LOTMAN AND THE SEMIOSPHERE OF PUBLIC COMMUNICATION THROUGH THE PRISM OF COGNITIVE SCIENCE

Stepanov V.N.

International Academy of Business and New Technologies
Russia, Moscow
E-mail: stepanov@mubint.ru

The theory of the semiosphere as a cognitive phenomenon in the works of Yuri Mikhailovich Lotman

The epigraph used reveals the essential connection that Yu. M. Lotman drew between culture and information: culture generates (develops) information. The researcher's systemic view and broad erudition allowed him to assert that culture "transforms non-information into information. It is humanity's anti-entropic mechanism" [9, p. 9]. Lotman's philosophical generalizations facilitate further discussion of public relations as a managerial communicative activity (a set of social practices) aimed at optimizing the interactions of a social subject with significant segments of the social environment—with its public [Ibid., p. 13].

Yury M. Lotman first introduced the concept of the semiosphere into scientific discourse in an article of the same name, published in 1984 in the journal "Proceedings on Sign Systems" (published since 1964) at the University of Tartu. The semiosphere, or semiotic space, creates the necessary conditions for communication. In his reflections on the semiosphere, the author drew an analogy between semiotic space and the concept of the biosphere, coined by Vladimir Ivanovich Vernadsky.

Lotman attributes the following to the fundamental distinctive features of the semiosphere:, delimitation и unevenness, and on the other hand – homogeneity и individuality.

Semiotic features of delimitation and unevenness are associated with the category borders, external and internal. Semiotic boundary separates (delimits) the semiosphere from the "external environment" and thereby contributes to its semiotic formation. Apparently, an "unorganized" external environment is a necessary condition for the existence of the semiosphere, since Lotman asserts that "the semiosphere requires an "unorganized" external environment and constructs one for itself in its absence. Culture creates not only its own internal organization, but also its own type of external disorganization" [Ibid., p. 15].

Semiotic unevenness refers to the characteristics of the internal organization of the semiosphere and has the status of a law. The essence law of internal organization of the semiosphere is that the semiotic space is divided into core и periphery: «The semiotic space is characterized by the presence of nuclear structures (usually several) with a revealed organization and a more amorphous semiotic world gravitating toward the periphery, in which the nuclear structures are immersed» [Ibid., p. 16].

Lotman emphasizes conditional the nature of the internal and external boundaries of the semiosphere and argues that the "observer's position" determines "where the boundary of a given culture lies" [Ibid.]. In his opinion, "the semiotic boundary is the sum of bilingual translation "filters" through which the text is translated into another language (or languages) located outside the given semiosphere" [Ibid., p. 13]. In other words, "the boundary is a bilingual mechanism that translates external messages into the internal language of the semiosphere and vice versa" [Ibid., p. 14].

«The "bilingual" nature of external and internal boundary semiotic processes makes the semiotic boundary "an area of enhanced meaning-making" [Ibid., p. 17]. With regard to internal boundaries, Lotman notes the following: "The transmission of information across these boundaries, the play between various structures and substructures, the directed, continuous semiotic "invasions" of one or another structure into "foreign territory" form the generation of meaning, the emergence of new information" [Ibid.].

Semiotic phenomena are characterized by a certain kind isomorphism (homogeneity), which gives them the ability to "reconstruct the semiotic whole from its part": "any fragment of a semiotic structure or an individual text retains the mechanisms for reconstructing the entire system" [Ibid., p. 17]. The idea of reconstructing the semiotic whole from its part allows us to draw an analogy between the semiosphere and a hologram, in which, as is known, partial loss of information does not lead to the destruction of the whole. Lotman notes that "there is a distinct parallelism between individual consciousness, text, and culture as a whole," and "the vertical isomorphism that exists between structures located at different hierarchical levels gives rise to a quantitative increase in messages" [Ibid., p. 18]. "The system," writes Lotman, "is capable of transforming a text into an avalanche of texts" [Ibid.].

Lotman believes that texts generated in the conditions of dialogical communication in a single text: «the transmitted text and the response received to it must form, from a certain point of view, a single text, and at the same time, each of them, from its own point of view, not only represents a separate text, but tends to be a text in another language, the transmitted text must, anticipating the response, contain elements of transition to a foreign language» [Ibid., p. 19]. This allows the scientist to come to the following generalization: «dialogue precedes language and generates it» [Ibid.]. Lotman calls one of the structural principles of the internal organization of the semiosphere as a meaning-generating device law of mirror symmetry: «If dialogic communications are the basis of meaning-making, then enantiomorphic divisions of the unified and the convergence of the different are the basis of the structural relationship of parts in the meaning-generating device» [Ibid., p. 21].

