.png)
UDC 81`27
Smirnova Olga V.,
Candidate of Philology, Docent,
Head of the Digital Journalism Department
Lomonosov Moscow State University
e-mail: smirnova.olga.msu@yandex.ru
Denissova Galina V.,
Candidate of Philology, Doctor of Culturology, Docent,
Head of the Psychology of Language and Foreign Language
Teaching Department
Lomonosov Moscow State University
e-mail: g.v.denissova@gmail.com
Sapunova Olga V.,
Senior Lecturer of the Psychology of Language and
Foreign Language Teaching Department
Lomonosov Moscow State University
e-mail: sapunovaov@my.msu.ru
The current study discusses the meme as a polycode text from the standpoint of linguoculturology. Based on the theories on exististing congruent cultural universals and divergent linguoculturemes, in the present paper a classification of memes is offered. It suggests to differentiate between three types of both the visual and verbal components of the meme: congruent, divergent or lacunary. Validity of the elaborated classification is evidenced using the results of the study investigating the way Russian and Chinese COVID-19 Internet memes may be perceived by Russian and Chinese recipients. The conclusion to be drawn is that congruent visual component allows for a more profound understanding of the meme by representatives of a different culture; at that, the verbal component might be either congruent, or divergent, or lacunary. On the contrary, the models including a divergent or lacunary visual component cannot be properly perceived by other cultures, irrespective of the type of the visual component.
Keywords: linguocultural universals, cultural universals, linguocultureme, Internet memes, convegruence, divergence, lacuna, Russian memes, Chinese memes.
References
1. Shomova S.A. Memy kak oni est’. Moscow: Aspekt Press, 2019. S. 136.
2. Blackmore S. The meme machine. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. P. 288.
3. Brodie R. Virus of the mind: The new science of the meme. Integral Press, 1996. P. 256.
4. Castaño D. Defining and characterizing the concept of internet meme // Revista CES Psicología. 2013. No. 6 (2). P. 82–104.
5. Wiggins B.E., Bowers G.B. Memes as genre: a structural analysis of the memescape // New Media & Society. 2015. No. 17 (11). P. 1886–1906.
6. Exploring visual culture of COVID-19 memes: Russian and Chinese perspectives / O.V. Smirnova, A.P. Lobodanov, G.V. Denissova et al. // Central European Journal of Communication. 2021. No. 3 (30). P. 66–93.
7. Shifman L. Memes in a digital world: Reconciling with a conceptual troublemaker // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication. 2013. No. 18. P. 362–377.
8. Kress G., Van Leeuwen T. Reading images. The grammar of visual design. 3rd ed. Routledge, 2020. P. 292.
9. Kartashova E.P., Akhmedzianova A.R. Internet-mem kak osnovnoi vid kreolizovannogo teksta v samoprezentatsii “cheloveka tvoriashchego” // Vestnik Mariiskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2019. No. 3 (35). S. 426–430.
10. Davison P. The social media reader / ed. M. Madniberg. New York: University Press, 2012. P. 120–136.
11. Vartanova E. Russian media change as a cultural process // European Journal of Communication. 2019. No. 34 (2). P. 205–210.
12. Changing patterns of digital news consumption among Russian journalism students / E. Vartanova, T. Cherevko, A. Tolokonnikova, D. Dunas // World of Media: Journal of Russian Media and Journalism Studies. 2019. No. 1. P. 7–31.
13. Dunas D., Vartanov S. Emerging digital media culture in Russia: Modeling the media consumption of generation Z // Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 2020. No. 2. P. 186–203.
14. Shaklein V.M. Lingvokul’turologiia: traditsii i innovatsii. Moscow: Flinta, 2012. S. 301.
15. Murdock G.P. Fundamental’nye kharakteristiki kul’tury. Moscow, 1997. URL: http://culturalstudy.pstu.ru/modules.php?name=lib_1_13
16. Ekman P. Psikhologiia emotsii. St. Petersburg: Piter, 2010. S. 336.
17. Izard C.E. The face of emotion. Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971. P. 273.
18. Zinchenko Yu.P., Shaĭgerova L.A., Shilko R.S. Metodologicheskie problemy izucheniia etnokul’turnoi identichnosti detei i podrostkov v tsifrovom obshchestve // Gertsenovskie chteniia: psikhologicheskie issledovaniia v obrazovanii. 2016. Vyp. 2. S. 875–884.
19. Vezhbitskaya A. Semanticheskie universalii i opisanie iazykov. Moscow: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1999. S. 785.
20. Bruner J. Psikhologiia poznaniia. Moscow: Progress, 1977. S. 413.
21. Chomsky N. Language in a psychological setting. Sophia, 1987. P. 73.
22. Lobkovskaya L.P. Iazykovye znaki: korreliatsiia internatsionalizmov i semanticheskikh universalii // Kul’turnaia zhizn’ Iuga Rossii. 2012. No. 3 (46). S. 56–57.
23. Eco U. The limits of interpretation. Indiana University Press, 1994. P. 304.
24. Lingvokul’turologiia. Moscow: Izd-vo RUDN, 2006. S. 340.
25. Zaliznyak A.A. Lingvospetsifichnye edinitsy russkogo iazyka v svete kontrastivnogo korpusnogo analiza // Komp’iuternaia lingvistika i intellektual’nye tekhnologii: materialy ezhegodnoi Mezhdunar. konf. “Dialog”, Moskva, 27–30 maia 2015 g. Moscow: RGGU, 2015. S. 651–662.
26. Denissova G., Zaliznyak A. Corpora paralleli come strumento di analisi delle corrispondenze multilinguistiche / G. Denissova, A. Carbone, C. Cadamagnani (eds.) // Il russo nella galassia dell’informazione. Pisa: Pisa University Press, 2018. P. 141–152.
27. Vartanova E., Gladkova A. Old and new discourses in emerging states: Communication challenges of the digital age // Journal of Multicultural Discourses. 2020. No. 15 (2). P. 119–125.
28. Theorizing Russian model of the digital divide / E. Vartanova, A. Gladkova, D. Lapin et al. // World of media: Journal of Russian media and journalism studies. 2021. No. 1. P. 5–40.
29. Dawkins R. Egoistichnyi gen. Moscow: AST Corpus, 2013. S. 512.