Mikhail S. Ryzhkov

I.A. Bunin Yelets State University, Yelets, Russia

Intertextuality markers as linguopragmatic phenomena in the English Internet-discourse

Today’s media, the Internet included, can be paradoxically characterized by the dialectical trend as follows: on the one hand, aspiring for (practically) unlimited freedom devoid of unshakeable authorities in revealing one’s linguocreative potential in cyberspace, on the other hand, trying to actively use long established codified ways of expressing one’s thought to sound more convincing, more sophisticated and thus more demonstrative. One of the means to fulfill the latter communicative intentions is undoubtedly to employ other people’s successful textual experience in interaction, i.e. to refer to a precedent phenomenon which has been one of the most controversial humanitarian notions ever. It should be noted that intertextuality of the English Internet-discourse has never been targeted at by linguists. This fact can be explained by an utmost complexity of identification of the origin of language phenomena on the Internet which is itself a brand-new medium of language realization.

“At the same time, it has been pointed out that the Web, as it currently exists, is a long way from exploiting the full intertextuality which the term hypertext implies” (Crystal 2006, p. 210). In an endeavor to challenge D. Crystal’s affirmation this article serves to focus the reader’s attention on proving the fact that such net of relations between e-texts as intertextuality is an immanent property of virtual reality (apart from technically dynamic interrelation of information – hypertext).

Different theories concerning the notion in question have been elaborated by Russian and foreign scientists: that of (1) intertextuality, (2) precedent phenomena, (3) vertical context, (4) textual reminiscences, (5) regular polysemy, (6) traditional / cognitive metaphor, (7) logoepistemes, (8) cultural concepts, (9) archetypes and [probably] some others.

In relation to our research goals we find it indispensable to combine the two complementary conceptions mentioned above – Ju. Kristeva’s theory of intertextuality as a universal interrelation between texts (Kristeva 1986) and Ju.N. Karaulov’s views on precedent phenomena accumulating people’s cultural memory (Караулов 2007).

Intertextuality (global textual cohesion) being a prototype of textual dialogization (when not only is a text directed towards an addressee but also when certain bilateral readiness for successful cooperation becomes obvious for both communicative partners) by means of precedent phenomena presupposes sense alterations in a new text-augmenter. Intertextuality, as we view it, is sure to disclose the vertical context of a text-recipient under new communicative circumstances. It is of importance to point out that we also apply to the term intertextuality a pragmatic interpretation thus defining it as a process (and its result) of exchanging various speech patterns (communicative motives, attitudes, intentions, purposes, tactics and strategies alongside with their relevant language markers) which enables a virtual language personality to accordingly transform one’s communicative behavior.

The notion of precedence is closely interrelated with intertextuality and is rooted in it by nature. Intertextuality is treated by us as an intrinsic innate property of precedence.

The most conventional classification of precedent phenomena as linguocultural universal markers of intertextuality, based on Ju.N. Karaulov’s conception (Караулов 2007), belongs to D.B. Gudkov (Гудков 1999) who differentiates between a precedent text (a complete and self-sufficient product of speech-and-cogitative activity, a (poly)predicative unit appealing to which is renewed in the process of communication), a precedent expression (a reproductive result of speech-and-cogitative activity, a (non)predicative complete and self-sufficient unit, a complex sign whose sum of component meanings is not equal to its sense), a precedent situation (a model situation with definite connotations whose differential signs become part of the cognitive base) and a precedent name (an individual name which is connected either with a precedent text or a precedent situation). Language phenomena can lose their status of precedent units with the lapse of time.

Precedent phenomena (perceived in a broad meaning of the term) tend to disclose their relativity of identification when regarded as a constituent part of discourse. Therefore it seems operational in terms of discourse-analysis to build up the typology of precedent phenomena from the sociolinguistic point of view, that is to determine a target group (e.g. female / youth / Russians / rank-and-file / intellectuals / students / church members / participants in e-discourse etc.) as a criterion for singling out the language units under consideration. For one social community an X-text-name-expression-situation will be precedent and standardized whereas for another it won’t be conventional and potentially renewable in speech (language) practice. This tricky point is preconditioned by the linguopragmatic approach backed up in the presented piece of writing. So the target group of this research is the English language chat-community choosing to communicate via the Internet online.

