Cognitive Mechanisms of Graffiti: Compression, Defocusing, and Focusing
https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-8-171-187
Abstract
This study aims to identify the predominant cognitive mechanisms underlying graffiti. The analysis is based on photographs of over 2000 instances of urban graphic defacement (i.e., graffiti) documented in major cities across Russia, including Yekaterinburg, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, and Nizhny Novgorod. Utilizing content analysis and expert evaluation methods, the research delineates three key cognitive mechanisms that contribute to the semantic unity of graffiti. The first mechanism, compression, manifests in graphic defacements through linguistic play or the transmission of discursive texts. The second mechanism, defocusing, is linguistically actualized through the technique of absurdity (everyday anchors of illogicality) and the activation of the emotion of surprise. It is noted that surprise elicits various reactions from the audience — such as loss of control, bewilderment, and uncertainty — which subsequently leads to prolonged retention in memory of the meanings embedded in the respective graffiti against a backdrop of vivid and atypical psycho-emotional states. The third mechanism, focusing, is linguistically embodied in philosophical texts.
Supporting agencies: The study is supported by Russian Science Foundation, project number 23-28-01487, https://rscf.ru/project/23-28-01487/
About the Author
M. R. Babikova
Ural State Pedagogical University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina R. Babikova - PhD in Philology, Department of Intercultural Communication, Rhetoric, Russian as a Foreign Language.
Yekaterinburg
References
1. Anumyan, K. S. (2021). The emotion of surprise as an object of research in pragmalinguistics. Actual problems of philology, 22: 278—283. (In Russ.).
2. Boldyrev, N. N. (2016). Cognitive schemes of linguistic interpretation. Questions of cognitive linguistics, 4: 10—20. DOI: 10.20916/1812-3228-2016-4-10-20. (In Russ.).
3. Boldyrev, N. N., Grigorieva, V. S. (2020). Dominant principle and integrativity of the format of speech interaction in dialogic discourse. Tambov: Print-Service. 328 p. ISBN 978-5-6044327-3-0. (In Russ.).
4. Demyankov, V. Z., Kubryakova, E. S., Pankrats, Yu. G., Luzina, L. G. (1996). Cognitive linguistics. In: A concise dictionary of cognitive terms. Moscow: Philol. fac. Lomonosov Moscow State University. 53—55. (In Russ.).
5. Grigorieva, V. S. (2020). Advertising discourse through the prism of cognitive dominants of its organization. The world of linguistics and communication: electronic scientific journal, 62: 283—297. (In Russ.).
6. Iriskhanova, O. K. (2014). Focus games in language. Semantics, syntax and pragmatics of defocusing. Moscow: Languages of Slavic Culture. 320 p. ISBN 978-5-9551-0678-6. (In Russ.).
7. Ivashkevich, I. N. (2013). On the problem of cognitive modeling of an indefinite number (based on the material of nouns with spatial meaning). In: Cognitive linguistics: results, prospects. Materials of the All-Russian Scientific Conference, April 11—12, 2013 Cognitive Language research, 14. Moscow: Institute of Linguistics of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Tambov: Publishing House of TSU named after G. R. Derzhavin. 181-187. (In Russ.).
8. Ivashkevich, I. N. (2016). The role of visual perception in the formation of metaphorical models in the English language. In: Language. Culture. Translation. Communication: collection of scientific tr. Moscow: Thesaurus. 499—504. (In Russ.).
9. Ivashkevich, I. N. (2019). The role of cognitive mechanisms in the formation of non-spatial meanings in language. Eurasian Humanitarian Journal, S4 (1): 4—12. (In Russ.).
10. Kanashina, S. V. (2015). Cognitive mechanism of compression in Internet memes. Philological sciences at MGIMO, 1 (1): 30—39. (In Russ.).
11. Kruzhkova, O. V. (2024). Vandalism. Why does the theory of “broken windows” not work? Psychology and Law, 14 (3): 26—38. (In Russ.).
12. Kruzhkova, O. V., Babikova, M. R., Robin, S. D. (2024). Features of students' perception of urban graffiti with pronounced educational potential. Education and Science, 26 (6): 68—94. DOI: 10.17853/1994-5639-2024-6-68-94. (In Russ.).
13. Kruzhkova, O. V., Babikova, M. R., Robin, S. D. (2024). Vandalized Texts: Soft Power Potential. Nauchnyi dialog, 13 (2): 96—117. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-2-96-117 (In Russ.).
14. Magirovskaya, O. V. (2013). Cognitive and linguistic mechanisms of multilevel configuration of knowledge. Cognitive studies of language, 15: 381—392. (In Russ.).
15. Olenev, S. V., Kushnina, L. V., Permyakova, K. V. (2024). Translation Principles in Modern Cognitive Paradigm. Nauchnyi dialog, 13 (2): 136—156. https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-2-136-156 (In Russ.).
16. Sadaf Sultan Khan. (2024). The writing on the wall: Identity, placemaking and territoriality in Karachi’s graffiti culture. Wellbeing, Space and Society, 7: 100214. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wss.2024.100214.
17. Vorobyova, I. V., Kruzhkova, O. V. (2015). Psychology of vandal behavior [Text]: Mono-graph. Yekaterinburg: USPU. 304 p. ISBN 978-5-7186-0704-8. (In Russ.).
18. Voronina, L. V. (2023). Cognitive mechanisms of the persistence of political discourse. Bulletin of the Perm University. Russian and foreign philology, 15 (1): 17—27. DOI: 10.17072/2073-6681-2023-1-17-27. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Babikova M.R. Cognitive Mechanisms of Graffiti: Compression, Defocusing, and Focusing. Nauchnyi dialog. 2024;13(8):171-187. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24224/2227-1295-2024-13-8-171-187
Views:
279
Email this article 