Emoticeme SURPRISE in the News Discourse of Russia, Armenia, Kazakhstan and China

Full Text

Introduction

Migration actualizes the emotional manifestations of human nature, showing feelings and emotions during intercultural communication in moments of surprise, indignation, joy, sadness, etc. Due to individual character traits, some people express their inner state openly, others hide it. Thus, N.S. Khrustaleva points out the relationship between migration and feelings of sadness, sadness and even depression [1]. Therefore, the specialist faces an important task aimed at understanding both his own and others’ emotions in the situation of the complexity of attribution of the parameters “we” vs “they” [2–4] in the context of migrantoriented discourses. At the same time, the boundaries of what is permissible and possible differ in different cultures, which in turn is reflected in the response to changes in living conditions and freedoms [5; 6].

The modern world is aimed at the rapid nature of transformations and transformations due to globalization, migration, and digitalization. At the same time, the human psyche often does not keep up with these significant changes in everyday life, which allowed researchers to attribute migration to the source of chronic stress and transformation of mental processes [7–12], which, in our opinion, is reflected in the specifics of the speech of migrants, transforming the internal picture of the world [13–17].

The scientific novelty of the work is due to the growing interest of representatives of various scientific directions in the field of formation of emotional experiences in the situation of migration, changing social environment and stress [18–21].

The very problem of addressing emotive vocabulary [22–25] is being actively developed in linguistics. Charles Hockett rightly notes that “linguistics without anthropology is sterile, anthropology without linguistics is blind” [26. P. 675]. From the point of view of linguistics, the linguistic analysis of emotivity in language is conducted within the framework of the theory of emotions in the light of the currently dominant anthropocentric paradigm, which places the person in all his complexity and versatility at the center of the study: with his emotions, feelings, needs, experiences, and life perceptions [27]. Based on this, we believe that the emotivity of migrants ‘ speech is associated with a particular pattern of response of an individual who is in a state of prolonged psycho-emotional stress [28], caused by migration as a factor of accentuation of psycho-emotional behavioral traits of a person.

Materials and methods

The research material was the linguistic means of transmitting the emotive component of speech in the migrant-oriented discourse of Russia, Armenia, China and Kazakhstan, as countries with pronounced migration problems. We analyzed interviews of migrants from different countries who arrived in Russia (Armenia, Kazakhstan and returning migrants of Russia), as well as interviews of migrants from Russia in Western European countries published in open sources (newspaper, magazine publications, social media) on the Internet (267 interviews), in applications of interview results in studies on the socioeconomic behavior of migrants [17; 20; 21] — 133 text excerpts from various interviews. We also conducted a pilot experimental survey of migrants who arrived: a) to Russia from Armenia and Kazakhstan — 56 people; b) to Armenia from other countries — 22 people; c) to Kazakhstan from other countries — 19 people; d) to China from other counties — 24 people. In total, we analyzed 521 interviews of migrants illustrating their psychoemotional state and assessment of their own migration.

In conducting this study, the authors used the methodology of pragmatic and discursive analysis, based on the theory of emotive linguistics (emotiology) and the theory of evaluation. “The following problems remain relevant in the theory of emotions: there is no consensus on the nature and essence of emotions; their full nomenclature has not been identified with accuracy; the mechanisms of their occurrence have not been determined; the laws of their impact on human life have not been fully described; there is no generally accepted classification of them; precise methods and procedures for studying emotional phenomena have not been developed; the conceptual and terminological apparatus, etc., remains disordered” [29. P. 41]. In this connection, we agree with G.N. Lenko [30] that the analysis of the emotive structure of language should provide for an interdisciplinary approach. The analysis and synthesis of empirical material with subsequent generalization and classification, linguistic observation, content analysis, discourse analysis, and definitional analysis formed the basis of our research.

The general methodology of the study was influenced by classical and recent works on cognitive linguistics by N.D. Arutyunova [31], Yu.D. Apresyan [32], A.N. Baranov, V.A. Plungyan, E.V. Rakhilina [33], E. Benveniste [34], G.E. Kreidlin, M.A. Krongauz [35], J. Lakoff [36], E.F. Tarasov [2], V.I. Shakhovsky [37; 38], and many others.

