Implicit ways to express the author’s opinion in the publicistic discourse of Runet blogosphere

Cover Page

Cite item


The modern analysis of journalist discourse is based on many extralinguistic factors: ethnocultural characteristics of the social environment, creating and sustaining discourse; conditions of political loyalty and the orientation of journalist discourse to the target audience, sources of discourse replenishment and conditions for its self-development in the general discourse-forming environment. These factors have a direct impact on specific ways of delivering information by the authors of the journalistic message to the individual recipient and the mass audience. The relevance of the research is determined, first of all, by the study of the features of the Russian language functioning on the Internet, which fits into the foremost problems of modern Russian studies. The novelty is associated with the analysis of specific ways of linguistic expression of the author’s position in Runet journalism, which have not been specially studied so far. The purpose of the research is to consider the ways of expressing evaluation in the texts of the Runet blogs authors. The article shows that implicit ways of expressing the author’s evaluation in the Runet texts have the same function as any other evaluative statements: to specifically influence the addressee. The studied material shows that the evaluativeness of the Runet blogosphere authors statements, closely interacting with expressiveness and emotionality, depends on their subjective perception of information and helps them express their point of view. The article highlights the implicit ways of expressing the author’s position, which allow in an implicit but understandable form to convey the meaning of the statement to the recipient. The study used materials from Runet blogs, which most vividly and representatively show the features of the Russian-language network journalistic discourse. When working with speech material, analytical methods were used - descriptive (descriptive-analytical) and contrastive, which revealed the linguistic specifics of journalistic discourse, identified and interpreted intra-contextual and intertextual connections, established communication features. The research approaches of discourse analysis and stylistics were also used. The studied material and the results allow to conclude that implicit ways of expressing the author’s position have the same goals as explicit value judgments: they emotionally affect the recipient and accurately convey the meaning of the statement. At the same time, implicitness in the Russian language successfully solves the problem of creating and maintaining the author’s individuality. The prospects for this study are seen in further scientific development of various implicit ways of expressing the author’s position in Runet journalism for further understanding of new processes in the Russian language, in the formation of journalistic discourse and in Russian communication in the digital space.

Full Text

A resume as infographic of blogger Maxim Dovzhenko


About the authors

Svetlana A. Shumilina

Maxim Gorky Institute of Literature and Creative Writing

Author for correspondence.
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6212-9227

postgraduate student, Department of Russian Language and Stylistics

25 Tverskoy Bulvar, Moscow, 123104, Russian Federation

Vera N. Levina

Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University)

ORCID iD: 0000-0002-3732-6990

Doctor of Philology, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Russian Language Department No. 1

