object or phenomenon similar to the one named by the motivating word, but differing from it,” for example: sphere – spheroid “any surface resembling a sphere,” Mongol – Mongoloid “a member of the race to which, in particular, the Mongols belong”^[5], etc. Consequently, the word-formation model “head noun -оид ‘-oid’ in the sense of resemblance” becomes productive in terminology characteristic of various European languages, and the formant itself is regarded as a “mobile, translocal, operative word-formation tool” (Blommaert, Dong, 2010: 368).

According to the RNC, the first recorded use of a noun with the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ ромбоид ‘rhomb + oid’ in the Russian language dates to the second half of the 18th century: “In the middle stood Alibeyev’s tent, beside which 16 lanterns were raised at night in a rhomboid formation, to distinguish his tent from the others” (1772). In the 19th century and early 20th century, word-formation patterns with this suffix were actively used in mathematical, chemical-biological, and medical terms, for example: cycloid, ellipsoid, metalloid, alkaloid, crystalloid, hemorrhoid, etc. Of the total number of occurrences (7,033), the most frequent are terms from the natural sciences: asteroid (1,194), ecdysteroid (900), spermatozoid (450), alkaloid (384).

Models with the -оид ‘-oid’ formant play a special role in linguistic term formation, for example: дифтонгоид ‘diphthong + oid’, аффиксоид ‘affix + oid’, префиксоид ‘prefix + oid’, радиксоид ‘radixoid (from Greek radix ‘root’), etc. Contemporary linguistics sees an increase in neologisms constructed according to this model and a rise in their frequency: морфемоид ‘morpheme + oid’, флексоид ‘flection + oid’, постфиксоид ‘postfix + oid’, and even формантоид ‘formant + oid’. The increased productivity of -оид ‘-oid’ term formations in linguistics can be explained by the diffuse word-formation system of modern Russian, caused by the penetration of English-language derivational models. It is symptomatic that the formant -оид ‘-oid’ is also characterized as a suffixoid in the reference dictionary “Affixoids of the Russian Language,” according to which it conveys a meaning of similarity within terms (“that which is similar to what is indicated in the word earlier”: дерматоид ‘dermatoid’, кристаллоид ‘crystalloid’^[6], etc.).

There is no consensus among scholars regarding the derivatives with the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ from the perspective of onomasiological derivational types (Dokulil, 1962). Thus, V.V. Lopatin and I.S. Ulukhanov propose classifying derivatives with meanings of similarity as those realizing a modificational meaning^[7], since this implies the preservation of the same denotative base while changing its quantitative, evaluative, expressive, and similar features (e.g., дом → домик ‘house little house’, белый → беловатый ‘white – whitish’). However, other researchers do not include the meaning of similarity within the sphere of modification: “the meaning of similarity is not identifying, since the derivative denotes a reality distinct from the reality designated by the base form, but similar to it. In such derivatives, the suffix denotes the classifying feature ‘object’ and the specifying feature ‘similar to…’. The motivating base also expresses this specifying feature” (Osilbekova, 2013: 70). I.G. Kudryavtseva asserts that such formants perform their basic function within the framework of mutational word formation and are “modal operators of transformation, converting the original terminological concept into a derivative,” since “the semantics of the derivative word is not simply the sum of the meanings of the base word” and the formant (Kudryavtseva, 2008: 33–34). This assertion appears to be well-founded, since the meaning of the derived word is not so much a modification of the original concept, but the designation of a new object correlated with it through its similarity. Derived terminological lexemes have the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ forming a new concept based on the feature of resemblance / similarity (“having the appearance of,” “similar to,” “belonging to the type of”). For example, “Europeoid” is not a “modified European,” but a representative of an anthropological type distinguished by a complex of characteristics.

Main patterns of neologisms with the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ in modern Russian language

According to the RNC, recent decades saw a significant increase in the -оид ‘-oid’ model outside terminological designation, in animate nouns formation: 256 instances were recorded between 1960 and 1990, but the number rose to 1,700 between 1990 and 2026. Many of the newest derivatives convey meanings not yet documented in academic sources of neologisms.

