THE SEMIOTIC MODEL OF COMMUNICATION AND THE REASONING ON THE EXAMPLE OF ONLINE-GAME IN FACEBOOK NETWORK

Main Article Content

Yelena ASTAPOVA-VYAZMINA

Abstract

Abstract. Introduction. The analysis of a new sign system functioning, viz. Internet and Social Networks, suggests a large number of issues. The purpose of the paper is to consider the features of the new semiotic model of communication on the example of online game in Facebook Network. The online marathon of “Turning dreams into results” is considered as an example. A description of the main types of reasoning in the communication of this type is offered. The classic philosophical methods, viz. structural and comparative analysis, hermeneutics, were used to study the issue. Results. The study shows the mechanism to obtain a new meaning of the post. This study has an applied focus. As a result of the study, a formula of the new communication model was proposed to reflect the dependence of an author's message on the reaction of each active reader of the post. Originality. The key point is the concept of dialogue considered as the context, in which the arguments fit to be assessed as suitable or not in this context. Conclusion. The Internet forms a new type of dialogue that changes the pragmatic orientation of communication. In online communication, the meaning of a sign is enriched with each subsequent comment and does not belong to the addressee. The process of creating a sign depends on the interests of the author. The visual form of information both helps in its exchange and forms new meanings hidden from the author of the message. The communicative field of the online marathon was set by the authors on the principle of analogy. Analogy is one of the simplest and most accessible ways of persuasion, “I am the same as you,” “I have the same interests, fears, and diseases as you”. It is possible to assume a model of reasoning, in which argumentation makes sense only in response (actual or just expected) to doubts concerning the main problem of the project, namely, how to realize this or that dream. Each sign reflects the situation in which it functions, shows the connection between people who use it or do not use it, and forms a connection with other signs.

Article Details

Section
PHFILOSOPHY OF CULTURE AND PHILOSOPHICAL ANTHROPOLOGY

References

Yakobson, R. (1975). Linguistics and Poetics. Structuralism: pro et contra, 193-230. M.: Progress. Retrieved from: http://philologos.narod.ru/classics/jakobson-lp.htm (in Russ.)

Searl, J. R. (1986). What is speech act. New in foreign linguistics, 17, 151-169 (in Russ.).

Searl, J., Vanderveken, D. (1986). Basic concepts of calculation of speech acts. New in foreign linguistics, 18, 243-262 (in Russ.)

Leeuwen, T. van. (2005). Introducing

Social Semiotics. London, New York: Routledge. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/aca7/c8ffa23c38b05faede391273a4130fc28b4a.pdf

Vannini, P. (2007). Social Semiotics and Fieldwork: Method and Analytics. Qualitative Inquiry, 13, 1, 113-140. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1534032/Social_Semiotics_and_Fieldwork_Method_and_Analytics

Lisanyuk, E. N. (2015). Argumentation and Persuasion. SPb.: Nauka (in Russ.).

Lisanyuk, E. N. (2012). Cognitive a

pproach and system model of argumentation. Ratsio.ru, 8, 46-65. Retrieved from: https://journals.kantiana.ru/upload/iblock/33b/%D0%9B%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0%D0%BD%D1%8E%D0%BA_46-65.pdf (in Russ.)

Mikirtumov, I. B. (2010). Argumentative support in logical analysis of the discussion. Modeli rassuzhdeniy – 3: kognitivnyiy podhod (Models of reasoning: a cognitive approach – 3), 172-192. Kaliningrad: Izd-vo RGU im. I. Kanta (in Russ.)

Migunov, A. I. (2006). Semantics of argumentative speech act. Argumentatcia (Argumentation), 8, 35-57. SPb: Izd-vo SPbGU (in Russ.)

Lewinski, M. (2010). Internet Political Discussion Forums as an Argumentative Activity Type. Amsterdam: Rozenberg Publishers. Retrieved from: https://pure.uva.nl/ws/files/1542250/77136_thesis.pdf