SIMULACRAM, FAKE OR SIMILARITY: FROM SPEECH ACTS TO VERBAL PRACTICES OF BENEFICIAL DISCURSION

Romanov A.A.

Tver State University
Tver, Russia
e-mail: romanov_tgsha@mail.ru

 

In memory of E.F. Tarasov – domestic

linguist, scientist, translator and

dedicated to a wonderful person

 

The purpose of the proposed article/reflections is not limited to retelling or evaluating the ideological legacy of the Russian linguist Evgeny Fedorovich Tarasov, one of the founders – along with A.A. Leontiev,
This article, written by Yu. A. Sorokin, N. V. Ufimtseva, and A. M. Shakhnarovich—a member of the Russian psycholinguistics group at the Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences, a specialist in the field of translation, speech theory, cognitive linguistics, and linguophilosophy, and an organizer of numerous symposiums and conferences in our country—presents a look at a number of current issues in modern cognitive science through the prism of our personal and scientific contacts with E. F. Tarasov.

We first met in 1982, when E.F. Tarasov kindly agreed to serve as the official reviewer for my PhD dissertation on "Communicative-Pragmatic and Semantic Properties of German Request-Utterances," which I defended that same year at Kalinin (now Tver) State University. Since then, our academic and personal contacts have remained uninterrupted and have stood the test of time for over forty years. A particularly fruitful period in terms of academic collaboration was our joint editorial work on the online scientific journal "The World of Linguistics and Communication" (www.tverlingua.ru), where E.F. Tarasov oversaw the work of the integrative research department for over 12 years, focusing on issues of linguacognition, psycholinguistics, linguistic philosophy, and speech theory.

It is appropriate to note that the problems of cognitive linguistics, in the broad sense of this term as an integral part of the global integrative research program called «cognitive sciences», occupied a special place in the scientific work of E.F. Tarasov for half a century [see: Tarasov, 1983; 1985; 2021; see also: Myskin, Tarasov, 2023; 2024; Myskin, Tarasov, Pilgun, 2020; Nistratov, Oshchepkova, Tarasov, 2020; Tarasov A.E., Tarasov E.F., 2020].

Recently, the researcher, together with his students, has been actively working on the problem of the functional diversity of texts realizing their properties in the context of digital technologies [Myskin, Tarasov, 2023; 2024]. It has been noted that in the digital and remote era, the mechanisms of semantic perception of texts in communicative interaction are transforming [Tarasov, Tarasov, 2020; Myskin, Tarasov, 2024: 44]. This communicative situation requires communicants to formulate thoughts in such a way that the meaning remains unchanged until the result of joint activity is obtained [Myskin, Tarasov, 2023; 2024].

In this context, the problem of distinguishing truthful (real, factual) messages from post-truthful or fake messages (item: statements, linguistic vs. communicative actions, discursive practices) is of considerable interest, which is quite complex and rests on problematic field pragmatic-evaluative and functional-semantic distinctions between such concepts as «fact», «reality», «faith» (in) and «trust» (to), as well as the concepts of «doxa», «truth», «lies/deception», «disinformation» and «defamation».

It should be taken into account that in this field, a fair amount of lances have been broken between representatives of various scientific fields in philosophy, logic, journalism, communication studies, linguistics, psychology, linguacognition, psycholinguistics, rhetoric, and neorhetoric. This also includes "«doxology» as one of the varieties of collective epistemology, sociology, touching upon the complex problems of knowledge, types of knowledge, the correlation of knowledge with reality, its correspondence to this reality, the truth and content of the forms of types of knowledge and their operation in the corresponding areas of scientific research [cf.: Andreeva, 1988: 155–169; Bekhterev, 1991: 189–215; Letov, 2012; Rosengren, 2012; Romanov, Romanova, 2018; Subbotsky, 2022; Becker, 2002].

