(a case study based on Russian and American Internet resources)
This study was conducted within a framework of current research directions devoted to the
description of new topic-based discourses (sub discourses) being developed in modern speech
practice. The purpose of the study was to identify the specific features of the environmental management discourse as a separate form of the institutional discourse and to compare Russian environmental management discourse and American environmental management discourse basing on
Internet-resources. The methodology of institutional discourse analysis was used to describe the
main characteristics of the discourse reflecting its socio-cultural and communicative-pragmatic
features: the main speech genres of discourse, goals, values, and subjects of discourse. The data
for this study were collected by means of a continuous sampling method. Given the key concept
of environmental management discourse (“prirodopol’zovanie” / “environmental management”),
all the Internet resources related to the environmental management discourse were selected from
the Internet-search results (with the help of Google search service). As a result, structural and
intentional typologies of the Internet resources presenting the Russian virtual environmental management discourse and American virtual environmental management discourse have been compiled. The genre and stylistic content of Internet resources under consideration was characterized.
The core objectives and values of the virtual environmental management discourse were identified. The discourse subjects were described. For all the parameters of compared language material, similarities and differences were revealed. A conclusion was drawn that in the modern Internet
space, a new thematic institutional discourse − the environmental management discourse was
formed. This discourse shows all significant discourse parameters and has national and cultural
patterns or characteristics. The differences between Russian and American virtual environmental
management discourse are accounted for by the differences in Russian and American cultures and
the differences in the state of the environmental management sphere in Russia and America.
Basalaeva E. G., Shpil’man M. V. Mnogotochie kak ob”ekt yazykovoy refleksii v internet-
diskurse [Dots as an object of language reflection in internet-discourse]. Siberian Journal
of Philology. 2015, no. 3, рр. 248–255.
Bychikhina O. V. Analiz osnovnykh kommunikativnykh modeley rossiyskogo i kitayskogo
biznes-diskursov [Analysis of the main communicative models of Russian and Chinese business
discourses]. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2014, no. 5, рр. 158–166.
Dedyu I. I. Ekologicheskiy entsiklopedicheskiy slovar’ [Ecological encyclopedic dictionary].
Kishinev, Gl. red. Mold. sov. entsikl., 1990, 406 p.
Didenko V. V. Osobennosti aktualizatsii freyma “tolerantnost’” v russkom i amerikanskom
migratsionnykh mediadiskursakh [Actualizations of the frame of tolerance in Russian and American migration media discourses]. Tomsk State University Journal. 2017, no. 418,
рр. 14–23.
Karasik V. I. Yazykovoy krug: lichnost’, kontsepty, diskurs [Language circle: personality,
concepts, discourse]. Volgograd, Peremena, 2002, 477 р.
Karasik V. I. Lingvokul’turnye tsennosti v diskurse [Linguocultural values in discourse]. Foreign Languages in Tertiary Education. 2015, no. 1 (32), рр. 25–35.
Kazakova О. А. Dialektnaya yazykovaya lichnost’ v zhanrovom aspekte [The dialect language
personality in the genre aspect]. Tomsk, Tomsk Polytechnic University Publ., 2007, 200 р.
Kogut S. V. Diskursivnye markery v pis’mennom nauchnom diskurse [Discourse markers in
written scientific discourse]. Siberian Journal of Philology. 2016, no. 2, рр. 157–163.
Kositskaya F. L., Zaitseva I. E. Frantsuzskiy kosmetologicheskiy diskurs v sfere professional’noy kommunikatsii [French cosmetology discourse in the sphere of professional communication]. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2017, no. 6, рр. 20–24.
Krapivkina O. A. Dve grani diskursa – dve ipostasi sub”ekta [Two edges of discourse – two
guises of the subject]. Siberian Journal of Philology. 2016, no. 1, рр. 137–143.
Lappo M. A. Pragmatika novykh oboznacheniy i samooboznacheniy v sovremennom
pedagogicheskom diskurse [Pragmatics of new notations and self-notations in modern pedagogi-
cal discourse]. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2016, no. 2, рр. 124–137.
Likhanov M. V. Ekskursionnyy diskurs: k modeli opisaniya [Excursion discourse: on the
model of description]. Tomsk State University Journal. 2016, no. 404, рр. 5–14.
Lutovinova O. V. Lingvokul’turologicheskie kharakteristiki virtual’nogo diskursa [Lingvoculturological characteristics of the virtual discourse]. Abstract of Dr. philol. sci. diss. Volgograd,
2009, 39 p.
Mishankina N. A. Pragmatika nauchnogo diskursa [Pragmatics of scientific discourse]. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin. 2015, no. 2, рр. 126–133.
Razduev А. V. Diskurs sfery nanotekhnologiy kak vid nauchnogo diskursa (na materiale
sovremennogo angliyskogo yazyka) [Nanotechnology discourse as a type of scientific discourse
(Based on the material of the modern English language)]. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 2013, no. 37, рр. 52–55.
Sharikova L. A. Metafora voyny v politicheskom diskurse [The metaphor of war in political
discourse]. Siberian Journal of Philology. 2012, no. 1, рр. 155–162.
Silantev I. V. Tekst v sisteme diskursnykh vzaimodeystviy [Text in the system of discourse
interactions]. Critique and semiotics. 2004, iss. 7, рр. 98–123.
Snyatkov K. V. Televizionnyy sportivnyy diskurs: aspekty kommunikativno-pragmaticheskogo analiza [Television sport discourse: aspects of communicative and pragmatic analysis].
Izvestia: Herzen University Journal of Humanities & Science. 2007, no. 37, рр. 189–194.
Ulanov A. V. Kommunikativnye strategii v voennom diskurse [Communicative strategies in
the military discourse]. Siberian Journal of Philology. 2014, no. 4, рр. 246–254.
(a case study based on Russian and American Internet resources) // Сибирский филологический журнал. 2020. № 2. Pp. 290–301. DOI: 10.17223/18137083/71/24.