The most productive word-formation model involves the derivation of nouns from anthroponyms denoting followers or supporters of a particular person under the pattern: surname (usually without non-zero inflection) + -оид ‘-oid’. The surnames of distinguished people are chosen as the base, for example, трампоид ((Donald) Tramp + oid), обамоид ((Barack) Obama + oid), клинтоноид ((Hillary) Clinton + oid), сталиноид ((Joseph) Stalin + oid), марксоид ((Karl) Marx + oid), горбачоид ((Mikhail) Gorbachev + oid), собчакоид ((Ksenia) Sobchak + oid), порошенкоид ((Petro) Poroshenko + oid), фоменкоид ((Anatoly) Fomenko + oid), зеленскоид ((Volodymyr) Zelensky + oid), меркелоид ((Angela) Merkel + oid), маскоид ((Ilon) + Musk + oid), etc. Only a small portion of these political neologisms has received a lexicographical description. Thus, the 1990s dictionary “New Words and Meanings” describes the word ельциноид ‘(Boris) Yeltsin + oid’ is described as “a supporter of the views and policies of the Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin; one who imitates him (publisicst, contemptuously): ‘Yeltsinoids are still dancing on their ancestors’ graves’^[8]; the online lexicographic resource “New in Russian Lexis” (2015) explains the meaning of the lexeme “клинтоноид ‘(Hillary) Clinton + oid’” as “a Democrat and supporter of Hillary Clinton:‘The “Clintonoid” party (Hillary Clinton, John McCain) is the “party of war,” while the “George Bush–Barack Obama” party is the “party of peace”’^[9], though it lacks a mark of contemptuous evaluation of the named object.

I.A. Merkulova classifies such word-formation innovations into the group of so-called sociopholisms, offensive socionyms, words or phrases that negatively denote “a person based on a certain social characteristic” (Merkulova, 2022: 326). Indeed, their usage clearly shows that, unlike the neutral designation of supporters of a particular politician in derivatives with the suffix -ист ‘-ist’ (трампист ‘(Donald) Trump + ist’, путинист ‘((Vladimir) Putin + ist), the innovative model with the -оид ‘-oid’ formant is aimed not so much at designation as at expressing a negative and/or ironic attitude toward the object: “The logical result of a failed ‘isolation, – the Russian diplomat concludes, adding: The Bidenoids got what they fought for.“^[10]; “Clintonoids rule the roost in Russia! And whoever has the money has the POWER! <…> And what are we to do with the Trumpoids?!”  (example taken from: (Zamal’dinov, 2025: 430)).

These derivatives marginalize the prototypical meaning ‘similar to X’, yielding to the pragmatic function of negative evaluation. The basis for including somebody in the group of followers of a particular political figure is precisely the negative attitude toward them conveyed by the suffix -оид ‘-oid’. This is also evidenced by an analysis of meta reflexives used by modern Russian speakers: “I use the suffix “-оид ‘-oid’” to denote those people who perceive any unenthusiastic remark about their idol as a personal insult, as an attack on something of supreme significance in psychological terminology (2013)” (example taken from (Nikolina, Ratsiburskaya, Fatkhutdinova, 2020: 10)).

The tendency of the analyzed derivational model to evaluate various types of political phenomena is also reflected in the activation of a metonymic word-formation model, where -оид ‘-oid’ is attached to various types of proper nouns (agronyms, astionyms, toponyms, etc.): майданоид “Maidan + -oid” from the name of the central square in Kyiv, which became the site of large-scale political protests. Various examples of the word’s usage attest to a sharply negative attitude toward the participants in these events (“It’s like the Maidanoids who came from out of nowhere with their own rules, turning other people’s cities into pigsties”^[11]), as well as its parallel use with other derivational models, such as the suffixal formation майданутый “participle with the root Maidan + the suffix with contemptuous meaining” or the playful contamination майдауны ‘Maidan + Down’

The derivative оранжоид ‘orange + oid’ with its marked “derogatory” meaning of “activists of the ‘Orange Revolution’” (Rebrina, 2020: 144–145) is also widespread. L.N. Rebrina classifies this type as a derivative of “precedent names (including chrononyms associated with a specific evaluation)” (Rebrina, 2020: 144–145). The examples of neologisms based on anthroponyms cited above (лениноиды ‘Lenin + oid’, трампоиды ‘Trump + oid’, etc.) are also based on precedent names; their use is motivated by their precedence and the axiological potential.

