Dictionary of political vocabulary in English. Features of euphemization in the field of professional communication (on the example of political terms) in Russian and English languages ​​rogova d.v., berezutskaya d.o. Political Vocabulary of the English Language

Since ancient times, the study of a language began with its “internal structure”, in the modern world, language is of increasing interest in dynamics, namely in oral speech, in action. The problems of the functioning of the language in society come to the fore, scientists are interested in its informational and psychological impact on the listener and reader. Since language is the main means of human communication, it instantly reacts to all changes in society. In the political sphere, as in any sphere of public life, communication plays a crucial role. In political discourse, a significant place is occupied by speeches of politicians, appeals that are focused on attracting the attention of society, forcing society to support one or another political force. At the same time, it is important that the text of a political speech be effective, hide certain points and incline society to think in the right direction. That is why politicians resort to the use of lexical units that hide unpleasant social phenomena and decorate reality. These lexical units are called euphemisms. Euphemism (eu + pheme = good speech, in Greek) is a stylistically neutral word, phrase or expression used instead of that synonymous language unit that is indecent, impolite, rude or tactless, offends or frightens the listener; the main goal of euphemisms is to veil, disguise the essence of this phenomenon (for example, die, die instead of dying, tell a lie instead of lying). Euphemism has a certain specificity. It manifests itself both in the linguistic essence of euphemism, and in topics that are most often euphemized, areas of use of euphemisms, as well as in the types of linguistic ways and means by which they are created. The essence of euphemism can be revealed in three criteria: 1. The speaker's assessment of the subject in question, and the designation of which can be recognized as sharpness, tactlessness or indecency. 2. Selection by the speaker of certain appropriate designations that will veil the phrase, make it softer and more tactful. 3. The dependence of the use of euphemism on the context and on the conditions of speech: the tighter the social control of the speech situation and the self-control of the speakers of their own speech, the more likely the appearance of euphemisms, and, on the contrary, in poorly controlled speech situations and with high automatism of speech (communication in the family, with friends, etc.) “direct”, non-euphemistic means of designation may be preferred to euphemisms. So, the main goal of euphemizing speech is the desire to avoid communicative conflicts and not create a feeling of communicative discomfort in the listener. According to the Macmillan English Dictionary, “euphemism is a word or expression that people use when they want to talk about something unpleasant or embarrassing without mentioning the thing itself” (a euphemism is a word or expression that is used to talk about something unpleasant or tactless without mentioning the word directly) [author's translation]. Political euphemisms in English are divided into different groups: by the number of words, by parts of speech, and also by areas (topics) of use. 1. The first group is one euphemism word. 1) For example, the noun detainee - an illegal immigrant who has been arrested (an illegal immigrant in custody); 2) Adjective: disabled - the politically correct term referring to people with a physical or a mental handicap (a person with disabilities is a politically correct term referring to people with physical or mental disabilities), nationalized - private ownership that was confiscated by government ( nationalized - private property that was confiscated by the state); 2. Euphemism-a phrase consisting of two words. 1) For example, an adjective and a noun: nuclear intention - the policy dealing with nuclear weapons (intention to use nuclear weapons - policy related to nuclear weapons), protective custody - the prison (preventive detention - prison); 2) Two nouns: impact fees - taxes (taxes); 3) Noun and verb: money laundering - a process in which money earned by an illegal activity is converted into a legal system. (money laundering is the sale of money that was earned illegally). 3. A euphemism-phrase consisting of three or more words: peace-keeping force - armed forces sent to another country to ensure piece in their own country (peacekeeping forces - armed forces sent to another country to ensure order there); department of special investigation - the department which secretly monitors actions of suspicious citizens (department of special investigations - a department that secretly monitors the actions of suspicious citizens). According to the sphere of use, political euphemisms in English are divided mainly into several topics: war and nuclear weapons, taxes, illegal activities, political regimes. In Russian, the following spheres of political euphemisms can be distinguished: 1) authorities and their activities, for example, managed democracy; 2) military actions and their participants, for example, cleaning up the territory in the sense of physical destruction; 3) economic methods and their followers, for example, price liberalization, free prices in the sense of price increases; 4) various national and social groups and relations between them, for example, guest performers from the Caucasus region in the sense of criminal groups from the Caucasus. It is interesting that euphemization, or special terminology, is present not only in the field of professional communication, it is gradually moving into everyday use. Speaking of political terms, one can compare Russian and English euphemisms. Native Russian speakers use the expression to go to extreme measures, confrontation (when it comes to war), capital punishment (about the death penalty). In English, we can meet the following euphemisms: to eliminate - eliminate (instead of to kill - kill), a conflict - conflict (instead of a war - war). Summing up the linguistic analysis of the euphemisms of political speech, we can draw several conclusions. Political euphemisms have gone beyond the usual lexical means that can hide something unpleasant or secret, and have become one of the most powerful means of influencing the audience in order to completely change the perception of certain events. They help create a positive or negative image of a politician, justify certain actions and decisions, win over the electorate, and much more. Political euphemisms are one of the main tools in the hands of politicians with which they convey their goals and ideas to the listener. A comparison of the linguistic phenomenon of euphemization in Russian and English shows that both of these languages ​​are rich in euphemisms and actively use them in the field of professional communication in order to veil the essence of the signified. Euphemisms in political discourse have similar functions in Russian and English, and also coincide in some areas of use.

The material was prepared by O. A. Eliseeva

Unlike the neutral language of a scientific and technical text, the language of newspaper articles is often emotionally saturated, which brings it closer to the language of fiction. We find in it figurative comparisons, metaphors, idioms, elements of humor, sarcasm, irony, etc. In addition to all this, a newspaper article usually has a certain political orientation. All this poses additional tasks for the translator of a socio-political text. A full-fledged translation of newspaper material, in addition to actually accurately conveying the content, must convey to the reader all the emotional elements contained in the original, as well as its political orientation.

At the same time, the newspaper text has a number of characteristic lexical and syntactic features that distinguish it from the scientific and technical text.

If the lexical basis of a scientific and technical text is technical terminology, then the newspaper text is abundantly saturated with special terms related to political and state life; we meet here the names of political parties, government agencies, public organizations and terms related to their activities, for example: House of Commons House of Commons, Security Council Security Council, term of office term of office.

While technical terminology has a relatively narrow scope of circulation and, basically, does not go beyond the limits of a given specialty, socio-political terms are much more widespread: they penetrate into all areas of life and are made public. The newspaper text as a whole is characterized by the following specific features:

a) The frequent use of phraseological combinations that are in the nature of a kind of speech stamps, for example: on the occasion of no occasion, by the decision of no decision, in reply to in response to, in a statement of in a statement, with reference to in connection with , to draw the conclusion, to attach the importance, to take into account.

b) The use of constructions like "verb + that" when presenting someone else's statement, commenting on statements by political figures, etc., for example: The paper argues that this decision will seriously handicap the country's economy. The newspaper believes that this decision will cause serious damage to the country's economy.

c) The use of phraseological combinations such as "verb + noun", for example: to have a discussion instead of to discuss, to give support instead of to support, to give recognition instead of to recognize.

d) The use of neologisms formed with the help of some productive suffixes, for example: -ism (Bevinism), -ist (Gaullist), -ite (Glasgovite), -ize (to atomize), -ation (marshallization); and prefixes: anti- (anti-American campaign), pro- (pro-Arab movement), inter- (inter-European relations).

e) The widespread use of impersonal phrases as an introductory part of messages, for example: it is generally believed that ... no general belief ..., it is officially announced that ... it is officially reported that ..., it is rumoured that ... there are rumors that ..., it is reported that…, it is suggested that… suggest that… etc.

f) Frequent use of abbreviations, for example: M.R. = Member of Parliament T.U.C. = Trades Union Congress TV= Television

Syntactically, the newspaper text is much simpler than the language of scientific and technical publications; complex grammatical constructions and turns are less common in it.

In general, the newspaper text is characterized by a desire for conciseness and brevity of presentation, and this feature is especially pronounced in newspaper headlines.

The peculiarities of the development of the press in the USA and England left a bright stylistic imprint on the headlines of newspaper articles, the translation of which, due to their specificity, presents certain difficulties. The headline in Anglo-American newspapers plays a very important role; its main task is to attract the attention of the reader, to interest and even amaze him, and only secondarily is the heading entrusted with an informational and explanatory function - a message to the reader of a summary of this article. As a result of this purposefulness, the Anglo-American press developed a special style of newspaper headlines, a characteristic feature of which is the extreme expressiveness of lexical and grammatical means.

Headlines, as a rule, are written in "telegraphic language", that is, with the help of the most concise, extremely concise phrases in which all semantically secondary elements are omitted. At the same time, in order to ensure maximum intelligibility, headings are built on the basis of commonly used vocabulary and the simplest grammatical means.

Lexico-grammatical features of headings and ways of their translation.

a) To draw the reader's attention to the main idea of ​​the message, articles and personal forms of the auxiliary verb to be are usually omitted in headings.

Action is usually expressed as Indefinite or Continuous: (The) Russian Athlete (is) Winning (a) Prize, Houses (are) Smashed by (the) Hurricane.

6) Messages about recent events are transmitted using the Present indefinite form. This kind of brings the event closer to the reader and enhances his interest: Liner Runs Ashore, Influenza Kills 200 in India

c) The future action is often conveyed using the infinitive: Glasgow Dockers to Resume Work.

d) Often the predicate is omitted in the title, it plays a secondary role in the sentence: Hurricane in Miami, Deadlock in Committee, No Timber for Sale.

e) In order to draw special attention to the predicate and at the same time interest the reader, the subject is omitted if it is inferior in meaning to the predicate: (They) Expect New Economic Depression.

e) The possessive case, due to its structural compactness, is used with inanimate nouns and displaces the prepositional phrase with of: Price Control's Effect Discussed.

g) Popular nicknames and abbreviated names are used instead of the surnames of some political figures, artists, athletes, etc., for example: Ike = Eisenhower, Winnie = Winston Churchill

3) To give emotional coloring, neologisms, dialectisms, poeticisms, slang are interspersed in common vocabulary, for example: litter instead of policeman, foe instead of enemy, to irk instead of to irritate.

i) Abbreviations and complex words are widely used, for example: U.S.-Russian TV Exchanges.

j) The presence of figurative elements is noted, for example: Clinton Raises His Eyebrows, Italian President Under Fire.

