Учебное пособие 1703

inf., inf! skip from fifth to tenth, mit einem Bein im Grabe stehen - stand with one foot in the grave.

6. Verb+ Sd / sich (D) +pS

sich (D) an den Hals reden - talk on your neck / inf. stick on your head; dem Tod ins Auge sehen - look death in the eye, sich (D) etw. auf den Pelz laden - load yourself sth. on the skin / inf., inf! stick on their heads sth., sich (D) etw. vom Munde absparen - (c) save yourself sth. from the mouth / inf. buy sth. with hardly saved money, sich (D) etw. hinter die Ohren schreiben - write yourself a sth. behind your ears / inf., inf! wind up sth.around your mustache.

7. Verb + Sa + Adv

sein Leben teuer verkaufen – to sell your life dearly / to give your life away for a big price; j-m gründlich Bescheid sagen - sb. thoroughly say the decision (answer) / inf. put sb. in its place, lay out all honestly to sb.

As an independent component of verbal PC, we consider the indefinite pronoun eine, ein, for example, jmdn. eins hinter die Ohren geben - beat sb. once behind the ears / cuff on the nape, einen auf die Lampe gießen - pour one (sth.) onto the lamp / skip one by one, einen in der Krone haben - have one (something) in the crown (head) / be under the fly.

The pronoun etwas also often takes an independent position. Remaining a constant component of PC, for example, (et) was zwischen die Zähne kriegen - get something between the teeth / inf. have a bite to eat, j-m (et) was / (eins) auf die Kappe geben –– beat sb. (once) on the cap (cap) / inf. give a scruff (or a slap).

The pronoun etwas can also be a variable component, then we do not include it in the MCVPC. Compare: etw. geht j-m glatt von der Zunge - to get sth. off sb. tounge very easy, etw. tritt klar zu Tage – outdated definition sth. Is clearly detected.

By analyzing the basic syntactic positional schemes of these MCVPC, we came to the conclusion that the main condition for the formation of the MCVPC is the verb sememe, which determines the direction of the action for at least two mandatory concretizers.

Verbs in MCVPC are usually object verbs. Their peculiarity is that they are not autosemantical and need a extension - a designation of a direct object.

The function of the second concretizer in direct transitive verbs is more often performed by the prepositional-case form of the noun - an indicator of the spatial orientation of the action. The second concretizer may vary, indicate a means, less often an instrument of action, in the dative case - the addressee of the action; it can also be an adverb - characterizing a method, a mode of action.

In the MCVPC, formed by direct-transitive verbs with a two-object and object-spatial orientation, both dependent components serve to realize its mandatory compatibility.

In the MCVPC, the lexical expression of both concretizers is necessary, since only with their presence the verb can realize its meaning.

A direct object may not be expressed in a structural scheme: 1) transitional verbs do not always communicate with a direct object inside the PC, but carry it out into the external valence, where the position of the direct object is filled lexically differently; 2) the place of the first concretizer in intransitive verbs is occupied by any of the other actants.

Conclusion.

To summarize the foregoing, it should be pointed out that in German language there are special syntactic structures of three or more word forms that are used to create multicomponent phrase combinations.

On the basis of the study, a syntactic typology of the MCVPC of the German language was created, one of the most numerous (1828 PC) classes of multicomponent phraseological units with a diverse syntactic organization.

24

It is also important to note that the most numerous (566 PC) and productive syntactic type for creating multicomponent verbal phrase combinations is the MKGPC type with the structure of a complex phrase.

The German language is characterized by four-component PC, in which each component has its own syntactic position.

The specifics of the German language are syntactic structures with two verb components, one of which defines and modifies the meaning of the main verb. This difference stems from the specifics of the grammatical structure of the German language - the presence of frame structures, complex verb forms and, accordingly, a larger number of components.

Further studies of the syntactic types of other multicomponent phraseological units - nonverbal types, phraseological units with a sentence structure, will expand and deepen knowledge about multicomponent phraseological units that occupy a significant place in the phraseological system of the German language.

The study of the types of structural-syntactic schemes of the MCVPC and other multicomponent phraseological units, which are a specific linguistic embodiment of the structural model of the PC, opens up new prospects in the field of syntactic modeling of the German language.

The obtained results may be of interest to teachers of the German language, in lecture courses of phraseology, also in the compilation of dictionaries and reference books on phraseology.