Results

On the one hand, migrant-oriented discourse arises because of oral and written communication of migrants with the receiving and releasing community, which is expressed both at the official and unofficial levels. On the other hand, we believe that the migrant-oriented discourse includes a variety of texts about migrants and migration, among which we distinguish separately scientific texts, official news texts, texts of fiction about migrants and migrant folklore. We believe that the designation of such a collection of literature on migration and migrants is appropriate to designate a migrant-oriented discourse as a more specific term than migration discourse.

The migration discourse in the interpretation of S.V. Shustova, E.O. Zubareva, N.V. Khorosheva (2020) is presented as a communicative process, the parties of which set themselves the task: “to adapt to the host country; to adopt the legislation of the country; to remain in their own denomination or change their religion; to master the language of the host country; to determine for themselves and their family the benefits of staying in this country; to make a decision about staying independently; to adapt to living conditions alone, family, group; to solve economic issues of life support; to give children an education; to provide the family with medical care; to adopt the culture of the titular nation” [39. P. 9].

We divided the migrants who participated in our survey into three conditional groups (see Fig. 1): 1) active migrants who know the language and culture of the host country (28 people); 2) dependent passive migrants are those who do not know the language, are not integrated or poorly integrated into the linguistic culture of the receiving country (46 people); 3) indifferent or indifferent migrants are those who do not seek to enter into any social ties, among them there are both successfully integrated and not adapted migrants (19 people).

Fig. 1. Survey results: Distribution by groups of social activity of migrants (2018–2021).

When a migrant finds himself in the new conditions of the receiving country, he is surprised by many things that are not included in his usual picture of the world. The experience of integration of migrants both in Russia and in the postSoviet countries is one of the topics that are constantly relevant for the sciences of the social and humanitarian profile. The change in the analytical mainstream transformed the secondary interpretation of the previously obtained results on the ethno-linguistic and socio-cultural adaptation of migrants, which allowed us to consider the previously published stories of migrants from a different angle, namely in the context of the internal experiences of the migrant, reflected with the help of emotive means of language.

Modern science is gradually abandoning the rigid version of the “colonial approach” in displaying the topic of forced and forced migration (this happened in the Russian Empire and in the Soviet Union) for an adequate understanding of many processes of ethnotrauma in post-Soviet countries [40] and the desire of potential migrants to choose a new path in a new country that is mythologized due to various extralinguistic reasons.

Migrants are forced to radically transform their habitual patterns of behavior due to the dominance of other socio-cultural norms in the receiving country. Each culture has developed its own rules about the etiquette of communication, about the etiquette formulas of non-verbal behavior [35], which can have a pressing influence on the newly arrived member of society. For example, in Asian cultures (China, Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Korea, Uzbekistan, Japan), there is a “face rule”, in which a person must keep the brand and keep the face of success, despite negative external pressure. In this regard, Russia is often perceived as a country that is freer in its emotional manifestation. Or representatives of Western cultural countries demonstrate a smile that does not correspond to their internal state. Consequently, the emotional state of a certain subject, manifested as a reaction to a certain situation (or its description), and the further evolution of a particular emotional state within and outside the emotional situation has certain characteristics (duration, intensity, controllability, evaluability, etc.).

The surprise that a migrant experience can be both positive and negative, which depends both on the psychotype of the migrant himself and his linguistic and socio-cultural preparation for migration, and the extralinguistic characteristics of the receiving country. Depending on this, we can talk about two types of surprise: positive and negative (see Fig. 2). At the same time, the emotional spheres of migrants also differ depending on personal attitudes and the usual verbal response to the environment.

Ethno-socio-cultural etiquette may even prescribe the simulation of psychoemotional states, which creates an additional burden for the migrant. The expression of loss is usually stigmatized. At the same time, the analysis of the language behavior of migrants and its speech manifestation often ignores the ethno-socio-cultural distance between the letting and receiving communities, which leave their imprint on the language personality of the migrant. We agree with experts in the field of the human psyche [12; 41], who argue that this socio-cultural distance is not only the main reason for the decrease in speech-thinking abilities due to stress and bilingual rapid operation with concepts of two linguistic cultures, but also the difficulty in verbalizing their own psycho-emotional states among members of the migrant community. These problems, in turn, become a starting point for the development of mental problems that require the intervention of specialists of a different profile [11].