As we can see, the headlines of English and American newspapers reveal a number of features that require a special approach in their translation.

The usual use of elliptical designs gives headings extreme conciseness and dynamism. Russian headlines, like the entire newspaper style as a whole, are characterized by a smoother, calmer character, and the action in them, unlike the headlines in English and American newspapers, is conveyed more often by a noun than by a verb, for example:

Conference to open today - Today is the opening of the conference,

Russian Athlete Winning Prize - The victory of a Russian athlete.

As noted above, abbreviations are widely used in English and American headings, most often alphabetic, and often the meaning of such an abbreviation can only be understood from the text of the article itself, for example: N.G.O.A. Rejects Strike Clause. This abbreviation N.G.O.A. is not in common use and is therefore not listed in the dictionary. Its meaning - National Government Officers "Association - can only be established from the text of the note following the heading.

Referring to the text of the article before the translation of the title is often necessary in cases where the title contains elements of figurativeness. In the example above: Clinton Raises His Eyebrows, the idiom to raise the eyebrows conveys a feeling of either surprise or disdain. To clarify the meaning for this case, we turn to the text of the note:

President Clinton commended to journalists to-day that he had been much surprised by the suggestion that the control of visas for entry into the United States be transferred from the State Department to the Department of Justice.

From the text it becomes clear that we are talking about a sense of surprise, and now we can give a translation of the title, while trying to preserve the element of imagery. Since, however, the image underlying the English expression to raise the eyebrows is foreign to the Russian language, we are forced to resort to the analogy: "Clinton makes a surprised face" or "Clinton shrugs his shoulders in surprise."

In many cases, the desire to give the title an intriguing, enticing character leads to the fact that it ceases to fulfill its informational function, without actually providing data about the content of the note or article, for example: Poles Apart, Boy Travels Like This. In these cases, when translating, it is necessary to resort to expanding the title by attracting additional details from the text of the article itself.

Summing up, it can be noted that, unlike the headings of scientific and technical articles, which, as a rule, give an idea of ​​the main direction of the content of the article and, therefore, to a certain extent, are the key to understanding the text, the situation is different with newspaper headlines.

Often, a preliminary acquaintance with the content of the text is required for the correct understanding and translation of the title.

The English newspaper text, as we have noted, is characterized by a certain laconicism, which in the headlines takes the form of slogan-like compressed segments built on a jerky, feverish rhythm.

Russian translation, while maintaining brevity, should be more fluid and rhythmic, as is typical of the entire Russian newspaper style as a whole.

• Pryanikova Alina Alexandrovna, student
• Kazan (Volga Region) Federal University, Institute of International Relations, History and Oriental Studies

• TERM FORMATION
• TERMINOLOGY
• CONCEPT
• TERM
• TRANSLATION METHODS

The article deals with the methods of term formation and structural and semantic features of socio-political terminology. The study shows productive ways of forming political terms and describes their translation options from English and German into Russian.

• “It’s as if he built a house in chaos according to all the laws of statics and life ...”: on the grammatical structure of participial phrases that characterize buildings in the poetry of I. Brodsky
• Historical and local history topics as a means of updating the ethnic community (travel journalism and ethnotourism in the Republic of Mordovia)
• Sonnet and wreath of sonnets in Mordovian poetry: formation and history of development
• Syntagmatics of pressure verbs: object valency

The 21st century is the era of globalization, the emergence and development of the information society, where each person is to some extent involved in world events, receiving a huge amount of information every day. Language, primarily being a means of communication, performs many other functions, it allows you to look into the past, comprehend the present and open the veil to the future. Words that express special knowledge, the concept of certain areas of activity are usually called terms. Despite the fact that terminology as a science emerged only in the 20th century, at the time of the scientific and technological process, when new inventions and the development of human thought required the systematization of existing concepts and their exact interpretations for each field of knowledge and each language separately, many domestic and foreign linguists date the origin of terminology to an early stage in the development of mankind. As you know, the Sumerian civilization gave the world many inventions - a wheel, writing, an irrigation system, a potter's wheel - and therefore the designations of these realities, which from written sources testify to the level of development of society in antiquity. V.V. Vinogradov wrote that "the history of terminology is a story about the patterns of development of knowledge about nature and society."

Terminology acts as a repository of scientific and professional knowledge and an intermediary in specialized communication, and also has many tools for creating new terms. Terminology can be attributed to anthropocentric sciences, since it reveals the impact of a person on the language, fixing the cultural, historical and social experience of ancestors. In the last century, the boom in the development of terminologies was associated with the emergence of new areas of knowledge, scientific achievements and the development of the information space, at present, most of it falls on the information space. A modern person strives to be aware, to be aware of world events, which allows the media to create neologisms, thereby replenishing the layer of socio-political terms.

It should be noted that political vocabulary is replenished from political science terminology, which contains knowledge focused on specialists in this field and incomprehensible to most citizens. However, the information flow represents world events, uses narrow terms and, thus, takes them out of the field of political science knowledge to a wide audience. In the era of globalization, the importance of information reaches enormous proportions, there are wars and attacks for gaining access to closed sources, it is also necessary to give a name to political actions in the international arena, which have adequate equivalents in target languages.

The desire to expand international scientific relations leads to the internationalization of terms and a large number of borrowings, which leads to problems of their functioning along with the national language and difficulties associated with synonymy, homonymy and polysemy. In this vein, it should be noted that many terms in Russian, English, German and other European languages ​​are international, as they were borrowed from Latin or Greek. It is difficult to accurately determine the source of any term and requires an etymological analysis and the study of extralinguistic factors.

The relevance of the study of socio-political terminology is determined not only by the need to systematize the existing lexical units and their foreign language equivalents indicating the difference in meanings, but also by the fact that at the present stage the terminology is being formed both at the level of national media and under the influence of the English-language press, which is reflected in the substitution original units of the language, the distortion of national languages ​​and the difficulties of perceiving information. Languages ​​are annually replenished with thousands of new words, changes at the level of vocabulary of socio-political topics reflect the processes of social development. This terminology cannot be studied in isolation from society and the changes taking place in it, since it names the ideological concepts of reality.

The purpose of this study is to analyze the structural-semantic and word-formation models of socio-political terms in order to identify the most productive and common forms of the emergence of new lexical units, as well as to describe the specifics of the translation of terminological units in this area into English, German and Russian.

For this, a glossary of 200 terms was developed, containing the basic concepts of the political science sphere, as well as reflecting modern world processes used in international media materials. When compiling it, the following semantic subgroups were identified:

• Diplomacy (doyen, exequatur, der Auswanderer);
• Form of government and state structure (teledemocracy, anarchy, der kalter Krieg);
• Political economy (embargo, securities issuer);
• Military-political vocabulary (die Annexion, disarmament);
• Civil law terms (das Recht, nation, state);
• World political realities (political socialization, Benelux, die Kubakrise);
• Social statuses and positions (Ombudsman, MP, die UN-Blauhelme);
• International Documents and Organizations (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Worldwatch Institute, GUS (die Gemeinschaft unabhängiger Staaten).

This work is the result of the analysis of semantic and structural features and the way of translating social and political terms. Based on the morphological features of each individual language, different ways of word formation are inherent in each separately. So, in Russian, the majority of terms were phrases (41.5%) - articulation of interests, credentials, and then the suffixal way of word formation prevailed (26.5%) - citizenship, apartheid, legitimacy. The Russian language is characterized by a fairly large number of root words (16%) - right note, slogan, which is due to the high degree of Greek-Latin borrowings - vote, deputy.

We see a similar picture in English, where the largest share falls on phrases (42%) - delegation of authorities, public administration, then follows the suffixal way of word formation (34.5%) - establishment, legitimacy, observer. In both languages, the most common international suffixes are -ism, -id, -tion, -tion, -ism, -ment. Root words in English are less common, but compound words and fusions are more common (4.5%) - newsbreak, battle- cry .

For the German language as a whole, word composition is the leading way; this trend is also traced in socio-political terminology. It accounts for 45.5% of the terms - der Staatsangestellte, die Zweisprachigkeit. When translating phrases from Russian or English, they are often converted into compound words in German (delegation of authorities-die Kompetenzdelegation, constitutional system - die Verfassungsordnen). The second most productive is the suffix method (26.6%), where there are both international suffixes and typical German suffixes -keit, -ei, -ung - die Globalization, die Politikasterei.

In this study, an analysis was made of the most commonly used methods of translation from foreign languages ​​into Russian. It should be noted that the glossary contains three terms that do not correspond in German, that is, they are lacunae ( demopolitics, manual government, soft rating). From both German and English, the predominant way to translate social and political vocabulary is through translation using the equivalent (61% in English, 68.5% in German) – vote- das Votum, innuendo- die Unterstellung. It is followed by tracing (16% each) - repeat election- die Wiederwahlrepeated elections; further specification (by 7.5%) - military takeover-putsch,die Abgrenzung-demarcation. Also, the reception of generalization, compression, transliteration, metaphorical and descriptive translation were applied. It should be noted that when translating from English into Russian, transcription was used, while in German there were no such coincidences.

Thus, this study showed that socio-political terminology is characterized by expressiveness and emotional coloring of vocabulary, which is an unacceptable indicator for other terminologies. Secondly, in the three studied languages, borrowed Greek-Latin vocabulary from the time of the formation of citizenship in the world prevails, which has become international and has equivalents in each of the languages ​​or remained in an unassimilated form ( status Quo, persona non grata). However, this situation is not always typical for the German language, where speakers prefer to use the equivalent from the original vocabulary, often expressed in a compound word ( Bipatride -bipatride – der Doppelstaatler).

