Svetlana V. Lebedeva

Professor, Head of the Chair of Foreign Languages and Professional Communication

Kursk State University

(Kursk, Russia)

Anastasia M. Henel

Master's student of the Chair of Foreign Languages and Professional Communication

Kursk State University

(Kursk, Russia)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2022-3-91-99

Abstract. The article discusses the causes and role of borrowing in the creation of acronyms and homoacronyms in the various onyms that shape German economic discourse. The authors consider their features mainly in documentonyms, ideonyms, including pragmatonyms, ergonyms and firmonyms, as well as in hemeronyms. The functions of acronyms are different in different onyms, which affects the choice of truncation-borrowing length in the formation of an acronym. Thus, in firmonyms, the most important function of acronyms is advertising, as well as communication and mnemonic functions, i.e. the acronym should be convenient for pronunciation and memorization. The main function of acronyms in documentonyms is the information function, as well as the function of individualization, concretization, due to which preference is given not to the choice of borrowing in the form of an initial, but to the choice of truncation, and with maximum length.
Keywords: onym, economics, discourse, borrowing, acronym, function, component.

Full text of the article (PDF)

For citation: Lebedeva, SV & Henel, AM 2022, ‘Specifics of construction of acronyms in various onyms of German economic discourse’, Tula Scientific Bulletin. History. Linguistics, issue 3 (11), pp. 91–99, http://doi.org/10.22405/2712-8407-2022-3-91-99 (in Russ.)

References

1. Grigoryeva, VS 2007, Diskurs kak element kommunikativnogo protsessa: pragmalingvisticheskiy i kognitivnyy aspekty (Discourse as an element of the communicative process: pragmalinguistic and cognitive aspects), Tambov. (In Russ.)
2. Varshavskaya, AI 1984, Smyslovyye otnosheniya v strukture yazyka: (na materiale sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka) Semantic relations in the structure of language: (based on the material of modern English), Izdatelstvo Leningradskogo Universiteta publ, Leningrad (In Russ.)
3. Dijk Van, TA 2000, Yazyk. Poznanie. Kommunikatsiya (Language. Cognition. Communication). (In Russ.)
4. Isakova, AA 2012, Pragmonimy sovremennogo russkogo yazyka kak sostavlyayushchaya reklamnogo diskursa: lingvo-kognitivnaya, semanticheskaya, strukturno-pragmaticheskaya kharakteristika (The pragmonyms of the modern Russian language as a component of advertising discourse: linguistic-cognitive, semantic, structural-pragmatic characteristics), doctoral thesis, Chelyabinsk. (In Russ.)
5. Karasik, VI 2002, Yazykovoy krug: lichnost', kontsepty, diskurs (Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse), Peremena publ, Volgograd. (In Russ.)
6. Kasavin, IT 2009, ‘Tekst. Diskurs. Kontekst. Vvedeniye v sotsial'nuyu epistemologiyu yazyka. Zamysel knigi’ (Text. Discourse. Context. An introduction to the social epistemology of language. The idea of the book), Epistemologiya i filosofiya nauki, Vol. 19, no.1. pp. 53–56. (In Russ.)
7. Kobenko, Yu.V 2013, Ekzoglossnyye tendentsii v yazykovoy situatsii v FRG (Exoglossic tendencies in the linguistic situation in Germany), doctoral thesis, Samara. (In Russ.)
8. Makarov, ML 2003, Osnovy teorii diskursa (Fundamentals of the theory of discourse), ITDGK «Gnozis» publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
9. Markova, TS 2020, ‘Vidy i funktsii abbreviatur-onimov v razlichnykh diskursakh (na materiale sovremennogo nemetskogo yazyka)’ (Types and functions of acronyms in various discourses (based on the material of modern German)), Theory of Language and Intercultural Communication, no.1(36), pp. 184-194. (In Russ.)
10. Olyanich, AV 2007, Prezentatsionnaya teoriya diskursa (Presentation theory of discourse), Gnozis publ, Moscow (In Russ.)
11. Sedov, KF, 2004, Diskurs i lichnost: evolyutsiya kommunikativnoy kompetentsii (Discourse and personality: the evolution of communicative competence), Labirint publ, Moscow. (In Russ.)
12. Sidorov, EV 2008, Ontologiya diskursa (Ontology of discourse), Izdatelstvo LKI publ, Moscow (In Russ.)
13. Sukhikh, SA 1998, Pragmalingvisticheskoye izmereniye kommunikativnogo protsessa (The pragmalinguistic dimension of the communicative process), doctoral thesis, Krasnodar. (In Russ.)
14. Khoroltseva, VS 2014, ‘Aktivnyye protsessy zaimstvovaniya anglitsizmov v russkom i cheshskom yazyke’ (Active borrowing processes of Anglicisms in Russian and Czech), Filologiya i lingvistika v sovremennom obshchestve, February, Moscow, Buki-Vedi publ, Moscow, pp. 116–119. (In Russ.)
15. Yakovleva, OYe 2006, Semioticheskiye tipy pragmatonimov sovremennogo russkogo yazyka: na materiale nominatsiy produktov pitaniya (Semiotic types of pragmatonyms in the modern Russian language: based on food nominations), PhD thesis, Novosibirsk (In Russ.)