Kemerovskiy gosudarstvennyy universitet
Kemerovo, Kemerovo, Russian Federation
The response pragmatics in political Internet discourse is one of the most interesting and understudied aspects of modern virtual communication. This research featured a model of non-professional Internet discourse in the genre of political Internet commentary and its pragmatics. The resulting models correlated with the general model, which was based on the communicative intentions of the authors of political Internet comments. The empirical material involved feedback lines from readers of the RIA Novosti news agency. Determining the textual entity by its sender’s macrointension, the authors established the genre of Internet commentary as reactive. The pragmatic options for response patterns were based on the addressee’s communicative role and the reactive macrointension implemented in non-professional Internet discourse. The paper describes two reactive models of non-professional discourse: 1) reaction to a political event; 2) reaction to a pragmatic context. The method of linguistic and pragmatic discourse analysis revealed that the reactive models contained the following types of reaction: positive, negative, and twofold. However, the Internet comments also included an interpretative component. The reactive intention of the subjects of non-professional Internet discourse was combined with their intention to introduce a fragment of personal experience.
non-professional discourse, Internet comments, political media text, model, intention, reaction, interpretation, linguopragmatic analysis
1. Bogachanova T. D. Meta-linguistic potential of political internet commentaries. Philology. Theory & Practice, 2020, 13(7): 125–129. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30853/filnauki.2020.7.22
2. Vasilenko E. N. A comment in the genre space of internet discourse. Minsk State Linguistic University Bulletin. Series 1: Philology, 2019, (3): 20–27. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ywmjzw
3. Devyatiyarov D. V. Dynamic research of the "Illegitimate power" network concept (based on the English YouTube comments). Mir nauki, kultury, obrazovaniya, 2021, (3): 559–561. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24412/1991-5497-2021-388-559-561
4. Karasik V. I. Linguistic circle: personality, concepts, and discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002, 477. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/ugqamp
5. Katermina V. V., Vulfovich B. G. Linguopragmatics of user comments in political internet discourse. Krasnodar: KubSU, 2022, 170. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/okglxv
6. Kim L. G. Virtual dialogue on the internet as a result of the manifestation of centripetal and centrifugal trends. Language and speech on the Internet: personality, society, communication, and culture, ed. Trofimova G. N. Moscow: PFUR, 2022, 330–339. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/hxyrtk
7. Kim L. G. Ordinary political internet comments: conflict between interpretations of the news text. Innovative, information, and communication technologies, ed. Uivasov S. U. Moscow: Association of graduates and employees of AFEA named after prof. Zhukovsky, 2020, 160–164. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/fsjlxn
8. Kirichek O. A. Structures of the routine and the political science: features of the routine cognition. Society and Power, 2013, (1): 52–56. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/pwwswp
9. Kolokoltseva T. N. Internet-communication as the mirror of the main tendencies of development and functioning of the Russian language. Facets of knowledge, 2011, (4): 13–17. (In Russ.) https://www.elibrary.ru/rbsncx
10. Melnik N. V. Political Internet commentary: Linguopersonological and linguoculturological aspects. Iazyki i literatura v polikul'turnom prostranstve, 2020, (6): 85–87. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xrlxfi
11. Melnik N. V., Saveleva I. V. Political internet commentary: linguistic personality perspective. Semiotics-semasiological dimension of political discourse, eds. Bozhenkova N. A., Katyshev P. A. Moscow: Pushkin Institute, 2021, 170–194. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/djllyu
12. Mityagina V. A. Internet comment as a communicative action. Genres and types of text in scientific and media discourse, ed. Pastuhov A. G. Orel: Oryol State Institute of Culture, 2012, 188–197. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/wfywuv
13. Mokhireva S. V. Media discourse as the realization of the interpretative potential of an event in Russian-language media. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Kemerovo, 2017, 241. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yphgvd
14. Novgorodova E. V. Conflict of interpretations as a cognitive basis of linguoconflictology in everyday political comments. Kemerovo: KemSU, 2021, 197. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/twxbtp
15. Olenev S. V., Uaykhanova M. A., Yergaliev K. S. The value-based national worldview of the Kazakhstani Internet commentator. Bulletin of the Karaganda University. Series: Philology, 2022, (3): 101–108. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31489/2022Ph3/101-108
16. Parshina O. N. Russian political speech: Theory and practice. Moscow: LKI, 2007, 232. (In Russ.)
17. Rolgayzer A. A. Internet comments to French political news: linguapragmatic features. Virtual Communication and Social Networks, 2022, 1(3): 136–142. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2782-4799-2022-1-3-136-142
18. Ruzhentseva N. B. Cognitive models as a means of achieving the ironic echo-effect in various formats of discourse (on the Ukrainian political events). Political Linguistics, 2014, (4): 82–89. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tjaqqt
19. Saveleva I. V. Non-professional political discourse: linguapragmatic and linguapersonological aspects. St. Petersburg: Naukoemkie tekhnologii, 2021, 139. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/nrpill
20. Saveleva I. V. Non-professional political discourse as a new communicative phenomenon: linguopragmatic and linguopersonological aspects of modeling. Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. Kemerovo, 2022, 496. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yukkvh
21. Sinelnikova L. N. Response discourse: a non-rhetorical model of political communication. Proceedings of Taurida National V. I. Vernadsky University. Series: Philology. Social Communication, 2013, 26(1): 293–299. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yfmpex
22. Steksova T. I. Verbal aggression in internet comments as manifestation of social tension. Political Linguistics, 2013, (3): 77–81. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/rdyort
23. Chudinov A. P. Political linguistics. Moscow: Flinta, 2008, 254. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qtphnj
24. Sheigal E. I. Semiotics of political discourse. Moscow: Volgograd: Peremena, 2000, 367. (In Russ.)
25. Shpilnaya N. N. Strategies of speech manipulation in everyday virtual discourse in Internet comments. In: Golev N. D., Altukhova T. A., Butakova L. O., Guts E. N., Ergalieva S. Zh., Efremov V. A., Ivanenko G. S., Irkova A. V., Kim L. G., Novgorodova E. V., Melnik N. V., Narchuk V. S., Orlova N. V., Sologub O. P., Tarmaeva V. I., Tupikova A. M., Shpilnaya N. N., Yukhnevich V. N. Social networks: A comprehensive linguistic analysis. Kemerovo: KemSU, 2021, 153–162. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/feszsk
26. Shchipitsina L. Yu. Genre status of an online comment. Bulletin of Bashkir University, 2015, 20(2): 528–532. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ucacel
27. Fairclough N. Political discourse in the media: analytical framework. Approaches to Media Discourse, eds. Bell A., Garret P. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998, 142–162.
28. Golev N. D., Kim L. G., Saveleva I. V. Variability of news interpretation in political discourse (a case study of the internet materials covering the 2014 and 2018 Winter Olympic Games). Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2021, 14(4): 568–583. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0743
29. Van Dijk T. A. Political discourse and political cognition. Politics as text and talk: analytical approaches to political discourse, eds. Chilton P. A., Schäffner Ch. Amsterdam; Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2002, 203–238.
30. Van Dijk T. A. Politics, ideology, and discourse. Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics. 2nd ed. 2006, 728–740. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/00722-7
31. Yergaliyeva S., Anesova A., Melnik N., Uaikhanova M., Sarybayeva B. Linguistic-personological strategies and practices of commenting on political texts in virtual space. International Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 2022, 10(3): 125–136. https://doi.org/10.22034/ijscl.2022.558154.2714