Bibliography

1. Vinogradov V.V. Introductory speech//Questions of terminology. Materials of the All-Union terminological conference. M., 1961
2. Grinev-Grinevich S.V. Terminology textbook for students. higher textbook institutions / C.V. Grinev-Grinevich. - M. Publishing Center "Academy", 2008. 304 p.
3. Leichik V.M. Terminology: subject, methods, structure. Ed. 3rd. - M.: Publishing house LKI, 2007. - 256 p.
4. Komarova Z.I. The semantic structure of special words and its lexicographic description - Sverdlovsk, 1991.
5. Kryuchkova T.B. Features of the formation and development of socio-political vocabulary and terminology. – M.: Nauka, 1991-153 p.
6. Towards New Ways of Terminology Description: The sociocognitive approach. (Google eBook)

The main semantic feature of the OPL is the presence of the semantic component "political, social". This approach is characteristic of the Western lexicographic tradition with a large set of political glossaries and dictionaries. Foreign linguists interpret political terminology as a language used by politicians both officially and behind the scenes in the process of communication about politics. Determining the composition of the NPL is a very difficult task, because “The definition of the very concepts of “political, social” is complex and multifaceted. It is in connection with this that linguists begin the analysis of OPL with the definition of the meanings of the components of this term. So, L.A. Muradova quite extensively characterizes the composition of the OPL, including in its composition lexical units from various spheres of public life, for example, from the economy, diplomacy, culture, which characterize the policy of the state in a particular area. “The policy of the state is applicable to a large number of areas of the social life of society, because it affects all areas of human activity.” Muradova L.A. Semantic and functional characteristics of the socio-political vocabulary of the modern French language. - M.: Enlightenment, 1986. - S. 61.

However, at the same time, politics is a field of activity that is associated with relations between classes, nations, social groups. Its core is the problem of conquest, retention and use of state power, participation in the affairs of the state. It can be noted that the core of the RPL is a very complex phenomenon, and the boundaries of the RPL are conditional, since language is a living, moving matter. It is the OPL that reacts quickly to the changes taking place in the world. When translating it, not only traditional grammar is used, but also a large number of clichés.

There are 4 zones in the PPL: Zhdanova L.A. Socio-political lexicon: Structure and dynamics: dissertation of a candidate of philological sciences: 10.02.01. - Moscow, 1996. - 224 p.

• 1 zone - actually OPL (OPL in the narrow sense). Actually OPL is a political lexicon. This group includes direct nominations of persons, places, phenomena, structures that shape the political life of society.
• 2 zone - ideological vocabulary. The expression of a power relationship is associated with an evaluative meaning and a pragmatic component of the meaning, designated as "engagement", reflecting the word's attachment to a particular historical era. Ideological vocabulary is a marker of the political position of the speaker and the ideological orientation of the text.
• 3 zone - thematic vocabulary. First of all, this vocabulary denotes the spheres and forms of manifestation of public life (army, economy, administrative sphere, foreign policy, etc.)
• 4 zone - improperly OPL (the so-called "peripheral" OPL). Such vocabulary describes power relations in general, regardless of the sphere of implementation, or a specific (but not state-political) sphere of the implementation of power relations. Traditionally, this vocabulary is not included in the OPL. But the semantics and systematic correlation of the non-proper GPL with socio-political life, including metaphorical transfers, branched relationships between all words denoting a power relationship, are the basis for considering this vocabulary within the framework of the GPL.

It should be noted that the term "socio-political vocabulary" (SPL) is used by domestic linguistics to refer to a set of lexical units that name the concepts and realities of socio-political life and are widely used in the media. Foreign science, in turn, operates with a different terminological apparatus:

«social life, political life, political discourse, political discourse analysis, political dictionary, language of politics, political language, political cognition, political communication, political opinion classification, political economy words, political quotations, political slang, dictionary of social sciences, political terms, social issues dictionary, social science terminology" .

but never socio-political life or socio-political words/lexis. In the West, there is a tendency to distinguish between the political and social spheres, so options are possible social and political life/language/vocabulary/lexis(cf. public life - public life - is understood in English in a different context). According to the definition in many English-language dictionaries, socio-political is understood as “related to, connected with or implying a combination of both social and political factors” URL: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/sociopolitical (Accessed: 04/28/2013) .