In works devoted to the description of the regulatory mechanism for the dissemination and implementation of "viral" or "fake communication practices," it has been repeatedly noted that the scale and intensity of the emergence of a mass of fabricated informational influence on a mass addressee through digital technologies directly or indirectly creates problems of distortion of the transmitted information and people's belief in this distorted and post-truth information. It is clear that the goal of such influence is to achieve absolute influence (i.e., global - both psychological and physical - dominance) over a collective addressee or an individual and thereby achieve a change in their consciousness in favor of the interests of those subjects or "directors" organizing such "viral" or "fake" informational influence [Romanov, 1988; 2002; 2020; Romanov, Romanova 2017; 2020; 2024].

In these circumstances, the assessment of the availability and capabilities of potential acquires special significance and importance.
functional-destructive and disruptive influence with the help of communicative-discursive technologies, means and practices developed and introduced into the information space, «mimicking» (adapting, counterfeiting) to a specific type or object of communicative influence with targeted methods, techniques and approaches for the development of verbal-logical-psychological «traps of consciousness» of a person in the form of the formation of a verbal cascade of «informational memetic-regulatory or viral-replicating structures» [Romanov 2002: 59–66; Romanov, Romanova 2017: 8–10; 2024; cf. also: Andreeva 1988: 155–169; Bekhterev 1991: 189–215; 1994: 118–131, 155–191; Malysheva 2023; 2024].

Falling under the influence of such skillful «traps,» a person automatically (irrationally, without criticizing, without the appropriate «filters») makes a decision to act not on the basis of his personal knowledge of the content of the information received, but based on the fact that such actions, in his opinion and understanding, can also be repeated or done by other people, taking them for habitual, playful ritual actions [Romanov 1988: 69–73; 2002: 62–64; 2020: 88–93; Romanov, Romanova, Fedoseeva, 2013].

It is obvious that a person who has fallen under such influence is directed towards the creation of other (other, counter-competitive, opposite or even illegal) systems of communicative practices of mass – including online («free») – communication, so that he, through his actions (or his behavior), exerts a certain influence on the system of reasoning and beliefs of another person or on a group of people.

This influencing influence is carried out by means of false «facts,» pseudo-facts, «mythological stories,» or simulacra in the form of «fake news» and all sorts of «highly likely» messages, which, due to their ambiguity, semantic vagueness, or «sliding referentiality,» can receive a wide variety of readings and interpretations—even diametrically opposed ones—that are supplied to him through the infrastructure of already existing or newly created information sources (platforms), which are either specially created, «directed,» «constructed,» or suggested [Romanov 2002; Romanov, Romanova 2017; 2020; 2024].

In the scope of the stated problematic, it is appropriate to note that for a number of years, representatives of the Tver linguistic school "Dynamic Model of Regulatory Communication" have been conducting research in the field of post-truth, fake, and deceptive communication, aimed at identifying the formation and presentation of types, kinds, and subtypes of distorted information, such as defamation, "fine words," "euphemisms," post-truth, and fake messages. These also include communicative messages containing outright lies hidden behind "highly likely" and presented to the consumer as true and truthful information, typical and ordinary deception, fantasy tales, "historical-myth-making" descriptions, and absurd fictions. A number of works by representatives of this scientific school are devoted to attempts to describe how и as far as communicative and discursive practices with distorted information differ, from the point of view of the impact and transmission of their semantic volume, from true (actual, real, actual) or semi-true (distorted, understated, specially concealed, spin-doctored) information.

Without going into detail, the established and currently existing communicative array of deceptive messages and practices circulating in the global information space can be described by one conventional, but quite popular in the information environment today, phrase - "fake reality" (also - "fake reality").

«"Fake reality" is a reality that "»wants to seem»" real reality, but in fact it is not. It only "pretends" to be reality and "dresses up" (disguises itself) as such based on certain individual, albeit characteristic (or "pseudo-referential") features. Obviously, such a reality lacks the area of specific reference that the truly real situation to which the fake reality adapts or "dresses up" has [cf.: Castells 2016; Rosengren 2012; Romanov, Cherepanova, 1998; Romanov, Romanova 2020; Subbotsky 2022].

