Lexical Peculiarities of Dialogical Genres of Chat, Blog and Forum in British and Ukrainian Internet Space: a Comparative Aspect Текст научной статьи по специальности «Языкознание и литературоведение»

ТРАЕКТОРИЯ НАУКИ

Международный электронный научный журнал. 2016. Т. 2, № 10

Lexical Peculiarities of Dialogical Genres of Chat, Blog and Forum in British and Ukrainian Internet Space: a Comparative Aspect

Borisov Olexiy

Chernigiv Taras Shevchenko National Teacher's Training University, Germanic Philology Department, PhD in Philology, Associate Professor, Ukraine

Abstract. The article is devoted to establishing of the influence peculiarities in the British and Ukrainian virtual dialogical communication on the material of such genres as chats, blogs and forums. The isomorphic and allomorphic features of the use of lexicon in interlocutors' behavior as a significant instrument of communicative influence are established and analyzed. The lexicon is compared according to the strata of elevated and low vocabulary of the present-day English and Ukrainian languages. The percentage of the words is presented in every genre of a dialogue in the comparative view and a general statistic conclusion is made on the basis of the data of the whole virtual format of communication.

Keywords: chat; blog; forum; dialogue; discourse; stylistic lexicon; influence.

UDC 81 '42'44:[811.111+811.161.2] LCC Subject Category: PE1001-1693,

PG3801-3987

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22178/pos.15-7_

Introduction

The topicality of the research is conditioned by the overall tendency of the modern anthropocen-tric linguistic studies to learn procedural and regulatory aspects of discourse activities that shape their final results, namely successful and unsuccessful communicative and object-oriented achievements of the interlocutors. The dialogue is the most ubiquitous form of speech communication. It is the basic sphere of a communicative language function realization. If it's true to state that the language finds its real life only in the dialogue, then it's fair to state that the dialogue is a part of that general communicative system that bears the name of the language.

In case a person is not satisfied with the conditions they exist in, they start a purposeful and willful initiation of a real or virtual social-verbal interaction producing an impact effect on the interlocutor to make them act. Impact presupposes different verbal means of realization, one of which is the vocabulary used. Their choice, no doubt, is intentionally and contextually predetermined. The aim of the paper to demonstrate the prototypical choice made by British and Ukrainian interlocutors in the genres of chat, blog, forum.

Review of Literature

The typological comparison of the lexical aspect of British and Ukrainian chats, blogs and forums has been done for the first time in this paper. This stipulates the novelty of the research. Though, it is worth mentioning that these genres have already been the object of the research by I. Pozhidaeva [6], I. Tonkyh (blog research) [7], N. Andrianova [1], O. Chrystinko (chat research) [8], S. Volohonsky [2], H. Mostsevenko (forum research) [4]. The material for the comparative research was taken in ethnic electronic resources of chats, blogs and forums, namely Allergy UK, Bestukforums , Free Uk Chat Rooms, Livejournal UK, Ukchatters Free Uk Chat, World of Chat and Украшська правда, Блоги, Форум TopUa.net, Форуми Майдану, Чатинет, Чат Bizarre, Korrespondent, Politiko.

Research Methodology

The research has been carried out with the help of the general methods of induction, deduction as well as a contrastive analysis of the words of different stylistic layers followed by the statistical analysis aiming at clearing out the typical lexemes usage in a particular genre and the descriptive method in data interpretation.