The oid derivational model verbalizes holistic fragments of reality, simultaneously expressing and shaping the desired attitude toward specific objects. The binary opposition “us/them” is reflected in contemporary media discourse of such neoderivatives as “либероиды ‘liberal + oid’” (“Liberoids want to organize a new perestroika in Russia (Perestroika-2) (2012)” (Rebrina, 2020: 148);“A ‘liberoid’ is a personality type fully shaped by today’s ideology of consumption and perverted individualism”^[12]), толерантоиды ‘tolerant + oid’ (“We must not succumb to the cunning rhetoric of tolerantoids”^[13]), and even западноиды ‘Western + oid’ (“The Russian person today is a ‘Westernoid,’ i.e. a being without kin or tribe, primitive, imitative, and thoroughly pragmatic”^[14]).

In addition to appellatives denoting political realities, ethnonyms are a motivational basis with a pejorative connotation in their derived meanings: кавказоид ‘Caucasusian + oid’, армяноид ‘Armeninan + oid’, рашиноид ‘Russia + oid’, etc.: “Caucasoids keep a close watch on order and do not allow pushing and shoving or fights in the line for budget handouts”^[15] ; “Armenoids love to use others’ hands to pit other nations against one another; this is your rotten essence, traitors and sycophants of America”^[16]. Even those terms (кавказоид ‘Caucasian + oid’ ‘a representative of a Caucasian race’) that already existed in the language as anthropological terms perform not a classificatory but an evaluative role. Their use marks an attitude toward members of the named ethnic group, indicating the conflict-prone nature of ethnic relations. This type of “-oid” expansion reinforces and broadens the “discriminatory” function of the formant, since “when using these ‘derogatory’ ethnonyms-nicknames, the characteristics and evaluations of an individual’s behavior are transferred to the entire ethnic community, to the entire nation” (Nabok, 2011: 63–64).

The next representative group consists of derivatives formed from the names of internet search engines or companies operating via internet technologies (яндексоид ‘Yandex + oid’, гуглоид ‘Google + oid’, битриксоид ‘Bitrix + oid’, etc.): “… Yandexoid. “This isn’t just a person working at ‘Yandex.’ He is part of this family and shares its values,” Mr. Nosik is convinced (RBC, July 26, 2013)” (example taken from: (Nikolina, Ratsiburskaya, Fatkhutdinova, 2020: 10)); “The Googloids are already celebrating. Everyone is already slowly sinking into the abyss of New Year’s drunkenness. I think they’ve already poured the Google-translator a drink too”^[17]. It is noteworthy that only certain contexts convey an evaluation attitude toward representatives of the digital world, based primarily on the relocation of many of them to other countries. For example: “Mass exodus of IT specialists, patriotic ‘Bitrixoids,’ ‘Javaists,’ and ‘Pythonists’ have fled en masse”^[18]. There is, however, another perspective on the reasons for using the “-oid” model in the latest designations for IT specialists, as presented on the “Cyberforum” forum for programmers and sysadmins: “Today I stumbled upon an interesting page with photos of all the ‘Googloids’ (aliens from the planet Google)”^[19]. The proposed original definition evokes a direct association with the term humanoid ‘human-like beings inhabiting other planets; aliens’ (Efremova, 2000), and also recalls the division of modern humanity into the categories of digital natives and digital immigrants, proposed by the American writer M. Prensky (Prensky, 2001).

Particularly interesting is a group of derivatives formed from appellatives whose meanings already contain a negative connotation, for example, зомбоид ← зомби + -оид ‘zombie + -oid’ or терпилоид ← терпил(а) + -оид ‘terpila ‘sufferer + oid’. For example: “Yeah, they’re zomboids. I can’t think of another word”^[20]; “They just ripped us off; are you all okay with that? You’re sufferoids!”^[21]. We cannot assert for certain that -оид ‘-oid’ in this case intensifies the pejorative connotation of the meaning. It is more likely that the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ actualizes the semantics of plurality, as indirectly evidenced by the predominant use of these words in the plural form. This morphological feature is also characteristic of all other neologisms with the formant -оид ‘-oid’, which underscores the non-singularity of a certain personality type.

Thus, lexical innovations retain the classificatory function of a terminological element in the formant -oid, but subordinate it to a pejorative pragmatic evaluation. Consequently, the word-forming meaning inherent in this group of derivatives can be defined as ‘one who is negatively marked because of belonging to a group of people according to worldview, ideological, institutional, or behavioral characteristics’. From the perspective of the onomasiological type, all neo-derivatives undoubtedly belong to the mutational type, since their suffix not only adds an evaluative element but also alters the denotatum itself. If the motivating base includes the name of a historical figure, a concept, the name of an institution, etc., then the semantics of the derivative is described as ‘a devotee, follower, or participant’ of whatever the motivating base denotes.

