Deconstruction in Commentative Subgenres as a Basic Cognioverbal Mechanism of Non-Cooperative Reaction to Fake Posts

DOI:

Mediated interaction in developing social platforms (blogging resources, social networks, instant messengers, etc.) offers broad opportunities to expand the degree of access to influence the modification vectors in conceptual-valued systems of entire communities (social groups, ethnic, religious and professional identitarian communities), which find themselves in the sphere of influence of mediated, rather than empirically verified factors of transformation of cognitive, emotional and social reality [Hepp, Hjarvard, Lundby, 2015].

The social-constructivist approach to the concept of mediatization emphasizes the “formative” force, i.e., the generative potential, which excludes the obligatory material reinforcement of a newsbreak, rather than the “driving force” as the catalytic potential of mediating the world through media forms. Mediation is carried out to a greater extent with regard to ideological and social contexts. This fact leads to the emergence of a virtually unlimited opportunity to transmit unverifiable data, essentially the dissemination of fake content to construct an imaginary situation and achieve goals unrelated to alethics. The meta-processual nature of the mutual influence of changes in communicative practices and sociocultural transformations creates a dynamic panorama of “deep mediatization,” where reality is perceived through the prism of a newsbreak and its intentionally conveyed evaluation [Hepp, 2012].

Thus, under the conditions of declining critical perception, even the most paradoxical newsbreak can significantly modify behavioral patterns. This tendency leads to the emergence and rapid spread of “bad” genres and genre variants in society, like viruses [Dementyev, 2015], as well as transdiscursive formations, especially in mosaic online hybrid discourses. The only area of communicative counteraction to intentionally generated false information injections can be deconstruction, as a mechanism based on the symbolic-code de-objectification and reobjectification of the formal transmission of information, since empirical verification proves ineffective in the context of deep mediatization. A note to be taken about de-objectification is that the interpretative space rests not only on real activity elements (the first level of abstraction) but also on the generalized meaning objectified in the initial fake message (the second level of abstraction). It is the way de-objectification is actualized at the third level. The deep mediatization format carries not only the risk of expanding the fake domain of social reality assessment but also conceals a toolkit to counteract truth entropy: namely, the communication infrastructure of Web 2.0 presupposes both reactivity and the initial productivity of user-generated content. Both possibilities are based on memetics principles, i.e., disturbances in the psycho-emotional space have much greater significance for the selection of newsbreaks and the increase in the degree of persuasiveness than logical-rational deobjectification [Tyler, 2011].

The main methods of exposing and communicating verification indicators were discussed in a fundamental work by a group of French authors [Barrera et al., 2020], but the explicatory and verification potential of such a universal mechanism of verbal de-objectification as deconstruction was not specifically addressed. Moreover, we believe that deconstruction, as a technique of de-objectifying and objectifying interpretation of verbal information inherent even to a reduced critical thinking level, is a form of non-cooperative response that not only allows for the uncovering of empirical inconsistencies but also communicative and cognitive markers of imagination used to alter the vector of event evaluation.

Materials and methods

To achieve the main goal of the study, namely, to determine the functional-pragmatic and explicatory potential of various forms of deconstruction in the subgenres of commentary text, a number of specific tasks must be addressed: 1) to describe deconstruction as a basic mechanism of non-cooperative communication used to bridge the gap between memetics and de-objectification; 2) to substantiate the basis for a subgenre classification of deconstructive forms of the online commentary genre; 3) to analyze the functional pragmatics of various de-objectifying-objectifying models in the explication of epistemic confidence.

The empirical material for the study comprised commentary texts on various newsbreaks containing features of imaginative intentional fake content. These texts were selected through a stratified sample using automated extraction and labeling of genre tokens and sentiment analyzers, allowing for the identification of commentary alternations within the degree of deconstructive variation and illocutionary-modal representation in formal elements. The total number of microcontexts of commentary responses selected amounted to over 40,000 items, which ensures the reliability and relative frequency of the obtained results. Moreover, the newsbreaks were structured on compliance with the necessary and sufficient conditions of formal, topical, illocutionary, and channel determination, which fully corresponds to the already recognized classification of internet commentary genres developed by V.I. Karasik [Karasik, 2019, p. 50].