TRAEKTORIA NAUKI / PA TH OF SCIENCE

International Electronic Scientific Journal. 2016. Vol. 2, No 10

Results and Discussion

While studying the genre of a chat, we found out the actual absence of the literary vocabulary; a small percentage of terms functions there: global warming, inauguration, LAN, emittance and вайфай, протестити, шсшуащя (0.9% in the British discourse and 0.8% in the Ukrainian one). Colloquial or vernacular vocabulary is used less in British chats (27.5% difference, cf. 38.7% vs. 79.1%): celeb, admin, mum, awww, yummy and укр. мульт, дурень, класно, тре(ба), ахала, гуглити, флудниця, ^норити. The percentage of slangisms is higher in British discourse: dude, screw, fart, marky, scruffy and понти, вишивати, базарити, завкати (44.1% difference, cf. 56.6% vs. 12.5%). In spite of the fact of moderators' control of swear words not to come into a chat-room, still they function there: crap, screw, piss, arseholes and вилупок, срати, падло, сука (3.8% difference, cf. 3.8% vs. 7.6%). This list also includes Ukrainian words that seemingly do not coincide in their form with swear ones though the form they transfer the idea or emotion is quite clear: пля, мля, тва (твар), п13дате. Dialecticisms were found only in Ukrainian chats: файний, крумпль йой, зора (2.9%). In general, the same saturation of ethnic chats with elevated (0.9% vs. 0.7%) and low (99.1% vs. 99.3%) vocabulary is observed. The genre distribution of the lexicon under study testifies to the higher degree of frequency of the stylistically coloured lexicon of British chats (5.7% difference, cf. 43.3% vs. 37.6%).

In its turn, the stylistically coloured lexicon of ethnic blogospheres can be characterized as following. The literary vocabulary is divided into terms: mustard gas, to decry, sarine and софт, маншулятор, дефлящя (2.2% difference, cf. 6.8% vs. 4.6%) and bookish words proper: whilst, God wot, commence, unto and боян, гоби1, орк (2.3% vs. 2.3%). Vernacular vocabulary consists of colloquial words proper: weirdo, mug, nosey, yeah, classy and ледацюга, супер, штани протирати, клас, респект, лузер, топ, фейс (3.1% difference, cf. 55.7% vs. 58.8%), slangisms: boots, troll, m8, ziggy and ге'1'ч, корито, помийка, лизати, лох, jargon units inclusive: typo and пахан, гопшк (9.7% difference, cf. 7.9% vs. 17.6%), professionalisms: no-fly zone, to emote, run-up and бот, забанити (6% difference, cf. 9.1% vs. 3.1%), dialecticisms: boyo, polt, weasand and захланний, лежма, йой,

кобгга (4.9% difference, cf. 17% vs. 12.1%), vulgarisms: crap, shut up, piss off, fucking, shit, bloody, damn and лайно, бидло, майданвошка, сволота (1.2% vs. 1.5%). The frequency of the lexicon usage in blogs is practically the same inside the format (35.9% vs. 36.2%), but the elevated vocabulary predominates in British discourse (2.2% difference, cf. 9.1% vs. 6.9%) and low vocabulary in Ukrainian (2.2% difference, cf. 90.9% vs. 93.1%).

The research of the genre of forum showed the following. Literary vocabulary predominates in British discourse and consists mostly of terms: injunction, long-range missiles, level blocking, disingenuous; in Ukrainian forums the Internet terms prevail thematically: прока-сервер, брандмауер, домен, Лшукс (11.9% difference, cf. 27.5% vs. 15.6%). More than that, historisms have been found in British forums (3.9%): en-deth, pal, servage, M'Lord. Vernacular lexical units have been used less in Ukrainian forums (34% difference, cf. 52.9% vs. 18.9%): hassle, to drive nuts, porn, scruffy, howdy, dump and штиб, бовкнути, дурненька, прикол, придуркувать фуфло, хепт-енд, он-лайн, ою, реал, месщж, йдем дас зайне. Slangisms are more often used in Ukrainian dialogues (13.1% difference, cf. 5.8% vs. 18.9%): lol, sack duty, thread and кобгга, на'жджати, машина, мак. The analysis demonstrates functioning of swear lexemes that in the form of vulgarisms predominate in British forums (2.5% difference, cf. 9.9% vs. 7,4%): ass, to bomb the crap out, to make cock up, fan-bloody-tastic and срака, пердун, трах, пожувати сопль though this lexicon is not used by Ukrainians to offend other interlocutors as it is done in British forums. Dialecticisms (1%) have been revealed in Ukrainian forums solely: свгтлина, грунь, файний, лойтра. In general, a genre distribution of the stylistically coloured lexicon demonstrates that 1) these units are less frequently used in forums in comparison to other British and Ukrainian genres and 2) the dominance is revealed in the sphere of the Ukrainian discourse (5.4% difference, cf. 20.8% vs. 26.2%). According to the degree of frequency, the lexicon of the elevated language layer predominates in the British discourse (15.8% difference, cf. 31.4% vs. 15.6%), meanwhile, the low language layer prevails in the Ukrainian one (19.8% difference, cf. 68.6% vs. 84.4%).