Typical pretexts for precedent phenomena in cyberspace, as follows from the results of our scientific work, are

(1) titles of literary works / works of art / films / TV programs including pulp fiction, fantasy, British classics / thrillers, soap operas, blockbusters (e.g. To Kill a Mockingbird by H. Lee, Sitcom by F. Ozone);

(2) character names of literary works / works of art / films / TV programs (e.g. Othello from W. Shakespeare’s “Othello”, Dr. Lector from the thriller “The Silence of the Lambs”, Brandon and Brenda Walsh from a prime time television drama series “Beverly Hills, 90210”);

(3) (in)direct quotations from literary works / films / TV programs (e.g. That’s my family, Kay. It’s not me by Michael Corleone from the film “The Godfather”, And the matches gave such a brilliant light that it was brighter than at noon-day: never formerly had the grandmother been so beautiful and so tall from Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Little Match Girl”);

(4) public / Internet-community celebrities’ names: showbiz stars, politicians, sportspersons (e.g. Michael Phelps, Paris Hilton, Barack Obama, John Doe, Anne Other);

(5) public / Internet-community celebrities’ quotations (e.g. I am at two with nature by Woody Allen, hack’em, hack’em by an anonymous user);

(6) Latin maxims and aphorisms (e.g. ad hoc, per aspera ad astra);

(7) anecdotes (e.g. Cary Grant is said to have been reluctant to reveal his age to the public, having played the youthful lover for more years than would have been appropriate. One day, while he was sorting out some business with his agent, a telegram arrived from a journalist who was desperate to learn how old the actor was. It read: HOW OLD CARY GRANT? Grant, who happened to open it himself, immediately cabled back: OLD CARY GRANT FINE. HOW YOU?);

(8) song lyrics fragments (e.g. Pretty woman walking down the street <…> from the film “Pretty Woman”, I did it my way <…> from Frank Sinatra’s song “My Way”);

(9) catchy words and expressions in foreign languages, usually French, Italian and Spanish (e.g. chercher la femme, haute couture, raison d’être, lasagna, hasta la vista);

(10) TV commercials and other types of advertisements (e.g. Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man! Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man! Wacky waving inflatable arm flailing tube man!);

(11) socially, economically, politically or culturally significant events or phenomena (e.g. September 11^th, Pearl Harbor, Groundhog Day, Oscar Ceremony, Russo-Ukrainian gas transit conflict, Sunday Presidential Address to the Nation, world financial crisis).

Also assigning to intertextuality the potential of a category of pragmatic analysis we devised the following nomenclature of speech tactics (ST) of participants in the English Internet-discourse to realize the contaminative speech strategy which is subdivided into two variations: delinquent (presupposes the presence of an (in)direct plagiaristic speech act in discursive experience) and phatic (generates cooperative communication by way of incorporating conventional conduct patterns of a virtual language personality into discursive experience of an Internet-chatter):

Table 1. The illustrated set of tactics of the contaminative speech strategy of participants in the English Internet-discourse (delinquent variation).

CONTAMINATIVE SPEECH STRATEGY DELINQUENT VARIATION
ST	illustrative transactions	pragmatic interpretation
1. plagiaristic ST	<<Agnes>>: you know, my BF (boyfriend) cheated on me with my best friend… a sister almost L CHEATED…ah <<slipperyroad>>: I’ve always said that a friend is nothing but a known enemy. And I goanna say that my thought has never let me down. (www.chatsusa.com)	The chatter <<slipperyroad>> trying to produce an impression of a seasoned man explains the situation described by <<Agnes>> by means of incorporating into his/her dialogue part a famous American singer Kurt Cobain’s song lyrics fragment a friend is nothing but a known enemy serving as a precedent expression in this transaction. The latter Internet-user claims the untransformed variant of Kurt Cobain’s maxim as his/her own one without directly alluding to his name.
2. ST of latent citation	<<Black_Hole_Girly>>: It is clearly an Internet traffic account. It’s got a lot of numbers in it. (www.chatsusa.com)	Here we come across an interesting case of slightly transforming the original precedent expression for the purposes of the ST of latent citation. American ex-president George W. Bush’s catchy text It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it. was used in connection with an Internet traffic account in the cited transaction to add some sarcastic shade of meaning.
3. ST of masking an aftermath of the plagiaristic speech act	<<13.02.1990>>: I don’t really know maybe it’d been said before by some GREAT-WISE-GREAT man… Nature does nothing uselessly… <<SombreAiro>>: Neither does man (www.citynews.com/chats.html)	The user <<13.02.1990>> by nickname appeals to Aristotle’s precedent expression Nature does nothing uselessly not to show his being well-read and educated but rather to mark another argumentative step in his/her reflexions. Being unaware of the origin of the phrase the chatter in question still shows that the expression doesn’t belong to him personally. By way of doing this he/she deliberately lowers his/her communicative status trying to mask the aftermath of the plagiaristic speech act.
4. ST of exemplification	<<Anthicleus>>: Nigerian riots, conflicts in Spain, Georgian turmoil…France <<DoubleU>>: unlike Anthicleus I’d, on the contrary, expel from the list the African example <<VidALLE>>: unlike Anthicleus & DoubleU I don’t care at all)))) (www.daad.org)	The ST of exemplification is actualized in the cited transaction thrice: firstly, by <<Anthicleus>> to enumerate toponymic nouns and adjectives referring to different calamities [which are known to the other interlocutor] throughout the world, secondly, to see to the point that <<DoubleU>> disagrees with the previous chatter by means of the comparative preposition unlike as well as the parenthetical unit on the contrary, and, thirdly, by <<VidALLE>> with the help of the above-mentioned comparative preposition in the final remark to appeal to the other two interlocutors’ names being precedent in the transaction. The illocutional attitudes of this ST are to give validity to the ideas expressed [in the first case], to oppose opinions [in the second case] and to create a humorous as well as discrediting effect in the third case].
5. agnomenal ST	<<PUTin>>, <Obama2009>>, <<KissingER>>, <Hillarymonica>>, <<Phelps_swim>>, <<Frodo>>, <<Obby2009>>, <<Mr.Bin-niB>>, <<Heris_Pilton>> (www.usachatnow.com), (www.irc.netsplit.de/chat), (www.chicago.everyblock.com), (www.gogloom.com), (whois.domaintools.com/usachat.com)	This ST is aimed at employing for self-presentation other virtual community users’ successful nicknames (nickonyms) as well as celebrity names existing in reality of showbiz, media, art etc. – the names getting the status of precedent ones and adding up to the characteristics of virtual language personalities (e.g. the nickonym Frodo alludes to the name of the principal protagonist of J.R.R. Tolkien's “The Lord of the Rings” indicating that the user under consideration wants to be treated like a brave, determined though adventurous person – a set of qualities typical of the fictional character).
6. ST of imitation, impersonation and mimicking	<<Lucasman>>: awhfy (are we having fun yet?) <<Gohato_o_o>>: sc (stay cool) <<Lucasman>>: t^+ (think positive) & cheer up!!! <<Gohato_o_o>>: wrong time << Lucasman >>: y (why?) <<Gohato_o_o>>: I goanna ZZZ (be sleeping) t2ul8er (talk to you later) (www.usachatnow.com)	The illocutional attitude of this transaction is to earn authority among the other participants in the discursive fragment by way of showing that the interlocutors are well familiar with and successfully employ precedent diacritical expressions which serve as markers of a specific (original) idiostyle borrowed from some other Internet-user(s). This constant imitation of successful patterns of forming one’s communicative image on the Internet (under the influence of the law of saving speech efforts) is becoming conventional thus creating a precedent discourse of the ‘Net.