References

[1]Chernysheva I.I. Frazeologiya sovremennogo nemeckogo yazyka. M.: Vysshaya shkola, 1970. 200 s.

[2]Rajhshtejn A.D. Sopostavitel'nyj analiz nemeckoj i russkoj frazeologii. – M.: Vyssh. shk., I980. – 143 s.

[3]Dobrovol’skij, Dmitrij. Sind Idiome Konstruktionen? In: Steyer, Kathrin (Hg.)

„Sprachliche Verfestigung. Wortverbindungen, Muster, Phrasem-Konstruktionen“. (=Studien zur Deutschen Sprache, 79), Tübingen: Narr, 2018 - 350 S.

[4]Burger H. Phraseologie: Eine Einführung am Beispiel des Deutschen. Berlin: Erich Schmidt Verlag, 2007. – 240 S.

[5]Korhonen J. Valenz und Verbidiomatik. In: Helbig, Gerhard (Hg.): Valenz, semantische Kasus und/oder „Szenen“. Berlin: (=Linguistische Studien. Reihe A: Arbeitsberichte.

Bd. 180). 1988, S. 105–118.

[6]Pilz K.D. Phraseologie: Redensartenforschung -. Stuttgart: Metzler, 1981. (Sammlung Metzler; M 198: Abt. C: Sprachwiss.) 147 S.

[7]Wotjak B. Verbale Phraseolexeme in System und Text (Reihe Germanistische Linguistik ( Bd. 125) Walter de Gruyter, 2010, 211 S.

[8]Dobrovol'skij D.O. Osnovy strukturno-tipologicheskogo analiza, frazeologii sovremennyh germanskih yazykov (na materiale nemeckogo, anglijskogo i niderlandskogo yazykov): dis. . d-ra filol. nauk / D.O. Dobrovol'skij. — M., 1990. - 441 s.

[9]Kopylenko M.M., Popova Z. D. Ocherki po obshchej frazeologii. Frazeosochetaniya v sisteme yazyka. Izdanie vtoroe / M. M. Kopylenko. – M., Knizhnyj dom «Librokom», 2010. – 192 s.

[10]Avdeev A.A., Kovyrshina E.O. Harakteristika sememnyh formul odnogo iz tipov frazeosochetanij / Avdeev A.A., Kovyrshina E.O. //Antropocentricheskie nauki: innovacionnyj vzglyad na obrazovanie i razvitie lichnosti. Voronezh. «Nauchnaya kniga», 2019. – S. 249-251.

[11]Schemann H. Einleitung // Deutsche Idiomatik. Feste Redewendungen im Kontext.- Stuttgart, Dresden, 1993. – S. I - CXI.

25

Dictionaries used

[1**] Binovich L. E. Nemecko-russkij frazeologicheskij slovar'. M.: Akvarium, 1995. - 768 s.

[2**] Lejn K., Strahova, N.P., Leping A.A. Bol'shoj russko-nemeckij slovar'. Izd-vo: Drofa, 2008. - 876 s.

[3**] Brockhaus - Wahrig (BW). Wahrig, G, Krämer, H und Zimmerman, H (Hrsg.). Deutsches Wörterbuch in sechs Bänden - Wiesbaden/Stuttgart (F.A. Brockhaus / Deutsche Verlagsanstalt), 1980-1984.

26

DOI 10.36622/MLMDR.2020.30.3.003

UDC 811.11-112

THE FUNCTIONING OF THE ATOMKRAFT NOMINATIVE FIELD VOCABULARY IN GERMAN-LANGUAGE MEDIA AGAINST THE BACKGROUND

OF NUCLEAR POWER PHASE-OUT

O.M. Ladosha

National Research University “MPEI”

PhD (Philology), Associate Professor of the Department of Foreign Languages; Moscow State Linguistic University

PhD (Philology), Associate Professor of the Department of Lexicology and Stylistics of German Language Oksana Mikhailovna Ladosha

e-mail: o.m.ladosha@yandex.ru

Statement of the problem. The semantic-cognitive method of language analysis as a means of studying concepts is of interest, because it allows one to identify the cognitive attributes of the concept on a wide and representative material. In the present study, the claimed method is presented in part regarding the analysis of lexicographic data and the cognitive interpretation of the contexts of the use of Atomkraft nominative field lexemes in German.