Lotman's works pay special attention to rhythm. «The ability to deliver information in portions,» writes Lotman, «is a universal law of dialogic systems» [Ibid., p. 18]. Using the example of a poetic text, Lotman formulates a key observation about rhythm in texts: “Rhythm is elevated to the level of meanings, meanings are folded into rhythms” [Ibid., p. 87].

In the article «On two models of communication in the cultural system,» Lotman contrasts two models (systems) of communication «I - HE» and «I - I» and defines communication according to the second model as autocommunication. According to Lotman, «the «I-HE» communication scheme implies the transfer of information while maintaining the constancy of its volume,» and «the «I-I» scheme is oriented towards the increase of information (the appearance of «message 2» does not destroy «message 1»)» [Ibid.].

In his observations of the semiosphere, Lotman uses an anthropomorphic metaphor: «the semiosphere is a «semiotic personality»” [Ibid., p. 13]. A semiotically heterogeneous text demonstrates the properties of an intellectual device – autonomous, intellectual personality and is capable of independent behavior: "A multilayered and semiotically heterogeneous text, capable of entering into complex relationships both with the surrounding cultural context and with the readership, ceases to be an elementary message directed from the addresser to the addressee. By revealing the ability to condense information, it acquires memory. At the same time, it reveals the quality that Heraclitus defined as 'self-expanding logos'. At this stage of structural complexity, the text reveals the properties of an intellectual device and a cognitive system: it not only transmits information embedded in it from the outside, but also transforms messages and generates new ones" [Ibid., p. 131].

Lotman identified several socio-communicative functions of the text [Ibid.]:

1. the text mediates communication between the addresser and the addressee, «performs the function of a message directed from the information carrier to the audience»
2. the text mediates communication between the audience and the cultural tradition and «performs the function of collective cultural memory»;
3. the text mediates the reader’s communication with himself and «acts as a mediator, helping to restructure the reader’s personality, change its structural self-orientation and the degree of its connection with metacultural constructs»;

4. the text mediates communication between the reader and the text, exhibits intellectual properties, «ceases to be merely an intermediary in the act of communication,» «becomes an equal interlocutor with a high degree of autonomy,» and acts as «an independent intellectual formation that plays an active and independent role in the dialogue»;
5. The text mediates communication between the text and the cultural context and «acts in the communicative act not as a message, but as its full participant, a subject – a source or recipient of information.».

As a result of his reasoning, Yu. M. Lotman gives the text the following definition: «a complex device that stores a variety of codes, capable of transforming received messages and generating new ones, like an information generator possessing the characteristics of an intellectual personality» [Ibid.].

Semiotic boundaries and borderline semiotic phenomena as cognitive phenomena

Foreign researchers, members of the international writing team for a book on the biography and work of Yuriy M. Lotman [42], note points of contact between the ideas of this Russian philologist and semiotician and contemporary practice and methodology in researching current issues in culture, social and mass communication, and digital and media technologies. The traditional spheres of influence of this eminent scholar's ideas include literary criticism, semiotics, cultural studies, and political science; more recently, studies of mass culture, media communications, and social networks have been added to these.

The spatial metaphor, once used by Yu. M. Lotman, helps in naming the multiplying information channels, which modern researchers propose to call by different names: infosphere, mediasphere, media field, media environment, "fourth world", media space. I.M. Dzyaloshinsky defines the latter as a complex self-organizing system, "which, through direct and feedback connections, influences the processes occurring within its boundaries" [2, p. 13]. Boundaries and related boundary phenomena, which interested Lotman, are relevant for communication research today, and the concept of boundary itself is receiving categorical status.

A fundamental feature of modern media spaces I.M. Dzyaloshinsky considers the combination of traditional and new media [2, p. 15]. To new media These are means of communication located primarily on the Internet, and their distinctive features traditionally include the following: 1) unlimited audience reach, 2) high efficiency of content delivery, 3) unlimited volume of information, 4) low cost of disseminated information, 5) storage of information in databases, which makes it possible to reuse it [Ibid., pp. 15-16].

I.M. Dzyaloshinsky explains the moving «boundaries» of the media space as follows: factors: 1) globalization, that is, the possibility of almost instantaneous expansion beyond the boundaries of industry, corporate, and national media systems into other media spaces; 2) virtualization, associated with the fact that information images of objects, persons, and processes lose their mirror connection with real images; 3) a sharp quantitative increase and increasing complexity of contacts; 4) the emergence of fundamentally new communication formats that are associated with the production of content by a narrow group of specialists for subsequent consumption by the mass of Internet users (Web 1.0); independent production of content by the mass of users and the active exchange of information between them, the emergence of social networks (Web 2.0); the creation of recommendation services on the Internet, formed exclusively on the basis of consumer opinions (Web 3.0) [Ibid.].

