Linguocultural Specifics of Cybersecurity Discursive Practices Representation in Russian Media Communication: Corpus-Assisted Approach

The issue of the semantic, pragmatic and axiological specifics of cybersecurity discursive practices as it is displayed in the genres of media and online communication is considered. The novelty of the work lies in the application of the corpus linguistics methodology to the study of discourse, understood as a language-mediated social practice. The relevance of the work is due to the interest of linguistics in the study of discursive practices that shape a new social reality formed as a result of the Russian language functioning. By using the methods of corpus linguistics, the cognitive-semantic structure of discursive thesaurus, which comprise a new layer of lexical units, has been reconstructed, thematic groups of lexical units have been identified and their distribution in various genres of cybersecurity discourse has been established. It has been found that along with the terminology focused on the transfer of operational, practical knowledge about safe online practices, the texts in the corpus regularly employ lexical units with military and aggressive semantics, which indicates the contradiction between the goals of the discourse aimed at forming a positive attitude towards digital technologies, and language means employed to achieve them. It is shown that due to regular occurrence of neutral lexical units in negatively colored contexts, they develop negative evaluative connotations, which also contributes to the formation of users’ distrust of new technologies, enhances the feeling of risk, and generates anxiety and concern.

1. Anashkina, I. A., Konkova, I. I. (2021). Corpus-oriented method of discourse analysis (based on the material of the English language). Bulletin of Perm National Research Polytechnic University. Problems of linguistics and pedagogy, 2: 30—42. DOI: 10.15593/2224-9389/2021.2.3. (In Russ.).

2. Baker, P. (2006). Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum. 208 p.

3. Brodovskaya, E. V., Dombrovskaya, A. Yu., Pyrma, R. V., Sinyakov, A. V., Azarov, A. A. (2019). The influence of digital communications on the formation of professional cul-ture of Russian youth: the results of a comprehensive applied research. Monitoring of public opinion: Economic and social changes, 1: 228—251. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2019.1.11. (In Russ.).

4. Chernyavskaya, V. E. (2017). Methodological possibilities of discursive analysis in corpus linguistics. Bulletin of Tomsk State University. Philology, 50. DOI: 10.17223/19986645/50/9. (In Russ.).

5. Efremova, M. P. (2021). The concept of “SAFETY/SECURITY” in the English language picture of the world. Author’s abstract of PhD Diss. St. Petersburg. 25 p. (In Russ.).

6. Gabrielatos, С. (2018). Keyness Analysis: nature, metrics and techniques. Oxford: Routledge. 225—258.

7. General and Russian linguoaxiology: A collective monograph. (2022). Moscow—Yaroslavl: Publishing house “Chancellor”. 390 p. ISBN 978-5-98269-258-0. (In Russ.).

8. Ilinova, E. Yu. (2016). Semantic categorization in the reconstruction of the thematic content of the text of a news message. Cognitive studies of language, 26: 537—539. (In Russ.).

9. Karasik, V. I. (2013). Language matrix of culture. Moscow: Gnosis. 320 p. ISBN 978-5-94244-043-5. (In Russ.).

10. Kochetova, L. A., Kononova, I. V. (2019). Cognitive-corpus approach to the analysis of the construction of value meanings in advertising discourse. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 2: 65—74. (In Russ.).

11. Laclau, E. (1995). The Time is out of Joint. Diacritics, 25 (2): 85—96.

12. Leontieva, T. V., Shchetinina, A. V. (2020). Representation of opposites in the word friend-enemy: contextual analysis. The world of the Russian word, 2: 35—39. DOI: 10.24411/1811-1629-2020-12035. (In Russ.).

13. Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In: Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amster-dam: John Benjamins. 157—175.

14. Marinova, E. V. (2023). Evolution of the concept of “virtual personality” in the digital age (socio-linguistic research based on Russian texts). Nauchnyj dialog, 12 (1): 151—169. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2023-12-1-151-169. (In Russ.).

15. Orlova, N. V. (2021). Semantic series as a discourse analysis tool (based on the discourse on generations). Nauchnyj dialog, 1 (7): 108—122. DOI: 10.24224/2227-1295-2021-7-108-122. (In Russ.).

16. Parvaresh, V. (2023). Covertly communicated hate speech: A corpus-assisted pragmatic study. Journal of Pragmatics, 205: 63—77. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2022.12.009.

17. Rebrina, L. N. (2021). Semantics of enmity: designations of an aggressive subject in Internet communication. Bulletin of the Volgograd State University. Series 2, Linguistics, 20 (4): 74—90. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2021.4.6. (In Russ.).

18. Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles. On the cause of the trouble with quan-titative studies. Functions of Language, 2/1: 23—55.

19. Teubert, W., Cermakova, A. (2007). Corpus Linguistics. A short introduction. London et al.: Continuum. 176 p. ISBN 9780826494801.

20. Zmazneva, O. A. (2018). The communicative space of social networks of the beginning of the XXI century: image files and streams of consciousness. Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series: Philosophical Sciences, 3 (27): 16—22. (In Russ.).