MILITARY VS WARTIME PHRASEOLOGY IN THE SYSTEM OF WAR LANGUAGE WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF MICRO-LINGUOPOLITICAL SYNERGETICS

Abstract

This article is the first attempt in linguistics to investigate phraseological units of the language of war language from the perspective of micro-linguopolitical synergetics, taking into account their semantic, structural, and pragmatic features in publicistic and literary texts of the wars of the XX–XXI centuries.The scientific study clarifies the differences and common features between the concepts of “military phraseology” and “wartime phraseology”, and also offers a refined interpretation of the terms “war idioms” and “war phraseological units”.The value of this study also lies in the fact that, for the first time, phraseological units of war language of World War I, World War II, and the Russian-Ukrainian war were systematized by thematic groups. Among the main categories are: combat clashes, theatre of war, course of military operations, frontline situation, spatial and domestic dimensions of frontline life, offensive actions, moments of attack, consequences of armed confrontation, philosophy of war, the figure of man at war, wartime-political orientation, testimony and submission, moral resilience and hope in wartime, еthical understanding of war and moral motivation for resistance, strategic support, transformation of foreign policy course, linguistic escalation of diplomatic conflict, devaluation of human life during war, political opacity, spatial-psychological tension, psychological vulnerability.In the process of the analysis, the author carried out their structural and semantic classification, and identified the most representative models.The scientific novelty is evidenced, in particular, by the following observations: phraseological units of WWI focus on the consequences of armed confrontation between states, they are characterized by a low level of imagery, which is due to the strict censorship restrictions of that time. The phraseology of WWII period is dominated by the reflection of the oppressive atmosphere of the front, in particular, the experience of enslavement. The level of metaphoricity increases significantly, especially in the speeches of representatives of the political establishment.Phraseological units of the Russian-Ukrainian war reflect Ukraine’s long-suffering struggle for independence in confrontation with the Kremlin’s imperial ambitions. Linguistic means demonstrate a restrained use of metaphor, which is linked to the political class’s adherence to the principles of political correctness.The study proves that the highest frequency of phraseological units containing the component “war” – regardless of whether it is expressed explicitly or implicitly – is recorded in texts of three historical periods. This confirms the central role of this lexeme in conceptualizing the experience of war.The author has identified that among the key factors influencing the dynamics of linguopolitical interaction, phraseological units serve as means of the war language, reflecting the essence of such processes as the verbal reconfiguration of authoritative discourse, the transformation of conventional linguistic structures in conditions of crisis, the active implementation of media-political frames, and the intertextual play of phraseological expressions within artistic framing.The generalization of the results allowed us to postulate that the war language functions as a kind of metalanguage – a semantic dimension of linguopolitical interaction, within which phraseological units structure the political concepts of resistance to aggression, state defense, and survival in conditions of war.