The current communication environment at the present stage of its development is best characterized by the concept transformations. It is no coincidence that M.G. Shilina included this very concept in the title of her monograph [22].

The most comprehensive systemic view of the current transformations in contemporary virtual reality and so-called virtual communities is presented in the collective monograph "Governability and Discourse of Virtual Communities in the Context of Post-Truth Politics" [20]. This book contains theoretical research and empirical observations on the state of the information and communication environment.

Domestic and foreign researchers explain modern transformation processes in the field of mass communication mediatization [38], which we propose to understand as the formation of a new environment with the help of mass communication channels, virtualization and imprinting of social experience [13]. It is the mediatization of human communication that determines the power and priority media realities. Mediatization is becoming a civilizational factor that is transforming modern media reality, and media communications, as transborder phenomena – «transmediation», are becoming multimodal [44] Some researchers see signs of a new type of communication in modern network communication. literature [11].

Observations on the current state of heterogeneous mass communication began with the subject area that the Russian researcher Shchipitsina L.Yu. calls «computer-mediated communication» [26] and identifies the following parameters specific to Internet communication: electronic form of text existence, hypertextuality, multimedia, interactivity, synchronicity, quantity, explicitness of communicants [25, p. 11].

The category of the semiotic boundary, used by Lotman in his studies of semiotic spaces, demonstrates enormous interpretative potential in understanding contemporary communication processes. According to Kin Lee, traditional bidirectional mass communication belongs to a bygone (media) era and is transforming into immersive [37], which indicates a new stage in the development of media communications («the third media age»). As the researcher notes, this is due to the erasure borders («vanishing boundaries») between leisure, work и life.

The obvious differences that exist between reality and its virtual representation (the «matrix») are reinforced by the fact that digital tools and platforms are steadily becoming publicly available, which gives researchers grounds to characterize contemporary media culture as hybrid [33].

Social networks themselves, as an integral part of modern digital infrastructure and media communications, testify to the emergence of a «culture of participation,» the key characteristics of which foreign researchers call participation, openness, dialogue, community, contact [32, p. 53]. This type of culture relates to large-scale social phenomena and influences the change in the semiotic significance and communicative role of an individual as a subject of mass communication, the increase in his subject status as a full-fledged and autonomous «player» in the space of public communication, which allows him to be «more than just part of the audience.».

Communication practices and digital technologies, tested and diversified in social networks, actively «exploit» a purely human attribute – its emotions [30], which become a weapon in a real ideological confrontation and determine the outlines (boundaries) of modern propaganda [27]. Taking into account the growing role of emotions and the growth of their specific weight in public communication, V. N. Stepanov characterizes the latter as primarily emotiogenic – «generating» emotions [13].

New communication practices are attracting particular attention from researchers in terms of their socio-cultural, psychological, and value-based potential. Jenny Kennedy, analyzing the practice of "sharing" in a digital culture using digital devices and platforms, examines this technological phenomenon from the perspective of specific issues. exchange (sharing), privacy (privacy) and management (control) [35].

Blockchain technology allows for sharing of information and represents a new level of exchange – values (sharing value) [28]. Digital platforms provide users with innovative technological opportunities – load (upload), distribute (share) content, react (respond) to it, and the platforms themselves are engaged monetization digital traces of this activity.

Networks, according to John Field, allow people to share their values in communities, use these communities as a resource and thereby form a certain kind of capital - social, In other words, networks help people interact with each other for mutual benefit: “Networks provide a basis for social cohesion because they enable people to cooperate with one another – and not just with people they know directly – for mutual advantage” [31, p. 12]. The formula for social capital is simple and takes into account the category of relationships: «relationships matter.» The structure of social capital includes the following sequence: networks (networks) — values (values) — resource (resource) – capital (capital). Thus, social capital allows people not only to establish connections, but also to appropriate the values of the group: “it can only provide access to resources where individuals have not only formed ties with others but have internalized the shared values of the group” [Ibid., p. 139].

The concept of social capital goes back to the works of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who considered it as one of the resources associated with the exchange values and growth trust in society. Bourdieu believed that economic (financial, property), cultural (knowledge, skills, education) and social (connections and membership in communities) types of capital are capital symbolic (prestige, honor) [29] and is determined social field (social field) and with social positions members of society [43, p. 231]. Social capital is formed by the relationships that arise between the organization and its environment, and is a resource authorities and therefore falls under the field of public relations [34].

