Receptive and productive activity of non-professional Internet discourse participants
The paper examines the non-professional Internet discourse generated by the authors of Internet comments. It is viewed through the prism of the categories of intentionality, as characteristics of a text that has the capacity to express one or another intention of its author, and as communicative intentions realised by a person who simultaneously plays two communicative roles: the reader and the author. The textual data demonstrate that in Internet commenting, an unprofessional personality implements both reception and production within one text unit. The implementation of these global intentions of non-professional Internet discourse is carried out at different levels: syntactic, semantic and pragmatic. The analysis of textual markers of receptive and productive intentions allows us to establish patterns in their implementation through three main text types: cohesion, diffusion and overlapping. Each of the text types has several variants. Remarkably, when generating a text according to the cohesion model, the authors of the comments consistently and explicitly demonstrate the transition from reception to production, as indicated by discursive words, marking the syntactic organization of the commentary. A more complex variant of the implementation of reception and production within the same Internet text is the text type called “diffusion”. In this model, reception and production are realized simultaneously, due to the closely intertwined markers of reaction and production in the text at the levels of syntax, semantics and pragmatics. Reception is established at the level of non-linear text liaisons as well as semantic and pragmatic characteristics of an Internet comment. In the third model, reception and products are realized using the same textual means. Therefore, the specified text type is called ”overlapping”. In the commentary constructed according to the overlapping principle, the receptive and productive activity of a non-professional personality is explicated at the level of vertical connections of the text and its contextual characteristics. A quantitative analysis of text types according to the selected criteria shows that in Russian-language discourse, the most common variant of the implementation of reception and products is cohesion. The diffusion model is more often presented in English-language discourse. In general, the dual communicative status of the authors of Internet comments was revealed in 19.5% of English-language texts and 27.4% of Russian-language texts. The prospects of the study include conducting a longitudinal experimental study of the intentionality of non-professional Internet discourse.
Savelyeva, I V., Mel’nik, N V. (2024). Receptive and productive activity of non-professional Internet discourse participants, Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 10 (3), 42-69.
While nobody left any comments to this publication.
You can be first.
Arutyunova, N. D. (1981). Addressee factor, Izvestiya Akademii nauk SSSR. Seriya literatury i yazyka [Proceedings of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Literature and Language Series], Nauka, Moscow, Russia, 40 (4), 356–367. (In Russian)
Bart, R. (1994). The author’s death, in Izbrannye raboty: Semiotika. Poetika [Selected papers. Semiotics. Poetics], Moscow, Russia, 384–391. (In Russian)
Bolotnov, A. V. (2015). The idiosyncrasy of an information-media linguistic personality: communicative and cognitive aspects of research, D. Sc. Thesis, Tomsk, Russia, Tomsk State University. (In Russian)
Vinogradov, V. V. (1961). Problema avtorstva i teoriya stilei [The problem of authorship and the theory of styles], Gosudarstvennoe izdatelstvo khudozhestvennoy literatury, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Vinokur, T. G. (1993). Govoryashchiy i slushayushchiy. Varianty rechevogo povedeniya [The speaker and the listener. Variants of speech behavior], Nauka, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Dijk, T. van. (2013). Diskurs i vlast: Reprezentatsiya dominirovaniya v yazyke i kommunikatsii [Discourse and power], transl. by Kozhemyakin Е. А., Pereverzev E. V. and Amatov А. M., Publishing House «LIBROKOM», Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Duskaeva, L. R. (2012). The intentionality of a journalist’s speech activity: ontology and structure, Saint Petersburg University Bulletin, Series 9, Philology, Oriental Studies, Journalism, 2, 253-260. (In Russian)
Ivanova, I. (2023). Vector variability and the nature of readers’ reactions to messages in online media, Medialingvistika, 10 (1), 27-46. DOI: 10.21638/spbu22.2023.102 (In Russian)
Kaminskaya, T. L. (2008). Author and addressee in modern media texts, Saint Petersburg University Bulletin, Series 9, Philology, Oriental Studies, Journalism, 2 (2), 314-319. (In Russian)
Kim, L. G. and Golev, N. D. (2008). On the relationship of the addressee, the author and the text in the paradigm of linguistic interpretationism, Sibirskiy filologicheskiy zhurnal, 1, 144–153. (In Russian)
Kim, L. G. (2012). Units of description of the interpretative functioning of the text in the addressee's space // Kemerovo State University Bulletin, 1 (49), 186–190. (In Russian)
