Belarusian State Technological University (Minsk, Republic of Belarus)
Minsk, Belarus
Modern communicative agency demonstrates highly specific linguistic features as global digital transformation changes the very concept of linguistic personality. Communicative agency acquires a wide range of new forms of representation, from highly individualized to suprapersonal ones. This process is intertwined with other important aspects of socio-cultural activity. As a result, modern communicative agency requires a new scientific interpretation of its structure and functions. This article introduces a cognitive linguistic approach to this phenomenon within the interdisciplinary paradigm of IT development and communication studies. The Russian-language content of computer-mediated communication constitutes a major array of speech practice on a global scale. Its communicative agency was analyzed through an interdisciplinary synthesis of linguistics, psychology, philosophy, and cognitive science. The synergy of conceptual analysis, cognitive modeling, and discursive reconstruction allowed the authors to systematize the prospects, functions, and changes of the modern linguistic personality in the communication continuum, as well as to verify the scientific representation of communicative agency using metalinguistic tools. The agent of modern computer-mediated communication proved to be a dynamic and multidimensional phenomenon whose identity is constituted through language practice. The cognitive linguistic approach revealed the cognitively significant manifestations of communicative agency and the adaptability of subject-oriented semantics in a computer-mediated communication environment. The list of representations included such patterns as communicative, online, informational, and hyperpersonal agency. Ultimately, communicative agency, with its wide range of representations, is a category with divergent trends toward both the idiolect and the usus. A systemic profiling of its agents may bring linguistic theory closer to speech reality.
communicative agency, representation, identity, computer-mediated communication, cognitive linguistic modeling, linguistic personality, artificial intelligence
1. Barkovich A. A. Internet discourse: Computer-mediated communication. 5th ed. Moscow: Flinta, 2020, 288. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/tqktmq
2. Barkovich A. A. Informational linguistics and lingua informationality in methodological aspect. Linguistics, didactic linguistics, and cultural linguistics: Current issues and research prospects: Proc. III Intern. Sci.-Prac. Conf., Minsk, 14–15 Mar 2019. Minsk: BSU, 2019, 3–8. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/zaxmqh
3. Barkovich A. A. Informational linguistics: Meta-descriptions of modern communication. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2017, 360. (In Russ.)
4. Barkovich A. A. Phenomenology of communication personality in computer-mediated discourse. The Bryansk State University Herald, 2015 (2): 276–280. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/uyynmb
5. Weisgerber J. L. Native language and spirit formation. Moscow: URSS, 2004, 229. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/qwhamr
6. Vinogradov V. V. The language of fiction. Moscow: Nauka, 1980, 360. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/vwttyj
7. Karaulov Yu. N. Russian language and language personality. Moscow: Izdatelstvo LKI, 2010, 264. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/rtdqlx
8. Al-Hoorie A. H., Hiver P., Larsen-Freeman D., Lowie W. From replication to substantiation: A complexity theory perspective. Language Teaching, 2023, 56(2): 276–291. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444821000409
9. Brown S. R. Subjectivity in the human sciences. The Psychological Record, 2019, 69: 565–579. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-019-00354-5
10. Dennett D. C. From bacteria to Bach and back: The evolution of minds. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2017, 496.
11. Einstein A. The common language of science. Advancement of Science, 1942, 2(5): 109–110.
12. Hall D. Subjectivity. London: Routledge, 2004, 160. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203644072
13. Kosinski M., Stillwell D., Graepel T. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013, 110(15): 5802–5805. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218772110
14. Lundberg A., Fraschini N., Aliani R. What is subjectivity? Scholarly perspectives on the elephant in the room. Quality & Quantity, 2023, 57: 4509–4529. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-022-01565-9
15. McNamara T. Language and subjectivity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019, 264.
16. Searle J. R. Minds, brains, and programs. Reprinted. Mind design II: Philosophy, psychology, and artificial intelligence, ed. Haugeland J. Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1997, chapt. 7, 183–204. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/4626.003.0007
17. Teilhard de Chardin P. The phenomenon of man. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959, 320.
18. Turkle S. Alone together: Why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books, 2011. 360.
19. Valkenburg P. M., Peter J. Adolescents’ identity experiments on the Internet. Consequences for social competence and self-concept unity. Communication Research, 2008, 35(2): 208–231. https://elibrary.ru/jsbzbz
20. Vella D., Gualeni S. Virtual subjectivity: Existence and projectuality in virtual worlds. Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology, 2019, 23(2): 115–136. https://doi.org/10.5840/techne201951499
21. Wallace P. The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999, 264.
22. Walther J. B. Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research, 1996, 23(1): 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365096023001001