As a manuscript Sokolova Marina Anatolyevna POLYSEMINATION IN ENGLISH POLITICAL TERMINOLOGY (on the example of the consubstantial term power) Specialty 10.02.04 – Germanic languages ​​ABSTRACT of the thesis for the degree of candidate of philological sciences Moscow – 2016 The work was done at the Moscow Pedagogical State University at the department Phonetics and Vocabulary of the English Language of the Institute of Foreign Languages ​​Supervisor Doctor of Philology, Professor Nikulina Elena Alexandrovna Official Opponents Sorokina Elvira Anatolyevna, Doctor of Philology, Professor, Moscow State Regional University, Professor of the Department Saveliev Sergey Vladimirovich, Candidate of Philology, Associate Professor, State Educational Institution of Higher Education "State Socio-Humanitarian University" (Kolomna), Associate Professor of the Department and dissertation council D 212.154.16 on the basis of the Moscow Pedagogical State University at the address: 119571, Moscow, Vernadsky Ave., 88, room. 602. The thesis can be found in the library of the Moscow Pedagogical State University at the address: 119991, Moscow, st. Malaya Pirogovskaya, 1, building 1 and on the official website of the university at http://mpgu.rf/ The abstract was sent on "____" ____________ 2016. Scientific Secretary of the Dissertation Council Seyranyan Margarita Yurievna General characteristics of the work The work under review is a study in the field of terminology related to the study of the problem of polysemy in terminology. The relevance of this work is explained by the fact that, despite a significant number of works in Russian linguistic science on terminology (L.M. Alekseeva, S.V. Grinev-Grinevich, E.A. Kakzanova, T.L. Kandelaki, V.M. Leichik, L.A. Manerko, E.A. Nikulina, Yu.V. N. F. Alefirenko, Y. D. Apresyan, E. G. Belyaevskaya, I. M. Kobozeva, E. S. Kubryakova, Y. A. Levitsky, A. A. Ufimtseva, etc.), the problem of polysemy in terminology studied insufficiently: at the moment there is only one dissertation research on this topic (“Polysemy in terminology” by M.V. Zimova, 2011), performed on the material of the Russian language. Traditionally, terminological ambiguity meant exclusively the polysemy of a term; only in the 1970s. cases of naming several concepts by one lexical unit began to qualify as homonymous terms [Grinev-Grinevich 2008: 96–97]. Within the framework of the functional approach adopted in modern terminology, term homonymy is understood as interdisciplinary (or interdisciplinary) homonymy - the use of the same lexical units expressing different concepts as terms of different (even close) areas of knowledge. As for the ambiguity of a term within the same terminological system or terminology, here, according to most researchers, the polysemy of the term is presented, in relation to which scientists indicate that categorical ambiguity (polysemy) is the most frequent in the terminology. An equally important issue that terminology deals with is the coincidence of the form of the term and the commonly used word. In Russian science, the problem of semantic relations of words of the general literary language and terms coinciding with them in form is presented in the works of L. L. Kutina (1964); V. P. Danilenko (1977); V. N. Prokhorova (1983); B. N. Golovina, R. Yu. Kobrin (1987); T. B. Kryuchkova (1989); S. V. Grineva (1986, 1993); E.A. Nikulina (2005); I.Yu. Berezhanskaya (2005); E. A. Sorokina (2014) and others. Words used both in the function of a term and in the function of a non-term (words of the general literary language), and ascending to the same semantic source, present a certain difficulty for the researcher in determining their place in the system of the language and their functions. In the scientific literature, such language units are called consubstantial words and terms. The term "consubstantial", which can be translated into Russian as "coexisting", was first proposed by S.V. Grinev in 1993 [Berezhanskaya 2005: 8]. The reasons for the appearance of consubstantial words and terms are explained in modern terminology as a process of terminology of words of a general literary language, or as a process of determination of units with a special meaning. At the same time, lexical units that are identical in form and belong simultaneously to the language for special purposes and the common language received the status of semantic homonyms, where it is the word of ordinary speech that is polysemantic, and not the term. The object of study in this paper is the polysemantic unit power, which simultaneously has terminological and commonly used meanings and is widely used in media texts devoted to political events. The subject of the study is the phenomenon of terminological ambiguity in modern English. The material of the study was the dictionary data of explanatory English-English dictionaries of six leading publishers in the UK and the USA both in print and online versions (Cambridge, Collins, Longman, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, Oxford), etymological dictionaries (A MiddleEnglish Dictionary by Francis Henry Stratmann, 1951; A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 1909; The Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, 1988; The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology, 1966; The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, 1956; The Oxford English Dictionary, 1989) dictionaries (Dictionary of Government and Politics, 2001 and 2004; Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics, 2003; The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought, 2007; The Routledge Dictionary of Politics, 2004) and translation dictionaries (English-Russian Dictionary of Politics, 2005 and English-Russian Dictionary of Mass Media, 2006). As a source of material for the analysis of the contextual use of the word under study, this paper uses printed political media texts published in The Economist, Newsweek and Time magazines, related to the authoritative quality English-language press and randomly selected by continuous sampling for the period 2008-2014. The total number of cases of using power in media texts was 669 contexts. The aim of the study is to identify and describe cases of ambiguity of the political term power when it is used in a political media text. To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set: 1) to present the data of the lexicographic description of the polysemantic word power in modern explanatory and branch dictionaries; 2) identify lexico-semantic variants (LSV) of the word under study; 3) establish and describe the grammatical and lexical-semantic features of power when used in certain meanings; 4) determine the terminological meanings of the word under study, fixed in dictionaries as belonging to the language of political communication; 5) to explore the features of the functioning of power when used in the meanings of the identified LSV in the political media text; 6) establish the existence of a successive relationship between the identified LSV and the mechanisms of their emergence and further development; 7) check such a requirement for the meaning of the term as unambiguity, which in modern terminology is considered as the contextual independence of the term; 8) describe the systemic connections of the consubstantial term power (synonymy, polysemy, homonymy). When working on this dissertation research, within the framework of a functional approach to language, a set of methods of linguistic analysis was used, the theoretical basis for which were the works of I.V. Arnold, Z.D. Popova and I.A. Sternina, O.N. Seliverstova: hypothetical-deductive method, distributive-statistical analysis, component analysis, contextual analysis, method of dictionary definitions, method of etymological analysis and, as an experimental technique for separating semantic components, a directed associative experiment was performed. The theoretical basis of the study is formed by the key provisions of terminology, which define the term as a word of a natural language, acting in a special function, and thus preserving such a property of a linguistic sign as polysemy. The paper uses the works of leading domestic terminologists who laid the foundation for the study of terminological polysemy, the theory of term polysemy and homonymy, the theory of consubstantial terms, as well as the principles of stratification of special vocabulary (N.B. Gvishiani, E.I. Golovanova, B.N. Golovin, S. V. Grinev-Grinevich, V. P. Danilenko, R. Yu. Kobrin, V. M. Leychik, L. A. Manerko, E. A. Nikulina, Y. V. Slozhenikina, A. V. Superanskaya, N V. Podolskaya, N.V. Vasilyeva, A.D. Khayutin, S.D. Shelov, etc.). Provisions of lexicography (O.M. Karpova, L.P. Stupin), lexicology and semantics (N.F. Alefirenko, Yu.D. Apresyan, V.D. Arakin, I.V. Arnold, O.S. Akhmanova, E. G. Belyaevskaya, M. Ya. Bloch, B. N. Golovin, R. Yu. Kobrin, I. M. Kobozeva, M. A. Krongauz, L. A. Malakhovskiy, E. M. Mednikova, E. V. Paducheva, A. A. Reformatsky, Yu. Shaikevich and others) contributed to the establishment of the mechanisms of semantic term formation and the distinction between the phenomena of homonymy and polysemy. The provisions of media linguistics (T. van Dijk, T. G. Dobrosklonskaya, G. Ya. Solganik, V. A. Tyrygina) and political linguistics (E. V. Budaev, A. Burkhard, V. Klemperer, T. B. Kryuchkova, G. Lasswell, J. Orwell, P. B. Parshin, A. P. Chudinov, E. I. Sheigal) to determine the functions and place of consubstantial terms and words in the lexical system of the language of political communication. The scientific novelty of the dissertation research lies in the fact that it proposes a distinction between consubstantial terms and words; the principle of stratification of the lexical composition of the language of politics was supplemented by determining the place of consubstantial terms and words in it; on the example of the political term power, a complex methodology for the study of polysemantic consubstantial terms is proposed; the presence of intra-branch homonymy of the term in the language of political communication was established. The theoretical significance of the work is determined by the fact that it is carried out at the intersection of lexicology proper, terminology, media and political linguistics. The results and conclusions obtained can contribute to the solution of some topical problems of theoretical terminology, in particular, the problem of consubstantial terms and the problem of terminological ambiguity, as well as supplement the theory of applied lexicography. The practical significance of the work lies in the fact that the results of the study can be used in the practice of teaching English, contributing to the formation of students' communicative competence in lexicology courses, in special courses on terminology and media linguistics. 1 2 3 4 common, non-special, meanings, and to a professional sublanguage - or language for special purposes (LSP), Language for Specific Purposes (LSP) - in their terminological meanings; Consistent terms and consubstantial words are to be distinguished due to the difference in the mechanisms of their formation: consubstantial terms are formed as a result of the terminology of words of the general literary language, while consubstantial words are formed as a result of the determinologization of terms; The studied linguistic unit power is precisely a consubstantial term, since it acquires its terminological meanings due to semantic shifts in its non-special meanings; In the political media text, due to the “openness” of the political terminological system, not only polysemantic terms function (as stated in the framework of the functional approach established in the terminology), but also homonymous terminological units, including interdisciplinary homonyms. Approbation of work. The main provisions of the dissertation were discussed at meetings of the Department of Phonetics and English Vocabulary of the Moscow State Pedagogical University, were presented in reports at the annual scientific readings of the Moscow State Pedagogical University following the results of research work in 2008 and 2011, the X scientific conference "Culture as a Text" at the Smolensk University for the Humanities in 2010 , The 18th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes (LSP) at the Perm State Pedagogical University in 2011. On the topic of the dissertation research, 9 papers were published, including 4 articles in publications recommended by the Higher Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation. The structure of the dissertation: the work consists of an introduction, two chapters with conclusions after them, a conclusion, a bibliography and an appendix. THE MAIN CONTENT OF THE THEsis The introduction substantiates the choice of the topic, the relevance and scientific novelty of the study, formulates its purpose and objectives, defines the research methods, indicates the theoretical and practical significance of the work, sets out the main provisions submitted for defense. Chapter 1 "Theoretical foundations of the study of terminology in political media discourse" provides an overview of research papers on terminology, semantics, media and political linguistics; it outlines the main theoretical provisions and approaches that determined the logic of the research, and also defines the dissertation metalanguage, basic linguistic concepts, terms and methods. The belonging of the term to a special vocabulary is a secondary feature, because the term, first of all, refers to the general literary language, which often leads to difficulties in determining the relationship between the term and the word - non-term (the term is borrowed from the works of S.V. Grinev-Grinevich, 2008 and S.D. Shelov, 2003). Since the same lexical unit can exist in the language as a term and as a non-term: nose (of a person) - nose (of a ship), niche (in a wall) - niche (ecological), etc. [Leichik 2007: 29], we can talk about the polysemy of the word of the general literary language, where some of the meanings will be naive, non-special, and some will be terminological, special. According to S. D. Shelov (2003), a polysemantic word only coincides in form and in its grammatical characteristics with the term, and it is precisely the fact that the special meaning of the term is its concept, which it names, “makes more obvious the fact of semantic transformations term when it goes beyond the special sphere of use, beyond the "own world" - when the science or field of knowledge is popularized, when the term enters the common language as a word or phrase, with