Linguistic-cognitive grounds for the pejorative connotation of the suffix -оид ‘-oid’ in the latest word-formation models

The clear trend toward the pejorative use of the suffix -oid in neologisms denoting a person raises the question for researchers: what linguistic factors account for the shift from a neutral terminological formant to a distinctly negative connotation? L.N. Rebrina cites “the atypical combinatorics of the word-forming unit” and its use outside of terminological units in specialized languages as the reason for “the negative connotation attached to the suffix and the transformation of the structural motivator’s classificatory feature” (Rebrina, 2020: 144). In our view, this explanation is not exhaustive, as it must be supplemented by deeper, linguo-cognitive grounds.

An analysis conducted from a broad synchronic-diachronic perspective shows that the main factor determining the formant’s vector of pejorativization is its prototypical semantics. The meaning ‘similar to, but not identical with, any object taken as a standard or norm’ implies the potential semantic-pragmatic shift toward negative evaluation. A striking example of such a perception is the lexeme гуманоид ‘humanoid’ (from the Latin humanus ‘human’ and the Greek eidos ‘form’), which originally had a neutral meaning, but under the influence of science fiction and popular cinema has come to be perceived as a “non-human,” as some kind of anomaly or threat. In this regard, M.A. Lappo’s observation is noteworthy: “the humiliation of certain groups occurs on the principle of denying them membership in the human species or attributing human-like defects to them” (Lappo, 2013: 101).

The shift observed in the noun гуманоид ‘humanoid’ toward pragmatic evaluativeness intensifies the emotional charge of the formant and transforms it into a marker of social stigmatization. The category of likeness is reinterpreted through the prism of “otherness,” “non-normativity,” and symbolic exclusion from the circle of the “standard” and the “in-group.” The resulting model serves as a precedent for analogue word formation, which is the fundamental principle of word-formation system development, i.e., “the human ability to create new words based on existing word-formation models in the language” (Dyakov, 2012: 252).

Medical terms denoting deviations from the norm, such as шизоид ‘schizoid’ or истероид ‘hysteroid’, which over time were determinologized and became instruments of social criticism and/or insult in everyday conversation, could also serve as semantic-derivational precedents: “If positive characteristics are assessed in terms of conformity to the norm, then negative ones represent a deviation from the norm, and so we need a separate designation to denote them” (Usenko, 2024: 143).

The communicative environment, shaped largely by the logic of digital interaction focused on the rapid recognition and replication of typified interpretive schemes, has also had a certain impact on the popularization of oid word formation. This leads to a “categorization of personalities,” where complex human behavioral and value characteristics are reduced to a brief, easily readable designation. The suffix -оид ‘-oid’ becomes an extremely convenient means of social stigmatization, or “labeling,” i.e. the production of “linguistic toxins,” “which serve to ‘brand’ an ideological opponent, since these words possess a weakened denotative meaning and an exaggerated negative connotative component” (Skovorodnikov, Kopnina, 2017: 29).

The word-formation model of this kind performs not so much a descriptive as an indexical function: it signals the referent’s belonging to an already known and culturally recognizable category. Derivatives of this type minimize the need for detailed argumentation and replace analytical judgment with a ready-made classificatory label. Their communicative effectiveness is determined by the degree of intersubjective recognizability: communicative success is achieved when the speaker and the listener share a common repertoire of social stereotypes and can easily reconstruct the implied evaluation.

In the neologisms under analysis, the formant -oid demonstrates a transition from a tool of scientific classification to a means of everyday taxonomy, serving society’s need for quick and unambiguous interpretations. While in terminological usage it clarifyies the boundaries of scientific concepts, in contemporary speech it increasingly participates in symbolic segregation, often based on the nominator’s subjective assessment.

Conclusion

For a long period, the suffix -oid served as an international formative element functioning in interdisciplinary scientific discourse. Its productivity in various intellectual spheres was determined by the need to name phenomena bearing significant resemblance to the denotatum in its motivating basis. In modern Russian language, -oid loses its exclusive classificatory function and turns into a pragmatic marker of pejorative evaluation of people based on their membership in a particular group. The growing productivity of this model attests to the complex interrelationship within contemporary society, which is expressed in the demand for lexical innovations that shape the modern “language of hostility.” A comprehensive lexicographic inventory of these innovations is not only linguistically significant but can also serve as an indicator of the conflict-prone areas in society.