An example of such flattering, deceptive, and false messages, which create for the crow as the addressee a false reality of its ability to sing and be «with such beauty… a king-bird,» can be found in a fragment of a fable:

Suddenly the cheese spirit stopped the fox: The fox sees the cheese. The fox is captivated by the cheese. The rogue approaches the tree on tiptoe;

He wags his tail and keeps his eyes on the Crow.

And he says so sweetly, barely breathing:

«My dear, how beautiful! What a neck, what eyes!

If I were to tell you fairy tales, then I would say so!

What feathers! What a sock!

And, truly, the voice must be angelic!

Sing, my dear, don't be ashamed! What if, sister,

With such beauty, you are also a master of singing,

You would be our king-bird.!»

Veshchunin's head was spinning with praise,

My breath caught in my throat with joy,

And to Lisitsyn's friendly words

The crow cawed at the top of its crow's throat…

(I.A. Krylov. The Crow and the Fox)

 

It becomes clear that fake reality is a reality that is not what it claims to be or what it both displays (puts on display) and presents (presents itself) at the same time. At the same time, however, a significant uncertainty may arise, which lies in the fact that such a reality can also be considered as simply «deceptive»: see the term «deceptive communication» in [Romanov 1988: 58–63; 2002: 41–66; cf.: Becker 2002: 35]), as well as «fake» («fake»), «flattering», «fake» («fake») reality, which is also artificially created, «directed», deliberately constructed and in this form is transmitted or presented to the addressee-consumer. In other words, in such communication is transmitted
not that one information, for which she myself issues. [cf.: Subbotsky, 2022].

In these circumstances, it is difficult not to take into account the fact that a number of researchers agree, believing that virtually «all communication is partly deceptive» [Becker, 2002: 35]. As Konrad Becker believes, «deceptive communication can take many forms and serve various purposes. Omission, exaggeration, ambiguity, half-truths, misdirection, pretense (or irony, which relies on similar linguistic patterns) – All can be considered as types of deceptive communication.» Moreover, the mechanisms of pretense may even be present in a number of other mental processes, such as «denial of facts or attribution in the practice of telepathy. While intentionally deceptive communication certainly pursues the goal of concealment, unintentionally deceptive communication occurs as a result of a number of factors based on the lack of context or on ambiguity arising from confusion and misunderstanding» [Becker 2002: 33–34; see also: Romanov 1988: 103–114; 2020: 74–83].

It is obvious that the noted range of interpretations of fake messages vs. fake practices that form fake reality reveals the scale of the problems associated not only with the development of criteria for identifying and recognizing the fake nature of communication practices (messages), but also factors aimed at for construction functional-semantic (pragmatic) typologies of fake practices, which would fit into a more significant class of "viral-memetic, communicative-discursive manifestations or discursive practices belonging to the sphere of informational-verbal influence on the conscious space ("receptacle") of mental representations of any - both individual and mass - addressee" [Romanov, Romanova, 2020: 443-445]. It also becomes clear that the lack of criteria for distinguishing typical messages that depart from or are completely removed from factual reality (i.e., referential correlation) requires a more thorough elaboration and a search for additional functional-semantic criteria aimed at their delimitation and typology in both structural, functional-semantic, and linguopragmatic aspects.

At the same time, in the process of searching for additional criteria of the communicative-semiotic and cognitive essence of fake messages, it is advisable not to lose sight of the fact that the above-mentioned functional effectiveness of fake messages (messages, messages, practices or simply fakes) is based on their ability Fine adapt, imitate or simulate (imitate) real, specific messages and present themselves ("dress up") as such, as real, credible messages. This adaptation is effective because fakes exploit messages that are false, but present themselves as real, true, or credible, and that possess the properties of "viral memeticity.".

In other words, the "viral memetic nature" of fakes can stimulate other structurally similar messages to generate properties of causal (i.e., causing, causal) obsession and persistence, "permeating a person's consciousness." Furthermore, by adapting to a known and already accepted (reinforced) mental representational framework, the memetic nature of fakes also has the ability to generate properties magnetizing attractiveness, that is, to impart a force that attracts attention, awakening curiosity and interest.