various types of "artistic comprehension" of the term, etc." [Shelov 2003: 24]. In Russian science, the problem of semantic relations of words of the general literary language and terms coinciding with them in form is presented in the works of L. L. Kutina (1964); V. P. Danilenko (1977); V. N. 7 Prokhorova (1983); B. N. Golovina, R. Yu. Kobrin (1987); T. B. Kryuchkova (1989); S. V. Grineva (1986, 1993); AND. Y. Berezhanskaya (2005); E.A. Sorokina (2014) and others. In 1993, S.V. Grinev proposed the term “consubstantial” to designate lexical units that are found both in everyday and professional speech, and which cause a number of difficulties in isolating terminological vocabulary from the vocabulary of the language (as I.Yu. Berezhanskaya notes, in the English-language scientific literature this term or its equivalent has not been found [Berezhanskaya 2005: 8]). The term "consubstantial", formed from the Latin word substantia - essence, matter, and the Latin prefix con - with, together [Berezhanskaya 2005: 14 - 15], can be translated as "coexisting", thus, its use for words that function as in everyday life , and in the professional sphere, is justified in connection with their dual nature. An example of consubstantial lexical units in English can be: fault (general error, miss - geol. shift or rock defect), mood (common mood - musical mode), noise (general common noise - technical interference), plane ( common aircraft - air carrier surface), rule (general norm, rule - legal authority, dominance), subject (general common subject, topic of conversation - lingu. grammatical subject), voice (general common voice - legal voice) and others. Regarding the emergence of consubstantial terms in the language in modern terminology, there are two opposing opinions: some researchers (M. Wartofsky, N.F. Yakovlev, O.A. Zyablova) believe that such words appear due to the determination of terms, others (V. P. Danilenko) - the transition of everyday vocabulary into the category of professional [Berezhanskaya 2005: 7 - 8, 17; Grinev-Grinevich 2008: 25]. There is also no consensus on the issue of naming lexical units with a consubstantial nature. For example, I.Yu. Berezhanskaya defines "lexemes (most often monosyllabic) that came from the general literary language into professional speech and acquired a specialized (professional) meaning, or came from the language for special purposes in the process of determinologization" as consubstantial terms [Berezhanskaya 2005: 19–20]. V.M. Leichik, in turn, designates such lexemes as consubstantial words (emphasis in italics hereinafter is ours - M.S.), also indicating that they retain the functions of terms and commonly used words [Leichik 2009b: 42], in the joint work of S.D. Shelov and V.M. Leichik (2012), these units are already called “consubstantial words and expressions”, which are defined as “multiple-valued words and phrases, at least one of the meanings of which is commonly used and at least one other meaning is terminological”. However, in none of the works of domestic terminologists (S.V. Grinev-Grinevich, I.Yu. Berezhanskaya, V.M. Leichik, S.D. Shelov, etc.) we reviewed, there is a distinction or opposition of consubstantial lexical units formed in the result of various language processes and performing various functions. As a result, the use of the designation "consubstantial term" in relation to lexical units formed as a result of the terminology of commonly used words, as well as to units that have undergone determinologization, seems to us incorrect. Thus, due to the lack of orderliness of terminology on the issue under study, in the reviewed study it seems necessary to distinguish words that are consubstantial in nature according to the areas of their use and designate lexical units belonging to a particular language for special purposes and resulting from the terminology of commonly used vocabulary as consubstantial terms, and words in their everyday, common sense and resulting from the determination of special vocabulary - as consubstantial words. Thus, a term and a non-term (a word of a general literary language) coincide in their form, but differ in their functions, and relate to each other as semantic homonyms - genetically related homonyms that arose as a result of the collapse of polysemy. Both processes - terminology and determinology - are continuous, natural for all languages ​​and indicate that the boundary between terminological and commonly used vocabulary is unstable and has a functional character. Thus, the term and non-term coincide in their form, but differ in their functions. In addition to the problem of the coincidence of the form of a term and a non-term, the tasks of theoretical terminology include the study of the use of one term in several areas of knowledge - terminological ambiguity, since “naming several concepts with one lexical form<…> found in almost all areas of knowledge” [Grinev-Grinevich 2008: 96]. In connection with the frequent criticism put forward by D.S. Lotte to the term uniqueness requirements, for example, [Grinev-Grinevich 2008: 31, 96 – 102; Leichik 2007: 45; Superanskaya et al. 2012: 42 – 45; Shelov 2003: 22], in modern linguistics, the theory of term polysemy or terminological polysemy is becoming increasingly popular, which at different times was addressed by such researchers as K. Ya. Averbukh, T. L. Borisova, V. V. Gorodilov, V. P. Danilenko, Ya. L. Donskoy, V. M. Leychik, A. V. Superanskaya, E. N. Trifonova, A. G. Khodakova, V. N. Shevchuk, O. V. Shestak, M. S. Shumailova and others. As S.V. Grinev-Grinevich (2008), the cases of naming several concepts by one lexical unit were traditionally considered as polysemy (polysemy) of the term, only in the 1970s. such cases began to qualify as homonymous terms. However, in Russian linguistics there is no unequivocal opinion about the phenomenon under study, because some researchers (Yu.D. Apresyan, E.V. Paducheva, S.N. Chistyukhina and others) believe that the use of the same lexical unit in different 9 areas of knowledge is a polysemy, others (B.N. Golovin , R. Yu. Kobrin, T. V. Ryzhenkova, Yu. V. Slozhenikina, etc.) - homonymy. The first point of view is based on the presence of a semantic connection in the words used in different terminologies of the same form, which allows us to speak of polysemy or polysemy of the term. There are radial polysemy (radiation, another term is irradiation), when new meanings of a word develop on the basis of the same initial meaning, and chain (catenation or concatenation), when meanings sequentially develop one from the other. The most common type of polysemy, however, is mixed, radial-chain, when both processes are combined during the development of new meanings. S.N. Chistyukhin, following Yu.D. Apresyan (2009), insists on recognizing words as polysemantic in the presence of common components of meaning and calls them “branch polysemantics” [Chistyukhina 2011a: 82]. This assumption is based on the phenomenon of chain polysemy, when the distant meanings of a word may not reveal common meanings that need to be identified by studying the etymology of the units under study. According to the scientist, branch polysemantics are terms used in different specialized branches of knowledge, but united by the presence of a direct or indirect connection between the meanings, as a result of the integration of various fields of science, expressed in borrowing the terms of one science into another. This leads to the development of the term, as well as other lexical units of the language, polysemy against the background of the law of economy of the linguistic sign, resulting in a significant number of both highly specialized and widely used polysemic terms. M.V. Zimovaya (2010, 2011), developing the opinion of Yu.D. Apresyan, distinguishes between the concepts of speech and linguistic (regular) polysemy, when the first is determined by the context of the use of the lexeme, and the second is context-independent, and suggests that due to the specifics of the terminology within the framework of this layer of vocabulary, very special varieties of polysemy can be distinguished, first of all - interdisciplinary ambiguity, when terms develop highly specialized meanings as a result of the conditionality of the field of knowledge in which they are included. It is this phenomenon that is described as homonymy or polysemy of the term [Zimovaya 2010: 124–125]. The review of the theoretical material showed that, despite the significant amount of information on the issue under study, in the linguistic literature and, in particular, in the works on terminology, there is no consensus on what to consider as polysemy of the term. Some scientists share these concepts. For example, A.A. Filippova believes that “if the meanings of a term are presented within the framework of one dictionary entry, then we are talking about the polysemy of the term. If the meanings of the term are revealed in the discourse and are not fixed within the framework of one dictionary entry, then we can only talk about the ambiguity of the term” [cit. according to: Chistyukhina 2011a: 81]. In this case, obviously, by polysemy, the scientist understands contextual variance (Yu.V. Slozhenikina, 2010), contextual (semantic) variation of the term (E.G. Belyaevskaya, 1987) or speech polysemy (I.M. Kobozeva, 2012 - following for Yu.D. Apresyan). Other researchers (for example, S.V. Grinev-Grinevich, V.M. Leichik, S.D. Shelov, etc.) a priori use the terms polysemy and polysemy interchangeably, without giving definitions or explanations, and focus on the unambiguity of the term as one one of the main properties of its normativity. This often leads to a contradiction, when, having defined the terms belonging to different term systems as semantic homonyms (hereinafter, the emphasis is ours - M.S.), terminologists designate these terms as cases of ambiguity: “Indeed, a common case of ambiguity is the use of one and the same term in related fields of knowledge with slightly different meanings<…> » [Leichik 2007: 45]; or: “Polysemy, in particular, polysemy, is a phenomenon characteristic and natural for terminology” [Zimovaya 2011: 9–10]. It can be seen from these examples that scientists use the term "polysemy" in its broadest sense, meaning polysemy and homonymy as opposed to unambiguity. As F.A. Litvin [cit. according to: Belyaevskaya 1987: 82], “one can talk about the polysemy of a word regardless of the distinction between polysemy and homonymy.” In linguistics, there are several examples of the use of terms similar to the term "polysemy" in this sense: equivalence [Reformatsky 2006: 80], ambiguity [Malakhovsky 2009: 43], semantic variance of the term [Slozhenikina 2010: 168], semantic variability of the term [Shelov 2014: 7 ]. In the reviewed work, the term polysemy is also used in its broad sense to name the polysemy and homonymy of the term as opposed to its unambiguity. In contrast to the theory of term polysemy, many scientists (for example, B.N. Golovin, R.Yu. Kobrin, 1987; A.V. Superanskaya, N.V. Podolskaya, N.V. Vasilyeva, 2012) develop the ideas of A.A. Reformed. They define the same words, which are terms of different (even close) areas of knowledge and express different concepts (for example, operation - in surgery and military terminology, reaction - in chemistry and politics) as interdisciplinary homonymy. As for the ambiguity of a term within the same terminological system or terminology, here, according to most researchers, the polysemy of the term is presented, in relation to which scientists indicate that categorical ambiguity (polysemy) is the most frequent in terminology - the use of one lexical form to designate an operation and its result - cladding (construction and operation), waterproofing - (work and construction); processes and phenomena – collapse and karst in geology [Grinev-Grinevich 2008: 31; Superanskaya et al. 2012: 45]. However, in some cases, we can talk about the use within the same terminological system or terminology of homonym terms, formed either as a result of the terminology of their semantic homonyms - polysemantic commonly used words, or as a result of the collapse of polysemy - a very long process, as a result of which semantically related once each other on the other hand, the meanings lose this connection with the original word and become the meanings of different homonymous words. One of the most difficult issues of modern linguistics (in particular, lexicography and terminography) is the problem of distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy due to the lack of clear criteria and established tools in modern linguistics. The difference between these phenomena often comes down to establishing the presence or absence of a sufficient degree of similarity between meanings or lexico-semantic variants - hereinafter referred to as LSV (a term introduced by A.S. Smirnitsky to denote the smallest two-sided unit, “the formal side of which is the sound form of the word, and the content side is one of the meanings of the given word” [quoted from: Belyaevskaya 1987: 64]). The fundamental concept for this work in this matter was the theory of lexical and grammatical homonymy developed by L.V. Malakhovskiy (2009), and applicable to the study of terms. According to the scientist, despite the fact that the lexico-semantic variants of a polysemantic word can differ from each other in word-formation paradigms, synonymic series, etc., they are still interconnected and form a single system. L.V. Malakhovskiy, as well as [Ufimtseva 2010b: 7–10] and [Mednikova 2010: 58], insists that in order to distinguish between homonymy and polysemy, it is also necessary to take into account the grammatical meanings of the word. To establish the homonymy of the compared units, it is necessary to take into account, first of all, the relationship between general lexical grammatical features (for example, a feature of a part of speech or a feature of grammatical gender in nouns). The scientist identifies the following four main features of homonymy: two in terms of expression (identity of sound and identity of spelling) and two in terms of content (difference in lexical and difference in grammatical meanings). At the same time, L.V. Malakhovskiy considers the identity of words to be sufficient in at least one of the signs of expression and differences in one of the signs of content. All previously proposed criteria for distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy based on formal features (features of the paradigm, inclusion in different synonymous series, differences in word-formation