The convergence of discourse-modus analysis techniques with some modifications [Fairclough, 2003] made it possible to identify deconstructive illocution in various acts of repeated verbal objectification of the imaginative components of a fake newsbreak. Based on the cognitive-discursive analysis of the mechanisms for identifying the interpretative potential of cognitive-generative verbalizers and the constructive-explicatory potential of interpretative spaces [Boldyrev, 2019], as well as an integral description and parameterization of genre affiliation and subgenre stratification proposed by V.V. Dementyev [Dementyev, 2024, p. 12], individual de-objectifying-objectifying alternations in the unified space of an online commentary have been specified.

Results and discussion

Deconstruction as a mechanism of de-objectification/objectification understanding

In analyzing the functional and pragmatic potential of specific mechanisms for clarifying the formal means of expressing and actualizing false information in the process of non-cooperative stimulus-reactive interaction in online discourse, the key aspect is understanding deconstruction as a reverse-directed cognitive-verbal vector for clarifying the necessary and sufficient list of criterion features of the generalized image of a given phenomenon under study, facilitating the neutralization of fakes and their replacement with real components. In this interpretation, the deconstructive de-objectification of initial posts that formally do not contradict “communicative truth” and therefore do not initially provoke rejection, created as fake areas of mutation in the evaluative field of a real or virtual newsbreak, already departs from the traditional understanding of J. Derrida. In this case, the mechanistic uncovering of the logical-rhetorical inconsistencies [Avtonomova, 2000] upon which the pseudo-truth of the transmitted information is based will be insufficient to create a field of confidence (convictivity) for a non-cooperative commentary reaction to effectively counter and neutralize the intention to remove uncritical perception. The second stage of inversion, the activation of rhetorical criticism and the a priori assumption of the unreliability of verbalization and the initial provocative nature of the text [Man, 1982], formulated by Paul de Man, are most relevant to this operation of de-objectifying and re-objectifying the formed fake image and the modified space for evaluating the described event.

The very act of deconstruction, which, depending on the degree and type of deconstruction, creates various formats of non-cooperative reaction of disagreement, includes several operations. Firstly, it is the initial understanding within the framework of the original post, which no longer employs the informational givenness for further understanding as truth in the mediatized space. It is rather a deobjectifying format of interpretation, based on the predominance of attention to the holistic perception of the generalized meaning in an organic fusion with the form of presentation over the mechanistic one. Lastly, it is the restoration of the situation of thought-action based on the consistent passage of the hermeneutic-noematic steps of meaning-derivation and transformation of the producer during the production of the initial post [Bredikhin, 2014].

The first and second levels of abstraction provide the representation of linguistic data. The first level captures immediate, raw linguistic phenomena without in-depth interpretation. The second level of abstraction involves interpreting and categorizing first-level data based on its functions, meanings, and systemic relations. Deconstruction in the case of a de-objectifying understanding of the generalized content of fake content and consistent re-objectification in clarifying the real state of affairs in the commentary’s negative reaction lead to the extraction of deconstructive schemes immanently present in each initial provocative post as well as their dynamic modification in the hypertextual space of commentary deployment at the third level of abstraction. The tertiary nature of the resulting non-cooperative re-objectification, which removes the “veil” of deep mediatization and returns the description of the event to critical perception and empirical verification, is built on a conscious interpretation of the formal and substantive aspects. It implies “living” in the social significance of the vertical context and “understanding” (introduction into the space of one’s own significance and awareness of the need to eliminate pseudo-argumentativeness) of the formal aspects of actualization of a quasi-fact, which requires from the producer-commentator high skills of a hermeneutic-interpretative nature [Bredikhin, Alikaev, 2016].

De-objectification/objectification stratification and functional pragmatics of deconstructive commentary texts

The variety of initial posts – demonstratives (presenting status and a topic), attractives (often in a dialogue form in the first person), agitatives (motivating to action), reportatives (explanatory pseudo-argumentation), and sociatives (space for the explication of pseudo-collective opinion) [Karasik, 2019, p. 50] – dictates the variability of the representation of a negative reaction to fake content, but the basic strategy in each of them remains a non-cooperative explanation based on the deconstruction of the cognitive and emotional dominants of the initial post. Note to be taken: the degree and form of deconstruction are linked in the process of de-objectification and re-objectification so that each type of initial post is most effective in the context of a specific argumentative-emotive cognitive style inherent in representatives of the linguoculture. Definitional and affirmative responses are characteristic. In the case of initial propaganda, due to their focus on transforming social reality in an action-oriented manner, instructional comments appear.