ТРАЕКТОРИЯ НАУКИ

Международный электронный научный журнал. 2016. Т. 2, № 10

Conclusion

The analysis of the national discourses of electronic communication shows that the proportions of the expressive vocabularies used in the British and Ukrainian ones are isometric (34.3% vs. 34.5%). However, the expressive means frequency is 19.2% higher in the Ukrainian dialogi-cal discourse (40.4% vs. 59.6%). In both national dialogical discourses the parameters of elevated and vernacular words usage are allomorphic: while all speech genres of both national dialogi-cal discourses use more vernacular units, elevated words predominate in the British dialogues (13.8% vs. 7.8%) and vernacular - in the Ukrainian (86.2% vs. 92.2%). The most prominent lexical strata are low colloquialisms, slang

and terminology. An isomorphic feature is the absence of professional words in chats and forums, bookish words in blogs, as well as the distribution of terms in chats and dialectal units in blogs and forums. Allomorphic are the parameters of terms usage (4% advantage of the British discourse), literary words proper (1.3% advantage of the British discourse), colloquial (14.8% advantage of the Ukrainian discourse), slangisms (7% advantage of the British discourse), dialecti-cisms (14.8% advantage of the Ukrainian discourse), professionalisms (2% advantage of the British discourse) and vulgarisms (1.2% advantage of the British discourse).

References

1. Andrianova, N. S. (2010). Zhanrovye harakteristiki chata kak sinhronnogo virtual'nogo diskursa

[Genre chat features such as synchronous virtual discourse]. Studia Linguistica, 4, 510-515 (in Russian).

2. Volohonskij, V. L. (2006). Psihologicheskie mehanizmy i osnovanija dlja klassifikacii blogov [Psycho-

logical mechanisms and reasons for the classification of blogs]. In V. L. Volohonskij, Ju. E. Zajceva, M. M. Sokolov (Eds.), Lichnost' i mezhlichnostnoe vzaimodejstvie v seti Internet. Blogi: novaja real'nost' (pp. 117-131). Saint-Petersburg, Russia: Izd-vo SPbGU (in Russian).

3. Lutsenko, I. (2014, January 3). Ekomaidan diie [Ekomaydan acts]. Ukrainska pravda. Retrieved from

http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/lutsenko/52c72a84e32b9 (in Ukrainian).

4. Moscevenko, A. Ju. (2010). Blog kak ob'ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovanija [Blog as an object of lin-

guistic research]. Visnyk Luhanskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka. Filolohichni nauky. Inozemna filolohiia, 2(13), 160-167 (in Russian).

5. Pisistra T. (2013, November 5). Marafon. (Parafot, perepost) [Blog comment]. Retrieved from

http://blogs.korrespondent.net/blog/users/3211779-marafon-parafot-perepost (in Russian).

6. Pozhidaeva, I. V. (2010). Kognitivno-pragmaticheskie taktiki i tehniki manipuljacij (na primere poli-

ticheskih blogov Runeta i Ukrneta) [Cognitive-pragmatic tactics and manipulation techniques (for example, the Russian and Ukrainian Internet political blogs)]. Studia Linguistica, 4, 493-499 (in Russian).

