The Vulgarization of the Language of a Children’s Multiplication Text as a Psycholinguistic Problem

Keywords: cartoon discourse, speech of a children & appose; multiplication film, children’s media content, vulgarism, slangism, obsceneism, linguistic consciousness, adaptive potential of a person, stress tolerance.


Research aim is to identify the phenomena of verbal vulgarization of children’s cartoon discourse, to determine their functional-semantic loads and registers of reduced emotional evaluation, as well as the main socio-cultural types of corporate vulgar behavior.

Research Methods. The study of the vulgarization of children’s media content was carried out with the help of: a) theoretical methods, b) psycholinguistic empirical methods – discourse-analysis of vulgarized dialogical situations; questionnaire related to the testing of registers of dialogical situations in cinema texts among the audience of student’s youth (80 humanitarian students (specialty “Journalism”) of the National University “Odesa Law Academy” aged 17-20 years).

Results. The didactic role of animated cinema texts in the formation of media culture is noted. It was proposed the practical analysis of the modern children’s cartoons language in the context of the systematization of markers of affective vulgarity, such as slangisms, jargonisms, elements of common language, obscenisms. On the basis of a survey and psycholinguistic experiment, a stylistic evaluation of the perception of the selected lexical-phraseological material as such that contains the connotation “vulgarity” was confirmed, the attitude of the young generation of viewers to vulgarized cinema text was revealed.

Conclusions. Among the main conclusions we may note that as a result of language vulgarization of modern consciousness, in particular children, the so-called conceptual sphere of human activity is changing. The new generation of viewers is focused on low, coarse communication, on the weakening of the feeling of beautiful, on the positive perception of the appropriate aesthetics of everyday life. According to the results of the questionnaire, these cinema texts are perceived neutral by 55 students, positively – 21 students, negatively – 4 students. The language of cartoon characters, which represent certain social groups of real society, is seen as the norm for any situation, and grumpiness, disrespect, psycho-emotional imbalance are seen as their “organic” color. Therefore, the majority, or the vast majority of the respondents, correlated the lexical-phraseological units as jargon that is, acceptable in the youth environment. Modern foreign animation that is presented as translated cinema text, loses the important function of being a mediadidactive source, that is, the medium of producing patterns of individual and collective linguistic behavior.


Download data is not yet available.


Bilodid, I.K. (Ed.). (1970–1980). Slovnyk ukrainskoi movy [Dictionary of Ukrainian language] (Vols. 1–11). Kyiv: Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].

Bybyk, S.P. (2016). Onovlena stylova norma zasobiv masovoyi informatsiyi [Updated media stylesheet]. Ukrayinska mova – Ukrainian language, 2, 72–81 [in Ukrainian].

Verdu, V. (2013). Vulgarnost stanovitsya pokazatelem organicheskogo razlozheniya cheloveka [Vulgarity becomes an indicator of the organic decomposition of man]. Retrieved from [in Russian].

Busel, T. (Ed.). (2005). Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoii ukraiinskoii movy [Big explanatory dictionary of modern Ukrainian language]. Kyiv; Irpin: VTF «Perun» [in Ukrainian].

Donnikova, I.А. (2018). Nravstvennii poysk v multykulturnoi kommunykatsyy [Moral search in multicultural communication]. Antropologihni vymiry filosofskyh doslidzhen – Antropolohichni vymiry filosofskykh doslidzhen, 14, 30–41. [in Russian].

Kozhuhar, G.S. (2008). Formy meghlichnostnoi tolerantnosti: kriterialnye priznaki i osobennosti [Forms of interactional tolarance: criteria and peculiarities]. Psihologicheskiy zhurnal – Psychological Journal, 29(3), 30–40 [in Russian].

Komalova, L. (2019). Reprezentatsyia verbalnoho obraza akta ahressyy v ynformatsyonnom unyversume anhloiazichnikh [Representation of the Verbal Image of Aggression in the Informational Universe of the English-Language Mass Media]. Vestnyk Rossyiskoho unyversyteta druzhbi narodov – Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(1), 149–164 [in Russian].

