Interdiscursivity in Film Blogging: Kinorium Platform

Interdiscursivity remains largely understudied in new hybrid genres, e.g., in amateur film criticism. However, interdiscursivity is undoubtedly a key mechanism of film blog texts. Amateur film criticism is at the intersection of personal discourse and professional expertise. Bloggers use a diverse range of discursive strategies to build trust and engage the audience, i.e., to achieve their communicative goal. These linguistic tools and pragmatic interdiscursive functions were subjected to a linguistic and pragmatic analysis in the specific context of film blogging. The methods of discursive, pragmatic, and stylistic analyses were applied to texts retrieved from the Kinorium platform to establish ways of interaction between personal and professional discourses, which manifests itself as a system of multi-level tools and depends on the specific pragmatics. Interdiscursivity manifests itself in film blogs through the systemic interaction of personal, professional, media, and internet discourses. The main linguistic markers include a combination of emotionally evaluative vocabulary with specialized terms, stylistic devices, appeals to personal experience, and internet communication tools. From a pragmatic point of view, interdiscursivity proves to serve as a strategic tool for legitimizing subjective assessment, reducing distance from the reader, and digital adaptation. This resulting multidimensional product is both sophisticated and emotional, which makes it especially engaging and influential. Future research will include audience response to the interdiscursive variations in film blogging.

1. Arutiunova N. D. Communication genres. In: Arutiunova N. D., Bulygina T. V., Kibrik A. A., Krasukhina K. G., Krylov S. A., Paducheva E. V., Radzievskaya T. V., Shmelev A. D. The human factor in language: Communication, modality, and deixis. Moscow: Nauka, 1992, 52–53. (In Russ.)

2. Bolshakova L. S. The concept of polycode texts. Vestnik of Novgorod State University, 2008, (49): 48–51. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/mudbgh

3. Gabets A. A. Interdiscourse as inherent characteristic of institutional discourse (on the example of educational discourse). Vestnik of Samara University. History, Pedagogics, Philology, 2021, 27(4): 107–113. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18287/2542-0445-2021-27-4-107-113

4. Galichkina E. N. Internet discourse: The basic research areas and the tendencies of development. Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2021, (7): 94–101. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/jhvbdf

5. Georginova N. Yu. Interdiscoursivity, intertextuality, polyphony: To the correlation of terms. Pushkin Leningrad State University Journal, 2014, 1(1): 149–155. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/secesd

6. Goncharenko A. K. Pecularities of polycode texts. Vestnik TVGU. Series: Philology, 2011, (2): 233–240. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/oxbrvx

7. Gordievskiy A. A. Intertextuality and interdiscursivity: Differentiation. Vestnik Tyumenskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2006, (4): 228–233. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/htncwl

8. Dziuba E. V., Ryabova I. Y. Formal and semantic organization of hybrid literary-legal discourse. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 2022, 13(2): 433–454. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22363/2313-2299-2022-13-2-433-454

9. Zakharov R. I. Variability of interpretation of polycode text: Linguosemiotic perspective. Vestnik of Lobachevsky University of Nizhni Novgorod, 2023, (2): 231–238. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/lwklgc

10. Ierusalimskaya A. O. Intertextuality vs interdiscursivity as a formed discourse. Vestnik of Northern (Arctic) Federal University. Series "Humanitarian and Social Sciences", 2016, (2): 104–111. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/issn2227-6564.2016.2.104

11. Karasik V. I. Types of discourse. Linguistic personality: Institutional and personal discourse, eds. Karasik V. I., Slyshkin G. G. Volgograd: Izd-vo VSPU "Peremena", 2000a, 5–20. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vwhliz

12. Karasik V. I. The structure of institutional discourse. Problems of speech communication, ed. Sirotinina O. B. Saratov: SSU, 2000b, 25–33. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xrpbvz

13. Karasik V. I. Language bridges of understanding. Moscow: Diskurs, 2019, 524. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/ywrpnb

14. Karpukhina V. N. Constructing linguistic reality when changing the semiotic code of culture. Barnaul: ASU, 2013, 232. (In Russ.)