6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation


  1. Alefirenko, N.F. (2012). The theory of speech genres and pragmatics of discourse. Bulletin of the KemSU, 3(4(52)), 16–21. (In Russ.)
  2. Arutyunova, N.D. (1990). Discourse. Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary (pp. 136–137). Moscow, Soviet Encyclopedia Publ. (In Russ.)
  3. Basovskaya, E.N. (2019). Discursive depth of the media space: Text – feedback – comment. Yalta Discourse Circle. Results and Prospects of Joint Activities, 19(3), 8–11. (In Russ.)
  4. Ergalieva, S.Zh. (2018). Linguo-personalological description of a commentary on a political article in the virtual space. Modern Science: Actual Problems of Theory & Practice. Series of “Humanites”, (5(2)), 100–106. (In Russ.)
  5. Garrod, S., & Pickering, M.J. (2013). Interactive alignment and prediction in dialogue. In I. Wachsmuth, J. de Ruiter, P. Jaecks & S. Kopp (Eds.), Alignment in Communication: Towards a New Theory of Communication (pp. 193–203). Amsterdam, Philadelphia, John Benjamins.
  6. Givón, T. (2017). The grammar of referential coherence as mental processing instructions. The Story of Zero. Amsterdam, Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.
  7. Gnedash, A.A., & Ryabchenko, N.A. (2018). Network analysis of modern protest movements (on the example of the social network “Women’s march”). Sociologist 2.0: Transformation of the Profession: Proceedings of the VIII International Grushinsky Sociological Conference (18–19 April, Moscow) (pp. 404–409). (In Russ.) Retrieved July 20, 2021, from
  8. Itsenko, A.V. (2018). Language features of modern newspapers of Russian Germans in Germany: Violations of language norms. Modern Science: Actual Problems of Theory & Practice. Series of “Humanites”, (6(1)), 89–93. (In Russ.)
  9. Ivannikov, E.B. (2018). Metalanguage consciousness: structure and content of the concept. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 17(2), 143–150. (In Russ.)
  10. Ivanova, M.V. (2018). Publicism in the digital era. Language and Speech on the Internet: Personality, Society, Communication, Culture: Proceedings of the II International Scientific and Practical Conference, (1), 347–353. (In Russ.)
  11. Ivanova, M.V. (2019). Runet speech system. Present and Future of Stylistics: Collection of Scientific Articles (pp. 232–239). (In Russ.)
  12. Ivanova, M.V., & Klushina, N.I. (2021). Creative possibilities of language in Internet communication. RFBR Journal. Series: Humanities and Social Sciences, (1), 54–62. (In Russ.)
  13. Karasik, V.I. (2000). On the types of discourse. In V.I. Karasik & G.G. Slishkin (Eds.), Language Personality: Institutional and Personal Discourse: Collection of Scientific Papers (pp. 5–20). Volgograd: Peremena Publ. (In Russ.)
  14. Katermina, V.V. (2015). Evaluative nomination of politicians (based on Russian and English substandard vocabulary). Political Linguistics, (3), 26–31. (In Russ.)
  15. Katermina, V.V., & Gnedash, A.A. (2018). Formation of political content in the online space: Structural-network and linguistic and discursive analyzes of modern social movements (on the example of “Women’s March”). Sociologist 2.0: Transformation of the Profession Proceedings of the VIII International Grushinsky Sociological Conference (18–19 April, Moscow) (pp. 87–95). (In Russ.) Retrieved July 20, 2021, from
  16. Klushina, N.I. (2012). Communicative stylistics of publicistic text. In M.N. Volodina (Ed.), Language and Discourse of Mass Media in the XXI Century (pp. 144–154). (In Russ.)
  17. Kuryanovich, A.V. (2018). From the experience of a complex discourse description of speech genres. Siberian Philological Journal, (2), 277–280. (In Russ.)
  18. Lapina, L.G. (2017). The concept of inclusion in German public discourse. Socio- and Psycholinguistic Research, (5), 89–92. (In Russ.)
  19. Larouk, O. (2017). Calcul de la présupposition entre propositions textuelles à l'aide des connecteurs: Approche logique et sémantique. Socio- and Psycholinguistic Studies, (5), 76–79. (In French).
  20. Lisochenko, L.V. (1992). Statements with implicit semantics (logical linguistic and pragmatic aspects). Rostov-on-Don, Publishing House of Rostov University. (In Russ.)
  21. Magerramov, I.A. (2017). On typical violations of syntax in modern media texts. Proceedings of the Institute of the Russian Language of V.V. Vinogradov. Series: The Culture of Russian Speech, (13), 275–281. (In Russ.)
  22. Martin, J.R. (2011). Multimodal semiotics: Theoretical challenges (pp. 243–270). London: Continuum.
  23. Martin, J.R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London, Continuum.
  24. McElhinny, B., & Muehlmann, S. (2009). Discursive practice theory. Concise Encyclopedia of Pragmatics (J.L. Mey, Ed.) (2nd edition, pp. 216–219). Oxford: Elsevir Ltd.
  25. Mongush, V.R. (2017). Modern publicistic discourse: From the type of linguistic personality – to communicative strategies and tactics in organizing an effective communicative environment (based on the author’s program of A. Malakhov “Let them talk”). Vestnik Khakasskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta imeni N.F. Katanova, (21), 78–81. (In Russ.)
  26. Shakhovsky, V.I. (2018). Connotation: history, results, prospects. Studia Linguistica, (27), 9–28. (In Russ.)
  27. Shlyakhovoy, D.A. (2017). Genre features of blogs as electronic means of mass communication. RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 8(4), 939–948. (In Russ.)
  28. Stewart, J., Gapenne, O., & Di Paolo, E.A. (Eds.). (2010). Enaction: Toward a New Paradigm of Cognitive Science (vol. XVIII). Cambridge, The MIT Press.
  29. Udelkina, A.I. (2018). The category of addressing in polemic discourse (based on the material of the German-language media). Vestnik of Samara University. History, Pedagogics, Philology, 24(1), 119–124. (In Russ.)
  30. Valgina, N.S. (2003). Text Theory. Functional and Pragmatic Aspects in the Study of the Text. (In Russ.) Retrieved July 1, 2021, from
  31. Vodovatova, T.E. (2006). Semantics and pragmatics of linguistic utterance in the light of the inferential theory of meaning. Samara: Publishing House SGPU. (In Russ.)

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
1. A resume as infographic of blogger Maxim Dovzhenko

Download (169KB)

Copyright (c) 2021 Shumilina S.A., Levina V.N.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies