Differentiated Analysis of the «Insult» Speech Genrebased on Messages from a Social Network Internet Sites

Cover Page

Cite item


The study of Internet mediated speech communication seems relevant due to the dynamic development of the Internet language, the lack of its codification and legal regulation, duplication of social practices and processes in the virtual environment. The present research is focused on one of the conflicting speech genres (speech acts), which is frequent within Internet communication. Speech actions in the genre of insult in some cases acquire illegal actions and are considered from the standpoint of law enforcement in the practice of forensic linguistics. The novelty of this study lies in the differentiated approach to insults as applied not only to the binary division of its interpretation within the ordinary logic and legal grounds, but also to the study of the distinctive characteristics of this phenomenon in refraction to various legal interpretations (in the criminal, civil, administrative codes). We analyzed written messages of Russian-speaking users of the social network site “VKontakte”, which were considered through the prism of the provisions of Article 5.61 “Insult” of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation. In the course of the study, it was revealed that even within a specialized dataset of messages, perceived by the recipients as insulting messages, the share of messages corresponding to the criterion basis of insult (Article 5.61) is negligible.

About the authors

Liliya R. Komalova

Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: komalova@inion.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0955-5315

Doctor of Science in Linguistics, Leading Research Fellow, Department of Linguistics, Institute of Scientific Information for Social Sciences of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Professor at the Chair, Department of Applied and Experimental Linguistics, Moscow State Linguistic University

51/21, Nakhimovsky prospect, Moscow, Russian Federation, 117418

Tatiana I. Goloshchapova

Moscow State Linguistic University

Email: titianatigr@gmail.com
SPIN-code: 6391-6260

PhD in Linguistics, expert

38, Ostozhenka str., Moscow, Russian Federation, 119034


  1. Safonova, A.K. (2013). To A Question on a Parity of Concepts «Honor» and «Advantage». Vestnik of Moscow University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, 1. [Electronic resource] URL: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/k-voprosu-o-sootnoshenii-ponyatiy-chest-i-dostoinstvo (accessed: 01.12.2020). (In Russ.).
  2. Komissarova, E.G. (2016). The construction of the right to honor and dignity: Problems of interpretation. In: V.G. Golubcov, O.A. Kuznecova (Eds.). 6th Permskij kongress uchenyh-juristov: Izbrannye materialy. Perm: Perm. gos. nac. issled. un-t. pp. 240—247. (In Russ.).
  3. Turchina, O.V. & Shmakov, V.N. (2017). Protection of honor, dignity and business (professional) reputation. Khabarovsk: Khabarovsk State University of Economics and Law. (In Russ.).
  4. Ostapets, E.N. (2018). Honor, dignity and business reputation as objects of legal protection. Juridicheskij fakt, 34, 49—53. (In Russ.).
  5. Civil Code of the Russian Federation (as amended on July 31, 2020). [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.consultant.ru/document/cons_doc_LAW_5142/1de6cd3cbb386056a2ecd2 c64ff087b13c8de585/ (accessed: 01.12.2020). (In Russ.).
  6. Galyashina, E. (2019). The distinction between the forensic linguistic and scientific activity of linguist analyst: Competencies, methods and technologies. Acta Linguistica Petropolitana, 1(15), 104—129. doi: 10.30842/alp2306573715105 (In Russ.).
  7. The multilingual Internet: Language, culture, and communication online (2007). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  8. McCulloch, M. (2019). Because Internet: Understanding the new rules of language. New York: Riverhead Book.
  9. Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. Routledge.
  10. Tuleneva, V.N., Shusharina, I.A. (2018). Internet-language: Profile, characteristic features and effect on speech. Vestnik Kurganskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 1(48), 20—25. (In Russ.)
  11. Enarsson, Th., Lindgren, S. (2019). Free speech or hate speech? A legal analysis of the discourse about Roma on Twitter. Information & Communications Technology Law, 28(1), 1—18. doi: 10.1080/13600834.2018.1494415
  12. Crystal, D. (2008). The language revolution. Malden: Polity Press Ltd.
  13. Akhrenova, N.A. (2016). Internet Linguistics: A new paradigm of the description of the language. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo oblastnogo social'no-gumanitarnogo instituta, 3, 8—14. (In Russ.)
  14. Potapova, R.K. (2014). Social network discourse as an object of interdisciplinary research. In: Proceedings of the II International conference “Discourse as social activity: priorities and perspectives” (pp. 20—22). Moscow: MSLU. (In Russ.)
  15. 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. doi: 10.22363/2313-2299-2017-8-4-939-948 (In Russ.).
  16. Miconi, A. (2013). Under the skin of the networks: How concentration affects social practices in web 2.0 environments. In: G. Lovink, M. Rasch (Eds.). Unlike Us Reader: Social media monopolies and their alternatives (pp. 89—102). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
  17. Kennedy, J. (2013). Rhetorics of sharing: Data, imagination, and desire. In: G. Lovink, M. Rasch (Eds.). Unlike Us Reader: Social media monopolies and their alternatives (pp. 127—136). Amsterdam: Institute of Network Cultures.
  18. Durán Sánchez, C.A. (2015). Aspectos interventores en la participación política y electoral de jóvenes. Una reflexión sobre la información, interacción y difusión de contenidos en redes sociales para futuras investigaciones en Santander. Desafíos, 27(1), 47—81. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.12804/desafios27.01.2015.02 (In Spanish).
  19. Lambke, A. (2020). The Social Dilemma. In: Netflix, Documentary films. [Electronic resource] URL: https://www.netflix.com/ru-en/title/81254224 (accessed: 01.12.2020).
  20. Komalova, L.R. (2017, 2020). Agressogen discourse: The multilingual aggression verbalization typology. Moscow: Sputnik + Publ. (In Russ.).
  21. Špago, D., Maslo, A. & Špago-Ćumurija, E. (2019). Insults speak louder than words: Donald Trump’s tweets through the lens of the speech act of insulting. Folia Linguistica et Litteraria, 27, 139—159.
  22. Kusov, G.V. (2005). Communicative perversion as a way to diagnose distortions when insulting. Legal linguistics, 6, 43—55. (In Russ.).
  23. Shahmatova, T.S. (2013). Insult as a tool of linguistic violence in speech situations of institutional communication. Uchenye zapiski Kazanskogo universiteta. Serija. Gumanitarnye nauki, 155(5), 267—278. (In Russ.).
  24. Jaroshhuk, I.A., Zhukova, N.A. & Dolzhenko, N.I. (2020). Linguistic expertise. Belgorod: BelGU. (In Russ.).
  25. AI from Siberia will find a veiled “forbidden” on the Web (2019). In: Roskomsvoboda. [Electronic resource] URL: https://roskomsvoboda.org/53920/ (accessed: 01.12.2020). (In Russ.).
  26. Press news (2020). In: VKontakte. [Electronic resource] URL: https://vk.com/press/no-hate-speech (accessed: 01.12.2020). (In Russ.).
  27. Kukushkina, O.V., Safonova, Ju.A. & Sekerazh, T.N. (2011). Theoretical and methodological foundations of psycho-linguistic examination of texts in cases related to countering extremism. Moscow: RFCSJe pri Minjuste Rossii. (In Russ.).
  28. Komalova, L., Goloshchapova, T., Motovskikh, L., Epifanov, R. Morozov, D. & Glazkova, A. (2021). MCA Workshop — Toxic comments [Electronic resource] URL: https://data.mendeley.com/ datasets/fktgy52645/1 (accessed: 01.12.2020).

Copyright (c) 2021 Komalova L.R., Goloshchapova T.I.

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