Fig. 2. The main emotive characteristics of migrants

When we talk about the emotion “surprise” as a reaction to a situation (seen) or its verbal representation, we pay attention to the fact that evaluativeness is the main characteristic of this ambivalent emotion, since evaluativeness, being an initial and subjective characteristic, determines the sign (positive or negative) that is associated with a particular emotion.

For example, a Russian writer of Kyrgyz origin, Musa Yriskeldinovich Murataliev, published a novel “The Invasion of Migrants” in 2013, and in 2017 he published a novel about migrants “Guest Worker” (2017), because life itself prompted him to describe Kyrgyz labor migrants in Russia. To some extent, the work of M. Murataliev echoes the novel by Ch. Aitmatov’s “Cassandra’s Brand” (2007), because it poses the problem of finding one’s own identity. The work of both writers eloquently illustrates the very control mechanisms of functionally equivalent languages in the linguistic personality of a natural bilingual, which ensures a successful process of speech activity in both languages. As a rule, migrants form a mythologized image of the country of origin, which is due to the psychological characteristics of the individual [1; 42].

In this regard, it is enough to recall “Afanasy Nikitin’s Journey across the Three Seas”^[1] [43], in which we often meet with emotives that are valuable material for the study of psycho-emotional reactions and the subsequent transformation of the migrant’s worldview, which entails the transformation of the merchant’s linguistic personality as a return migrant [43]. Here we find what researchers will later designate as a “moratorium on identity” [10]. For the researcher of the migrantoriented migrant discourse, this material is more interesting because it allows him to include such research parameters, as well as characteristics of the phenomenon of a linguistic personality, as a speech picture of the world, the author’s discursive strategies, his self-consciousness in the context of acculturation (secondary socialization) and inculturation (symbolization of “foreign” culture).

The key question for us is: does a person have a single identity, or does he acquire a different identity in the process of secondary socialization, characteristic of another linguistic culture, while abandoning his own? What causes a person to have a state of cultural shock and why? At the same time, the emotivity of the ethno-confessional aspect in linguomigratiology is a study that is quite complex due to the intimacy of the mental sphere.

By itself, the “foreign” culture of India cannot inform Nikitin of a collective identity, because it is fixed by a plurality of identities. “Without multiplicity there is no singularity, without otherness there is no originality” [44. P. 166]. Based on this, we believe that A. Nikitin as a migrant did not acquire another identity (Muslim) in the process of secondary socialization; he did not convert from Orthodoxy to Islam, as some researchers believe [45]. The very process of Afanasy Nikitin’s secondary socialization caused the merchant to be surprised about the emergence of new ways of interaction in a new society, the acquisition of new socio-cultural roles in new discursive conditions of a foreign cultural environment.

Our hypothesis is confirmed in the author’s lengthy description of the despair that A. Nikitin experienced after meeting with the Muslim ruler. The author of the notes castigates himself for not being able to confess his Christianity “Горе мнѣ, окаанному, яко от пути истиннаго заблудихся и пути не знаю уже самъ пойду. Господи Боже вседержителю, творець небу и земли! Не отврати лица от рабища твоего, яко скорбь близъ есмь. Господи! Призри на мя и помилуй мя, яко твое есмь создание; не отврати мя, Господи, от пути истиннаго и настави мя, Господи, на путь твой правый, яко никоея же добродѣтели в нужи той сотворих тебѣ, Господи мой, яко дни своя преплых все во злѣ, Господи мой, олло перводигерь, олло ты, каримъ олло, рагымъ олло, каримъ олло рагымелло; ахалимъдулимо”/ “Woe to me, the accursed one, as I have lost my way from the true peath, and I do not know the way, and I’m already walking myself. O Lord God to the Almighty, creator of heaven and earth! Do not turn your face away from your servant, because I am a near tribulation. Oh, my God! Look upon me and have mercy on me, for I am your creation; do not turn me away from the true path, O Lord, and guide me, O Lord, on your right path, because you have created no virtue in that need, my Lord, because your days were all evil, my Lord, ollo pervodiger, ollo you, Karim ollo, ragim ollo, karim ollo ragimello; ahalimdulimo” (Allah is the Protector, Allah, you are Merciful; Allah, you are Compassionate; Allah is Gracious; Allah is the Benevolent God; Allah is the Merciful God; praise be to Allah)”^[2].