This mechanism, stimulating the generation of memetic properties of fake reality, is further tinged with emotion. In response to the corresponding stimulus message, these properties accelerate the generation of "cognitive-emotive dimensions" of the recipient's emotional state. These include such qualities as excitement, anxiety, contempt, anger, depression, disappointment, joy, lightheartedness, carelessness, and loss of control over one's own actions, which affect a person's consciousness, making them extremely vulnerable [Romanov 2011; 2016].

These and other factor properties (or factor properties) presented in their totality create such a communicative-social situation of discursive reality when dominant factor it becomes in it appeal to «personal convictions, personal emotions, personal beliefs, personal trust in the authorities, the media, show business authorities, etc.», when personal convictions, preferences and expectations, as well as personal emotions, Я- the personality modality is considered (accepted) by the addressee (receiver) as communicatively fair measure of truth, affect its (i.e. the addressee or recipient) conscious sphere more efficient, how references to objective facts or well-known scientific postulates. Moreover, such dimensions (standards) of truth actively participate in the formation of their own special, figuratively fake «pictures of the world» [Romanov 2011; Romanov, Romanova, Morozova 2015; Romanov, Romanova 2018].

In this regard, one cannot but agree with the assertions of neuroscientists that «human behavior is determined not by reason, but by emotional processes in the oldest, primitive areas of the brain structure» and that «it is they (i.e. emotional processes – A.R., L.R.) that influence the conscious perception of the surrounding world. <…> A person perceives information selectively, depending on the type of emotional system. <…> A person perceives only what is interesting to him on an emotional level, opposing pleasure to pain, praise to punishment, winning to losing, the feeling of «liking» to the feeling of «disliking». ... Everything «consciously» experienced is first emotionally colored and evaluated at the subconscious level. <…> Emotion is the engine of reason. Emotions decide what and how we perceive. <…> Emotion is truth» [Traindl 2007: 11–12, 16–18, 26–27].

Summarizing his reasoning based on theoretical and practical developments, Arndt Traindl notes: «Nothing passes to the level of reason (consciousness) until it passes an emotional assessment» [Traindl 2007: 36]. This gives reason to believe that emotive factor has an impact not only on the conscious sphere of a person, but also on choice of forms his behavior in the world. In other words, not only the rational reality of the knowledge obtained through verbal constructions determines the evaluation, significance and importance of the interpretation of the received messages, but also emotive imagery plays an important, if not dominant, role both in the cognitive processes themselves and in the regulatory processes of human behavior in the world.

Thus, imagery created through emotive discursive practices can undermine a person's established belief system and exert a far stronger influence on them than their reflexive understanding of reality. This is likely the secret behind the successful spread of viral memetic phenomena, allowing people to accept fake reality as genuine.

Let us take into account that factors of emotional influence are capable of not only neutralizing or even disabling any other understanding and comprehension of factuality (actual reality) as an existential fact, but also facilitating the possibility of verifying the "truth-falsehood" of disseminated communicative practices (messages, messages). Identifying the inclusion of this factor in the socio-political practice of various life scenarios in the modern global world can serve as a starting point for searching and defining
signals-indicators capable of ascertaining the possibility of manifestation in the semantic volume of linguistic messages of the blurring of belief in the fact itself, the loss of trust in references to the fact and the recording of a skeptical assessment of it
(i.e. content) of truthfulness.

It is appropriate to emphasize once again that the emerging or already formed factor of emotionality (i.e. emotional imagery) is capable of penetrating the matrix form of human behavior so quickly that it will be necessary to use not only extremely convincing arguments, but also to spend a significant amount of time in order for a person captured by fake emotionality to believe in an authoritative refutation of the fake messages addressed to him. It is also clear that fakes or post-truth messages exploit the existential matrix (pattern) forms of linguistic messages and, replicating (replicating, repeating) themselves, are placed in stable stereotypes of habitual behavior, in stable patterns of life, as well as in social prejudices and even in fixed types of image formats or constructed "verbal myths of human personality" [for more details on "viral memeticity" and the "verbal myth of personality" see: Romanov 2011; 2016; Romanov, Cherepanova 1998: 112–179].