The purpose of the article is to establish the cognitive features of the Atomkraft nominative field lexemes, codified in dictionaries and revealed during the analysis of the text corpus of publications in the media and blogs from 1980 to 2014, for the subsequent construction of a field model of the concept. Of particular interest is the effect of technological disasters in the nuclear energy sector that occurred during this period on the frequency of use and semantics of designated lexical units.

Results. Based on the analysis of vocabulary entries, as well as the involvement of a representative text corpus, it is established that the dominant cognitive feature of the concept is “rejection of nuclear energy”, the most widely represented by the token Atomenergie. The general field structure of the concept, taking into account all nominative units, is as follows: the core is a sign of “abandonment of nuclear energy” (31%); the near periphery – “political aspects” and “dangers of nuclear power” (31%); the far periphery – “environmental issues” and “the future of nuclear power” (17%); the outer periphery – “nuclear power as one of the problems of our time” and “peaceful use of nuclear energy” (9%).

Conclusion. The question of whether there is a correlation between the frequency of use of the lexical units of the field in question and the technological disasters occurring in the world continues to remain debatable. In the framework of the presented study, no reliable evidence of such a relationship was revealed. In the course of the work, it was found that the peak of the use of lexical units of the nominative field occurred in 2008–2009, when preparations for and pre-election campaigns were held in Germany, which suggests the greater influence of the political situation on the semantic content of the concept. This problem, however, requires further research on an expanded corpus of texts.

Key words: nominative field, corpus-based linguistics, semantics, concept, concept model, nominative field, Atomkraft, nuclear energy.

For citation: Ladosha O.M. The functioning of the atomkraft nominative field vocabulary in German-language media against the background of nuclear power phase-out / O.M. Ladosha // Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-didactic Researches”. – 2020. - № 3 (30). – P. 27-39.

Introduction.

Nuclear, or atomic power has long been considered a reliable and effective means of providing the population with energy. However, the high pace of its development slowed down first after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (1986), then after the accident on March 11, 2011 at the nuclear power plant (Fukushima-1) in Japan, many countries announced their nuclear power phase-out. So, Italy closed all its nuclear power plants, and such countries as Belgium, Germany, Spain, Switzerland announced the implementation of a long-term policy

_____________________

© Ladosha O.M., 2020

27

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (30), 2020 ISSN 2587-8093

for the discontinuation of usage of nuclear power for energy production [1, p. 112; 2, p. 232; 3, p. 116].

At the same time, a complete rejection of nuclear power is currently not possible for a number of reasons. First of all, a sharp shutting down of nuclear power plants can disrupt the reliability of energy supply, lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by thermal power plants and a rise in price of electricity [4, p. 161]. Therefore, the current scenario for the development of the EU industry involves only a decrease in the share of nuclear energy from 27% in 2010 to 18% by 2050 [5, p. 66].

As the matter stands, one cannot help but admit that the industry suffered certain reputation losses in connection with the Fukushima-1 accident. This disaster was widely covered in the media, forming an understanding of the problem with readers, and also became the subject of numerous discussions on the Internet. Of interest is a comparative analysis of the use of terms from the field of nuclear power engineering in the German corpus 1980–2014. This period covers the time before and after the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant (1986) and the events at Fukushima-1 (2011).

Purpose of the study.

The purpose of the study is to identify the semantic dominants of lexical units included in the Atomkraft nominative field, based on an analysis of their lexical environment in the corpus of German-language publications in periodicals and blogs as part of the modern mass communication system. The working hypothesis is that technological accidents that have occurred in the world related to the dangers of using nuclear energy will affect both the frequency of vocabulary use of the named semantic field and the set of its cognitive attributes identified as a result of analysis of the contexts of the lexemes use.

Materials and methods.

The methodological basis of the study was the theory of cognitive linguistics and corpus linguistics [6; 7; 8]. The integration of the methods of these sections of linguistics seems appropriate, since the corpus is a source of authentic material for cognitive interpretation, it allows one to study the language in its variability and register the actual linguistic competence of native speakers, and also makes it possible to identify statistical data on the frequency of use of linguistic units in accordance with the specified search parameters [9, p. 52].

The research material was composed of the contexts of the use of lexical units included in the nominative field of the Atomkraft concept, taken from the German corpus DWDS (Digitales Wörterbuch der deutschen Sprache) [1**]. This corpus is sufficiently representative, which increases the reliability of the research results.