A. Nikitin concludes this extraordinary prayer by insisting that he has not renounced Christianity. The above words sound like the last cry of despair and protest before the cruel inevitability. From that moment on, Nikitin turns all his prayers only to the Christian God, who cannot but be identified with Allah. He confesses that “Маметь дени иариа, а расть дени худо доносит (Muhammad’s faith is righteous) — а правую вѣру Богь вѣдаеть. А праваа вѣра Бога единаго знати, имя его призывати на всякомь мѣстѣ чистѣ чисту”³; that Muhammad is the “messenger of God”, that Jesus Christ is the “spirit of Allah”⁴.

The latter statement contradicts the basic Orthodox dogma, according to which the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are triune, the Father is the beginning, not born of anyone and not proceeding from anyone, the Son is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. At the same time, this statement reflects the Muslim teaching that Jesus was a prophet who brought the gospel and was supported by the spirit of Allah.

Not only the increasing proportion of Eastern prayers compared to Church Slavonic ones, but also the nature of these prayers and the conditions in which these prayers are pronounced, show that Afanasy Nikitin gradually adopted Islam not only as an appearance, but as another system of cultural signs. In fact, we are faced with the process of mixing or hybridization of ethno-socio-cultural identities in the linguistic picture of the world of the migrant merchant Nikitin [43]. The clash of Nikitin’s cultural stereotypes as a result of migration is a complex form, since the migrant’s connection with the previous culture is carried out only in his memory and imagination or indirectly, through following customs, traditions in food, clothing, etc.

This example is of interest to us, since modern migrants from the Muslim regions of Russia (Tatars, Bashkirs), having moved to Italy, experience the same problems as Afanasy Nikitin: they begin to visit Christian churches and send prayers with the original Islamic identity, which also indicates hybridization. For example: “Allah is Merciful. We need to go to chiesa and pray to the Virgin Mary that everything will be successful. Why are you surprised? And what to do, God is still one” (Razia, 63, a migrant worker from Ufa, works as a nurse in Genoa, Italy).

The emotion “surprise” manifests itself in interaction with other emotions, that is, it is in a relationship of equality with them and can be replaced (In terms of priority) by other emotions and vice versa [27].

According to the concept of H. Bhabha [46], the contact of cultures leads to a gap in the place of contact. There is a situation of doubling or bifurcation, fragmentation of the migrant’s consciousness. Polyphony or a mask worn over another mask become markers of a migrant’s identity (see Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. The algorithm of interaction of ethno-linguistic cultures in the psycho-emotional sphere of a migrant

The very position of the migrant (S) between two cultures (K1 and K2) affects his consciousness: the migrant is between the past and the present. The model of H. Bhabha relies on the difference of elements within the whole, i.e. on the mechanism of hybridization, in contrast to other concepts, for which the “journey to” has become relevant. Hybridity makes it possible to choose a point of view and eventually becomes the voice of criticism itself, a means for producing a vision. And in this regard, hybridity also becomes a source of emotivity in the migrant’s self-reflection, showing social phobias and social expectations.

Our analysis of the empirical material proves that in the absolute majority of speech situations, surprise as a reaction precedes the rest of the complex of psychoemotional reaction. This circumstance is especially striking when analyzing the migrant-oriented situation we are considering “migrants vs the receiving party”, whose participants are not just status-unequal communicants, but where it is obvious that one of them depends on the other, that is, should (and does not want or can) embody the intentions of the addressee, and it is difficult to imagine the possibility of negative emotions (irritation, anger, fear, etc.). They, of course, can be, but, as our analysis of practical material shows, they are usually not shown, suppressed.

In this regard, the examples extracted from the news migrant-oriented discourse, expressing the emotional and evaluative state of migrants, are indicative. So, Ivan Santana Lopez, a chef from Spain who moved to live in Armenia, uses the cognitive emotion of surprise when talking about his wife as follows: “We immediately found a common language, especially since she (the wife — I.K., etc.) knows Spanish perfectly. I was attracted to her by her sincerity, purity and amazing manners, as it turned out, inherited from her Armenian father”. Next, I.S. Lopez answers the question of the correspondent: “What surprised him the most in Armenia?”. The respondent answers: “First of all, I was surprised by the history of Armenia”. At the same time, he points out that he knew very little about Armenia before meeting his future wife, and this is the norm for any other average resident of Spain: “I learned about Armenia and the great Armenian culture thanks to my wife. Many Spaniards associate Armenia with Colombia, as there is a city of the same name there. And in Spain, there are many immigrants from Colombia and from the city of Armenia,” — Ivan notes”^[3]. Here we see that the emotion analyzed by us is expressed by the method of direct naming, i.e. projectively (the term of E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov), accompanied by positiveemotive evaluation.

