On language development in the times of screen addiction (based on English neologisms)

Abstract

The given article is the summary of the research into neologisms of the lexico-semantic field Screen Addiction, the aim of which is to describe ways and means of the formation of screen addiction neologisms in modern English following the tenets of the cognitive-discursive approach. The methods used in data analysis are the definition method, the componential and the discourse analysis, and quantitative methods. The data under study (31 neologisms) were collected from dictionaries and online sources (newspapers, blogs, etc.) by hand search. The analysis of the semantic structure of the language unit “screen” in diachronic perspective led us to the conclusion that this language unit is flexible as all ongoing social changes tend to be accompanied by the expansion of the lexico-semantic variants of “screen” and by the change of their hierarchical structure. At present the most active variants of “screen” are “display on a computer monitor” and “the monitor itself ”. The neologisms of the lexico-semantic field Screen Addiction were classified by structural and semantic parameters. By their structure, they fall into two groups – neologisms with and without the “screen” component. By the semantic parameter we mean those spheres of our life, which have been influenced by screen addiction and have found their reflection in neologisms. According to the semantic parameter, neologisms fall into several groups: а) time/epoch we live in; b) people living in these times; c) time spent in front of the screen; d) screen addiction and ways of tackling it; e) diseases and other dysfunctions caused by screen addiction; and f) behaviour and manners. Group d) (screen addiction and ways of solving this issue) takes the lead (61 % of neologisms) which can indicate that this very aspect is people’s utmost concern at present. In terms of word building, compound words prevail (81% neologisms), whereas neologisms built by blending are only 16%, and by suffixation − 3%. It can be assumed that suffixation is less productive than compounding and blending since it does not let the speaker manifest his linguistic creativity in Internet communication.