The phenomenon under consideration is understood by us as a concept, that is, “a discrete mental formation, which is the basic unit of a person’s mental code, has a relatively ordered internal structure, is the result of cognitive (mental) activity of a person and society and carries complex, encyclopedic information about the reflected object or phenomenon, on the interpretation of this information by public consciousness and the attitude of public consciousness to a given phenomenon or object” [10, p. 24].

The content of the concept is presented in the minds of native speakers; however, it is not always encoded in a dictionary. To determine the content of the concepts under consideration, an analysis of the contexts of their use is necessary. The leading analysis method was the se- mantic-cognitive analysis of the language [10]. This method involves the sequential implementation of the analysis steps, including not only the analysis of the semantics of the units included in the nominative field of the concept and the contexts of their use, but also verification of the results in the process of an associative experiment. However, such verification was not carried out on the scale of the presented analysis due to the lack of material of associative experiments relevant for each period.

The results of the study.

1 . A t t r i b u t e s o f t h e n o m i n a t i v e f i e l d o f t h e A t o m k r a f t c o n c e p t . 28

In the first instance, the nominative field of the Atomkraft concept as a set of synonyms objectifying it in the language was revealed on the basis of dictionaries. With reference to the data of the dictionaries and the text corpus of the German language, peripheral attributes of the units included in the nominative field of the concept at various time stages are identified. A generalization and comparison of the results allows us to conclude about the existing peripheral and evaluation components in the meaning of the concept under consideration. A comparison of vocabulary definitions of lexical units makes it possible to identify the sememes included in their semantic structure through the enumeration of the semes that form them, which, in turn, helps to identify a set of cognitive attributes of the studied concept [11, p. 162].

The nominative field of the Atomkraft concept includes such lexical units as Atomenergie,

Kernenergie, Kernkraft, Nuklearenergie [2**].

The Atomkraft token has the following meanings:

1.K e r n p h y s i k aus der Spaltung von Atomkernen gewonnene Energie. Synonym zu Kernenergie, Kernkraft, Atomenergie: Die erneuerbaren Energien sind inzwischen technisch so ausgereift und wirtschaftlich so konkurrenzfähig, dass sie fossile Energien und Atomkraft bis zur Mitte des Jahrhunderts schrittweise ersetzen können. [Die Zeit, 02.11.2014 (online)] [2**]

–Nuclear physics. Energy derived from the fission of atomic nuclei: Renewable energy sources are now so technically mature and so economically competitive that by the middle of the century they can gradually replace fossil fuels and nuclear energy (our translation).

2.Technik Technologie zur Erzeugung von Energie mittels Kernspaltung: […] Der Ausstieg aus der Atomkraft ist zwar sinnvoll, dem Klimaschutz aber hilft er nicht […]. [Süddeutsche Zeitung, 06.12.2018] [2**] – Engineering Nuclear fission energy production technology: [...] Although the rejection of nuclear energy makes sense, it will not help climate protection [...] (our translation).

The marks contained in the dictionary indicate a limited context for the use of a lexeme that operates in the physical and technical fields of scientific knowledge. The core of the meaning is 1) energy production, 2) using the physical process of splitting atomic nuclei.

oder Kernfusion frei wird, Atomenergie (energy released in the process of nuclear fission or fusion, nuclear energy); K e r n k r a f t – 1. Synonym zu Kernenergie (synonym for Kernenergie); 2. Kräfte, die den Zusammenhalt der Atomkerne bewirken und auf dem Austausch von Quanten zwischen den Nukleonen beruhen (forces uniting atomic nuclei and based on the exchange of quanta between nucleons); N u k l e a r e n e r g i e – no definition), shows that all these concepts have the same core of the meaning on which the meaning of the Atomkraft token is based, and the concepts themselves are mostly interchangeable synonyms. Only the Kernenergie token introduces an additional meaning that allows us to relate this concept not only to the process of splitting the atomic nucleus, but also to thermonuclear fusion, as well as the Kernkraft unit in the form of the plural (Kernkräfte) is used to denote nuclear forces (binding energy of atomic nuclei). It is also noteworthy that there is no dictionary entry for the Nuklearenergie lexical unit, which may indicate both a low degree of use of the word and the fact that the meaning of this token is identical to the meaning of its synonyms.

The core of the conceptual nominative field is the Atomkraft token, since it is the most commonly used. The number of contexts in the corpus is 22 (1980–1989), 10 (1990–1999), 20 (2000–2010) in periodicals and 1215 in blogs (2003–2014). The total number of contexts is 1267. The peak frequency of the use of the token in periodicals falls on 2009 (7.56 tokens per million), followed by a decline.

