Post-Perestroika Ideologemes Survey (Based on the Newspaper “Izvestiya”

Author Name(s): Azaliya R. Gizatullina*, Milena I. Gumerova, Tatyana Y. Vinogradova, Mikhail A. Grachev
Author Email:


The ability of linguistic units to generate new connotative and associative meanings (that is, intentionality) is especially relevant for political rhetoric, the function of which is to influence an audience as a rule. A created semantic field requires a detailed analysis both from the point of view of political science and from the point of view of linguistics, since ideologemes are the phenomenon of political reality and a language fact simultaneously.

The study is devoted to the understanding of the post-perestroika period ideological system. In the framework of the political-journalistic discourse (based on the material of the daily “Izvestia” issues in 1992) eight thematic groups of post-perestroika period ideologemes were singled out by the method of continuous sampling (the total number of ideologeme uses was 1658 units). Ideological nature, repeatability and evaluation were referred to the obligatory signs of an ideologeme (understood as the ability to influence an existing picture of the world).

The study used descriptive method, the method of continuous sampling of material, quantitative methods and the method of semantic-cognitive analysis. The systematization of the selected groups of ideologemes is performed on various grounds (from the point of view of relevance / irrelevance in the ideological picture of the world under consideration, taking into account the pragmatic component, in terms of use and understanding by native speakers). The significance of the ideological units under consideration is characterized and their importance in the analyzed period is found using the material of the newspaper “Izvestia”.

The leading “democratic” ideologems did not form the basis of modern political discourse, as the promises of a “golden” democratic future were not justified. The results of the research can be applied for further theoretical understanding of the post-Soviet political myth.


Linguistic sovetologists believe that the year 1992 is considered as the starting point of modern political language research beginning [Budaev, Chudinov 2008]. This is the end of perestroika and the beginning of a new era for a former totalitarian country with a planned economy. The destruction of the Soviet myth led to the change in social values to the opposite ones, previously viewed as “hostile”. At the same time, there was the process of new foundations modeling for Russians worldview (within the language level – at the expense of units containing an ideological component), and the media played a significant role in this.

Thus, it becomes urgent to study the technologies of information and political management by public consciousness (because at the present stage the struggle for political power is carried out mainly in the aspect of information warfare) to develop the methods of confrontation. One of the fundamental tools for linguistic picture of the world transformation is ideologemes (representing the central nominations of a mythologeme [Vepreva, Shadrina 2006: 125]).

A number of publications is devoted to the study of political, political and journalistic discourse [Harkova, Shigapova 2014; Sheigal 2000; Shemshurenko, Shafigullina 2015; Van Dijk 1998; Wodak 1989, et al.], in particular, concerning the perestroika, post-Soviet discourse [Dunn 1995; Koteyko 2014; Political Discourse 1998; Ryazanova-Clarke 2008; Shaposhnikov 1998, etc.], an ideological content of political discourse [Erol 1993; Guseinov 2003; Malysheva 2009; Robinson 1995 et al.].

This work is devoted to the understanding of the ideological system of the initial post-perestroika stage.


The change of political discourse in the early 1990-ies was followed by the process of new central ideologemes rethinking and creation, which became the nucleus of the emerging mythologies. The results of the study (assuming the study of the emerging ideological system in dynamics in the long term) can be applied for further theoretical understanding of the post-Soviet political myth development phenomenon.


The work is performed according to the Russian Government Program of Competitive Growth of Kazan Federal University.


[1] Budaev, E.V., Chudinov, A.P. (2008). Linguistic post sovetology. Political linguistics. Issue 2 (25). Ekaterinburg. pp. 10-19.

[2] Vepreva, I.T., Shadrina, T.A. (2006). Ideologeme and mythologeme: interpretation of terms. Scientific works of professors from Ural Institute of Economics, Management and Law. No.3, pp. 120-131.

[3] Harkova, E.V., Shigapova, F.F. (2014). Functional features of metaphoric and metonymic euphemisms in media discourse. European Journal of Science and Theology. Vol.10. No.6, pp. 105-113.

[4] Sheigal, E. (2000). Political discourse semiotics. Moscow-Volgograd: Peremena, 440 pp.

[5] Shemshurenko, O.V., Shafigullina, L.S. (2015). Politically correct euphemisms in mass media (based on American and Turkish online periodicals of the beginning of the 21st century). Journal of Sustainable Development. Vol.8. Iss.5, pp. 128-135.

[6] Van Dijk, T.A. (1998). Opinions and Ideologies in the press. In A.Bell and P.Garrett (eds), Media Discourse. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 21–64.

[7] Wodak, R. (ed.) (1989). Language, Power and Ideology: Studies in Political Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, XX, 288 p.

[8] Dunn, J. (1995). The transformation of Russian from a language of the Soviet type to a language of the Western type. In J. Dunn (ed.), Language and Society in Post-Communist Europe. Selected Papers from the 5th World Congress of Central and Eastern European Studies. Warsaw, pp. 3–22.

[9] Koteyko N. (2014). Language and Politics in post-Soviet Russia: A Corpus Assisted Approach. London: Palgrave Macmillan, XI, 191 p.

[10] Political Discourse in Transition in Europe 1989-1991 (1998). Ed. by Paul A.Chilton, Mikhail V.Ilyin, and Jacob L.Mey. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, X, 272 p.

[11] Ryazanova-Clarke, L. (2008). Re-creation of the nation: Orthodox and heterodox discourses in post-Soviet Russia. Scando-Slavica. Vol. 54, pp. 223–239.

[12] Shaposhnikov, V. (1998). Russian speech of 1990-ies. (Contemporary Russia in linguistic representation). Moscow: MALP, 248 p.

[13] Erol, N. (1993). Ideology as political discourse: a case study of print media discourses on Glasnost and Perestroika. East Lansing: Michigan State University.

[14] Guseinov, G. (2003). DSP: Soviet ideologemes in Russian discourse of the 1990-ies. Moscow: Three squares, 272 p.

[15] Malysheva, E.G. (2009). Ideologeme as linguistic cognitive phenomenon: definition and classification. Political linguistics. No.4 (30), pp. 32-40.

[16] Robinson, N. (1995). Ideology and the collapse of the Soviet system. A critical history of Soviet ideological discourse. Aldershot: Edward Elgar, X, 227 p.

[17] Izvestia (1992). Iss. 1–281.

[18] Nakhimova, E.A. (2011). The ideologeme “Stalin” in modern mass communication. Political linguistics. No.2 (36), pp. 152-156.

[19] Klushina, N.I. (2014). Theory of ideologemes. Political linguistics. No.4 (50), pp. 54-58.

[20] Zhuravlev, S.A. (2004). Ideologemes and their actualization in Russian lexicographic discourse: dis. from the cand. of philology. Yoshkar-Ola, 203 p.

[21] Schuklina, T.Y. (2014). Binary oppositions as a way of representing the Slavic culture (in the context of the Russian proverbs). Life Science Journal. Vol. 11, No.10, pp. 638-641.

370 total views, 1 views today

Download PDF File

About the author: admin