Media in the paradigm of the activity approach: speech, text, communication

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2025.02.089

Keywords:

psycholinguistics, media, journalist

Abstract

This article discusses an interdisciplinary approach to studying the communicative activity of media professionals. It explores the application of activity theory in the analysis of media texts through an interdisciplinary lens (including language, external factors, and the personal experience of media professionals). By describing a three-stage communication model of “subject – object – subject,” the study outlines the role of the journalist as the central subject of interaction, as well as the role of the audience, which functions simultaneously as both the object and the subject of communication. The speech activity of a journalist is a specific form of human activity that involves the conscious and purposeful creation of messages using linguistic means, which may also be supplemented by nonverbal elements during interpersonal interaction. This process includes both the production and reception of information and requires the communicator to possess language skills that are comprehensible to all participants in the communication. The result of such activity is media products – oral or written texts that reflect the content of speech interaction. The informational and communicative activity of journalists is psycholinguistic in nature and entails interaction with society, influencing the audience’s perception and behavior through language as a tool of impact. At the same time, the defining characteristic of media communication is its social nature and the involvement of a broad readership, including feedback in the context of digitalization. The study emphasizes that analyzing the work of media professionals requires attention to goals, objectives, personal attitudes, and external factors such as language, political context, and culture. Written communicative products (media texts) serve as primary data for analyzing the activities of media professionals and for identifying linguistic techniques and strategies used to influence the audience’s worldview. The article proposes a circular model of media communication that reflects the specifics of today’s digital environment. According to this model, the media professional, as the initiator of communication, creates a message addressed to the audience. However, the process does not end there: the audience not only receives the information but begins to interpret, discuss, and disseminate it – thus becoming an active participant in the communication process, or a subject.   Through reactions on social media or interpersonal interaction, the audience influences others, including the journalist. As a result, the media professional becomes subject to societal feedback, which shapes the creation of future media products. This model is generalized and may vary depending on specific media contexts and external conditions. It demonstrates the complexity and interdependence of media and society in the contemporary world.

Author Biography

  • Yuliya Krylova-Grek

    Candidate of Psychological Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Faculty of Hu­manities of the National University “Kyiv-Mohyla Academy”, Kyiv.

    krylova-grek@ukma.edu.ua

    ORCID: 0000-0002-2377-3781

    ResearcherID: F-8423-2017

References

Lotman, Yu.M. (1992). Izbrannye stat'i v trekh tomakh. Stat'i po semiotike i topologii kul'tury: T. I [Selected articles in three volumes. Articles on semiotics and the topology of culture: Vol. I]. Tallinn: Izdatel'stvo «Aleksandra» [in Ukrainian].

Leontiev, A.A. (1981). Psychology and the Language Learning Process, Oxford: Pergamon, p.p. 21-28 https://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/JuneJuly05/AAL_speech%20and%20comm.pdf

Pocheptsov, H.H. (2015). Suchasni informatsiini viiny [Modern information wars]. Kyiv: Vydavnychyi dim "Kyievo-Mohylianska akademiia" [in Ukrainian].

Furman, A.V. (2022). Arkhitektonika teorii diial'nosti: refleksyvno-vchynkovyi stsenarii metametodolohuvannia [Architectonics of activity theory: A reflexive-act scenario of meta-methodologizing]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 7-94. https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.007 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.007

Furman, A.V. (2025). Metodolohichni optyky typiv naukovoi ratsional'nosti: atrybuty, parametry, pidkhody [Methodological optics of tupes of scientific rationality: attributes, parameters, approaches]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 24-79. https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2025.01.024 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2025.01.024

Furman, A.A., & Furman, D. (2018). Ratsionalno-psykholohichni orhanizovanosti media-proiektnoi diial'nosti [Rational-psychological structures of media project activity]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 34, 234-250. https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2018.03. 234 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2018.03

Shchedrovitskiy, H.P. (2022). Zasadnychi uiavlennia ta katehoriini zasoby teorii diial'nosti [Fundamental concepts and categorical tools of activity theory]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 95-126. https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.095 [in Ukrainian].

https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2022.01.095

Shchedrovitskiy, H.P. (2013). Metodolohichne znachennia opozytsii naturalistychnoho i systemodiial'nisnoho pidkhodiv [Methodological meaning of the opposition of naturalistic and system-action approaches]. Psykholohiia i suspilstvo - Psychology and society, 1, 40-47 [in Ukrainian].

Engeström, Y. (1999). Activity theory and individual and social transformation. In Y. Engeström, R. Miettinen, & R.-L. Punamäki (Eds.), Perspectives on activity theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. P. 19-38 [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511812774.003

Engeström, Y., & Pyörälä, E. (2021). Using activity theory to transform medical work and learning. Medical teacher, 43(1), 7-13 [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1795105

Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action. (Vol. 2). Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason. Oxford: Polity Press [in English].

Habermas, J. (2000). Moral consciousness and communicative action (P. G. Dews, Trans.). Cambridge: MIT Press [in English].

Lasswell, H. (1948). The structure and function of communication in society. In L. Bryson (Ed.), The communication of ideas. New York: Harper & Brothers. P. 37-51 [in English].

Osgood, C.E. (1980). Lectures on languag performance. New York: Springer [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-87289-1

Petersen, M.B. (2020). The evolutionary psychology of mass mobilization: How disinformation and demagogues coordinate rather than manipulate. Social Change (Rallies, Riots and Revolutions), 35, 71-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.003 [in English].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.02.003

Schramm, W. (1954). How communication works. In the process and effects of mass communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. P. 3-26 [in English].

Downloads

Published

2025-09-09

How to Cite

Krylova-Grek , Yuliya. “Media in the Paradigm of the Activity Approach: Speech, Text, Communication”. Psyhology & Society, vol. 92, no. 2, Sept. 2025, pp. 89-97, https://doi.org/10.35774/pis2025.02.089.