The number of contexts for using the Atomenergie token in the corpus is 43 (1980–1989), 23 (1990–1999), 13 (2000–2010) in periodicals and 411 in blogs (2003–2014). The total number of contexts is 490. The peak frequency of the token’s use in periodicals falls on 1989 (8.38

29

tokens per million), followed by a decline and some increase in 2008 and 2009 (5.66 and 5.74 tokens per million, respectively).

The number of contexts for using the Kernenergie token in the corpus is 59 (1980–1989), 41 (1990–1999), 48 (2000–2010) in periodicals and 278 in blogs (2003–2014). The total number of contexts is 426. The peak frequency of the use of the token in periodicals falls on 1984– 1989. (12.54–12.58 tokens per million), followed by a decline and some increase in 2008 and 2009 (6.79 and 6.73 tokens per million, respectively).

The number of contexts for using the Kernkraft token in the corpus is 13 (1980–1989), 7 (1990–1999), 21 (2000–2010) in periodicals and 160 in blogs (2003–2014). The total number of contexts is 201. The peak frequency of the use of the token in periodicals falls on 2008– 2009. (3.83–3.89 tokens per million), followed by a decline.

The number of contexts for using the Nuklearenergie token in the corpus is 6 (1980– 1989), 0 (1990–1999), 3 (2000–2010) in periodicals and 6 in blogs (2003–2014). The total number of contexts is 15. The peak frequency of the use of tokens in periodicals falls on 2008– 2009 (0.59–0.60 tokens per million), followed by a decline.

The distribution of the number of contexts for the use of the named lexemes as a percentage for the given periods is presented below in Figure 1. The graph shows that the Kernenergie token prevails in the media, while Atomenergie is dominant in blogs. At the same time, the Atomkraft token prevails in our data by a purely quantitative indicator.

Figure 1. Distribution of contexts for the functioning of the lexical units of the Atomkraft nominative field in the corpus under study, %

The upward trend in the use of semantic field units “nuclear energy” in the German periodicals observed in 2008–2009 can be explained by the preparation and conduct of the 2009 election campaign in the country. Parties like CDU / CSU and SPD addressed the issue of energy policy in their programs, and CDU designated nuclear energy as “transition technology”

(Brückentechnologie) due to the lack of climate-friendly and low-cost alternatives [12, p. 25]. Based on the context analysis of the use of tokens from the Atomkraft nominative field,

the following semantic groups were identified:

1) Abandonment of nuclear energy, indicating a) the possibility; b) the need; c) successful implementation. Typical lexical surroundings: (Adj.) Ausstieg (exit) / aussteigen (to exit);

Sofortausstieg (immediate exit); ohne + Subst. (without + noun); verzichten auf + Subst. (to

30

reject + noun) / Verzicht (rejection); ablehnen (to decline); Abkehr von + Subst. (refusal of + noun); gegen + Atom- / Kern- (against nuclear / atomic + noun).

2)Peaceful use of nuclear energy. Typical lexical environment: friedlich (peaceful); zivil (civilian); (Atom) Waffe ((nuclear) weapon); Rüstung (weapons); Befürworter (supporter).

3)Dangers associated with the use of nuclear energy, including: a) a general indication of the danger; b) an indication of technological disasters. Typical lexical environment: gefährlich (dangerous); Gefahren (danger); sicher (safe); Risiko (risk); Fukushima (Fukushima); Tschernobyl (Chernobyl); Three Mile Island (Three Mile Island); Angst vor (fear of).

4)Nuclear power as one of the problems of our time. Typical lexical environment: Gentechnik / Gentechnologie (genetic engineering); Themen (themes); Bereich (sphere).

5)The future of nuclear energy. Typical lexical environment: Zukunft (future); Brückentechnologie (transition technology); festhalten an (to hold on to); Renaissance (Renaissance); Nutzung (application).

6)Nuclear energy and environmental and climate issues. Typical lexical environment: Castor-Transporte (spent nuclear fuel removal); Müll (trash); Umwelt (environment); Klima (climate); Emission (emission).

7)Nuclear power in the general energy system. Typical lexical environment: Energie (träger) (energy (carriers)); Kohle (coal); Gas (gas); Öl (oil); Stromerzeugung (electricity production); erneuerbar (renewable); alternativ (alternative); erzeugen (produce); Windenergie (wind power).