Table 2. The illustrated set of tactics of the contaminative speech strategy of participants in the English Internet-discourse (phatic variation).

CONTAMINATIVE SPEECH STRATEGY PHATIC VARIATION
ST	illustrative transaction	pragmatic interpretation
1. ST of precedent behavior instructions	<<Sputnik>>: No flooding the channel. Flood Control will be set and any ban relating from there will be final, until approved for removal. No foul Language. No Scripts… (www.singlemuslim.com)	One can come across suchlike instructions on what chat-rules an Internet-user should necessarily obey practically in every chat-room (with possible alterations) on any stage of interaction development. Being a conventional precedent speech sample this ST discharges the contact-making / contact-generating function and facilitates discourse-coordination. Users who usually employ it are chat-moderators.
2. ST of standard netiquette	<<G@Liaff>>: knocky-knocky <<G@Liaff>>: <<pix>>, I’m done with it… <<G@Liaff>>: Bye, everyone (www.icq.com)	This ST is an epitome of interaction-course-regulating ST on the Internet: chatters strictly follow standard netiquette [net+etiquette] communication patterns depending on the stage of interaction: knocky-knocky (in the beginning), Bye, everyone (in the end), obligatory direct addresses (at every turn).

In the article we tried to consider peculiarities of precedent phenomena functioning on the Internet as a means of unification and organization of virtual messages. So having analyzed transactions of popular British and American chats we came to the conclusion that the English Internet-discourse is a priori intertextual by nature. The notions of precedence and intertextuality were examined here in a pragmatic aspect of linguistic research by means of elaborating a set of transitional speech tactics of the contaminative speech strategy (with illustration and interpretation of corpus data). Participants in e-discourse employ the communicative strategy under consideration with the purposes of self-presentation, i.e. to display a high degree of erudition, expressiveness, linguocreative potential of one’s virtual language personality as well as to attract an interlocutor’s attention to the form and cultural loading of the text produced, to make it sound less formal thus easing communicative tension. We also submitted a specific exemplified nomenclature of pretexts applied to by the target group of the research. One can conclude that the role of precedent phenomena in Internet-discourse is presently on the advance for they represent an important part of the national picture of the world reflecting major (anti)values of this sphere of language application.

References

1. Гудков Д.Б. Прецедентное имя и проблемы прецедентности. М.: Изд-во Моск. ун-та, 1999. – 248 c.

2. Караулов Ю.В. Русский язык и языковая личность. Изд. 6-е., – М.: Издательство ЛКИ, 2007. – 264 с.

3. Crystal D. Language and the Internet. 2^nd ed. NY: Cambridge University Press, 2006. – 304 p.

4. Kristeva Ju. Word, dialogue, and the novel // In T. Moi (Ed.), The Kristeva reader. NY: Columbia University Press, 1986. – P. 36-51.