The concept “periphery” in Russian and German: A corpus analysis of collocation profiles

<jats:p>The article presents the results of a contrastive study of the concept of “periphery” in the Russian and German languages based on a quantitative analysis of collocation profiles. The study draws on data from the Russian National Corpus and the Digital Dictionary of the German Language with corpus data (DWDS). The methodology includes the comprehensive use of statistical measures of the strength of collocation links (Dice coefficients, logDice, Mutual Information, t-score, log-likelihood) to identify key semantic features of the use of the lexemes “periferiya” and “die Peripherie”. The results of the study revealed significant differences in the discursive implementation of the concept under consideration. In the Russian language, a dominant connection with meteorological discourse was found (“anticyclone”, “cyclone” – Dice = 10.42), as well as active penetration of the unit “periphery” into the spheres of computer technology, cognitive sciences and cultural studies. In German, the concept of “periphery” retains a clear spatial-territorial core with an emphasis on geographical precision (“östlich”, “südlich” – logDice = 5.2) and urban planning, demonstrating a strong connection with the rhetoric of European integration (“Euro-Zone”). A conclusion is made about various culturally determined models of conceptualization of spatial relations of the key opposition “center – periphery” within the framework of the categories of social exclusion and social inclusion: the Russian model is characterized by metaphorical expansion and ideological load, the German one by a technocratic approach and administrative precision. It is established that the concept of the periphery receives an ambiguous objectification in the Russian and German languages, reflecting deep differences in the historical experience, scientific traditions, and political and economic discourses of two non-closely related cultures. In relation to the lexemes analyzed, the limitations of traditional dictionary definitions are noted, and the need for a critical rethinking of social media discourse is substantiated – from the rhetoric of “displacement” to the rhetoric of “integration”.</jats:p>