7. Tonkikh, I. Iu. (2012). Funktsii blohiv na saitakh ukrainskykh internet-ZMI [Functions of blogs on the

web-sites of Ukrainian online media]. Dialoh: Media-studii, 15, 341-350 (in Ukrainian).

8. Khrystynko, O. S. (2010). Spetsyfika Internet-dyskursu molodi Nimechchyny [The specificity of the

Internet communication of young people in Germany]. Visnyk Luhanskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni Tarasa Shevchenka, 13(200), 29-36 (in Ukrainian).

© O. Borisov

Received 2016-10-18, Accepted 2016-10-25, Published online 2016-10-27

TRAEKTORIÁ NAUKI / PA TH OF SCIENCE

International Electronic Scientific Journal. 2016. Vol. 2, No 10

Лексические особенности диалогических жанров чата, блога и форума в британском и украинском Интернет-пространстве: результаты

сопоставления

Борисов Алексей Александрович

Черниговский национальный педагогический университет имени Тараса Шевченка, кафедра германской филологии, кандидат филологических наук, доцент, Украина

Аннотация. Статья посвящена изучению влияния в британской и украинской виртуальной диалогической коммуникации на примере таких жанров, как чат, блог и форум. Установлены и проанализированы изоморфные и алломорфные признаки использованного во взаимодействии лексикона, который является одним из инструментов коммуникативного влияния. Лексикон рассматривается на уровне возвышенного и сниженного стилистических регистров современных английского и украинского языков. В сравнении приведены процентные подсчеты лексических единиц, использованных в каждом жанре диалога, на основе чего сделан общий вывод об использовании лексики во всем виртуальном формате этнической коммуникации.

Ключевые слова: чат; блог; форум; дискурс; диалог; стилистический лексикон; влияние.

УДК 81 '42'44:[811.111+811.161.2] LCC Subject Category: PE1001-1693,

PG3801-3987

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.22178/pos.15-7_

Список информационных источников

1. Андрианова Н. С. Жанровые характеристики чата как синхронного виртуального дискурса.

Studia Lingüistica. 2010. Вип. 4. С. 510-515.

2. Волохонский В. Л. Психологические механизмы и основания для классификации блогов. Лич-

ность и межличностное взаимодействие в сети Internet. Блози: новая реальность / под ред. В. Л. Волохонского, Ю. Е. Зайцевой, М. М. Соколова. Санкт-Петербург : Изд-во СПбГУ, 2006. С. 117-131.

3. Луценко I. Екомайдан дie. Укратська правда. Блози. Дата оновлення 03.01.2014. URL:

http://blogs.pravda.com.ua/authors/lutsenko/52c72a84e32b9 (дата звернення 02.10.2016).

4. Мосцевенко А. Ю. Блог как объект линвистического исследования. Вкник Лузанськозо

нацональнозо педазозiчнозо утверситету iменi Тараса Шевченка. Фiлолозiчнi науки. 1ноземна фыолозя. 2010. Ч. 2. № 13. С. 160-167.

5. Шастра Т. Марафон. (Парафот, перепост). Korrespondent. Дата оновлення 05.11.2013. URL:

http://blogs.korrespondent.net/blog/users/3211779-marafon-parafot-perepost (дата звернення 02.10.2016).

6. Пожидаева И. В. Когнитивно-прагматические тактики и техники манипуляций (на примере

политических блогов Рунета и Укрнета). Studia Lingüistica. 2010. Вип. 4. С. 493-499.

7. Тонюх I. Ю. Функцп блопв на сайтах украшських штернет-ЗМ1. Д^алоз: Медiа-студu. 2012.

Вип. 15. С. 341-350.

8. Христинко О. С. Специфжа 1нтернет-дискурсу молодi Шмеччини. Вкник Лузанськозо

нацональнозо педазозiчнозо утверситету iменi Тараса Шевченка. 2010. № 13(200). С. 2936.

© А. А. Борисов

Статья получена 18.10.2016, принята 25.10.2016, опубликована online 27.10.2016