8)Political aspects of the problem. Typical lexical surroundings: Partei (party); CDU (CDU); Wahlkampf (election campaign); politisch (political); Lobbyist (lobbyist); Korruption (corruption); China (China); Japan (Japan); Kommission (commission); Kontrolle (control).

Hereinafter, we consider the identified cognitive characteristics separately for each token included in the nominative field of the concept.

2. C o g n i t i v e c o n t e x t a n a l y s i s o f A t o m k r a f t n o m i n a t i v e f i e l d t o - k e n s u s e i n t h e G e r m a n l a n g u a g e c o r p u s

At the next stage, the contexts of the use of each token included in the nominative field under consideration were analyzed, containing the identified lexical distribution. This approach made it possible to select and evaluate the semantic component of the context for such an extensive text corpus.

Based on the presented distribution of the lexical unit, we can distinguish semantic dominants in the context of the use of the Atomkraft lexeme for given periods. The largest number of the lexical units use for selected semantic groups in the context of the functioning of the Atomkraft token is in blogs. The main problems discussed by the communicants are n u c l e a r e n e r g y a s p a r t o f t h e o v e r a l l e n e r g y s y s t e m (“[...] daß die Gewinnung von

Energie durch die Nutzung der Atomkraft bis zum Jahr 2010 verdoppelt werden soll” [1*] –

“[...] that the generation of energy through the use of nuclear power should be doubled by

2010” (our translation); “Mit Sicherheit kann man auch diese Energiequelle versteuern ohne das wir mit Kohle und Atomkraft unsere Umwelt schädigen” [2*] – “Certainly, this energy source can also be taxed without harming the environment with coal and nuclear energy” (our translation)) – 31.5%, d a n g e r s of n u c l e a r e n e r g y (“Christian Klose weiß natürlich, dass die Angst vor der Atomkraft vor allem auf zwei Faktoren beruht: den fürchterlichen Auswirkungen bei einer ernsten Havarie und dem radioaktiv strahlenden Atommüll mit einer

Halbwertzeit von 20000 Jahren” [3*] – “Christian Klose knows, of course, that the fear of nuclear power is based on two factors: the terrible effects of a serious accident and the radioactive nuclear waste with a half-life of 20,000 years” (our translation); “Die leidvollen Erfahrungen mit Atomkraft, das Wissen von ihren Risiken, Gefahren und tödlichen Nebenwirkungen lässt nur einen Schluss zu: Atomkraftwerke müssen sofort abgeschaltet werden” [4*] – “The painful experiences with nuclear power, the knowledge of its risks, dangers and deadly side effects only allow one conclusion: Nuclear power plants have to be switched off immediately” (our trans-

31

der politischen Agenda steht der Ausstieg aus der Atomkraft” [5*] – “And the top of the political agenda is phasing out nuclear power” (our translation); “Denn es zeigt unter anderem, dass die CDU im Wahlkampf beim Thema Atomkraft offensichtlich nicht vor vorsätzlicher Wählertäuschung zurückschreckte” [6*] – “Among other things, it shows that the CDU obviously did not shy away from deliberate electoral delusion in the election campaign on the subject of nuclear power” (our translation)) – 14.46%, as well as t h e r e j e c t i o n o f n u c l e a r e n - e r g y (“In der Nacht zum 15. Juni einigten sich Bundesregierung und Energiewirtschaft auf den Ausstieg aus der Atomkraft” [7*] – “In the night of June 15, the federal government and the energy industry agreed to phase out nuclear power” (our translation); “Immer mehr Japaner demonstrieren gegen die Atomkraft und ihre nicht mehr weg zu diskutierenden Risiken” [8*] – “More and more Japanese are demonstrating against nuclear power and its risks that cannot be ignored” (our translation)) – 10.08%. In publications in periodicals, the main problem is the issue of n u c l e a r p o w e r r e j e c t i o n (“Kanzler Schröder wird dafür innenpolitisch kaum Unterstützung finden, Berlin hat gerade den Ausstieg aus der Atomkraft beschlossen” [9*] –

“Chancellor Schröder will find little support for this in domestic politics, Berlin has just decided to phase out nuclear power” (our translation); “So buchstabiert sich heute, 15 Monate nach der Koalitionsvereinbarung, das rot-grüne Versprechen, die Nutzung der Atomkraft "so schnell wie möglich" zu beenden” [10*] – “Today, 15 months after the coalition agreement, the redgreen promise to end the use of nuclear power “as soon as possible” is spelled out” (our translation)) – 33.33%.