It is obvious that the general understanding of post-truth or «fake» messages (verbal-communicative practices, informational messages) can be reduced to the following conclusion: fake message (item: fake discursive, communicative practice) is interpreted as a message, the functional-semantic content of which or does not rely at all on referential factuality (i.e. it is either a constructed, fictional communicative product of verbal discourse or «directed»
information and communication product of the beneficial myth- and peacemaking of verbal technologies), or is not connected with it due to various – including – «conscious», «beneficial», «orchestrated» deviations in the form of substitution, discrepancies, departure, non-distinction, leveling and deliberate defamation [for more details see: Romanov 1988: 69–92; 2002: 58–66; 2020: 88–118].

It is important to keep in mind that the limological definition of a fake message outlined above does not claim to be exhaustive of the concept of "fake" as a popular phenomenon in the media environment and socio-communicative space. The given interpretation of the essence of a fake message only to some extent indicates an attempt to shift the attention of researchers to communicative-functional
(pragmatic-target) and substantive aspects of the average understanding of «fakeness», which (aspects) are not taken into account by the developers of certain typologies of fake messages.

In this regard, it's worth noting that there are a significant number of approaches to analyzing fake messages, in which researchers offer not only diverse definitions of the "fake" phenomenon itself but also approximate typologies of fake messages. Notably, in these proposed typologies of fake messages, the authors most often base their analysis on counterfeiting strategies and rely primarily on the essential factors determined by fake message recognition technologies and dictated by methods for combating the spread of "post-truth," false, fabricated, or "orchestrated" messages.

However, it should be noted that a number of researchers do not include erroneous information ("misinformation") to the category of fakes [Becker 2002: 35]. Moreover, a number of works even propose to approach the definition of fake messages not from the position of their creator and sender (distributor) of specific fake messages, but only from the position of consumers of information flows, in which consumers are still included involuntarily and participate in the dissemination of pre-constructed messages, news, reports, that is, they involuntarily become reproducers of such post-truth messages [cf.: Castells 2016; Romanov, Romanova 2017; 2018; 2020; 2024].

 