Kondratiuk, T.N. (2006). Slovnyk suchasnoho ukrayinskoho slenhu [Dictionary of modern Ukrainian slang]. Kharkiv: Folio [in Ukrainian].

Kutuza, N.V. (2018). Komunikatyvna suhestiia v reklamnomu dyskursi: psykholinhvistychnyi aspect [Communicative suggestion in advertisement discourse: psycholingual aspect]. Kyiv: Vydavnychyi dim Dmytra Buraho [in Ukrainian].

Levontina, I.V. (2004). Ostorozhno, poshlost! [Careful, vulgarity]. Logicheskiy analiz yazyka. Yazyki estetiki: Kontseptualnyye polya prekrasnogo i bezobraznogo – Logical analysis of the language. Languages of aesthetics: Conceptual fields of beauty and ugliness] (pp. 231–250). Moscow: Indrik [in Russian].

Prylypko, F.Ye. (2019). Leksyko-frazeolohichni komunikemy v suchasnomu dytyachomu multyplikatsiynomu filmi [Lexicon-phraseological communicemas in the modern children's cartoon film]. Candidate’s thesis. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].

Stavyts’ka, L. (2005). Argo, zhargon, slenh [Argo, zhargon, sleng]. Kyiv: Krytyka [in Ukrainian].

Stavyts’ka, L.O. (2007). Ukrayinskyy zharhon: slovnyk [Ukrainian jargon: Dictionary]. Кyiv: Krytyka [in Ukrainian].

Bilonozhenko, V.M. (Ed.). (1993). Frazeolohichnyy slovnyk ukrayinskoyi movy [Phraseological Dictionary of the Ukrainian Language]. Kyiv: Naukova dumka [in Ukrainian].

Taran, O. (2015). Psykholinhvalni chynnyky funktsionuvannia slenhovykh odynyts [Psycholingual factors of slang units’ functioning]. Studia Ukrainica Posnaniensia. Studia Ukrainica Posnaniensia, 3, 337–343. [in Ukrainian].

Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: a Social Psychological Analysis. N.Y.

Bertau, M.-C. (2011). Language for the Other: Constructing Cultural Historical Psycholinguistics. Tätigkeitstheorie: E-Journal for Activity Theoretical Research in Germany, 5, 13–49.

Buss, A. (1971). Aggression Pays. The Control of Aggression and Violence (pp. 7–18). N.Y., London: Academic Press.

Cachola, I., Eric Holgate, E., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., & Jessy, Li J. (2018). Expressively vulgar: The socio-dynamics of vulgarity and its effects on sentiment analysis in social media. Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 2927–2938). Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA.

Jay, T. (2009). The utility and ubiquity of taboo words. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(2), 153–161.

Goldstein, А. (2005). Catch It Low to Prevent It High: Countering Low-Level Verbal Abuse. Retrieved from

Kidd, E., Donnelly, S., & Christiansen, H.M. (2018). Individual Differences in Language Acquisition and Processing. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 22(2), 154–169.

Lavrinenko, I., & Shevchenko, I. (2019). Turn-taking in cinematic discourse: linguistic characteristics and practical implications for esp teaching. Advanced Education, 12, 49–54.

Mackay, G.D., Hadley, B.C., & Schwartz, H.J. (2005). Relations between emotion, illusory word perception, and orthographic repetition blindness: Tests of binding theory. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58(8), 1514–1533.

Meskova, L. (2017). Translation of vulgarism in Mass media. XLinguae Journal, 10(3), 101–109.

Oliynyk, N., & Shevchenko, I. (2016). Conceptualisation of economic crisis in discourse: from the great depression to the great recession. Advanced Education, 6, 76–81.

Trupej, J. (2019). Avoiding Offensive Language in Audio-visual Translation: A Case Study of Subtitling from English to Slovenian. Across Languages and Cultures, 20(1), 57–77.

Abstract views: 245
PDF Downloads: 195
How to Cite
Mamich, M. (2019). The Vulgarization of the Language of a Children’s Multiplication Text as a Psycholinguistic Problem. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 26(2), 260-277.