series, etc.) are indicated as untenable not only by L.V. Malakhovskii, but also by some other researchers, in particular N.A. Kuzmenko (1980a) and Yu.V. Slozhenikina (2010). Thus, in order to achieve the most objective results of the study of the ambiguous word power, which belongs, in particular, to political terminology, a set of linguistic methods served, the theoretical basis for which were the works of I.V. Arnold (2014), V.P. Danilenko (2015), Z.D. Popova and I.A. Sternina (2011), O.N. Seliverstova (2004b, 2004c). The main method for the semantic analysis of the word power under study is the hypothetical-deductive method, first proposed for conscious and consistent application in linguistics in 1931. L.V. Shcherboy. The essence of this method is to collect actual language material, build a hypothesis and test its validity on new facts. To analyze the semantic structure of the word, the method of dictionary definitions and component analysis were used. In the reviewed work, within the framework of component analysis, to determine the grammatical meanings of power when it is used in the established LSV, the following terms are used: - semes - elementary semantic features (a universal term for describing elements of the lexical meaning of a word), organized hierarchically and located in hyper-hyponymic relationships: - integral seme (the same as archiseme or hyperseme) is a generic seme, characteristic of all units of a certain class, which reflects their common categorical features in contrast to units of other classes; differential semes - hyposemes, specific semes, concretizing the integral seme and realizing the categorical seme; - categorical semes - general lexical features characteristic of the entire lexeme as a whole, all its meanings and word forms; - lexico-grammatical semes (in the terminology of A.A. Ufimtseva - semantic categories), acting in the form of opposite pairs of features "concrete / abstract", "animateness / inanimateness", "person / non-person" (in the terminology of V.D. Arakin, the sign "activity / passivity"), "countable / uncountable". The terms "semes" and "features" are used interchangeably. A directed associative experiment was used as an experimental technique for highlighting semantic components. To identify the syntagmatic links of the unit under study, distributive-statistical analysis and contextual analysis were used. All of these methods are used in the reviewed work within the framework of the functional approach to the language. To supplement and specify the functional approach, the method of etymological analysis was also used. Chapter 2 "Development of the meanings of the consubstantial term power and their lexicographic description" is devoted to the lexicographic representation of the polysemantic word power in dictionaries of general and special vocabulary; it establishes its syntagmatic (features of compatibility) and derivational relations when used in one meaning or another; terminological and commonly used meanings 13 power are revealed; its consubstantial nature is determined. In addition, the results of the analysis of the functioning of the consubstantial term power in the political media discourse are given and described; explores the etymology of power, the mechanisms of origin and development of its meanings; the results of the conducted linguistic experiment are given and the systemic connections of the studied word are specified in relation to homonymy and polysemy when using power in a political media text. The choice of the word power to study the phenomenon of ambiguity in political terminology is not accidental: due to the functional specifics of political communication - the struggle for power, the retention of power and the manipulation of public consciousness to achieve these goals - power (power) is a key concept for the discourse under study. Socio-political vocabulary, which includes power, forms a hyperlayer of the language of political communication, is general, non-terminological, and is formed by the intersection of common vocabulary with private terminologies (diplomatic terms; legal terms; terms of international law; military vocabulary, etc.) due to "openness » political terminological system, and thus has a consubstantial nature. In addition, power is a commonly used ambiguous word: the British National Corpus ([website]. URL: http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/] records 31,608 instances of power in sources from the second half of the 20th century, and The Historical Thesaurus of English ([website]. URL: http://historicalthesaurus.arts.gla.ac.uk/categoryselection/?word=power&pos=n&label=&category=&startf=&endf=&startl=&endl=]) offers 46 options use of the noun power, including its obsolete, dialectal and terminological meanings, as well as speech variants of use.A significant part of the reviewed work is devoted to the lexicographic representation and etymological analysis of the polysemantic word power in connection with the need to streamline the information being processed and solve the problems posed in this study, since the work with dictionaries is one of the key tools for learning vocabulary. In addition to highlighting its meanings, it pursues two goals: first, to confirm the consubstantial nature of power, i.e. the possibility of functioning both in everyday and professional speech, and secondly, to determine the grammatical and syntactic features of the word under study when used in terminological and non-terminological meanings; the identified features can contribute to the understanding and recognition of the contextual independence of the term - a phenomenon that is understood as the unambiguity of the term [Slozhenikina 2013: 6]. For the lexicographic analysis of the studied lexeme power, six popular English-English explanatory dictionaries were used - Cambridge, Collins, Longman, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster, Oxford - both in paper and online versions. The selection of dictionaries took place in accordance with the requirements for comparative analysis: all six dictionaries of the same type (monolingual explanatory for general purposes), from a single group (educational), compiled in a similar lexicographic form (explanatory) [Karpova 2010: 25]. Preference was given to online versions, because, first of all, this is due to the convenience of searching and processing information: an online dictionary is a unique source that provides access to a whole system of dictionaries of a particular publisher. As a result of a comparative analysis of the six explanatory dictionaries mentioned above, the word power under study revealed: - 14 meanings that are not accompanied in the dictionaries of general vocabulary by the label "terminological meaning" (control; government; influence; right / authority (including a prerogative<…>, legal authority to act<…> and the document conferring such authority); person with control; country; military force, potential; ability; strength; energy; electricity); - 1 value marked archaic - group of armed men; - 1 labeled dialect. - large amount and - 9 special values ​​from 6 areas of scientific knowledge (Maths. 1. the number of times that a number is to be multiplied by, 2. another name for exponent, 3. cardinal number; Medicine an inherent property or effect; Optics 1. the amount by which an image is increased by a device used for seeing things that are very small or a long distance away, 2. another word for magnification; unit time. It is measured in watts, horsepower, etc; Sports ability to get extra-base hits; Statistics the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis in a test when it is false). However, due to the specifics of these dictionaries as educational ones, we considered it insufficient to rely only on them to identify all the meanings of the word power under study. First of all, dictionaries differ in the approach to presenting the values ​​of the unit under study: systemic/non-systemic (in four dictionaries - Collins, Macmillan, Merriam-Webster and Oxford - an attempt was made to systematize the identified values, when the dictionary entry is not just a numbered list of lexico-semantic variants (as in Cambridge and Longman), but an organized system of meanings related to each other), through definition / through synonyms (in five of the six dictionaries, the meanings of power are defined through its synonyms (Cambridge and Longman dictionaries) or through synonyms and common meaning components ( Macmillan, Merriam-Webster and Oxford) followed by illustration, while not all values ​​are accompanied by a definition or interpretation; the only dictionary in which there is no reliance on synonyms, and power values ​​are presented in the form of definitions and interpretations, is the Collins Dictionary). Second, dictionaries vary in the number of recorded values, from six items in the Macmillan dictionary to twenty-two in Collins and Longman. In addition, there is no general principle for distinguishing power values, which can be seen in the example of the value A document, or clause in a document, giving legal 15 authority, which is distinguished only by the Collins dictionary, or the values ​​A person who possesses or exercises authority and A state or nation from the point of its international authority, which are either not fixed by dictionaries at all (in the first case by Longman and Macmillan dictionaries, and in the second by Merriam-Webster), or both meanings are included in one definition (Cambridge). On the other hand, the meanings of Dominion, rule, authority and Political ascendancy or influence are delimited in five out of six dictionaries, and only in Oxford they are combined into one item: 2. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events: a political process that offers people power over their own lives she had me in her power 2.1. political or social authority or control, especially that exercised by a government: the party had been in power for eight years 2.2. authority that is given or delegated to a person or body: police do not have the power to stop and search (Oxford Dictionaries: [website]. URL: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/power?q=power) . The lexicographic analysis of the selected modern meanings of the noun power in the dictionaries of general vocabulary also made it possible to reveal some features of the studied word at the grammatical and syntactic levels when it is used in one meaning or another. So, power, depending on its meaning, can be countable or uncountable, form or not form derivatives and be used as part of different phrases. These features are presented in the following summary table of syntactic, grammatical and derivational relationships power: 1.A particular faculty<…>certain<…>2.A state or nation ability<…>– state – C/U C Unit/Mn. number S/Pl S Derivatives - - Stable combinations adj. + powers power(s) + to V in one‟s power power(s) of adj. + power 3.Ability to act or affect<…>; physical or U mental strength; might;<…>- strength, power,<…>powerful to power to overpower power + of 4.Ability to do or affect<…>, or to act U upon sb. or sth. - the ability to influence, influence c.-l. or h.-l. 5.1.Anyformofenergyorforce<…>– U<…>power, energy, power powerful powerless the (adj.) power of +N transitive verb 5.2.Electricity power + noun adj. +power N + of + power under power V + power adjective (or Noun in power + N constructs N + N) U power + to V bargaining/earning/purchasing power 6.Authority given or committed;<…>liberty or permission to act - right S / Pl 7. Legal ability,<…>; spec. legal authority C/U vested in a person<…>– right, authority 8.Document, or clause in a document, C/U<…>– power of attorney to empower power + to V V + power(s) power of noun in/ within/ beyond one‟s power - power of attorney 9.<…>; an influential or ruling person, C body or thing - someone in power,<…>- (adj.) power adv.mod.of place 10.Political ascendancy or influence in the U government of a country or state - political power, strength 11.Political or national strength - U political or state power 12.Possession of control or command over U others;<…>- power over someone or something - be in power - air/ sea/ military power S powerful powerless 13.Used<…>to designate a movement U<…> – <…> , to characterize watered. or social movement - + V + power power + of power + over power + N soft/ hard power consumer/ black/ gay/ student etc. power The lexicographic representation of the word under study, and in particular, the study of its features at the grammatical and syntactic levels when used in one meaning or another, allow us to conclude that general vocabulary dictionaries often provide excessive splitting of meanings. In this case, the use case is presented as an independent value, for example, values ​​5.2. and 6: According to the results of lexicographic analysis of the word power when used in the meaning of 5. Any form of energy or force available for application to work - purposeful force, energy, power - two meanings can be conditionally distinguished 5.1. energy and 5.2. electricity. This distinction was made in all the analyzed dictionaries of general vocabulary based on the fact that in the meaning of 5.1. power is: 1) an uncountable noun that is used in the following set expressions: nuclear/wind/solar etc. power sources of power motive power under power (=without help from another machine, ship etc): The ship was only slightly damaged in the collision and was able to sail into port under its own power (Cambridge Dictionaries Online: [website]. URL : http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/power); 2) forms a transitive verb to power: to power a vehicle 17 a nuclear-powered submarine to power something up/down (switch a device on or off); 3) can act as a definition in N+N constructions: power cables. When used in the meaning of 5.2. electricity, however, power has other stable combinations: 1) as an uncountable noun: power cut/failure/outage to switch off the power to lose power 2) as an adjective (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary: operated mechanically or electrically rather than manually (Merriam-Webster Dictionaries Online: [website]. URL: http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/power?show=0&t=1414751174), while in other dictionaries the word under study is described as a noun used in the N+N construction, not as an adjective): power locks power tools. Nevertheless, we note that, most likely, the dictionaries recorded the use of power within the same meaning, which can be confirmed by the example of the phrase power