Researchers note the existence of a "dark" side to social capital, where disinformation and populism "lurk," demonstrating a transnational nature today, transcending the boundaries of countries, political systems, and media systems. In such conditions, public communication is increasingly viewed as communication in the post-fact and post-truth era—polarized and "anti-rational." T.W. Reed emphasizes that mobile technologies and social media, new platforms and tools, have changed our attitudes toward digital technologies in the post-truth era [39].

The phenomenon of media fakes has become an integral feature of modern media culture. Any message and format can be considered fake: fake news, fake websites, fake people, fake quotes, and genre fakes [3; 10]. I.A. Sternin and A.M. Shesterina developed and published a methodology for analyzing media texts to identify their fake nature [19]. The researchers described fake markers in two types of texts: those containing socially significant information and those containing commercial information. In each type, text markers of fakes and fake headlines are classified and illustrated, and for texts containing socially significant information, fake markers on television and in online videos are described.

S.A. Samoylenko attributes the following to the negative phenomena of modern public communication: reputational threat (character assassination), which is understood as a communicative strategy of discrediting a person or group within the framework of subversive communications [40]. The researcher considers the reputational threat as an instrument of ideological struggle in society and a sign of a new social phenomenon – cancel culture («cancel culture») [Ibid., p. 186].

Semiotic boundaries and their overcoming

One of the obvious ontological characteristics of the modern media space and a productive research idea (in the spirit of Lotman’s reasoning about the semiosphere and meaning generation) is textogenicity, which M.G. Shilina defines as «a complex of anthropogenic and technical factors of generation, transmission, and exchange of public communication texts, leading to the formation and functioning of new types of carriers and generators of information in all spheres of life and influencing them» [22, p. 458].

Transformations in the system of mass communication genres have given rise to the special name «Internet genreology» [4] and research interest in the restructuring of Internet genres, the description of new genres and the rethinking of «traditional» ones, for example, the post [15], blog [24], pin [5], byliner [12], economic and political forecast [21].

Media text, as the basic unit of media reality, is considered as a communicative means (intermediary, mediator) and a «full participant» (Yu. M. Lotman) of communication, the active force with the help of which the corresponding information is generated and transmitted to numerous addressees (mass addressee) model of social cognition [18]. In this case, the key role in the development and structuring of the media text is played primarily by universal cognitive mechanisms, maximally generalized - supranational, supra-gender, supra-linguistic, indifferent to intercultural reality.

From a communicative point of view, a media text «acquires memory», «performs the function of collective cultural memory» (Yu. M. Lotman), contains model of social cognition in miniature and transmits it with the help of the succession of communicative registers of speech: from the reproductive (through feelings) through the informative (through awareness) to the generative (to generalization) [17].

From a semiotic point of view, a media text has a polycode structure, and the codes not only interact, but complement each other in accordance with the principle complementarity and form groups: communicative, visual, musical, textual, rhetorical, ideological, cultural [18].

From the point of view of speech impact and manifestation of the author’s speech will (power), media texts appeal to reason, feelings or unconscious a person, using different methods of influence for this: argumentation (belief), suggestion (suggestion), provocation (infection) [13].

In terms of composition, the media text in social networks is determined by the requirements modularity, to make it easier for the reader or viewer to take in the entire text at once. E.V. Bykova defines the concept of "modular text" as "a text whose entire speech array is located on only one plane, i.e., literally 'squeezed' into predetermined parameters, limited by certain, predetermined, standardized dimensions of the plane" [1, p. 42].

An analysis of the technological tools used by modern media allows us to identify another extremely influential information and communication phenomenon associated with the category of borders: the transgressive nature of the modern media text, its ability to «move» between communication spaces.

Transgressivity becomes a distinctive feature of a media text in the context of modern multichannel communication and is manifested in its structure, composition and language (style) [41]. The transgressive potential of a media text is realized by foreign inserted text elements – labels or tags (hashtags, hyperlinks, geolocation, geotagging). The most important function of transgression is the multiplication of the message, its transgression, with the help of which, firstly, the post appears in the news feed of another account or in an aggregator (thematic archive) of publications, and secondly, the recipient receives a notification about the publication and is thereby invited to the discussion.

The category of transgression brings the research problem to the forefront digital geography — studying not only the boundaries, but also the vectors of expansion of digital space and digital time, transcending "real" space and time using special communication tools with other accounts and aggregators.

The emotiogenic nature of public communication and the influence of a post on the emotional state of a mass addressee is explained transfiguration subject of communication. The main tool of emotive communication in a post is the so-called grammar of emoticons [16], within which the use of emoticons is subject to certain rules of use: 1) instead of words and entire statements, 2) instead of punctuation marks, 3) at the beginning and end of phrases.

