Discrediting Strategy in Internet Comments to Publications made by the Mayors of New York and London
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-4-1051-1059
Abstract
This research featured the lingua-personolological aspect of linguistic means and speech techniques connected with the use of discrediting strategy in online comments aimed at discrediting the authorities. The study was based on the methods of continuous sampling and linguistic analysis of official Facebook and Twitter pages of the mayors of New York and London. Lowering proved to be the leading strategy used in comments aimed at discrediting the government. The research revealed the prevailing tactics and techniques of the speech strategy for lowering, e.g. "analysis minus", insult, accusation, etc. Internet users appeared to have an individual style and vocabulary choice that depended on various subjective factors. The comments showed little trust for the government, which makes discrediting the authorities an important contemporary issue.
Supporting agencies: The reported study was funded by Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project № 19-012-00202 А "Everyday political communication in social media: a comprehensive linguistic analysis".
About the Authors
N. V. Melnik
Kemerovo State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kemerovo
O. V. Mityakina
Kemerovo State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kemerovo
References
1. Humboldt von W. Selected works on linguistics, 2nd ed. Moscow: Progress, 2000, 400. (In Russ.)
2. Vinogradov V. V. Russian language, 2nd ed. Moscow: Vyssh. shk., 1972, 614. (In Russ.)
3. Arnold I. V. Stylistics. Modern English language, 13th ed. Moscow: Flinta, 2016, 384. (In Russ.)
4. Dijk van T. A. Discourse and power: representation of dominance in language and communication. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2013, 344. (In Russ.)
5. Marwell G., Schmitt D. R. Dimentions of compliance-gaining behavior: an empirical analysis. Sociometry, 1967, 30(4): 350–364.
6. Issers O. S. Communicative strategies and tactics of Russian speech, 5th ed. Moscow: Izd-vo LKI, 2008, 288. (In Russ.)
7. Parshina O. N. Russian political speech: theory and practice, 2nd ed. Moscow: URSS, 2007, 232. (In Russ.)
8. Kopnina G. A. Speech manipulation, 6th ed. Moscow: FLINTA; Nauka, 2017, 176. (In Russ.)
9. Kerimov A. A. Legitimacy of political power: problems, definition and key theoretical models. Izvestiia Uralskogo federalnogo universiteta. Seriia 3: Obshchestvennye nauki, 2015, (1): 81–91. (In Russ.)
10. Mackay R. Multimodal legitimation. Analyzing Genres in Political Communication: Theory and practice, eds. Cap P., Okulska U. John Benjamins Publishing Co, 2013, 353–354.
11. Baranov A. N. Political discourse: farewell to ritual. Chelovek, 1996, (6): 108–118. (In Russ.)
12. Karasik V. I. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002, 477. (In Russ.)
13. Sériot P. How are texts read in France. Squaring of meaning: the French school of discourse analysis. Moscow: Progress, 1999, 14–53. (In Russ.)
14. Shapochkin D. V. Political discourse: cognitive aspect, 2nd ed. Tyumen: TiumGU, 2018, 292. (In Russ.)
15. Sheygal E. L. Semiotics of political discourse. Volgograd: Peremena, 2000, 386. (In Russ.)
16. Abdi R., Basarati A. Legitimation in discourse and communication revisited: a critical view towards legitimizing identities in communication. International Journal of Society, Culture and Language, 2018, 6(1): 86–100.
17. Wodak R. Disorders of discourse. London-N. Y.: Longman, 1996, 200.
18. Skrebtsova T. G. Cognitive linguistics. Moscow: ID IaSK, 2018, 392. (In Russ.)
19. Sukhanov Yu. Yu. Political discourse as object of linguistic analysis. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 2018, 9(1): 200–212. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2018-9-1-200-212
20. Luhmann N. The power. Moscow: Praksis, 2001, 256. (In Russ.)
21. Saveleva I. V. Internet comment potential in linguistic personology aspect. Siberian Journal of Philology, 2017, (4): 192–201. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17223/18137083/61/18
22. Sidorova N. A., Stepanov S. A., Limarova E. V. Language markers of political discourse manipulation. Sidorova N. A., Stepanov S. A., Limarova E. V. Political discourse – language manipulation. Moscow: ITTs, 2018, 72–85. (In Russ.)
23. Kahne J., Bowyer B. The political significance of social media activity and social networks. Political Communication, 2018, 35(3): 470–493. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2018.1426662
24. Mikhaleva O. L. Political discourse: The specificity of manipulative influence. Moscow: LIBROKOM, 2009, 256. (In Russ.)
25. Bouvier G., Machin D. What gets lost in Twitter 'cancel culture' hashtags. Discourse and Society, 2021, 32(3): 307–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926520977215
Review
For citations:
Melnik N.V., Mityakina O.V. Discrediting Strategy in Internet Comments to Publications made by the Mayors of New York and London. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2021;23(4):1051-1059. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2021-23-4-1051-1059
Views:
388
Email this article 