PROBLEMS OF MEDIA ECOLINGUISTICS IN THE ASPECT OF SEMIOTIC FIELD
https://doi.org/10.18384/2224-0209-2023-4-1353
Abstract
Aim. To give an overview and rationale of interaction of such scientific fields as media linguistics and ecolinguistics within the field of semiotic variety of coherent media ecolinguistics vision.
Methodology. The methodological basis of the research involves conceptual provisions and ideas of C. Peirce, Umberto Eco, Charles W. Morris, D. S. Likhachev, V. I. Shakhovsky, M. R. Zheltukhina, S. V. Ionova. The study used the following methods: the method of linguistic hermeneutic interpretation suggested by G.P. Schedrovitsky and G. I Bogin; descriptive method which implies observation, detailed analysis, overview and summarization of the material under study.
Results. The communicative situation was examined within the media space as a semiosis pattern. Its components were evaluated in terms of holistic concept of media ecolinguistics. The relevance of the study is determined by the need to order and to systematize the knowledge relating to the process of semiotic sign interrelation within the media linguistic discourse, semiotization impact on ecolinguistic aspects of the media field.
Research implications. Based on the theoretical data and methods, the structure of the phenomenon “ecology of culture” is determined, furthermore, its importance in the study of communicative interaction is justified. The article is based on the detailed analysis of interconnection between semiotic field and media linguistics. Semiotics studies media text in terms of its pragmatic, syntactic and semantic perspectives. At the heart of any communicative act is the process of semiosis – sign interpretation, value generation. The main exclusive media text feature is verbal and visual information, various systems of coding and decoding. An icon is the major component of communicative space.
About the Authors
Anastasia V. ZinkovskayaRussian Federation
Dr. Sci. (Philology), Prof., Department of English Philology
Anna A. Sakhno
Russian Federation
Cand. Sci. (Philology), Assoc. Prof., Department of English Philology
References
1. Bogin G. I. Metodologicheskoe posobie po interpretatsii khudozhestvennogo teksta (dlya zanimayushchikhsya inostrannoi filologiei) [Methodological guide to the interpretation of literary text (for those studying foreign philology)]. Available at: https://studfile.net/preview/1101598 (accessed: 21.05.2023).
2. Evgrafova Yu. A. [Sign as the means of constructing reality and mind control in semiotically expanded screen texts (based on the texts of cinema and television)]. In: Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta (elektronnyi zhurnal) [Bulletin of Moscow Region State University (e-journal)], 2018, no. 3. Available at: www.evestnik-mgou.ru. DOI: 10.18384/2224-0209-2018-3-914
3. Zheltukhina M. R., Gavrish A. D. [Emotiogenicity of modern media texts]. In: Aktual'nye problemy filologii i pedagogicheskoi lingvistiki [Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics], 2018, no. 4, pp. 120–125. DOI: 10.29025/2079-6021-2018-4(32)-120-125
4. Zheltuhina M. R. [Media discourse]. In: Entsiklopediya «Diskursologiya» [Encyclopedia "Discursology"], 2013, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 292–296.
5. Ionova S. V. [Emotional dominant of the text: some linguistic aspects of research]. In: Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2: Yazykoznanie [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics], 2023, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 13–27. DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.1.2
6. Ionova S. V. [Emotional effects of positive forms of communication]. In: Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Lingvistika [Russian Journal of Linguistics], 2015, no. 1, pp. 20–30.
7. Kislyakova E. Yu., Madzhaeva S. I. [Otherness as a parameter of communicative interaction]. In: Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo universiteta (elektronnyi zhurnal) [Bulletin of Moscow Region State University (e-journal)], 2021, no. 3. Available at: www.evestnik-mgou.ru. DOI: 10.18384/2224-0209-2021-3-1083
8. Likhachov D. S. [Selected works on Russian and world culture]. St. Petersburg, SPbGUP Publ., 2022. 544 p.
9. Pierce Ch. S. Selected philosophical works (Rus. ed.: Golubovich K., transl. Izbranniye filisovskiye proizvedeniya. Moscow, Logos Publ., 2000. 448 p.).
10. Sirotinina O. B. [Basic criteria for good speech]. In: Kormilitsina M. A., Sirotinina O. B., eds. Khoroshaya rech' [Good speech]. Moscow, URSS Publ., 2009, pp. 16–29.
11. Shakhovskiy V. I. Dissonans ekologichnosti v kommunikativnom kruge: chelovek, yazyk, emotsii [Dissonance of environmental friendliness in the communication circle: person, language, emotions]. Volgograd, IP Polikarpov I. L. Publ., 2016. 512 p.
12. Shakhovskiy V. I. [The cognitive matrix of emotional-communicative personality]. In: Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Lingvistika [Russian Journal of Linguistics], 2018, no. 1, pp. 54–79. DOI: 10.22363/2312-9182-2018-22-1-54-79
13. Shakhovsky V. I. [Ecological compatibility mode in emotional communication]. In: Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Lingvistika [Russian Journal of Linguistics], 2015, no. 1, pp. 11–19.
14. Shchedrovitskii G. P. [On the method of semiotic research of sign systems]. In: Rozhdestvenskii Yu. V., ed. Semiotika i vostochnye yazyki [Semiotics and oriental languages]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1967, pp. 19–47.
15. Eco U. La structura assente: introduzione alla ricerca semiologica (Rus. ed.: Reznik V., Pogonyailo A., transls. Otsutstvuyushchaya struktura. Vvedenie v semiologiyu. St. Petersburg, Simposium Publ., 1998. 432 p.).
16. Zheltukhina M. R., Klushina N. I., Ponomarenko E. B., Vasilkova N. N., Dzyubenko A. I. Modern Media Influence: Mass Culture – Mass Consciousness – Mass Communication. In: XLinguae Journal, 2017, vol. 10, no. 4, pp. 96–105. DOI: 10.18355/XL.2017.10.04.09
17. Morris C. Signification and significance. A study of the relation of signs and values. Cambridge, The M.I.T. Press, 1964. 99 p.
18.