Literature 

1. Andreeva G.M. Social Psychology. Textbook. – Moscow: Publishing house of Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov, 1988. – 432 p.
2. Bekhterev V.M. Objective Psychology. Monograph. – Moscow: Nauka, 1991. – 480 p.
3. Bekhterev V.M. Selected works on social psychology. Monograph. – Moscow: Nauka, 1994. – 400 p.
4. Castells M. The power of communication: a textbook. – M.: Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, 2016. – 564 p.
5. Letov O.V. The Problem of Scientific Objectivity in Post-Positivist Philosophy // Questions of Philosophy. – 2012, No. 12. – P. 57–62.
6. Malysheva E.V. Media content as a factor in the formation of the infosphere of society // Transformation of medical education in the digital age: Proceedings of the IV All-Russian conference with international participation "Medical Education Week - 2023" (Moscow, April 3-7, 2023). - M.: Sechenov University, 2023. - P. 411.
7. Malysheva E.V. Specifics of the formation of «viral» content of network communication // Modern philological science: achievements and innovations: collection of materials from the International symposium.
   Ivanovo, May 23-25, 2024 – Ivanovo: Ivan. state univ., 2024. – pp. 296–304.
8. Myskin S.V., Tarasov E.F. On the formulation of the problem of pathogenic text // Proceedings of the international interdisciplinary scientific conference "Linguistics of the first quarter of the 21st century: Trends, results and prospects (Tver, October 12-13, 2023). Ed. A.A. Romanov. - Tver: Tver State University, 2023. - P. 306-309.
9. Myskin S.V., Tarasov E.F. The concept of pathology of linguistic personality // Linguistics of the first quarter of the 21st century: Trends, results and prospects: collective monograph. Ed. A.A. Romanov. - M.: FLINTA,
   – 43–56.
10. Myskin S.V., Tarasov E.F., Pilgun M.A. Methods of content analysis of the innovative potential of scientific texts of pedagogical and psychological-pedagogical orientation [Electronic resource] // The World of Linguistics and Communication: electronic scientific journal. - 2020, No. 2. - P. 1–20. Access mode: http://www.tverlingua.ru (date of access 25.11.2025).
11. Nistratov A.A., Oshchepkova E.S., Tarasov E.F. Phenomenology of perception of speech messages [Electronic resource] // The World of Linguistics and Communication: electronic scientific journal. - 2020, No. 3. - P. 1–22. Access mode: tverlingua.ru (date of access 23.11.2025).
12. Rosengren M.K the question of doxa: the epistemology of the "new rhetoric"«
    // Questions of Philosophy. – 2012, No. 6. – P. 63–72.
13. Romanov A.A. Systems analysis of regulatory means of dialogic communication. Monograph. – Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the USSR Academy of Sciences; Kalinin Agricultural Institute, 1988. – 183 p.
14. Romanov A.A. Grammar of business conversations. Monograph. – Tver: Surname, 1995. – 240 p. pp. 156–163.
15. Romanov A.A. Political linguistics. Monograph. – Moscow – Tver: Institute of Linguistics RAS; Tver State univ., 2002. – 191 p.
16. Romanov A.A. Memesis of performative knowledge about the functioning of natural language practices [Electronic resource]
    // The World of Linguistics and Communication: Electronic Scientific Journal. – 2011, No. 2. – P. 66–71. Access mode: www.tverlingua.ru (date
    appeals of November 24, 2025).
17. Romanov A.A. «The »window of discourse“ as a regulatory mechanism for the dissemination and implementation of ”viral” information: two approaches to the problem // The World of Linguistics and Communication: electronic scientific journal. – 2016, No. 4 (42). – P. 1–35. Access mode: www.tverlingua.ru; (date of access 4.11.2025).