Thus, we come to the consideration of specific possibilities of a non-cooperative, disagreeing response to eliminate a quasi-factual fake in various forms of the de-objectifying, cognitive-verbal act of deconstructive commentary.

A commentary definition is one of the most popular and situationally relevant methods of deobjectifying the content of a fake post. It involves clarifying the substantial characteristics of the event described by conveying a generally accepted and conventionalized interpretation of either individual concepts or the entire imaginative domain of the fake.

For example, in an initial post (Fig. 1), formulated in the form of a demonstrative with the intention of representing a certain “shocking” status and the cognitive significance of the message, as well as the primary actualization of the topic, the visual plan is often dominant in social networks (FCRLM, March 01, 2025).

The visual representation is initially shocking and fails to specify the topical aspect, which is conveyed only in the title The Heart of the Blue Whale . The basic strategy of pseudo-argumentation is a real-life model housed in a regional museum.

The commentary text of the reactiondisagreement is replete with real facts, providing a specific and detailed description of the fake object. Within the framework of a descriptive repetition of the pseudo-argumentation visualized in the initial post and the subsequent positive

Fig. 1. The heart of the blue whale

conclusion, the commentary text verbalizes the thesis to create a counterargumentative deconstruction. Numerical data and a specific marker of epistemic confidence (an appeal to the authority of scientists) introduced into the refutation commentary completely negate the suggestion of the original demonstrative and, within the framework of the descriptive definition, create a domain of deconstruction.

• (1)    Is blue whale’s heart the size of a passenger car, and could a person easily fit inside its vessels? You can find such a claim online, along with photographs from various museums. The photo shows that the heart and valves of the heart exhibit are truly enormous. But what about the heart of a living whale? You’re probably aware that the blue whale is the largest living animal , weighing up to 150 tons and measuring up to 35 meters in length. Indeed, its heart is the largest in the world. However, it’s smaller than museum workers imagine . <…> Scientists have dissected animals and discovered that the size of a heart, weighing 180 kg , is nowhere near the size of a car. The diameter of the vessels surrounding the organ ranges from only 10 to 20 centimeters (FCRLM, March 1, 2025).

Furthermore, the author of the commentary text visualizes the initial reactive post, representing it with a more realistic model, further intensifying readers’ cognitive efforts. It should be noted that the concretizing definition, as a special type of de-objectifying online commentary, is largely formed based on a model antonymous to the initial demonstrative fake. In the microcontext under consideration (Fig. 2), this is the initial post (model: Visualization + Verbalization) and the comment (model: Verbalization + Visualization) (FCRLM, March 1, 2025).

One more form of visual-verbal mediatization in the creation of uncritical perception based on the intimization of fake information within the framework of an attractive initial post is given below.

• (2)    I’m curious about another point: where has the coronavirus gone now? Has all this hysteria about mask-wearing, house arrests for the entire population, and other such nonsense come to an end? Was it successfully tackled by injecting the public with some kind of placebo? (FCRLM, March 1, 2025).

In the initial fake under consideration (Fig. 3), the verbal plan, creating a dialogic quality and inviting further discussion of the imaginative topic, is intended to intimate the negative attitude toward government measures to fight the spread of COVID-19 that has formed among a wide range of readers during the lockdown and pandemic hysteria (FCRLM, March 1, 2025). Meanwhile, the visual code supposedly verifies the “conspiracy theory” commentary by displaying a newspaper article from 1976 about the awareness of the coronavirus and its successful treatment.

The successful leveling of the argumentative-intimating post is achieved through a two-level commentary deconstruction of the ascertaining-definitive type.

Fig. 2. In reality

Fig. 3. It is a fake

• (3)    ... thanks to the vaccine, you have this question. We were able to partially defeat it! But there are still cases, just not as many (FCRLM , March 1, 2025);

• (4)    …there’s a concept of herd immunity . We’ve gotten used to this virus (FCRLM, March 1, 2025).