PRology and its synergetic revision 

A systems view of public relations science – PRology – is presented in the book by M.A. Shishkina «Public Relations in the Management System» [23]. The author offers a definition that has long since become a textbook one and is actively used in the works of the St. Petersburg School of PR: «PR science is a science about the patterns, principles and mechanisms of formation and functioning of public relations as a set of social communication practices» [6, p. 16]. The concepts of «communication» and «information» became basic in the description of the object and subject of the new communication discipline: «PR science is information and communication knowledge, its object is social communication» [23, p. 24]. The information and communication component of PR studies is emphasized in the definition of the subject of science: «the subject of PR studies is public relations, understood as a set of social practices aimed at the production and reproduction of effective public communications, and the optimization of information interactions between social subjects and their target groups» [Ibid., p. 28].

Modern researchers attribute public opinion, brand, image, reputation, corporate identity (corporate policy and strategy, corporate philosophy, corporate culture) to the results of PR activities [6]. Corporate culture is considered today as an effective public relations tool that contributes to the improvement and sustainable development of an organization [36].

I.P. Kuzheleva-Sagan developed her own «generalized transspective model of PR science as an open self-organizing cognitive system, representing a synthesis of three-part models: «classical» PR science («social mechanics»); «non-classical» PR science («social cybernetics») and «post-non-classical» PR science («social synergetics»)» [8, p. 423].

In the conditions of «cosmic speeds» with which new media are emerging and developing and the information environment is evolving, it seems relevant to identify a special direction of the science of public relations - genre PR [14]. The basis of this new autonomous branch of PR studies should be the criterion of the current and growing diversity of information formats of PR information in the context of multichannel communication and multichannel PR discourse.

The beginnings of this idea are contained in the key work of A.D. Krivonosov [7], who was the first to present a systematic description of texts initiated by the basic subject of PR and serving to increase its publicity capital. Publicity capital (capital of publicity, fame, image capital) is formed in the space of public communications of the basic subject of PR and represents social relationship [6, p. 36].

One cannot but agree with the author that «the state of modern PR studies requires a comprehensive and all-round description of the system of texts, primarily on paper» [7, p. 56]. Krivonosov accurately defines the key factor that has an exceptional influence on the system of texts: «Indeed, today various channels and communication technologies are used to transmit PR information. Above, we have already touched upon the problems of the globalization of the information space, directly related to the development of computer, information and telecommunication technologies. Currently, a significant portion of information, including PR information, is transmitted to the target public primarily through electronic channels. The Internet in modern society is a unique complex phenomenon, which acts as a source, a means of transmitting information, and a means of communication» [Ibid., p. 57].

Taking into account the current diversity of information channels and communication practices of modern public communication, I.P.

Kuzheleva-Sagan identifies a special stage in the ontogenesis of PR science as an information and communication discipline and defines it as «post-non-classical PR science» and «social synergetics», oriented «towards solving the problems of identifying the properties of PR as a self-organizing system, a «human-sized object» and its capabilities in constructing a social environment (super-system)» [8, p. 412].

Synergetic revision of PR studies presupposes updating the concepts of the ontological status and dynamics of each element of public communication – the addresser (the basic subject of PR), the addressee (the target public and its segments), the channel (media), the code, the text and context, the result – the publicity capital of the basic subject of PR.

The conceptual apparatus of semiotic research proposed by Yu. M. Lotman sets paradigmatic model interpretations of the current state and dynamics of the semiotic space of public communication, the status of semiotic boundaries and the semiosis of boundary phenomena as cognitive phenomena.

Productive idea of Yu. M. Lotman about personological nature semiosphere allows us to consider public relations as a practical information and communication activity (a set of social practices), their substance (public communication), result (publicity capital) and instrument (text) through the prism intellectual personality, as a cognitive system that stores a variety of codes, transforms received messages, generates new messages and transmits them.

 

 