18. Romanov A.A. A linguopragmatic model of speech dialogue management: a systemic analysis with examples from Russian and German
    languages. – M.: LENAND, 2020. – 264 p.
19. Romanov A.A., Romanova L.A. Functional specificity of the «fan shift» of the discourse window in the information-conscientious campaign [Electronic resource] // The World of Linguistics and Communication: electronic scientific journal. - 2017, No. 3. - P. 1–39. Access mode: www.tverlingua.ru (date accessed 22.11.2025).
20. Romanov A.A., Romanova L.A.. Fake discourse and counter-discursion in conscious confrontation // Russian language and literature in professional communication and multicultural space: Proc. of the International scientific-practical conf. - Moscow: Pero Publishing House; Saratov: Amirant, 2018. - Pp. 284-289.
21. Romanov A.A., Romanova L.A. Fake vs. Fact in the Information Struggle for Reputational Capital // Digitalization in the Agro-Industrial Complex: Technological Resources, New Opportunities, and Challenges of the Time: Collection of scientific papers based on the materials of the International Scientific and Practical Conf. February 11-13, 2020 – Tver: Tver State Agricultural Academy, 2020. – Pp. 441–446.
22. Romanov A.A., Romanova L.A. Agonal eristics of political rap discourse: typical varieties, functions, and essential characteristics. Monograph. – Moscow: FLINTA, 2024. – 360 p.
23. Romanov A.A., Romanova L.A., Morozova O.N. Construction of media meanings of information confrontation // Functional linguistics: VII International Crimean Linguistic Congress "Language and the World". Yalta, October 5-8, 2015. Collection of scientific reports. - Simferopol: OOO "Forma", 2015. - P. 284-287.
24. Romanov A.A., Romanova L.A., Fedoseeva E.G. Performative ritual acts of sacred communication. Monograph. – Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, Russian Academy of Sciences; Tver State Agricultural Academy, 2013. – 241 p.
25. Romanov A.A., Cherepanova I.Yu. Linguistic suggestion in pre-election communication. Monograph. – Tver: GERS, 1998. – 205 p.
26. Subbotsky E.V. The Mind in the Web: Magical Consciousness Manipulation and Countermeasures // Psychological newspaper.08.2022.
27. Tarasov E.F. Speech influence: achievements and prospects of research // Language as a means of ideological
    impact. – M.: INION, 1983. – 11–26.
28. Tarasov E.F. Preface // The study of verbal thinking in psycholinguistics: a collective monograph. Ed.
    E.F. Tarasov. – M.: Nauka, 1985. – P. 4–7.
29. Tarasov A.E., Tarasov E.F. Remote work in the coronavirus era: history, problems, and prospects [Electronic resource] // The World of Linguistics and Communication: electronic scientific journal. – 2020,
    No. 4. – P. 238–266. Access mode: tverlingua.ru (date of access 23.11.2025).
30. Tarasov E.F. Speech activity theory and cognitive linguistics: an experiment in comparison // Discourse in the socio-cultural space: Communicative mechanisms and mental structures of its representation: collection of scientific works for the anniversary of prof. A.A. Romanov. – Moscow: FLINTA, 2021. – P. 125–132.
31. Becker K. Tactical Reality Dictionary. Cultural Intelligence and Social Control, – Vienna: Selene, 2002. – 128 p.
32. Traindl A. Neuromarketing. Die innovative Visualisierung von Emotionen. –Wien: Trauner Verlag, 2007. – 128 S.