The first-level constative comment reduces the categorical nature of the initial appeal but does not neutralize the pseudo-argumentation, thus creating the basis for reducing the suggestive potential and activating a critical attitude toward the generalized content. The secondary commentary, in the form of an introduction and a naive definition of the concept of “herd immunity,” completely undermines the “invitation” to maintain a negative dialogue presented in the initial verbalization of the post. However, the pseudo-argumentation of the visual plane is preserved and neutralized in the primary definitive comments of a descriptive and deconstructive nature.

• (5)    Social media users are once again claiming that the prevention and treatment of coronavirus have been known for a long time – since the 1970s. <…> Our reader uncovered the truth on this matter. In fact, the term “coronavirus” itself began was coined in 1968, but the disease was identified much earlier. In the 1930s, it was discovered in chickens, and until the 21^st century, “coronaviruses” were different. Until the early 2000s, there were virtually no publications on the virus. <…> The drugs that were supposedly used to treat coronavirus are also not entirely appropriate in this context . <…> Despite the fact that the scientific community has actively studied coronaviruses, they still remain a mystery . This is due to the wide variety of subspecies , as well as the fact that coronavirus strains undergo a large number of mutations at the genetic level. Want to do a similar analysis? Read how to become an author (FCRLM, March 1, 2025).

First, a hedged reference to a topical constative is provided, once again explicating the visual pseudo-argument as the object of deconstruction. The initial phrase about the need for content to meet the truth criterion introduces a critical aspect into the interpretive space and intensifies the cognitive efforts of the potential recipient. The subsequent definitional description represents an argumentative deconstruction of the topical basic object “coronavirus” with the introduction of numerous scientific terms, significantly increasing the additional eliminative potential of the destruction of the fake. The finalization of the commentary disagreement takes the form of an appealing phrase, inviting the reader to actively and consciously participate in the neutralization of quasi-facts and deviating assessments in imaginative newsbreaks.

Thus, the definition represents one of the basic forms of de-objectifying-objectifying disagreement in online commentary, built on maximizing deconstruction through the de-objectification of demonstrative and attractive polycode fake initial posts.

The most interesting form is the affirmation as a commentary text, conveying the same content and creating space for positive evaluation of the newsbreak negatively presented in the initial post, with the constant deployment of concretizing and detailing components at each subsequent turn of the hermeneutic spiral.

Another example is a fake post claiming that children should be required to work starting at age 12. The information was published on a social media site with a link to Moscow Children’s Rights Commissioner Olga Yaroslavskaya and accompanied by a photograph of a child miserably sweeping the street:

• (6)    Moscow Children’s Ombudswoman Yaroslava has conviction that children should start working at age 12. She notes that most children at this age already dream of “earning at least a little money” (FCRLM, May 29, 2026).

The falsification is obvious due to the use of a name in the appeal to the official and the specific choice of verbalization of the modality – has conviction – when the verb is more typically used in similar contexts. The Ombudsman proposed an initiative to allow voluntary temporary work for those aged 12 and older during summer holidays. The original text contains the assertion that children themselves express a desire to work; therefore, the modality is voluntary. The commentary, updating the argumentation strategy, maintains the original level of institutionality and cites a statement by Yaroslav Nilov, head of the State Duma Committee on Labor, Social Policy, and Veterans’ Affairs. The official supported the idea but emphasized that it requires a comprehensive discussion, citing the need for trade unions, employers, child welfare agencies, education, healthcare, and the parent community to participate in the discussion, underscoring the socially important nature of the issue under discussion.

The affirmative form of a negative reactive comment obvious at the first level of hypertext division allows for modification of the topical determination of the initial post. Within its framework the multifocality of the critical component can be shifted from the precedent presented in the initial post to collective areas of knowledge about the hypothetical producer, transforming the target area of negativity of the content of the “injection” and forming the “conscious” opinion of the reader about the problem under discussion [Babina, Shevyreva, 2024, p. 50].

• (7)    Officially: A cat sleeping on your lap is a valid excuse for being late for work. Employees will no longer be subject to disciplinary action for being late due to a sleeping pet (FCRLM, June 5, 2026).