Literature

1. Bykova E.V. Modular Text in Mass Communication: Patterns of Speech Organization. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philological Sciences in Journalism (Specialty 10.01.10). St. Petersburg, 2012. 315 pages.
2. Dzyaloshinsky I.M. Communication Strategies of Social Institutions in the Russian Media Space. Abstract of a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philology in Journalism (Specialty 10.01.10). Moscow, 2013. 46 p.
3. Issers, O.S. Media Fakes: Between Truth and Hoax // Communicative Studies. 2014. No. 2. pp. 112–123.
4. Kiuru K.V. Internet Genreology as a Direction of Studying Journalistic Texts // Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2014. No. 26 (355). Philology. Art Criticism. Issue 93. P. 51-
5. Kiuru K.V. Pin as a text genre in social media and its discursive characteristics // Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2015. No. 5 (360). Philology. Art Criticism. Issue 94. Pp. 224-228.
6. Krivonosov A.D., Filatova O.G., Shishkina M.A. Fundamentals of Public Relations Theory. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2010. 384 p.
7. Krivonosov A.D. PR-text in the system of public communications. 2nd ed., suppl. St. Petersburg: "Petersburg Oriental Studies", 2002. 288 p.
8. Kuzheleva-Sagan I.P. Scientific knowledge about public relations (PR): Philosophical analysis. Moscow: Book House "LIBROKOM", 2011. 464 p.
9. Lotman Yu.M. Selected articles in three volumes. Volume I. Articles on semiotics and typology of culture. Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992. 479 p.
10. Media manipulation in 2014: «fakes» and «ducks”» // Press service. 2014. No. 12. P. 92-94.
11. Medvedeva E.V. Main characteristics of network communication as a new kind of literature // Active processes in social and mass communication: collective monograph / ed. and compiled by N.V. Aniskina, L.V. Ukhova. Yaroslavl: Publishing house of Yaroslavl State Pedagogical University, 2014. Pp. 165-177.
12. Peskova E.N. Bayliner as a genre of internet communication // Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Linguistics. Issue 11. 2014. No. 2. pp. 10-13.
13. Stepanov V.N. On the issue of emotive communication / V. N. Stepanov // Foreign languages in higher education. Issue 1 (20). Ryazan, 2012. Pp.
14. Stepanov V.N. On the Urgent Need for Genre PR // Russian PR: Trends and Drivers. Issue 10: Collection of Scientific Papers in Honor of Professor A.D. Krivonosov / edited by E.Yu. Karmalova, K.V. Kiuru. St. Petersburg: SPbGEU Publishing House, 2021. Pp.
15. Stepanov V.N. Post as a tool for forming social capital in a social network (using Facebook as an example) / V. N. Stepanov // Bulletin of Tver State University. Series "Philology". Issue 1. 2014. Pp. 183-191.
16. Stepanov V.N. Pragmatics and grammar of emoticons // Russian PR science: trends and drivers. Issue 15: collection of scientific papers in honor of professor K.V. Kiuru / edited by prof. A.D. Krivonosov. St. Petersburg: Publishing house of St. Petersburg State University of Economics, 2022. Pp. 61-65.
17. Stepanov V.N. Provocation in social and mass communication. St. Petersburg: Rose of the World, 2008. 268 p.
18. Stepanov V.N. Semiotic codes in advertising text // Foreign languages in higher education. Scientific journal. Issue 2 (13). Ryazan, 2010. Pp. 92-100.
19. Sternin I.A., Shesterina A.M. Fake Markers in Media Texts. Voronezh: Ritm Publishing House, 2021. 60 p.
20. Governability and Discourse of Virtual Communities in the Context of Post-Truth Politics. Monograph / Ed. D.S. Martyanov. St. Petersburg: ElecSis, 2019. 312 p.
21. Shevelevsky I.M. Economic and political forecast in modern media discourse (based on business media) // Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Philology. 2015. No. 1. P. 216-221.
22. Shilina M.G. Textogenic transformations of the infosphere. Methodological sketch of the formation of the Internet. Moscow: OOO "RIC North-East", 2012. 734 p.
23. Shishkina M.A. Public Relations in the System of Social Management. St. Petersburg: Pallada-Media Publishing House and SZRC RUSICH, 2002. 444 p.
24. Shchipitsina L.Yu. Genre characteristics of mass information discourse of computer-mediated communication // M.V. Lomonosov and multilingual information and educational space. Part 1. Arkhangelsk: Arctic Federal University, 2012. Pp. 263-268.
25. Shchipitsina L.Yu. Genres of computer-mediated communication. Arkhangelsk: Pomor University, 2009. 236 p.
26. Shchipitsina L.Yu. A Comprehensive Linguistic Characteristic of Computer-Mediated Communication (Based on the German Language). Diss. … Doctor of Philological Sciences. Voronezh, 2011. 238 pages.
27. Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means / Eds.: Megan Boler, Elizabeth Davis, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2020, 378 p.
28. Blockchain and Web 3.0: Social, Economic, and Technological Challenges / Eds.: Massimo Ragnedda, Giuseppe Destefanis, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019, 334 p.
29. Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, New York: Greenwood, 1986. pp. 241-258.
30. Ellis D., Tucker I. Emotion in the Digital Age: Technologies, Data and Psychosocial Life, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2020, 142 p.
31. Field J. Social Capital. Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2008, 168 p.
32. Heinonen A. The Journalist's Relationship with Users: New Dimensions to Conventional Roles. Jane B. Singer, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Alfred Hermida, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, Marina Vujnovic, Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011, pp. 34-55.
33. Hybrid Media Culture: Sensing Place in a World of Flows / Ed.: Simon Lindgren, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019. 176 p.
34. Ihlen O. The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations // Public Relations Review, 31, 2005. P. 492-496.
35. Kennedy J. Digital Media, Sharing and Everyday Life, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge. 2019, 148 p.
36. Korolko V., Nekrasova, O. Corporate Culture and Public Relations. In Y. Golovakha (Ed.), Ukrainian Sociological Review 2006-2007, 2009. P. 105-122.
37. Li Q. Immersive Communication: The Communication Paradigm of the Third Media Age, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2020. 204 p.
38. Lundby K. (Ed), Mediatization of Communication. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton, 2014. 752 p.
39. Reed TV. Digitized Lives: Culture, Power and Social Change in the Internet Era, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019, 332 p.
40. Samoilenko SA. Character Assassination: The Sociocultural Perspective, Journal of Applied Social Theory, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2021, pp. 186-205.
41. Stepanov, VN. Ontology of transgressive social media. RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism, No. 26(4), 2021, P. 641-648.
42. Tamm M., Torop, P. (Eds.) The Companion to Juri Lotman: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2021. 528 p.
43. Thompson JB. (E). Pierre Bourdieu, Language and symbolic power. Gino Raymond & Matthew Adamson (trans.). Cambridge: Polity, 1991. 303 r.
44. Transmediations: Communication Across Media Borders /Ed. Niklas Salmose, Lars Elleström, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019, 300 p.