cables, where power is defined by the Oxford dictionary (Oxford Dictionaries: [website]. URL: http://oxforddictionaries .com/definition/english/power?q=power) as 'energy' and Cambridge Dictionaries as 'electricity' (Cambridge Dictionaries Online: [website]. URL: http://www.dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/power). Values ​​6. Authority given or committed; hence, sometimes, liberty or permission to act - right - and 7. Legal ability, capacity, or authority to act; esp. delegated authority; authorization, commitment, faculty; spec. legal authority vested in a person or persons in a particular capacity - right, authority - in addition to OED (1989) are delimited by only one educational dictionary - Collins - (they are not accompanied by examples): 7. a prerogative, privilege, or liberty 8 .a. legal authority to act, esp. in a specified capacity, for another (Collins English Dictionary: [website]. URL: http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/power?showCookiePolicy=true) , in the other dictionaries considered, they are either combined into a single common value Right/Authority (Cambridge, Longman, Merriam-Webster) or the Authority value alone (Macmillan, Oxford). Based on the analysis, it seems possible to draw the following conclusion: the value is 7. Legal ability, capacity, or authority to act; esp. delegated authority; authorization, commitment, faculty; spec. legal authority vested in a person or persons in a particular capacity is a more detailed and extended version of 6. Authority given or committed; hence, sometimes, liberty or permission to act, which is illustrated only by the OED: Crist gave to Peter playn powere. However, an example dating back to 1340 only allows us to conclude that in this sense, power is an uncountable noun and can be combined with an adjective. Thus, due to the insufficiency of the material presented in the six analyzed dictionaries, the Great Oxford Dictionary (1989) – Oxford English Dictionary (hereinafter OED) was used for further research, whose “characteristic feature is a wide coverage of language material,<…> which has no equal in any English-language explanatory dictionary of the national language" [Karpova 2010: 50]. A detailed examination of the dictionary entry power showed that OED lexicographers recorded the maximum possible number of meanings of the studied vocable, including its dialectal, obsolete, terminological and other meanings. The total number of items that take into account both individual meanings and variants of the speech use of the noun power is 32. However, dialectal, obsolete and theological meanings of power were not included in further analysis, since they are not relevant for this work. Thus, only 13 meanings of power are subjected to research (besides those designated as terminological), which have correspondences with those previously identified and are not accompanied by the label “terminological meaning” (numbering and translation are ours. - M.S.): 1. A particular faculty of body or mind - a certain physical or mental ability; 2. A state or nation regarded from the point of view of its international authority or influence - power; 3. Ability to act or affect something strongly; physical or mental strength; might; vigour, energy; force or character; telling force, effect - strength, power, the ability to have a strong influence on someone; 4. Ability to do or affect something or anything, or to act upon a person or thing - the ability to influence, influence someone or something; 5. Any form of energy or force available for application to work - purposeful force, energy, power; 6. authority given or committed; hence, sometimes, liberty or permission to act - right; 7. Legal ability, capacity, or authority to act; esp. delegated authority; authorization, commitment, faculty; spec. legal authority vested in a person or persons in a particular capacity - right, authority; 8. Document, or clause in a document, giving legal authority - power of attorney; 9. One who or that which is possessed of or exercises power, influence, or government; an influential or ruling person, body or thing - someone in power, invested with power; 10. Political ascendancy or influence in the government of a country or state - political power, strength; 11. Political or national strength - political or state power; 12. Possession of control or command over others; dominion, rule; government, domination, sway, command; control, influence, authority - power over someone or something; 13. Used with preceding adjective or somebody to designate a movement to enhance the status of the group specified or the beliefs and activities of such a group the status 19 of a particular group, or the beliefs or actions of such a group. An analysis of English-English dictionaries of political vocabulary showed that for the most part such dictionaries are encyclopedic reference books, since they do not contain definitions of vocables (input units), they offer information on political science and political economy, revealing and describing the concept of power (power), which is represented in a rather vague meaning of The ability to make people (or things) do what they would not otherwise have done. These dictionaries do not contain linguistic data, such as grammatical characteristics or features of compatibility, there is no disclosure of the sematic structure of the described vocable. The ability to make people (or things) do what they would not otherwise have done is not a definition of the word, but rather a description of the political phenomenon of “power” with elements of the classification of its types: Power may be economic: ability to influence or control the economy; it may be political: ability to influence or control the institutions through which law is made or applied; it may be personal: ability to exert influence and control over people for whatever reason.<…> We distinguish: power with authority; power with the common belief in its authority; and "naked power", such as that exerted by a lawless gang. However, from the point of view of terminology, the use of power in this meaning cannot be designated as terminological on the basis that a word can be recognized as a term only if it has a definition of meaning [Shelov 2003: 24]. In all analyzed dictionaries of an encyclopedic orientation, however, it is noted that The ability to make people (or things) do what they would not otherwise have done raises more questions than answers, and that the understanding of this concept is intuitive [for example, OCDP 2003: 434; RDP 2004: 400]. The only English-English dictionary that records data of a linguistic nature is the Dictionary of Government and Politics (the work uses two dictionaries by P.H. Collin with the same name, but published in 2001 by Peter Collin Publishing - hereinafter referred to as "DGP, 2001 ” – and in 2004 by Bloomsbury – hereinafter “DGP, 2004”). A detailed study of the meanings presented by the dictionary, as well as the involvement in the analysis of the dictionaries Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics (2003), The Palgrave Macmillan Dictionary of Political Thought (2007), The Routledge Dictionary of Politics (2004) and the English-Russian Political Dictionary of K.D. Garnova and N.G. Inozemtseva (2005) showed that the word power used in political discourse can have the following terminological meanings: 1. ability or capacity - ability (bargaining power - the ability to dictate your terms when concluding any transaction / borrowing power - creditworthiness / buying power - purchasing power / earning power - the ability to make a profit / purchasing power - purchasing power); 2. authority, the legal right to do things or to make people do things - power, authority (to grant wide powers - to provide broad powers / to confer necessary powers - to provide the necessary powers / full powers - powers); 3. powerful country or state - a strong, influential state, power (including superpower - a superpower); 4. political or national strength - political or state power (military power - military power); 5. used with preceding adjective or somebody to designate a movement to enhance the status of the group specified or the beliefs and activities of such a group the status of a particular group or beliefs or actions of such a group (political slogans: black power - black power / people power - democratic power); 6. power of attorney - power of attorney. The meaning of political ascendancy or influence - political power, influence (power base - support for a candidate during a political campaign / power bloc - an alliance of countries created for political influence in a region / executive power - executive power) is considered as non-terminological due to its abstractness and lack of definition of meaning. The study of the phenomenon of terminological ambiguity cannot be called complete, relying solely on dictionary data. The need to study the functioning of terms in the context was pointed out by B.N. Golovin and S.V. Grinev-Grinevich. The latter [Grinev-Grinevich 2008: 99 – 100], in particular, insists that the differences in the environments in the text reflect the difference in the meanings of polysemantic and homonymous terms. The study of the functioning of the lexeme power in the contextual environment is also due to the need to confirm the semantic description by procedures for checking the results due to the frequent inaccuracy and incompleteness of these dictionaries [Seliverstova 2004b: 90–92], actualization, implementation of one or another meaning in the context, since it is the context that removes the ambiguity of the statement [Pesina 2014: 74], which contributes to the verification of such property of the term as contextual independence [GrinevGrinevich 2008: 23-30], which in terminology is considered as a requirement of unambiguity imposed on the term [Zimovaya 2011: 4]. The study showed that in the analyzed media texts, power is used in all the meanings identified during the lexicographic analysis, with the exception of Document, or clause in a document, giving legal authority - power of attorney. The analysis also made it possible to confirm the consubstantial nature of power in connection with its use in the political media text both in common and terminological meanings (29% of the total number of selected examples). Contextual analysis also allowed us to identify cases of functioning in the political media text of intersectoral homonyms related to the field of physics and economics: manpower (labor force) and horsepower (power, horsepower as an off-system unit of power), as well as physics and electronics: when power is used in the meaning of Any form of energy or force available for application to work (purposeful force, energy; electrical energy), recorded by industry dictionaries, in particular, The International Dictionary of Physics and Electronics (1956), especially in such phrases as power level, power loss, power supply, etc. 21 It should be noted that when used in its terminological meanings, power is easily identified in the context and is used in fairly standard combinations, which indicates its terminology. In addition, the recognition of LSV data in the context is greatly facilitated by their grammatical and compatibility features, identified in the process of lexicographic description and recorded in the table above. With regard to the use of power in meanings that are not related to the political sphere, then in accordance with the lexicographic analysis carried out earlier in the selected contexts, power has the following meanings: 1. A particular faculty of body or mind - a certain physical or mental ability; 2. Ability to act or affect something strongly; physical or mental strength; might; vigour, energy; force or character; telling force, effect - strength, power, the ability to have a strong influence on someone; 3. Any form of energy or force available for application to work - purposeful force, energy, power; 4. One who or that which is possessed of or exercises power, influence, or government; an influential or ruling person, body or thing - someone in power, invested with power; 5. Political ascendancy or influence in the government of a country or state - political power, strength; 6. Possession of control or command over others; dominion, rule; government, domination, sway, command; control, influence, authority - power over someone or something. Based on the study of the use of power in these meanings in a political media text, it seems possible to conclude that, unlike a term, an ambiguous word used in everyday, non-professional speech, even when used in a certain context, can often be ambiguously understood. This phenomenon was studied by G. Stern (1931) as "oscillating" cases of the use of words, M.B. Gasparov (1996) as a palimpset imposition of images of different meanings of the same word in the context [cit. Quoted from: Pesina 2014: 74]. In linguistic semantics, the blurring of a lexical meaning is traditionally referred to as the diffuseness of the meaning of a polysemantic word, the principle of which is that the usual meaning “covers a number of very close, but not completely coinciding, signifieds” [Kobozeva 2012: 166]. The phenomenon of diffuse meaning is closely related to the manifestation of speech ambiguity - ambiguity within one LSV word, i.e. the representation of “the usual meaning in speech use by two or more options, the choice between which is determined by the extralinguistic context, in particular, knowledge about the world” [Kobozeva 2012: 166]. In the course of studying the functioning of power in a political media text, 29 cases (4% of the total number of examples) were identified, in which the context does not always allow us to accurately interpret the meaning of the studied language unit, as, for example, in the following examples: The Hungarian election on April 6th is likely to bring another big victory for Viktor Orban, the prime minister. He will do more to entrench the power of his right-wing Fidesz party, showing the inability of the European Union to bring wayward members to heel , Yet, Islamists are gaining power in parts of the middle East, but “Islamism” has become the same kind of catchall phase that “communism” was in the 1950s, which means it ranges from people who want to kill Americans to people who just hold a different vision of society . The following diagram reflects the percentage of all identified cases of the use of power in the analyzed media texts: In addition, the analysis of contexts to a large extent made it possible to eliminate the