In more detail, the data obtained in quantitative terms can be found in Table 1.

Table 1 Distribution of Atomkraft token contexts by period and source

The distribution of the Atomenergie token meaning indicates a change in focus in the analyzed publications. In addition to the prevalence of the contexts of using lexemes in blogs compared to periodicals, the trend towards a decline in the use of the lexical unit in the media is also noteworthy. The main issues related to nuclear energy in newspaper publications were the f u t u r e o f n u c l e a r e n e r g y (“Die Zukunft der Atomenergie in Deutschland bleibt dennoch ungewiß” [11*] – “However, the future of nuclear energy in Germany remains uncertain” (our translation); “Am Fortbestand der Atomenergie in Deutschland hält die Bundesregierung fest [...]” [12*] – “The Federal Government is sticking to the continued existence of nuclear energy in Germany [...]” (our translation)) – 24.53%, p e a c e f u l u s e o f n u c l e a r e n e r - g y (“Die Veranstaltung soll erkennbar dazu dienen, die Folgen der zivilen Nutzung der Atomenergie gesundzubeten” [13*] – “The event is designed to serve as a recognizable way to pray for the consequences of the civilian use of nuclear energy” (our translation)) – 19.81%, r e j e c t i o n o f n u c l e a r e n e r g y (“Österreich, Italien und Dänemark verzichten ganz auf

32

Scientific Journal “Modern Linguistic and Methodical-and-Didactic Researches” Issue 3 (30), 2020 ISSN 2587-8093

die Nutzung der Atomenergie” [14*] – “Austria, Italy and Denmark completely do without the use of nuclear energy” (our translation)) – 16.98%. In blog posts, the focus was on r e j e c t i n g n u c l e a r p o w e r (“Im Übrigen kann auf der ganzen Erde auf Atomenergie verzichtet werden” [15*] – “For the rest, nuclear energy can be dispensed with all over the world” (our translation); “Wir müssen so schnell wie möglich aus der Atomenergie aussteigen, schneller auch als das im rot-grünen Atomausstieg vorgesehen war” [16*] – “We have to get out of nuclear energy as quickly as possible, even faster than was intended in the red-green nuclear phase-out” (our translation)) – 25.81%, place of n u c l e a r e n e r g y i n t h e g e n e r a l e n - e r g y s y s t e m including other sources of energy (“Seitdem stehe ich Atomenergie kritisch gegenüber und ich bin überzeugt, dass wir mehr in Erneuerbare Energien investieren müssen”

[17*] – “Since then I have been critical of nuclear energy and I am convinced that we need to invest more in renewable energies” (our translation)) – 24.63%, as well as the d a n g e r s o f n u c l e a r e n e r g y (“Während die Kanzlerin nach der Atomkatastrophe von Fukushima ihren Irrweg in energiepolitischen Fragen grundlegend revidierte […]” [18*] – “While the Chancellor fundamentally revised her mistake on energy policy issues after the Fukushima nuclear disaster [...]” (our translation); “Zum Jahrestag der Tschernobyl-Katastrophe fordern wir wegen der doppelten Gefahr den echten Ausstieg aus der Atomenergie” [19*] – “On the anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster, we are calling for a real exit from nuclear energy because of the double danger” (our translation)) – 13.64%.

The distribution of the token contexts is presented below in Table 2.

Table 2 Distribution of Atomenergie token contexts by period and source

In the contexts of the use of the Kernenergie token, the leading cognitive attributes are n u c l e a r p o w e r a s p a r t o f t h e o v e r a l l e n e r g y s y s t e m (“Zu moderner Technologie gehöre auch die Kernenergie, auf die die Union nicht verzichten wolle” [20*] – “Modern technology also includes nuclear energy, which the Union does not want to do without” (our translation); “Das Ranking der Energieträger nach Volllaststunden führt die Kernenergie an (7.710 Vh)” [21*] – “The ranking of energy sources according to full load hours leads the

Kraftwerke, sicher richtig” [22*] – “In the long term, the waiver of nuclear energy, i.e. the waiver of new power plants, is certainly the right thing to do” (our translation); “In diesem Sinn arbeiten wir an einer Zukunft ohne Kernenergie” [23*] – “In this sense, we are working on a future without nuclear energy” (our translation)) –17.58%.

The obtained data in quantitative terms are presented in Table 3.

33