References

1. Bykova EV. Modular text in mass communication: patterns of speech organization. Dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philological Sciences in specialty 10.01.10 – journalism. St. Petersburg, 2012. 315 p.
2. Dzjaloshinskij IM. Communication strategies of social institutions in the media space of Russia. Abstract of a dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philology in specialty 10.01.10 – journalism. Moscow, 2013. 46 p.
3. Issers, OS. Mediafakes: Between Truth and Mystification // Communicative Research. 2014. No. 2. P. 112–123.
4. Kiuru KV. Internet Genrology as a Direction in the Study of Journalistic Texts // Bulletin of Cheljabinsk State University. 2014. No. 26 (355). Philology. Art Studies. Issue. 93. P. 51-55.
5. Kiuru KV. Pin as a genre of text in social media and its discursive characteristics // Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2015. No. 5 (360). Philology. Art studies. Issue. 94. P. 224-228.
6. Krivonosov AD, Filatova OG, Shishkina MA. Fundamentals of the Theory of Public Relations. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2010. 384 p.
7. Krivonosov AD. PR-text in the system of public communications. 2nd ed., dop. St. Petersburg: "Petersburg Oriental Studies", 2002. 288 p.
8. Kuzheleva-Sagan IP. Scientific knowledge about public relations (PR): Philosophical analysis. Moscow: Book House "LIBROKOM", 2011. 464 p.
9. Lotman Ju.M. Selected articles in three volumes. Volume I. Articles on the semiotics and typology of culture. Tallinn: Alexandra, 1992. 479 p.
10. Manipuljacii v SMI-2014: «fejki» i «utki» // Press-sluzhba. 2014. No. 12. S.92-94.
11. Medvedeva EV. Main characteristics of online communication as a new kind of eloquence // Active processes in social and mass communication: collective monograph / ed. and compiled by N.V.Anishkina, L.Vuhova. Jaroslavl: Jaroslavl State Pedagogical Univ., 2014. pp. 165-177.
12. Peskova EN. Language as a genre of internet communication // Bulletin of the South-Ural State University. Series: Linguistics. Issue 11, 2014. No. 2. pp. 10-13.
13. Stepanov VN. On the issue of homociogenic communication / VN Stepanov // Foreign languages in higher education. Issue. 1 (20). Rjazan, 2012. P. 12-34.
14. Stepanov VN. On the Current Need for Genre-Based PR Studies // Russian PR Studies: Trends and Drivers. Issue 10: A Collection of Scientific Papers by Professor A.D. Krivonosov / ed. by E.Ju. Karmalova, K.V. Kiuru. St. Petersburg: SPbGJeU Publishing House, 2021, pp. 100-107.
15. Stepanov VN. Post as a tool for forming social capital in a social network (using the Facebook social network as an example) / VN Stepanov // Bulletin of Tver State University. Series "Philology". Issue 1. 2014. Pp. 183-191.
16. Stepanov VN. Pragmatika i grammatika jemotikonov // Rossijskaja piarologija: trendy i dvery. Vyp. 15: collection of scientific works in the collection of professor KV Kiuru / ed. prof. A.D. Krivonosov. St. Petersburg: Izd-vo SPbGJeU, 2022. Pp. 61-65.
17. Stepanov VN. Provocation in social and mass communication. St. Petersburg: Roza Mira, 2008. 268 p.
18. Stepanov VN. Semiotic codes in advertising text // Foreign languages in higher education. Scientific journal. Issue. 2 (13). Rjazan, 2010. P. 92-100.
19. Sternin IA, Shesterina AM. Markery fejka v mediatekstah. Voronezh: Izd-vo «Ritm», 2021. 60 s.
20. Governance and discourse of virtual communities in the context of post-truth policy. Monograph / Ed. D. S. Mart'janova. St. Petersburg: JelekSis, 2019. 312 p.
21. Shevelevskij IM. Economic and political forecast in modern media discourse (based on business media) // Bulletin of Tver State University. Series: Philology. 2015. No. 1. P. 216-221.