excessive fragmentation of some of the meanings of power identified in the course of the lexicographic description, and to conclude that the differentiation of some meanings proposed in dictionaries based on their syntactic, grammatical and derivational connections are largely conditional and often untenable. The conducted contextological analysis made it possible to confirm the consubstantial nature of power, however, in order to establish its status as a consubstantial term or word, it is necessary to refer to its etymology. As noted by L.A. Vvedenskaya and N.P. Kolesnikov, etymological analysis makes it possible to establish the primary meaning of the studied lexeme and the development of its subsequent meanings [Vvedenskaya, Kolesnikov 2004: 8], while the semantic aspect of etymological analysis is just as important as the phonetic and derivational ones [Otkupshchikov 2001: 47]. In English, the word power (ME poër, poeir, pouer) was borrowed at the end of the 13th century from Old French, where, like in a number of other Romance languages ​​(Spanish, Italian, Portuguese), it came from colloquial Latin (Vulgar Latin ) in the 8th century. By this time, the Latin word posse (to be able, to be able) had been supplanted by the vernacular potēre (from potis, mighty, mighty), which later entered Spanish and Portuguese as poder, Italian as potere, and French as pouvoir. In French, the word retained both meanings potis - 23 mighty and mighty, having developed the following substantive meanings by the time of borrowing into English: 1) power, power, strength; 2) ability, property; 3) ability, opportunity; 4) authority, the basis for certain actions ([website]. URL: http://www.cnrtl.fr/etymologie/pouvoir). Note that neither in Latin as a donor language, nor in Old French as an intermediary language, was the meaning "army, army" (hereinafter, our translation - M.S.), which is mentioned by the Historical Thesaurus of the English Language ( The Historical Thesaurus of English) along with the meaning "power, power, dominion" as the earliest meanings of the English word power, the first written mention of which dates back to 1297. Thus, at the end of the 13th - beginning of the 14th century in English, the word power was used only as a noun in two meanings: A. Dominion, rule, authority (Gret poer of yrlonde Modred him wan al so) - power, power, domination (here and further selection is ours - M.S.); B. Body of armed people (He com again wit his poer) - army, army, while the direct nominative meaning of power, which can be traced from the donor language, is Dominion, rule, authority, the main components of which are 1) power (might ) and 2) strength (strength). The meaning Body of armed people acts in relation to it as a nominative derivative, i.e. "army, army - armed people - strong, powerful people, invested with power", formed as a result of a metonymic transfer based on the contiguity of concepts. In the process of further development of the meanings of power, it is the components “power + strength” (might + strength) that form the semantic center (in the terminology of A.A. Ufimtseva [Ufimtseva 2010b]) of the polysemantic word power, being its categorial-lexical semes. The potential seme "ability - as the ability to influence, power on someone or something" (ability) is further updated and forms the integral seme of the word under study, thus complementing the semantic center. According to the results of the study of the lexicographic material presented in the etymological dictionaries involved in this work, by the end of the 14th century, power was a widely used polysemantic word. According to the Middle English Dictionary (hereinafter MED) alone, power is mentioned 4,363 times in 112 written monuments ([website]. URL:http://quod.lib.umich.edu/c/cme?rgn=full+text;size=25;sort=freq;start=1;subvie w=short;type=simple;view=reslist;q1 = power *), which form the Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse Dictionary (Corpus of Middle English Prose and Verse), while the word under study is quite often used not only in various literary works, in particular, by Geoffrey Chaucer (for example, Chaucer's Translation of Boethius "s "De consolatione philosophiæ" - 86 mentions; The Hengwrt ms of Chaucer "s Canterbury tales / edited by Frederick J. Furnivall - 41 mentions, etc.), but also in the chronicles (The Brut, or The chronicles of England - 195 references; Polychronicon Ranulphi Higden maonachi Cestrensis - 164 references; English conquest of Ireland: A.D. 1166 - 1185 - 56 references; Peter Langtoft "s Chronicle, (as illustrated and improv" d by Robert of Brunne) from the death of Cadwalader to the end of K. Edward the First "s reign - 50 mentions, etc.) and in religious and philosophical texts (The Holy Bi ble, containing the Old and New Testaments, with the Apocryphal books, John Wycliffe - 732 references; An apology for Lollard doctrines, attributed to Wicliffe - 46 references; The repressor of over much blaming of the clergy. Recock, Reginald, b.p. of Chichester - 83 mentions; Religious Pieces in Prose and Verse / edited ... by George G. Perry - 22 references; Three Middle-English versions of the Rule of St. Benet and two contemporary rituals for the ordination of nuns - 21 references, etc.). The analysis of data from lexicographic sources also allows us to conclude that by the end of the 14th century, the nominative meaning power Dominion, rule, authority retained its main components power + strength + ability (might + strength + ability). All subsequent meanings of the word under study that appeared in the 15th-19th centuries (in particular, terminological ones) are motivated by it and formed as a result of metonymic transfer. The study of semantic transformations of power values ​​showed that, despite the presence of a significant number of lexico-semantic variants, its main nominative meaning Dominion, rule, authority (power, domination, power) retains the semantic identity of power. The main components of the meaning "power+strength+ability" (might+strength+ability) are connecting semantic links between its LSW and make it possible to preserve the continuity between the derived meanings of power without interrupting the derivational links. Thus, the study of the etymology of power, the mechanisms of the emergence and development of new meanings in it, in particular, those related to the political language, make it possible to conclude that this word is a consubstantial term: it acquires special meanings due to the terminology of a commonly used word through semantic term formation (narrowing, expansion, shift of meanings as a result of metonymic transfer by adjacency). In addition to the coincidence of the form of the term and the word of the general literary language, terminological ambiguity also implies the functioning of terms identical in form (and ascending to the same semantic source) in various fields of scientific knowledge. The relationship between such terms is traditionally defined as interdisciplinary homonymy, while within a certain terminology or terminological system it is exclusively as a term polysemy, in particular, categorical ambiguity (polysemy). However, in our opinion, in the case of the study of power and terms like it, it is possible to talk about the use, if not within the political terminology, then in the political media text, of homonym terms, and not just polysemantic terms. In favor of this conclusion, firstly, is the study of the etymology of power, the identified features of its use (syntagmatic and grammatical) in these meanings, the conducted component analysis, as well as the identified cases of the use of interdisciplinary homonyms in the political media text - related to the field of physics, economics and electronics terms. As the study of the contextual use of power has shown, in the political media text this lexeme is used as a political term in five meanings: purchasing power / earning power - the ability to make a profit / purchasing power - purchasing power); 2. authority, the legal right to do things or to make people do things - power, authority (to grant wide powers - to provide broad powers / to confer necessary powers - to provide the necessary powers / full powers - powers); 3. powerful country or state - a strong, influential state, power (including superpower - a superpower); 4. political or national strength - political or state power (military power - military power); 5. used with preceding adjective or somebody to designate a movement to enhance the status of the group specified or the beliefs and activities of such a group the status of a particular group or beliefs or actions of such a group (political slogans: black power - black power / people power - democratic power). A comprehensive methodology that includes 1) the procedure of component analysis described in detail in [Blokh 2000: 67–68], [Kosova 2004] and [Seliverstova 2004a: 81–91], A.A. Ufimtseva [Ufimtseva 2010a: 111 – 134], and 3) the concept of the theory of lexical and grammatical homonymy by L.V. Malakhovskiy [Malakhovsky 2009], made it possible to establish that, despite the fact that the above meanings 1, 3, 4, 5 were formed at different times on the basis of different LSVs of the multi-valued common word power with the strengthening of different components of its nominative meaning, they nevertheless, they retained the continuity and semantic center, expressed by the categorial-lexical semes "power" and "strength", and, therefore, are lexical-semantic variants of the polysemantic political term power. However, the meaning of 2. authority, the legal right to do things or to make people do things is power, authority, which also appeared in the 14th century with the strengthening of the two components of the meaning “power” and “ability”, the differential seme is “legal” ( law). The singling out of the “legal” sign by dictionaries indicates that initially power as a term with the meaning of authority, the legal right to do things or to make people do things (power, authority) belonged to the legal terminology system and, thus, entered political terminology. as a result of cross-system borrowing. Indirect evidence of this conclusion can serve as the fixation of this meaning in the dictionaries of legal terminology, for example, in the Black's Law Dictionary (1968), and the appearance in the 15th century of the legal term power of attorney - power of attorney. Note that the latter term belongs to political vocabulary only in the Dictionary of Government and Politics (DGP, 2001 and DGP, 2004). Based on this observation, as well as the functional approach adopted in terminology, which defines the same words, which are terms of different areas of knowledge and express different concepts, as interdisciplinary homonyms, it seems possible to conclude that power in the meaning of 2. authority, the legal right to do things or to make people do things - power, authority - is a homonym of the political term power, which entered political terminology as a result of intersystem borrowing. The linguistic experiment, as one of the verification methods, was used in the work to confirm one of the main properties of the term - the absence of synonyms for it. A survey conducted in writing did not reveal words from the list of synonyms proposed by dictionaries that could equally replace power or be replaced by it. This fact indirectly testifies in favor of the terminological nature of some of its lexico-semantic variants. In conclusion, the main conclusions and results of the dissertation research are summarized and prospects for further study of the problem are indicated. In the future, the study of the language of political communication can be continued from the standpoint of terminology, namely: the study of the form and functions of terms, the stratification of the lexical composition of the political language, terminography and clarification of the principles of lexicographic differentiation of terms and their semantic homonyms - words of the general literary language. The methodology for studying the consubstantial term power proposed in this paper can be applied to study other lexical units of a consubstantial nature. The appendix contains the main compatibility relations of power revealed during the contextual analysis when it is used in the meanings of the studied lexico-semantic variants. The main provisions of the dissertation are reflected in the following publications: 1. Kazyulina (Sokolova), M.A. Representation of the lexeme Power in the political media discourse (on the example of The Economist) / M.A. Kazyulina // Lecturer XXI century. - 2011. - No. 2, Part 2. - P. 27 295 - 298 (0.3 pp) 2. Kazyulina (Sokolova), M.A. The functioning of the Power lexeme as a political term in the printed media discourse / M.A. Kazyulina // Bulletin of the Moscow State Regional University. Series "Linguistics" - 2011. - No. 4 - P. 98 - 101 (0.4 pp) 3. Kazyulina (Sokolova), M.A. On the place of political terminology in socio-political vocabulary / M.A. Kazyulina // Lecturer XXI century. - 2011. - No. 3, Part 2. - P. 321 - 325 (0.4 pp) 4. Sokolova, M.A. Polysemy in terminology: on the issue of delimitation of consubstantial words and terms / M.A. Sokolova // Lecturer XXI century. - 2016. - No. 1, Part 2. - P. 315 - 320 (0.4 pp) 5. Kazyulina (Sokolova), M.A. Lexicographic description of the word "Power" / M.A. Kazyulina // Collection of materials of the scientific session following the results of the research work at the Faculty of Foreign Languages ​​of the Moscow Pedagogical State University. Kazyulina (Sokolova), M.A. On the issue of media text / M.A. Kazyulina // Culture as a text: Collection of scientific articles. Issue H. - M .: IYa RAS; Smolensk: SGU, 2010. - P. 265 - 269 (0.2 pp) 7. Kazyulina (Sokolova), M.A. Lexicographic description of the political term Power / М.А. Kazyulina // Collection of materials of the scientific session based on the results of the research work at the Faculty of Foreign Languages ​​of the Moscow Pedagogical State University for 2010 - 2011 - M .: National Book Center, 2011. - P. 72 - 74 (0.2 p.l .) 8. Kazyulina (Sokolova), M.A. On the Experiment with the English Term “POWER” / M.A. Kazyulina // The 18th European Symposium on Language for Special Purposes (LSP): book of abstracts / ed. Larissa Alekseeva; Perm State University. - Perm, Russia, 2011. - P. 90 - 91 (0.1 pp) 9. Sokolova, M.A. To the question of polysemy and homonymy in terminology / M.A. Sokolova // Actual problems of English linguistics and linguodidactics: Collection of scientific papers. - Issue. 12, 2014. - P.104 - 108 (0.2 pp)