 

 

^{1 National Corpus of the Russian Language. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://ruscorpora.ru}

^{2 Butseva, T. N. (Ed.). (2009). New words and meanings: A reference dictionary based on press and literature materials from the 1990s (Vol. I). Dmitry Bulanin publ.}

^{3 New in Russian Lexis. (2021–2026). I. L. Ilyin Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://neolex.iling.spb.ru/}

^{4 Online Etymology Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://www.etymonline.com/ (Retrieved March 10, 2026).}

^{5 Lopatin, V. V., & Ulukhanov, I. S. (2016). Dictionary of word-formation affixes of the modern Russian language (pp. 576–577). Azbukovnik.}

^{6 Levashov, E. A. (Ed.). (2009). Affixoids of the Russian language: An experience of a reference dictionary (pp. 169–170). Nestor-History.}

^{7 Lopatin, V. V., & Ulukhanov, I. S. (2016). Dictionary of word-formation affixes of the modern Russian language (pp. 29–30). Azbukovnik publ.}

^{8 Butseva, T. N. (Ed.). (2009). New words and meanings: A reference dictionary based on press and literature materials from the 1990s (Vol. I, p. 570). Dmitry Bulanin publ.}

^{9 New in Russian Lexis. (2021–2026). I. L. Ilyin Institute of Russian Language of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://neolex.iling.spb.ru/}

^{10 Bushev, A., & Kogalov, J. At the Antalya Forum, Sergey Lavrov was called a “diplomatic rock star.” Retrieved 12 April 2026 from https://rg.ru/2025/04/12/na-antalijskom-forume-sergeia-lavrova-nazvali-diplomaticheskoj-rok-zvezdoj.html}

^{11 Mail.ru Answers. (n.d.). Retrieved 20 March 2026 from https://otvet.mail.ru/question/194654117}

^{12 Liberoide is really dangerous for society. (n.d.). LiveJournal. Retrieved 17 March 2026 from https://tstealth1.livejournal.com/364946.html}

^{13 Filolog, G. (n.d.). State, people and country. Russian Idea Publishing House. Retrieved 15 March 2026 from https://rusidea.org/38009}

^{14 Kuznetsov, D. V. (2015). European secularization as the main factor of Peter the Great’s reform policy and its influence on the historical path of Russia. International Research Journal, (2), 33.}

^{15 Cadillac Club. Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://cadillac-club.ru/}

^{16 Young people shouted nationalist slogans near the “Union of Armenians” in the center of Tyumen. (n.d.). VK. https://vk.com/wall-87010855_2455742 (Retrieved March 10, 2026).}

^{17 Googloids are already celebrating. (n.d.). LiveJournal. Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://luxs135.livejournal.com/123489.html}

^{18 Rossikhin, D. (n.d.). Mass departure of IT specialists — patriotic “bitrixoids”, “javists” and “pythonists” massively fled. Json.tv. Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://json.tv/video/massovii-otezd-it-spetsov-patriotichnie-bitriksoidi-massovo-sbezhali-dzhavisti-i-pitonisti-302653175/}

^{19 Cyberforum.ru. (n.d.). Retrieved 10 March 2026 from https://www.cyberforum.ru/google/thread2293372.html}

^{20 Forum on Kinopoisk. (n.d.). Retrieved 17 March 2026 from https://forumkinopoisk.ru/profile/91218-feyacl/content/}

^{21 Investoserega. (n.d.). Pulse. T-Bank. Retrieved 17 March 2026 from https://www.tbank.ru/invest/social/profile/investorserega/}

About the authors

Evgenii V. Shapovalenko

Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University

Author for correspondence.
Email: EShapovalenko1@kantiana.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7045-4310
SPIN-code: 4322-2364
Scopus Author ID: 57574255600
ResearcherId: AAO-7762-2020

Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor of the Institute for the Humanities

14 Nevsky st., Kaliningrad, 236041, Russian Federation

Tatiana M. Shkapenko

Immanuel Kant Baltic Federal University

Email: TShkapenko@kantiana.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6892-4205
SPIN-code: 2831-5268
Scopus Author ID: 57574599600
ResearcherId: Y-3002-2019

Doctor of Philology, Professor of the Institute for the Humanities

14 Nevsky st., Kaliningrad, 236041, Russian Federation

References

Supplementary files