Online incivility in times of Covid-19: social disunity and misperceptions of tourism industry in Poland

(27) Na tych biznesmenow turystyki czekajq wolne posady od zaraz: jakokasierkirzy w Biedronie albo Stokrotce. [For these tourism businessmen there are vacancies to take immediately: as cashiers in Biedronka or Stokrotka.] Biedronka is the largest Portuguese supermarket chain in Poland. Initially it targeted lower-income customers. In April 2004 a TV programme broadcast by TVN Uwaga revealed that its workers were not properly paid for working overtime, which started a series of court cases.

(28) W Biedronce ciagle przyjmujq kasjerow. [In Biedronka they are still employing cashiers.]

(29) Biedronki, lidle i inne markety spozywcze potrzebujq pracownikow na juz! Smialo skoro brakuje pracy to do marketow na kasy i rozkladanie towaru. Kasa bqdzie z pracy. [Biedronka and Lidl and other grocery stores need employees now. So off you go if there is not enough work go to the stores to work as cashiers or to place goods on shelves. You will have money from work.]

Alternatively, other examples of physical work are given [31] ironically mentioning “suntan” associated with this group of professionals, or using change of state verbs to trigger the presupposition that this group has not really worked so far [32]:

(30) Branza turystyczna mile widziana przy pracach polowych, opalenizna gwarantowana. [Tourism professionals are welcome to work in the fields, tan guaranteed.]

(31) Zawiesic frmq i do pracy siq wziqc. [Suspend business and start working.]

As regards the argument about exploiting the system, commenters question pleas for government help by either challenging the professionalism of tourism- related businesses [33, 34] or referring to prices as an indicator of their income [31].

(32) 3 dni wystarczylo by byly ”na skraju bankructwa"? A co to za ch... firmy?! [3 days were enough to put them “on the verge of bankruptcy”? What kind of s... companies are these?!]

(33) To w takim razie to nie biura podrozy, a piramidy finansowe, skoro chwilowy brak klientow powoduje upadek. [Then these are not travel agencies but pyramid schemes, if a temporary lack of clients leads to their demise.]

(34) Niech biura turystyczne przestanq plakac i nie prubujq naciqgnqc panstwo na kasq. Gdyby faktycznie biura byly w kryzysie to obnizalyby ceny ofert turystycznych a te sq niezmiennie wysokie. Tak dziala rynek, jest zle obniza siq ceny. Czyli kryzys to bujda ipruba wyludzenia pieniqdzy. [Travel agencies should stop crying and trying to extort money from the state. If indeed travel agencies were in crisis, they would be lowering prices and these are still high. This is how the market works, when the situation is bad, prices are lowered. So the crisis is a whopping lie and an attempt to extort money.]

In addition to the already mentioned topos of abuse other topoi are referred to in order to portray tourism industry's pleas for help as unsubstantiated. One of them is the topos of reality: the situation is as it is and one should accept it [36, 37].

(35) Och, straszne. Naprawdq nie trzeba byc wybitnym analitykiem, aby przewidziec, ze w razie epidemii, branze turystyczne bqdq mniej zarabiac lub tracic. Normalne ryzyko biznesowe. [Oh, how terrible. Really, you don't need to be an outstanding analyst to predict that in the case of epidemic tourism industry will earn less or lose money. It's the usual business risk.]

(36) To jest biznes, raz jest gorzej raz lepiej. Zawsze mozna siq przebranzowic i byc elestycznym na rynku, a nie plakac. [This is business, there are ups and downs. You can always retrain and be flexible on the market instead of crying.]

More frequently, however, the topos of uselessness and topos of finances are employed to question the need for government help, or even the raison d' кtre of such companies (34-36).

(37) taka branza jest nikomu do zycia niepotrzebna, niech idq z torbami i nie wyciqgajq lap po pieniqdze uczciwie pracujqcych [nobody needs this industry, let them go broke so that they don't hold out their hands for the money of those who work honestly.]

(38) a co mnie to obchodzi jakas branza turystyczna, to nie jetpotrzebne do przezycia. [I don't care about tourism industry, it is not necessary to survive.]

(39) Drogi rzqdzie zero pomocy dla touroperatorow rynek sobie bez nich poradzi.Wiqkszosc z nich to zwykle pasozyty zyjqce z posrednictwa nic nie wnoszqce dla naszego kraju a wrqcz przeciwnie w dobie kryzysu pomaganie im tylko oslabi gospodarkq bowiem wyprowadzi kapital za granicq. [Dear government, no help for tour operators the market will manage without them. Most of them are ordinary parasites living off intermediary services and contributing nothing to our country, to the contrary, in time of crisis helping them will only weaken the economy as it will take the capital abroad.]

The topos of threat, acting as a strong trigger of emotional proximization can also be found in the comments. Tourism is presented as the cause of the current pandemic, which has two consequences. One of them is anger addressed at the perceived culprit. Secondly, what follows logically is that in order to avert (the continuity of) the threat, one has to eliminate the factors causing it, namely tourism- related activities [41-44].

(40) A to nie przez turystykq tak siq wirus rozprzestrzenil po ziemi? [And isn't it because of tourism that the virus spread all over the globe?]