The introduction of a whole series of markers of increasing convictivity and officialese into the affirmative text ( a valid excuse , to be subject to disciplinary action , due to ) alters the vector of negativity, directing it not toward the object of description, but toward the producer of the initial post. It should be noted that the invictive content of affirmations corresponds to mild and moderate hostility [Bredikhin, Avdeev, Shishkin, 2024], which does not directly lead to the conflictivization of the commentary hyperspace, unlike the instructive form of negative reaction. Furthermore, it is necessary to point out the possibility of actualizing the pertinent space of significance of the evaluation conveyed in the comment within the framework of demonstrating the “unification” cogitem as the basis for an allusive connection of the internal, modal, and interpretative elements of the producer’s conceptual-valorem system [Bredikhin, Kamensky, Shibkova, 2024] with the most common vectors of positivization or negativity in the receiving environment.

The instruction presupposes the introduction into the re-objectifying feature structure of the described phenomenon or fact of the commentary text of an algorithm of actions according to one’s own interpretation (adequate from the point of view of the commentary producer) and assessment of the event, or a call to perform specific actions to eliminate the quasi-factual nature of the text or online harassment of the producer of the fake post.

This very algorithm of action is proposed in the instructional commentary on the dynamic polycode newsbreak. Based on a constative that shifts the focus of topical negativity, as well as the use of an emotional appeal ( Stay alert and warn your close ones ), a monovector interpretation of the original message is created as inconsistent with empirical verification in both visual and verbal terms. Further instructions for naively de-objectifying the imaginative event are given in the form of advisories with relevant quotations specifying the fact in question, which allow, by dynamically modifying this instruction ad hoc, extrapolating its key principles to the entire fake space.

• (8)    The second stage involves a “ mobile operator employee ” calling the victim and asking them to provide an SMS code , provide their card details “ for verification ,” or download a malicious file to “ eliminate the threat .” This allows the scammers to gain access to their personal data or device. Stay alert and warn your close ones! Don’t click suspicious links or give out personal information to strangers. If in doubt, end the conversation and call the organization on its official number (FCRLM, March 18, 2026).

The problem-related object of deconstruction in instructions, as in the previously discussed form of definitional deconstruction, is most often the propositional element of the stimulus text, although the eventfulness and situational nature of the link are not always clearly discernible. Thus, the actual content of the fake is neutralized in the initial phrase, accompanied by a radical transformation of the event based on semantic associative development. A general vector of conflict formation ( This allows the scammers to gain access to their personal data or device ) is revealed, regardless of the auditory and visual content. Based on negative hypostatization, an image of the “enemy” is created, the method of countering which is algorithmized in the instructional commentary.

Conclusion

The scientific novelty lies in examining deconstruction as the primary argumentative mechanism for verbalizing a general explanatory strategy, as well as in identifying and analyzing the key characteristics of the cognitive-verbal, de-objectifying-objectifying variability of noncooperative commentary. It is precisely this deobjectifying activity within the deconstruction of the basic verbalizers of the topic used in fake posts that allows us to neutralize pseudo-argumentative elements and return the interpretive activity of potential recipients to a productive discussion of the imaginative news hook, significantly increasing the cognitive effort required to re-objectify the generalized meaning in the commentary.

Based on the undertaken analysis of microcontexts, specific formations of noncooperative commentary were delineated: instructions (descriptions of the procedure for deobjectifying content and determining its correspondence to reality), definitions (expanded term-centric argumentative descriptions of basic concepts), and affirmations (self-hypnosis based on a brief judgment of incorrectness, forming a domain of positivization of a negatively represented event). These differ significantly in the type of de-objectifying-objectifying reflection. The basic form of non-cooperative reaction in negative commentary on social media is definitions, which constitute 57% of the total number of commentary microcontexts and have a polycode, detailing-de-objectifying nature. Affirmations (29%) are the next most common, but in some cases possess greater functionalpragmatic potential for neutralizing quasi-factual argumentation due to the argumentative-emotive style of de-objectification in the Russian segment of online interaction. Instructions (14%) represent the smallest number, and due to their ad hoc connection to reality and formal implementation in harsh hate speech, they are themselves not so much deconstructive as provocative acts. The insignificant role of the initial fake post’s stratification in determining the reaction comment is noted. Deconstruction, as a basic mechanism for explicating reasoned disagreement, not only forms a special area of non-cooperative response but also, possessing a high persuasive potential, allows, with a sufficient degree of explication of epistemic confidence, to level out differences in the interpretation of a fake, to form a stable mono-vector assessment, and to prevent the transmission of obviously false conflict-generating content.