 

References

1. Andreeva GM. Social psychology. Textbook. Moscow: Moscow State University Publ., 1988. 432 p.
2. Bekhterev VM. Objective psychology. Moscow: Nauka, 1991. 480 p.
3. Bekhterev VM. Selected works on social psychology. Moscow: Nauka, 1994. 400 p.
4. Castel's M. Vlast' kommunikatsii [Communication power]. Textbook. Moscow: Higher School of Economics Publ. House, 2016. 564 p.​
5. Letov OV. The problem of scientific objectivity in post-positivist philosophy. Voprosy filosofii, 2012, no. 12, pp. 57–62.
6. Malysheva EV. Media content as a factor in forming the information sphere of society. In: Transformation of medical education in the digital age: Proceedings of the IV All-Russian Conference with international participation "Medical Education Week – 2023" (Moscow, 3–7 April 2023). Moscow: Sechenov University, 2023, p. 411.
7. Malysheva EV. Specifics of forming «viral» content in network communication. In: Modern Philological Science: Achievements and Innovations: Collection of Materials from the International Symposium, Ivanovo, 23–25 May 2024. Ivanovo: Ivanovo State University, 2024, pp. 296–304.
8. Myskyn SV, Tarasov EF. On posing the problem of a pathogenic text. In: Lingvistics of the first quarter of the 21st century: tendencies, results, and prospects: materials of the international. interdisciplinary scientific conference (Tver, 12–13 October 2023). Ed. by A. A. Romanov. Tver: Tver State University, 2023, pp. 306–309.
9. Myskyn SV, Tarasov EF. The concept of pathology of linguistic personality. In: Lingvistics of the first quarter of the 21st century: tendencies, results, and prospects: a collective monograph. by A. A. Romanov. Moscow: FLINTA, 2024, pp. 43–56.
10. Myskyn SV, Tarasov EF, Pil'gun MA. Methods of content analysis of the innovation potential of scientific texts in pedagogy and educational psychology. The World of Linguistics and Communication: Electronic Scientific Journal, 2020, no. 2, pp. 1–20. Available at: http://www.tverlingua.ru(Accessed November 25, 2025).
11. Nistratov AA, Oshchepkova ES, Tarasov EF. Phenomenology of speech message perception. The World of Linguistics and Communication: Electronic Scientific Journal, 2020, no. 3, pp. 1–22. Available at: http://www.tverlingua.ru(Accessed November 23, 2025).
12. Rosengren M. On the question of doxa: the epistemology of the «new rhetoric» [On the question of doxa: the epistemology of the “new rhetoric”]. Voprosy filosofii, 2012, no. 6, pp. 63–72.
13. Romanov AA. System analysis of regulatory means of dialogic communication. Monograph. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics, USSR Academy of Sciences; Kalinin Agricultural Institute, 1988. 183 p.
14. Romanov AA. Grammar of business conversations. Tver: Familiya, 1995. 240 p.
15. Romanov AA. Politicheskaya lingvistika [Political linguistics]. Monograph. Moscow – Tver': Institute of Linguistics RAS; Tver State
    University, 2002. 191 p.
16. Romanov AA. Mimesis of performative knowledge about the functioning of natural-language practices. Mir lingvistiki i kommunikatsii: elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal, 2011, no. 2, pp. 66–71. Available at: http://www.tverlingua.ru(Accessed November 24, 2025).
17. Romanov AA. «Discourse window» as a regulatory mechanism for spreading and implementing “viral” information: two approaches to the problem. The World of Linguistics and Communication: Electronic Scientific Journal, 2016, no. 4 (42), pp. 1–35. Available at: http://www.tverlingua.ru(Accessed November 4, 2025).
18. Romanov AA. Linguo-pragmatic model of speech control of dialogue: a system analysis with examples from Russian and German. Moscow: LENAND, 2020. 264 p.
19. Romanov AA, Romanova LA. Functional specificity of the «fan shift» of the discourse window in an informational-consciential campaign. Mir lingvistiki i kommunikatsii: elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal, 2017, no. 3, pp. 1–39. Available at: http://www.tverlingua.ru(Accessed November 22, 2025).
20. Romanov AA, Romanova LA. Fake discourse and counter-discourse in consciential confrontation. In: Russian language and literacy in professional communication and multicultural space: materials of the international scientific-practical conference. Moscow: Pero; Saratov: Amiran, 2018, pp. 284–289.
21. Romanov AA, Romanova LA. Fake vs. fact in the information struggle for reputational capital. In: Digitalization in APK: Technological resources, new opportunities, and challenges of the time: Collection of scientific papers based on the materials of the international scientific-practical conference (11–13 February 2020). Tver: Tver State Agricultural Academy, 2020, pp. 441–446.
22. Romanov AA, Romanova LA. Agonal eristics of political rap discourse: typical varieties, functions and essential characteristics. Moscow: FLINTA, 2024. 360 p.
23. Romanov AA, Romanova LA, Morozova ON. Constructing media meanings of information confrontation. In: Functional linguistics: VII International Crimean Linguistic Congress "Language and Peace" (Yalta, 5–8 October 2015): collection of scientific papers. Simferopol: Forma, 2015, pp. 284–287.
24. Romanov AA, Romanova LA, Fedoseeva EG. Performativnye ritual'nye akty sakral'noi kommunikatsii [Performative ritual acts of sacred communication]. Monograph. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics RAS; Tver State Agricultural Academy, 2013. 241 p.​
25. Romanov AA, Cherepanova I.Yu. Linguistic suggestion in pre-election communication. Tver: GERS, 1998. 205 p.
26. Subbotskii EV. Mind in the web: magical manipulation of consciousness and counteraction to it. Psikhologicheskaya gazeta, August 18, 2022. Available at: https://psy.su/feed/10239/(Accessed August 18, 2025).
27. Tarasov EF. Speech influence: achievements and research prospects. In: Language as a means of ideological influence. Moscow: INION, 1983, pp. 11–26.
28. Tarasov EF. Preface [Foreword]. In: Research of Speech Thinking in Psycholinguistics: A Collective Monograph. by E. F. Tarasov. Moscow: Nauka, 1985, pp. 4–7.
29. Tarasov AE, Tarasov EF. Remote work in the coronavirus era: history, problems and prospects. Mir lingvistiki i kommunikatsii: elektronnyi nauchnyi zhurnal, 2020, no. 4, pp. 238–266. Available at: http://www.tverlingua.ru(Accessed November 23, 2025).
30. Tarasov EF. Theories of speech activity and cognitive linguistics: an attempt at comparison. In: Diskurs v sotsio-kulturalnom prostranstve: communicative mechanisms and mental structures of its representation: a collection of scientific papers dedicated to the anniversary of prof. A. A. Romanov. Moscow: FLINTA, 2021, pp. 125–132.
31. Becker K. Tactical Reality Dictionary. Cultural Intelligence and Social Control. Vienna: Selene, 2002. 128 p.​
32. Traindl A. Neuromarketing. Die innovative Visualisierung von Emotionen. Wien: Trauner Verlag, 2007. 128 S.​