Abstract:
The paper deals with discourse development tendencies determined by social, economic, cultural and historic characteristics of our present existence, on the one hand, and modern technologies of distant communication, on the other hand. The material analyzed comprises texts taken from network and media discourse as presented in the Internet and Russian contemporary oral and written speech card-catalogue compiled by the authors. The model of our study includes four components of a communicative situation: subjects, texts, chronotops and organizational characteristics. We argue that modern discourse is characterized by the following properties of its participants: expansion of self-presentation, juvenile manner of communication, critical attitude to information, communicative over-saturation. Semiotic properties of modern discourse characterize the texts used in various types of communicative interaction, they include significant growth of multimodal content in all the types of written communication (it corresponds to predominant usage of visual information transmitted by electronic media), vulgarization of speech, and oral and written texts diffusion in distant communication. Chronotopic properties of oral discourse consist in the communicative compression of messages we exchange, in acceleration of our life and shrinkage of communicative turns, and in new demands to everyday habitual existence which makes it a vital necessity to have the access to the Internet in every home. Organizational properties of modern communicative practice may be defined as emerging of inter-discursive hybrid types of communication concerning media and network discourse, diffusion and merging of personal and institutional and private and public communication, and formation of new rituals which are mostly realized in gestures or clips.
Keywords: discourse, communication, text, information, institutionality, visualization, chronotope, vulgarization, literacy, ritualization, communicative immunity
For citation: Karasik V.I., Slyshkin G.G. Modern discourse developmental trends. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2021, no 1, pp. 14–31 (In Russ.)
Acknowledgement: The reported study was funded by RFBR, project number 19-012-00609 А
Bionote:
Vladimir I. Karasik1*, Gennady G. Slyshkin2
1Pushkin State Russian Language Institute,
6 Academician Volgin Str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 117485;
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8306-5317; Researcher ID: C-3975-2016
2Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration,
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8121-0250; Researcher ID: G-1470-2014
*e-mail: vkarasik@yandex.ru
References:
1. Karasik VI. Linguistic circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena; 2002:477.
2. Karasik VI. Demonstratives in network discourse: an interpretative aspect. Cognitive studies of language. 2019; XXXVI:214-222.
3. Sedov KF. Formation of linguistic personality discursive thinking: psycho- and sociolinguistic aspects. Saratov: Saratov university publishers; 1999: 180.
4. Guts EN. A psycholinguistic study of teenager linguistic consciousness: monograph. Omsk: Variant-Omsk; 2005:260.
5. Batrakova VE., Lapot’ko AG. Peculiarities of senior school students communicative behavior. Voronezh: Istoki; 2006:44.
6. Tarasenko TP. Ethical concepts in the linguistic consciousness of schoolchildren (based on the materials of the associative experiment).Cultural life of the South of Russia. 2007; 2 (21): 84-87.
7. Bekzhanova ZhE. Youth discourse: essence, functions, formats. Moscow: Flinta, 2017. 280 p.
8. Davydov SG., Nemudrova TA. An experience of Russian gamers audience segmentation. Sociology: Methodology, methods, mathematical modeling. 2011;32:104-123.
9. Dolgaya TA. Rumors as a kind of mass information. Basic higher and adjunctive education: Problems of Didactics and Linguistics: A collection of articles. Volgograd: Politekhnik, 2002;2:113-117.
10. Osetrova EV. Rumours in the modern sociocultural sphere: a historiographical review. Anthropological forum. Collection of articles. 2011;15:55-82. http://anthropologie.kunstkamera.ru/ files/pdf/015online/osetrova.pdf.
11. Eco U. About mirrors and other stories. A realistic illusion. Book 1. Slovo / Slovo, 2020: 280.
12. Burykin AA. To typological characteristics of early forms of epos: the problem of constant and variable features of epos as a folklore genre. Folklore of Mongol peoples: historic reality. Materials of the International congress. Elista. 2nd-5th of October, 2013. Elista, 2013:656-670.
13. Issers OS. Media fakes: between the truth and mystification. New media in Russia: Studies of the language and communicative processes: a monograph. Ed. By O.S. Issers. Omsk: Omsk State University publishers; 2015:20-32.
14. Anisimova EE. Text Linguistics and Intercultural Communication (on the material of creolized texts): a manual. Moscow: Academia; 2003:128.
15. Slyshkin GG., Efremova MA. Cinema-text (an experience of linguistic and cultural study). Moscow: Vodoley Publishers; 2004:153.
16. Maksimenko OI. Polycode Vs creolized text: a problem of terminology. Journal of RUDN University. Series: Language theory. Semiotics. Semantics. 2012;2:93-102.
17. Voroshilova MB. Political creolized text: keys to reading: a monograph. Ekaterinburg: Ural State Pedagogical University publishers; 2013:194.
18. Chernyavskaya VE. Text Linguistics: Polycodes, Intertextuality, Interdiscourses. Moscow: Librocom; 2009:284.
19. Ostrikova GN., Zheltukhina MR., Zyubina IA., Sidorova IG. 2018. Learning Via Visualization at the Present Stage of Teaching a Foreign Language. Astra Salvensis. VI. 2018; 1:601-607.
20. Tameryan TY., Zheltukhina MR., Slyshkin GG., Zelenskaya LL., Ryabko OP., Bodony MA. Political Media Communication: Bilingual Strategies in the Pre-Election Campaign Speeches. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 2019;9(4): e201921. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/5869
21. Zheltukhina MR., Bondareva NV., Zelenskaya LL., Anikeeva IG., Malygina LE. & Chistyakov AV. Media Promotion Role of Economic Vocabulary: Specific Features and Functions in Presentation and Advertisement. Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies. 2019;9(2):e201907. https://doi.org/10.29333/ojcmt/5733
22. Kostomarov VG. An essay on text forms in communication: a manual. Moscow: Flinta; 2014:97.
23. Kasavin IT. Text. Discourse. Context. An introduction in social epistemology of language. Moscow: Canon+; 2008:437.
24. Zhelvis VI. A field of battle: Ribaldry as a social problem in languages and cultures of the world. Moscow: Ladomir, 2001:349.
25. McLuhan M. Understanding of media: The extensions of Man / transl. from English. Moscow: Zhukovsky etc., 2003:464.
26. Malinovsky B. Functional analysis. Anthology of Culture Studies. Interpretations of Culture. Sankt-Petersburg: Universitetskaya kniga; 1997;1:681-702.
27. Habermas J. The Theory of Communicative Action. Reason and the Rationalization of Society. L.: Heinemann; 1984;1:465.
28. Baiburin FK. Ritual in traditional culture. Structural and semantic analysis of Eastern Slavonic rites. Sankt-Petersburg: Nauka; 1993:237.
We recommend authors to read carefully the scope of our journal, the submission guidelines and malpractice statement. Original papers and studies developing new theoretical and applied issues are preferred. Such works are always cited, and citing your works reflects your status as a researcher.