For the successful adaptation of a migrant in the host community, the similarities of the cultures of the sending and receiving countries play an important role [3; 27]. In this regard, the following opinion of the above-mentioned migrant is of interest, that Armenians and Spaniards are brought together by “closeness in spirit”: “We also, like Armenians, honor family values, also gather with the whole family for a meal, etc.”⁵. Availability/ the absence of a large ethno-socio-cultural distance is a turning point for the transformation of the migrant’s behavioral matrix [43].

The emotion of “surprise” can be transmitted through the use of exclamations and exclamation sentences in speech. As a rule, this is how migrants mark a positive surprise from the joy of achieving their dreams (moving to a region, a country of migration) in the first months of being in a new place.

For example: “I accidentally drove into this small country and disappeared. I just fell in love with Slovenia, as one falls in love with a man. (…) I didn’t need anyone and nothing but Slovenia. I even stopped looking at men! Piran is a city in Slovenia. It’s impossible not to fall in love! Did I do the right thing by following my dream of moving? Three times yes”^[4];

“Even as a student, during the summer holidays, I came to stay (…) in NurSultan. It was 2010. Then the city was actively being built. I really liked the city, the people, the hospitality. The city literally inspired me, and sunk into my soul.”, — said Albina Moldynova”^[5];

“Walking through the streets of Moscow, I thought: “Here you feel free. This country is perfect for me, and I want to live in it!”. After that, I came here 20 times, looking for a place for business. I was surprised at how expensive rent is in Moscow — in the center you need to spend several thousand dollars on it! But I was lucky!” — says 35-year-old barber Teddy Boy Greg, who moved from sunny California to Moscow^[6].

The stage of delight is then replaced by the stage of crisis, when migrants feel more acutely the negative influence of the new society; face various kinds of intercultural differences. During this period, the emotion “surprise” characterizes the distance between expectations and reality in the picture of the migrant’s world. The negative aspect of surprise contributes to cultural shock, which characterizes the state of physical, emotional, and social discomfort that occurs during the adaptation of a migrant in a new socio-cultural environment.

For example: “It seems to me that everything is being done much faster in terms of public services in Kazakhstan. You can come to one institution and deal with all the issues. I have all my relatives left in Kazakhstan, so I try to come there during holidays and holidays. This is my Homeland, I have lived there most of my life and always remember it with warmth,” — says Vladimir Shmakov, 26, who moved from the Kazakh city of Temirtau to Tyumen^[7].

The analysis of the empirical material shows that a migrant begins to realize his gaps in the background knowledge of the receiving country, even if this migrant comes from among immigrants [13; 16]. For a migrant who is at this stage of understanding his own relocation, the understanding of his own feelings of nostalgia, frustration, sadness, and depression can cause surprise between them. The migrant’s condition is aggravated by the collapse of his expectations about his own abilities to express his thoughts and emotions adequately and fully in another language, leading to depression and complex mental disorders [11].

The migrant-oriented discourse demonstrates that a migrant can experience confusion, delight, shock, and amazement when immersed in the realities of another culture. At the same time, we believe that examples from the migrantoriented news discourse direct the attention of recipients, speakers of the linguistic culture of the receiving country, to those elements of background knowledge about their own country that are perceived as ordinary in the country itself. As a result, there is a secondary emotion of surprise in native recipients from the perception of migrant-oriented discourse.

As a result, we consider it legitimate to separate emotive linguomigrationology as a separate direction in applied linguistics. Under emotive linguomigrationology, we understand such a section in linguistic migrationology, which considers the verbal characteristics of the psycho-emotional states of migrants, the verbal characteristics of the psycho-emotional component of migrant-oriented discourses.

Discussion

Migration as a powerful stress factor clearly manifests the entire spectrum of emotions of the human psyche [1; 7; 11; 24; 47]. Traditionally, representatives of such sciences as psychology and psychiatry, philosophy and law have been engaged in the analysis of emotions since ancient authors. Despite the development of the analysis of emotionally colored vocabulary in the language, emotivology or emotive linguistics began to be developed only in the 80s of the twentieth century, when the language of emotions became the object of study from semantic and pragmatic points of view [29; 37; 46].