Klushina, N. I. (2008). Intentional categories of journalistic text (based on the material of periodicals 2000–2008), Abstract of D. Sc. Dissertation, Journalism, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Kovalevskaya, N. I. (2022). Digital reading: the formation of a new type of reader, Trudy BGTU, Seriya 4, Print- i mediatekhnologii, 1 (255), 159-165. DOI: 10.52065/2520-6729-2022-255-1-159-165(In Russian)
Kristeva, Yu. (2004). Izbrannye trudy: Razrushenie poetiki [Selected works: The Destruction of Poetics], G. K. Kosikov (Ed.), transl. by Kosikov, G. K. and Narumov B. P., Rossiyskaya politicheskaya entsiklopediya (ROSSPEN), Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Lukina, M. M. (2006). The new life of old newspapers: how the press adapts to a new reader, Moscow University Bulletin, Series 10, Journalism, 3, 52–59. (In Russian)
Duskaeva, L. R. and Tsvetova, N. S. (eds.) (2012). Mediatekst kak poliintencionalnaya sistema [Media text as a multi-functional system], the collection of papers, Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia. (In Russian)
Melnik, N. V. and Saveleva, I. V. (2017). Linguopersonological strategies of text perception (based on the material of online comments on political articles), Bulletin of Kemerovo State University, 4 (72), 197–204. DOI:10.21603/2078-8975-2017-4-197-204 (In Russian)
Melnik, N. V. (Ed.) (2021). Problema legitimizatsii v politicheskom diskurse: lingvopersonologicheskiy aspekt [The problem of legitimization in political discourse: linguistic and phonological aspect], Izdatelstvo «Pero», Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Mikhaleva, O. L. (2008). Politicheskiy diskurs. Spetsifika manipulyativnogo vozdeistviya [Political discourse. The specifics of manipulative influence], Librokom, Moscow, Russia. (In Russian)
Prom, N. A. (2020). The types of addressees in media discourse, Medialingvistika, 7 (1), 1, 95-103. DOI: 10.21638/spbu22.2020.108 (In Russian)
Putina O. N., Balakin S. V. (2022). Speech communication: pragmatic aspect, Eurasian Humanitarian Journal, 1, 4-9. (In Russian)
Romantovskiy, A. V. (2024). Narrativization in the genre of Internet commentary when communicating on social networks, Kommunikativnye issledovaniya, 11 (1), 155-170. DOI: 10.24147/2413-6182.2024.11(1).155-170. (In Russian)
Savelieva, I. V. (2019). Mechanisms of legitimization in the media discourse (a case study of the Internet media), Vestnik Novosibirskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya, filologiya, 18 (6), 188–198. DOI: 10.25205/1818-7919-2019-18-6-188-198 (In Russian)
Savelieva, I. V. (2021). Neprofessionalny politicheskiy diskurs: lingvopragmaticheskiy i lingvopersonologicheskiy aspekty [Non-professional political discourse: linguopragmatic and linguopersonological aspects], Naukoemkie tekhnologii, Sankt-Peterburg, Russia, 139 p. (In Russian)
Tsvetova, N. S. (2012). The author’s category in the intentional field of the media text, in Duskaeva, L. R. and Tsvetova, N. S. (Eds.) Mediatekst kak poliintentsionalnaya sistema [Media text as a multi-functional system], Saint Petersburg State University, Saint Petersburg, Russia, 17–23. (In Russian)
Chepkina, E. V. (2000). Russkiy zhurnalistskiy diskurs: tekstoporozhdayushchie praktiki i kody (1995–2000) [Russian Journalistic Discourse: Text-generating Practices and Codes (1995–2000)], Yekaterinburg, Russia. (In Russian)
Eco, U. (1998). From the Internet to Gutenberg: Text and Hypertext Excerpts from a public lecture by Umberto Eco at the Faculty of Economics of Moscow State University on May 20, 1998 [Online]. Available at: https://studfile.net/preview/1714056/ (accessed: 12.03.2024). (In Russian)
Cap, P. (2008). Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse, Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 17–41. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.002 (In English)
Creeber, G. and Royston, M. (2008). Digital Culture: Understanding New Media, UK, McGraw-Hill Education. (In English)
Domingo, D., Quandt, T., Heinonen, A., Paulussen, S., Singer, J. B. and Vujnovic, M. (2008). Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond: an international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers, Journalism Practice, 2 (3), 326–342. DOI:10.1080/17512780802281065 (In English)
Fetzer, A. and Lauerbach, G. E. (2007). Political Discourse in the Media: Cross-cultural perspectives, Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI:10.1075/PBNS.160 (In English)
McCombs, M. E. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present and future, Journalism Studies, 6, 543–557. DOI:10.1080/14616700500250438 (In English)
Tsfati, Y. (2014). Uses and perceptions of political media, in Reinemann, C. (Ed.). Political Communication: Handbooks of Communication Science, Volume 18, Berlin, de Gruyter, 489–506. DOI:10.1515/9783110238174.489 (In English)
Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics, London, Edward Arnold, New York, Oxford University Press. (In English)
Wall, M. (2017). Mapping Citizen and Participatory Journalism: In newsrooms, classrooms and beyond, Journalism Practice, 11 (2–3), 134–141. DOI:10.1080/17512786.2016.1245890 (In English)
Wettstein, M. and Wirth, W. (2017). Media Effects: How Media Influence Voters, Swiss Political Science Review, 23 (3), 262–269. DOI:10.1111/spsr.12263 (In English)
Wojcieszak, M. and Mutz, D. C. (2009). Online Groups and Political Discourse: Do Online Discussion Spaces Facilitate Exposure to Political Disagreement?, Journal of Communication, 59 (1), 40–56. DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.01403.x (InEnglish)