15. Kovalskaya S. V. Professional discourse: Linguistic and methodological aspects. Technopark of universal pedagogical competencies: Proc. All-Russian Sci.-Prac. Conf., Cheboksary, 12 Nov 2024. Cheboksary: Sreda, 2024, 119–122. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/fbjoxl

16. Krasnykh V. V. Fundamentals of psycholinguistics and communication theory. Moscow: Gnosis, 2001, 269. (In Russ.)

17. Malysheva E. G., Kramar I. A. Interdiscursive nature of the concept "tolerance", objectified in the journalistic internet discourse on computer games. Political Linguistics, 2017, (2): 105–109. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/yndhnt

18. Marchenko T. V. Intermediality, intertextuality, interdiscursivity: Correlation of notions in the light of massmedia discourse studies. Humanities and Law Research, 2020, (2): 196–201. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.37493/2409-1030.2020.2.27

19. Mityagina V. A., Sidorova I. G. The genres of the personal internet discourse: Communicative explications of a person. Speech genres, 2016, (2): 105–115. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xuvjix

20. Mishankina N. A. Social norms in the internet-communication: Sociolinguistic aspect. Humanitarian Informatics, 2013, (7): 72–78. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qckpfb

21. Myasnikova M. A., Trukhina A. V. Amateurs and professionals in the sphere of film criticism: A methodology of comparative analysis. Dynamics of Media Systems, 2025, 5(1): 529–536. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.47475/2949-3390-2025-5-1-529-536

22. Nazmutdinova S. S. Ways to achieve harmonious translation in film discourse. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 2007, (22): 90–94. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/nbvput

23. Pankratova S. Invective lexicon in the foreign film discourse of the last decade. SibScript, 2023, 25(1): 66–74. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/sibscript-2023-25-1-66-74

24. Prokofyev G. V. The category of interdiscourse as a means of organizing media discourse. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2013, (5): 77–79. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qbjlfh

25. Savelyeva I. V., Meln’nik N. V. Receptive and productive activity of non-professional internet discourse participants. Research result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, 2024, 10(3): 42–69. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2024-10-3-0-3

26. Sadovskaya E. V. Interdiscourse. Intertextuality. Metadiscourse. Incorporating the "Other’s" discourse. Vestnik of Samara University, 2008, (1): 167–175. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/iukest

27. Serio P. The quadrature of meaning. French school of discourse analysis. Moscow: Progress, 1999, 416. (In Russ.)

28. Stebletsova A. O., Sternin I. A. Interdiscourse of media texts on preventive medicine. Communication Studies, 2019, 6(3): 794–809. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/gzocmv

29. Stepanova E. S. Actualization of the interdiscourse category in the scientific medical discourse. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2018, (7): 19–24. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.23951/1609-624X-2018-7-19-24

30. Chernyavskaya V. E. Intertext and interdiscourse as a realisation of text semantic openness. Issues of Cognitive Linguistics, 2004, (1): 106–111. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/opvzxb

31. Chernyavskaya V. E. Linguistics of the text: Polycode, intertextuality, and interdiscursivity. Moscow: Librokom, 2009, 248. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/zfqakn

32. Chernyavskaya V. E. Open text and open discourse: Intertextuality – discoursivity – interdicoursivity. Text linguistics and discursive analysis: Traditions and perspectives, ed. Chernyavskaya V. E. St. Petersburg: SPbSUEF, 2007, 22–23. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tlbzfx

33. Agha A. Introduction: Semiosis across encounters. The Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 2005, 15(1): 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.1

34. Dijk T. A. van. Discourse and power. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2008, 308.

35. Fairclough N. Analysing discourse: Textual research for social research. New York: Routledge, 2003, 270.

36. Tantucci V. Language and social minds: The semantics and pragmatics of intersubjectivity. Cambridge University Press, 2021, 206. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108676441