Abstract:
The paper deals with communicative cyberpersonality types of aggressive behaviour as a cross-cultural phenomenon. The aim of the article is to distinguish and differentiate communicative cyberpersonality types of aggressive behaviour ssupported by such characteristics of the communicative cyberspace as globalism, virtuality, and anonymity. The relevance of the current investigation is determined by a constantly growing role of computer-madiated communication in a modern person’s life, by the appearance of new types of the Internet users’ interaction, by the display a communicative personality’s new qualities and by the necessity of giving a scientific background to all these appearing and changing phenomena. The analysed material comprises dictionary definitions and modern Russian an English texts selected by the continuous sampling method from different Internet genres, such as forums, blogs, social nets, web-chats, which reflect destructive speech products. The overall number of investigated material is 600 units. The material is analysed using such methods as introspection, conceptual modelling, interpretative analysis and contextual analysis. The analysed material shows that not any naming means of aggressive behaviour in a cyberspace can become a name for a communicative personality type. Communicative personality type should be distinguished on the clear lexicographical representation underlying the concept, its own communicative intensions, definitely chosen communicative strategies and tactics, certain modality and verbal and non-verbal means. Taking into consideration these characteristics one can distinguish the following communicative cyberpersonality types of aggressive behaviour: troll, holy war maker, hater, cyberbuller/cyberbully (cybermobber), shamer (blamer), griefer, cyberstalker.
Keywords: communicative cyberpersonality type, hostile rhetoric, troll, holy war maker, hater, cyberbuller/cyberbully (cybermobber), shamer (blamer), griefer, cyberstalker
For citation: Loutovinova O.V. Communicative Cyberpersonality Types of Aggressive Behaviour as a Cross-Cultural Phenomenon. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021, no 3, pp. 158–171 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Olga V. Loutovinova
Volgograd State Social Pedagogical University,
27 Lenin Ave., Volgograd, Russian Federation, 400066;
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-4683-6124
References:
1. Kastells M. The Internet Galaxy: Reflections on the Internet, Business and Society. Yekaterinburg: U-Faktoria; 2004. (In Russ.)
2. Storsul T. What, when and where is the Internet? European Journal of Communication. 2019; 34(3): 319–322. DOI: 10.1177/0267323119848536.
3. Bylieva DS. The Internet as a New Type of Space. St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University Journal Humanities and Social Sciences. 2016; 2(244): 124–130. DOI: 10.5862/jhss.244.15. (In Russ.)
4. Denardis L. The Internet in Everything: Freedom and Security in a World with No Off Switch. European Journal of Communication. 2020; 35(2): 198–199. DOI: 10.1177/0267323120912634.
5. Tien W.-P., Cheng CCJ. Managing online creativity for improving innovation performance. Internet Research. 2017; 27(3): 670–690. DOI: 10.1108/IntR-08-2016-0237.
6. Rueda‐Sabater E., Derosby D. The evolving Internet in 2025: four scenarios. Strategy & Leadership; 2011; 39(1): 32–38. DOI: 10.1108/10878571111095402.
7. Humboldt von W. Selected Works on Linguistics. M.: OAO IG “Progress”; 2000.(In Russ.)
8. Loutovinova OV. Development of the Notion “Language Personality”: from “Language in a Person” to “a Person in Language” Izvestia of the Volgograd State pedagogical University. 2017; 1: 82–89. (In Russ.)
9. Weisgerber JL. Muttersprache und Geistesbildung. M.: Editorial URSS; 2004. (In Russ.)
10. Vinogradov VV. About the Language of Fiction. M.: Nauka; 1980. (In Russ.)
11. Bogin GI. Modern Linguodidactics. Kalinin: Izd-vo Kalininskogo gos. un-ta; 1980. (In Russ.)
12. Karaulov YuN. The Russian Language and Language Personality. – M.: Editorial URSS; 2004. (In Russ.)
13. Neroznak VP. Linguistic Personology: Defing the Status of the Discipline. Language. Poetics. Translation. M.: Izd-vo Mosk. Ling. Un-ta; 1996; 426: 112–116. (In Russ.)
14. Duranti A. Linguistic Anthropology. Peking: Peking University Press: Cambridge University Press; 1997.
15. Benwell B., Stokoe E. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Ltd; 2006.
16. Barker C., Galasiński D. Cultural Studies and Discourse Analysis: A Dialogue on Language and Identity. London: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2001.
17. Karasik VI. Language Keys. Volgograd: Paradigma; 2007. (In Russ.).
18. Deri M. Escape Velocity: Cyberculture and the End of the Century. Yekaterinburg. Ultra. Kultura; M.: AST Moscow; 2008. (In Russ.).
19. Sveningsson M. Understanding and Studying Internet Culture(s): Hybridity and Interdisciplinarity. Nordicom Review. 2008; 29(2): 85–90. DOI: 10.1515/nor-2017-0179.
20. Soldatovа GU., Rasskazova EI., Chigarkova SV. Types of cyberaggression: adolescents and youth experience. National Psychological Journal. 2020; 2(38): 3–20. DOI: 10.11621/npj.2020.0201 (In Russ.).
21. Wallace P. The Psychology of the Internet. European Journal of Communication. 2017; 32(2): 183–184. DOI: 10.1177/0267323117699758f. (In Engl.).
22. Bennett WL. The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication. 2018;33(2):122–139. DOI: 10.1177/02673231187 60317. (In Engl.).
23. Miller V. The Crisis of Presence in Contemporary Culture: Ethics, Privacy and Speech in Mediated Social Life. European Journal of Communication. 2017; 32(1): 66–67. DOI: 10.1177/0267323116687806g.
24. Lisenkova AA. Philosophy of Aggression in the Digital Age. Russian Journal of Philosophical Sciences. 2017; 6: 137–147. (In Russ.).
25. Karasik VI. Language Bridges of Understanding. M.: Diskurs; 2019. (In Russ.).
26. Panchenko NN. Communicative Personality type “Demagogue”. Bulletin of the Volgograd State pedagogical University. 2008; 5: 56–60. (In Russ.).
27. López M., Sicilia M., Moyeda-Carabaza AA. Creating identification with brand communities on Twitter: The balance between need for affiliation and need for uniqueness. Internet Research. 2017; 27(1): 21–51. DOI: 10.1108/IntR-12-2013-0258. (In Engl.).
28. Hannan J. Trolling ourselves to death? Social media and post-truth politics. European Journal of Communication. 2018; 33(2): 214–226. DOI: 10.1177/0267323118760323. (In Engl.).
29. Sternin IA., Kambaralieva UD. Theoretical Problems of Describing Communicative Behaviour. Communicative Investigations. 2018; 2(16): 20–34. DOI: 10.25513/2413-6182.2018.2.20-34 (In Russ.)