Is the Lexeme “Khach” Offensive?

Abstract

The article discusses the study of the lexeme  “khach” in the functional aspect. In forensic linguistics practice, one often has to deal with ethnopholisms. The lexeme “khach” is quite typical of controversial texts on ethnic topics. Its derogatory nature is not obvious to all forensic linguists. We consider this lexeme offensive and support our point of view. The author of the article disputes the phonosemantic interpretation of the negative attitude of native speakers to the lexeme “khach”: it seems to repel with its sound, unlike the name Ivan in the same function of the ethnonym. The author of the article gives examples of how the name Ivan evokes unpleasant emotions in a Russian person, as well as clearly positive connotations associated with names consisting of the same sounds as "khach". It is also impossible to agree with the opinion that the ethnonym “khach” is explained by the theory of lacunarity, that is, by the fact that there are no commonly used words to denote the residents of the Caucasus. Russian Russianодноубрать has the word “kavkazets” (Caucasian), which has not gone out of use at all, which is confirmed by the National Corpus of the Russian language. The lexeme “Khachik” is not pejorative but diminutive if it is a proper name. However, speakers avoid using even this form because of its negative associations. Generisizedvariants as unofficial names of an ethnic group or groups are delicts (torts), gross violations of speech etiquette. Morover, it does not necessarily refer to a certain – Armenian – people. In addition, such unofficial ethnonyms are associated with stereotypes, often derogatory for the named peoples.