Russian emotive linguistics became structured thanks to the works of V.I. Shakhovsky [37–38], who rightly emphasized the relevance of studying the language of the psychoemotional sphere of a person using an interdisciplinary approach [38], which was later developed by other researchers in a synergetic aspect [8; 25; 27; 30; 48].

We agree with the opinion of N.V. Dorofeeva [49] that there are universal characteristics of the emotion “surprise”. The researcher describes them as: “a) the need to obtain maximum information about the object of surprise — mimic and cranial kineme’s; b) a feeling of helplessness — mimic, cranial and manual gestures; c) cognitive tension — lowering of the eyebrows, scratching the back of the head, narrowing of the eye slit; d) doubt about the truth of what is happening — blinking, shaking the head, twisting the finger at the temple; e) a feeling of discomfort — distortion of facial features; f) the need for protection — the movement of the body backwards and to the side; g) the experience of the absurdity of what is happening — a smile and laughter; h) the need for active actions — the movement of the body upwards; i) the need to hide your experience — covering your face/eyes/mouth with your hands” [49. P. 158–159]. In general, understanding the emotivity of a foreign linguistic culture improves emotional intelligence, which helps the adaptation of a migrant in the receiving country.

Some linguistic researchers suggest the term “migration discourse” as a designation of a variety of social practice, since “it is formed by social structures and social agents” [50. P. 25]. Some researchers consider it as a part of political discourse. For example, I.V. Khokhlova, considering these discourses as the first part of the second, believes “that many signs and features of the latter are also more or less inherent in the first” [51. P. 185].

We believe that the multidimensional nature of the phenomenon of migration itself has led to the non-differentiation of migration-oriented and migrant-oriented discourses. It is no coincidence that T.A. van Dijk defines migration discourse as a complex structure that includes the implementation of linguistic, social, political, and cultural aspects of migration in different genres, as well as history, economics, migration policy, etc. [52. P. 230]. He suggested that migration can be described by means of semantic macrostructures consisting of macropositions that include local values of discourse [52. P. 233].

E.O. Zubareva, relying on the structure proposed T.A. van Dijk, having refined, and expanded it, built a system of modules of migration discourse (see: Fig. 4). At the same time, the author points out that this model assumes expansion by including other modules or topics, while simultaneously offering the following modules as examples: “social agents, migrant phobia, national language security, language conflict, speech aggression, migration crisis, social mobility, enclaves, types of migration, language, cultural, psychological adaptation, migration laws, language transformations” [53. P. 68].

Fig. 4. The scheme of migration discourse modules proposed by E.O. Zubareva [59]

As we can see from the scheme of E.O. Zubareva, the discursive space about migration and migrants is built along the axes: “documentality ↔ artistry” and “formality ↔ everyday life”, so this scheme needs to be refined and clarified. In addition, we believe that this scheme is more suitable for displaying the main topics related to migration.

Based on this, we foresee that the integration of migrants into society will go beyond the acquisition of the language of the new host country as an educational language, since the understanding of the socio-cultural aspects of the new language, the change in the mobility of migrants of recent decades [54; 55], the actualization of the electronic-digital communication format makes the transition from a homogeneous to a multicultural society a bifurcation point for the further development of society, a certain key moment.

Conclusion

The interpretation of any discursive space in its ultimate, Abstract embodiment implies not only the possibility of identifying all the meanings that are present in a particular discourse, but also gives it integrity, harmony, proportionality, and interrelation of the constituent components. At the same time, the entire experience of real interpretation, starting with the usual reading of the text that forms the core of the discourse, and ending with its special research based on the methodology of various scientific disciplines, almost always generates a situation when, due to various circumstances, some fragments of the discursive space are not perceived by the interpreter, rejected, disputed.

Media discourse and migration discourse uses the objectification work of the mental structures underlying the emotional reactions of a person. Objectification acts as a process of fixing in the language of Abstract mental categories of mental and emotive spheres that are inaccessible to direct observation, and all the characteristics of emotive states (duration, intensity, evaluativeness, etc.), which are expressed at various levels of the language system (lexemes nominating emotions, phraseology, emotive phonetics, morphological categories, syntactic means, emotively colored vocabulary, syntax) and in the formation of complex objectifies of emotions, They are a synthesis of units of different language levels in more complex formations (situations, context, text).