22. Shilina MG. Textogenic transformations of the infosphere. Methodological approach to the development of the Internet. Moscow: OOO RIC Severo-Vostok, 2012. 734 p.
23. Shishkina MA. Pablik rilejshnz v sisteme social'nogo upravlenija. SPb.: Izd-va «Pallada-media» and SZRC «RUSICh», 2002. 444 s.
24. Shhipicina L.Ju. Thematic characteristics of the mass information discourse of computer-mediated communication // M. V. Lomonosov and the multilingual information and educational space. Part 1. Arkhangelsk: Arctic Federal University, 2012. P. 263-268.
25. Shhipicina L.Ju. Journals of Computer-Mediated Communication. Arkhangelsk: Pomorskij un-t, 2009. 236 s.
26. Shhipicina L.Ju. Complex linguistic characteristics of computer-mediated communication (based on the German language). Diss. … Doctor of Philology. Voronezh, 2011. 238 p.
27. Affective Politics of Digital Media: Propaganda by Other Means / Eds.: Megan Boler, Elizabeth Davis, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2020, 378 p.
28. Blockchain and Web 3.0: Social, Economic, and Technological Challenges / Eds.: Massimo Ragnedda, Giuseppe Destefanis, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019, 334 p.
29. Bourdieu P. The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education, New York: Greenwood, 1986. pp. 241-258.
30. Ellis D., Tucker I. Emotion in the Digital Age: Technologies, Data and Psychosocial Life, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2020, 142 p.
31. Field J. Social Capital. Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2008, 168 p.
32. Heinonen A. The Journalist's Relationship with Users: New Dimensions to Conventional Roles. Jane B. Singer, David Domingo, Ari Heinonen, Alfred Hermida, Steve Paulussen, Thorsten Quandt, Zvi Reich, Marina Vujnovic, Participatory Journalism: Guarding Open Gates at Online Newspapers, Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011. R. 34-55.
33. Hybrid Media Culture: Sensing Place in a World of Flows / Ed.: Simon Lindgren, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019. 176 p.
34. Ihlen O. The power of social capital: Adapting Bourdieu to the study of public relations // Public Relations Review, 31, 2005. P. 492-496.
35. Kennedy J. Digital Media, Sharing and Everyday Life, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge. 2019, 148 p.
36. Korolko V., Nekrasova O. Corporate Culture and Public Relations. In Y. Golovakha (Ed.), Ukrainian Sociological Review 2006-2007, 2009. P. 105-122.
37. Li Q. Immersive Communication: The Communication Paradigm of the Third Media Age, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2020. 204 p.
38. Lundby K. (Ed), Mediatization of Communication. Berlin, De Gruyter Mouton, 2014. 752 p.
39. Reed TV. Digitized Lives: Culture, Power and Social Change in the Internet Era, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019, 332 p.
40. Samoilenko SA. Character Assassination: The Sociocultural Perspective, Journal of Applied Social Theory, Vol. 1, No. 3, 2021, pp. 186-205.
41. Stepanov VN. Ontology of transgressive social media. RUDN Journal of Studies in Literature and Journalism, No. 26(4), 2021, P. 641-648.
42. Tamm M., Torop, P. (Eds.) The Companion to Juri Lotman: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2021. 528 p.
43. Thompson JB. (Ed.). Pierre Bourdieu, Language and symbolic power. Gino Raymond & Matthew Adamson (trans.). Cambridge: Polity, 1991. 303 r.
44. Transmediations: Communication Across Media Borders / Ed. Niklas Salmose, Lars Elleström, Abingdon, UK and New York: Routledge, 2019, 300 p.