Internet Commentary as a Secondary Text: Semiotic Production Model
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-3-839-849
Abstract
The phenomenon of secondary text production has become a focal point due to the integrative nature of this speech product. The possibilities of the Internet greatly enhance the creation of derivative texts, thus expanding the formats of virtual communication. The formation of new genres, as well as the modification of existing ones, brings the problem of studying the mechanisms of text generation to a new level. This paper describes the Internet comment viewed as a secondary textual activity of the individual. An analysis of the network response, posted to online news content, has been conducted from the standpoint of linguopersonological and linguosemiotic approaches to the text construction. Importantly, the iconic and discursive patterns of the event have a significant impact on the reader’s commenting activity. This makes it possible to highlight the semiotic model of secondary text generation. The analysis of text representations of this model shows that the semiotic "view" on the text stimulus can be reflected in the comments at the explicit and implicit levels. The authors propose the typology of the semiotic model including five variants, i.e. metalinguistic, simulation, cross-language, transmutational, and intertextual. The variants can be allocated on the basis of different approaches to source text decoding. The complex nature of the phenomenon of Internet commentary, determined by its secondary character and new communicative environment, provides a comprehensive approach to the study of this type of text. In the future, the study can provide a description of cognitive, axiological, and pragmatic models of text production.
About the Author
I. V. Saveleva
Kemerovo State University
Russian Federation
6, Krasnaya St., Kemerovo, 650000
Russian Federation
6, Krasnaya St., Kemerovo, 650000
References
1. Agranovich N. B. The cognitive-communicative approach to a secondary text. Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Moscow, 2006, 152. (In Russ.)
2. Verbitskaya M. V. The teory of secondary texts (the study of modern English). Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Moscow, 2000, 47. (In Russ.)
3. Ionova S. V. Approximation of secondary texts’ content. Volgograd: VolGU, 2006, 380. (In Russ.)
4. Kim L. G. Interpretation field as the realization of the variant text interpretation potential (based on experimental data). Siberian Journal of Philology, 2010, (1): 203–212. (In Russ.)
5. Nesterova N. M., Popova Yu. K. The problem of differentiating primary and secondary texts. PNRPU Linguistics and Pedagogy Bulletin, 2017, (4): 52–61. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.15593/2224-9389/2017.4.5
6. Saikova N. V. Derived text and derived personality in linguodidactic aspect (the study of students’ essays). Natural written Russian speech: Proc. Sci.-Prac. Conf., ed. Golev N. D. Barnaul: AltGU, 2004, part 3, 129–136. (In Russ.)
7. Melnik N. V. Derivatological and lingvopersonological interpretation of secondary texts. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2010, (4): 148–153. (In Russ.)
8. Melnik N. V. Derivation functioning of the Russian text: structural and personality approaches. Moscow: Lenand, 2014, 280. (In Russ.)
9. Saveleva I. V. The variability of text production and text generation strategies: linguistic personality approach (the study of political Internet commentary). Cand. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Kemerovo, 2013, 25. (In Russ.)
10. Maydanova L. M. Speech intention and the typology of secondary texts. Bitenskaya G. V., Boguslavskaya N. E., Giniatullin I. A., Kozhevnikova N. A., Maydanova L. M., Matveeva T. V., Murzin L. N., Sakharny L. V., Sirotinina O. B., Chernukhina I. Ya. Man – Text – Culture. Ekaterinburg: IRRO, 1994, 81–104. (In Russ.)
11. Dridze T. M. Language and social psychology. Moscow: Librokom, 2009, 240. (In Russ.)
12. Leontyev A. A. Psychology of interaction. Moscow: Smysl, Akademiia, 2008, 368. (In Russ.)
13. Zhinkin N. I. Speech as a conductor of information. Moscow: Nauka, 1982, 159. (In Russ.)
14. Zalevskaya A. A. Introduction into psycholinguistics. Moscow: RGGU, 2000, 382. (In Russ.)
15. Vepreva I. T. Linguistic reflection in Post-Soviet period. Moscow: OLMA-PRESS, 2005, 384. (In Russ.)
16. Lotman Yu. M. Inside thinking worlds. Human – text – semiosphere – culture. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul'tury, 1996, 464. (In Russ.)
17. Sadchenko V. T. Secondhand semiosis in fiction. Dr. Philol. Sci. Diss. Abstr. Vladivostok, 2009, 38. (In Russ.)
18. Radina N. K., Aleksandrova N. S. Semiotics of multimedia text: creolized texts in professional online-communication (based on the HSE official website). Voprosy psikholingvistiki, 2016, (30): 164–180. (In Russ.)
19. Yergaliyeva S. Zh., Melnik N. V. Linguistic personology aspect of political internet commentary analysis: the case study of Russian and Kazakhstan web sites. Dinamika iazykovyh i kul'turnykh protsessov v sovremennoi Rossii, 2018, (6): 604–609. (In Russ.)
20. Kim L. G. Interpretation strategies in receptive activities of the addressee of the speech work. Russian language and culture in the global cultural network: Proc. XIII MAPRYAL Congress (Granada, Spain, September 13–20, 2015). Saint-Petersburg: MAPRIaL, 2015, vol. 8, 130–135. (In Russ.)
21. Kim L. G., Golev N. D. On the relations of an addressee, author and text in the paradigm of linguistic interpretativism. Siberian Journal of Philology, 2008, (1): 144–153. (In Russ.)
22. Popova O. A., Denisova E. S., Olenev S. V., Pauli Yu. S., Prokudina I. S., Shpilnaya N. N., Tatarintseva E. N., Artemova T. V., Avvakumova E. A., Kirkinskaya T. I., Ivantsova E. V. Linguopersonology and personality-oriented language teaching. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2009, 384. (In Russ.)
23. Golev N. D., Shpilnaya N. N. Ordinary medical communication (types of discoursive practices). Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2012, (1): 128–137. (In Russ.)
24. Bogachanova T. D. Text manifestation of the linguistic persona features: typological aspect. Vestnik Kemerovskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2018, (2): 162–169. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.21603/2078-8975-2018-2-162-169
25. Chudinov A. P., Budaev E. V., Dzyuba E. V., Koshkarova N. N., Kondratyeva O. N., Nikiforova M. V., Pirozhkova I. S., Ruzhenceva N. B., Solopova O. A. Linguistic analysis of political discourse: theory and method. Ekaterinburg: UrGPU, 2016, 308. (In Russ.)
26. Saveleva I. V. The variability of text production and text generation strategies: linguistic personality approach (the study of political Internet commentary). Kemerovo: KemGU, 2015, 220. (In Russ.)
27. Abrosimova E. A., Kravchenko Yu. D. Reader comment as a phenomenon of media text interpretation (based on internet comments and experiment data). Mediaskop, 2017, (2): 18.
28. Abdullina L. R. Development of a genre of the comment: theoretical aspect. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014, (7): 129–132. (In Russ.)
29. Romantovskiy A. V. Mass discourse of problematization as a basis of communication on forums of e-media. Communication Studies, 2017, (4): 150–164. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2017.4.150-164
30. Nosovets S. G. Editorial comment as an element of mass media news text in social networks: pragmastylistic features (based on mass media communities in "VKontakte"). Mediaskop, 2018, (2): 17. (In Russ.)
31. Alefirenko N. F. Cognitive-semiological paradigm in linguo-cultural studies. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki, 2006, (1): 36–44. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Saveleva I.V. Internet Commentary as a Secondary Text: Semiotic Production Model. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2019;21(3):839-849. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2019-21-3-839-849
Views:
742
Email this article 