The development of a conceptual scheme for analyzing the relationship between migration and the ethno-linguistic process, associated with the need to consider several traditional concepts in a linguistic context, actualizes the need to form a new scientific direction in the philological sciences with a clear distinction between terminological fields and spaces.

Emotive linguomigrationology reveals great prospects both in terms of studying the language personality of a migrant, psycholinguistics, and in terms of improving methods of teaching foreign languages, as well as in the context of compiling and using health-saving methods.

 

_{¹ Nikitin, A. (1999). Walking across the Three Seas by Afanasy Nikitin. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Russ.).}

_{² Nikitin, A. (1999). Walking across the Three Seas by Afanasy Nikitin. St. Petersburg: Nauka. (In Russ.). Р. 26; 13.}

_{³ Sarkisyan, L. (2017). How a Spaniard fell in love with hash and moved to Yerevan. Sputnik News Agency. Sputnik-Armenia, 11.03.2017 [Electronic source]: Как испанец полюбил хаш и переехал жить в Ереван — Рамблер/новости (rambler.ru) (In Russ.).}

_{⁴ Sianto, Y. (2018). The story of one big dream about moving, 08.02.2018 [Electronic resource]: https://interesno.co/myself/c9d43249b090 (In Russ.).}

_{⁵ Borisova, A. (2021). V pogone za uspekhom i schast'yem: istoriya pereyezda rossiyanki v Kazakhstan [In pursuit of success and happiness: the story of the move of a Russian woman to Kazakhstan]. In: Nur.KZ, 31.07.2021. URL: https://www.nur.kz/nezavisimost/1924872-v-pogone-za-uspehom-ischastem-istoriya-pereezda-rossiyanki-v-kazahstan/ (In Russ.).}

_{⁶ Matveeva, A. (2018). An American in Moscow: “I dream of a Russian wife and a Russian passport”, RIAMO, 27.11.2018. URL: https://riamo.ru/article/325242/amerikanets-v-moskve-mechtayu-orusskoj-zhene-i-rossijskom-pasporte.xl (In Russ.).}

_{⁷ Weproject.media (2019). Ethnic Russians about moving to Russia: about the difficulties, benefits, and why they miss Kazakhstan, 23.03.2019. URL: (In Russ.).}

About the authors

Irina S. Karabulatova

Heilongjiang University; Lomonosov Moscow State University

Email: karabulatova-is@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4228-3235
ResearcherId: M-2778-2013

D.Sc. in Philology, Professor, Head of the Center for Digital Humanitarian Technologies “Russian Language +” Institute of Russian Language, Heilongjiang University, Leading Researcher of the Laboratory of “Semantic Analysis and Machine Learning” of the Institute of Advanced Research and Problems of Artificial Intelligence and Intelligent Systems of Lomonosov Moscow State University

74, Xuefu lu av, Hei Long Jiang Sheng, Ha Er Bin Shi, Nan Gang Qu, Harbin, China, 150080; 27/1, Lomonovovskiy av., Moscow, Russian Federation, 1191926

Karpis S. Anumyan

Moscow State Linguistic University; The Presidential Academy

Author for correspondence.
Email: karpisanumyan93@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6125-4942
ResearcherId: AAW-8341-2020

PhD in Philology, senior lecturer of the Department of Historical Sciences and Archival Studies of the Institute of Humanities and Applied Sciences of the Moscow State Linguistic University (MSLU), senior lecturer of the Department of Discursive Practices of the Institute of Social Sciences of the Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (Presidential Academy, RANEPA)

38/1, Ostrozhenka Str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119034; 82, Vernadskiy av., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119571

Svetlana G. Korovina

Moscow State Linguistic University

Email: svetlanakorovina@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4316-8212
ResearcherId: A-8213-2017

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of Chinese Language, Translation Faculty

38/1, Ostrozhenka Str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119034

Galina A. Krivenko

Innovative University of Eurasia

Email: galinakrvnk@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0370-6044
ResearcherId: GLR-0430-2022

PhD in Philology, Associate Professor of the Department of “Journalism and Philology”

45, Lomov Str., Pavlodar, Republic of Kazakhstan, 140000

References

Supplementary files