(41) Turystyka to glowna przyczyna tak szybkiej ekspansji wirusa, dlatego juz w styczniu powinna byc zablokowana, ale chciwe rzqdy panstw w obawie przed spadkiem dochodow nic nie robily, a teraz doprowadzili do duzo wiqkszych strat - ciekawe tylko kto za to odpowie po zakonczeniu epidemii!!! Nieodpowiedzialne w obliczu zagrozenia [Tourism is the main cause of such a rapid spread of the virus so it should have been blocked already in January, but greedy governments afraid of losing their income did nothing and now brought about more serious losses - I'm wondering who will be held responsible for it after the epidemic is over!!! It's irresponsible in view of the threat.]

(42) Jak siq zastanowic, to za tempo i skalq obecnej epidemii odpowiadajq glownie ludzie, ktorzy nie mogq usiedziec na miejscu, nawet kilka razy w roku muszq siq poniewierac w jakichs zagranicznych zbiorowych noclegowniach - hotelach, pensjonatach, kurortach narciarskich. Zaliczac obiekty turystyczne macane przez miliony turystow, brudne zaulki, plaze, targowiska. [If you think about it, the pace and scale of the current epidemic has been due to people who can't sit in one place, who even a few times a year have to roam around and stay in some shared accommodation abroad - hotels, guesthouses, ski resorts. Visit tourist attractions touched by millions of tourists, dirty places, beaches, marketplaces...]

(43) turystyka w dobie epidemi nie ma szans przetrwania pod rzadnym pozorem to przez wasza dzialalnosc tyle teraz mamy syfu w Polsce bo zawsze ryzykowaliscie i graliscie zyciem ludzkim w celu uzyskania korzysci majqtkowych tak bylo zawsze ze wysylaliscie ludzi w rejony gdzie bylo zagrozenie tereorystyczne kiedys teraz epidemiologiczne i przywlekliscie syfa do Polski. [tourism in time of pandemic has no chance to survive under any circumstances it is because of your activity that we have so much virus shit in Poland because you have always risked people's lives in order to gain financial benefits it has always been like that you sent people to the regions with a terrorist threat in the past now epidemiological threat bringing this virus shit to Poland.]

Finally, the topos of advantage is also used to underline benefits of halting tourism, understood as sending people abroad, for “us” and “our” country. It is used together with the topos of finances [47, 48] but one can also notice national pride undertones [45, 46]. The latter also indicates that tourism is, by some commenters at least, associated only with sending people abroad.

(44) Moze ludzie w koncu doceniq piqkno polski. [Maybe people will finally appreciate the beauty of Poland.]

(45) Polska jest piqkna.Trzeba Polskq zwiedzic. [Poland is beautiful. You should visit Poland.]

(46) Ekonomicznie to jest pozytywne dla nas wiqcej pieniqdzy tak potrzebnych tu na inwestycje zostanie w kraju. [Economically this is good for us more money necessary for investment here will remain in the country.]

(47) skonczy sie wywozenie przez lemingow ciezko wypracowanych przez zwyklych skoncza sie zagraniczne wojaze lemingow. [lemmings will no longer take abroad the money earned by ordinary people, lemmings will no longer travel abroad.]

Example [48], with its animal metaphor tourists are lemmings, is important from the point of view of axiological proximization and what we might call “socially disuniting potential”. The term lemingi (`lemmings') comes from rodents which according to a longstanding myth are driven to commit mass suicide. A video game titled “Lemmings” released in 1991, in which the player must save such creatures, further popularized the myth. According to Biesaga (2017) the word was first used with reference to people in 2007, while Janicki and Wladyka (2012) point to 2008 when Internet users with right-wing political views used it with reference to career-oriented individuals with a university degree, a consumerist lifestyle and liberal political views. Even though Lazinski (2012) does not consider the metaphor offensive, it has usually served to express irony and criticism. In one of his articles published in a conservative monthly, Uwazam Rze, Mazurek (2012) lists a number of attributes associated with “lemmings”, including using Facebook and TVN24 (channel of a private broadcaster with liberal ideology) as their main source of knowledge, criticism of conservative values represented by their parents and grandparents, a general consumerist attitude, and “showing off'. Again, we have here an opposition between “real”, traditional Poles spending their holidays in their own country and “lemmings” fascinated with Western culture and lifestyle and spending “Polish” money abroad while enjoying expensive holidays that the “real” Poles cannot afford. With the polarization of society into PiS (Law and Justice) and PO (Civic Platform) supporters, “lemmings” have been associated with the latter. So have “wealthy” professionals from the tourism industry.

Such an association is visible in other comments [49-53]:

(48) niech idq do PO-pewnie im da. [They should go to PO which will surely give them the money.]

(49) Kolobrzeg to ostoja totalnej opozycji. Jeszcze nie ma sezonu a im juz malo. Niech wystpujq o pomoc do Tuska i Brukseli. To ich bogowie. [Kolobrzeg is the refuge of total opposition. They should ask Tusk and Brussels for help. These are their gods.]

(50) Te beszczelne typy z POskomuny niech uzyjq swoje milionowe nielegalne tzw. oszczqdnosci a nie znowu z lapami po cudze. [These POstcommunist impertinent guys should use their illegal so-called savings worth millions instead of holding out for someone else's money.]

(51) Wygracie wybory to bedziecie sobie wyplacac mieliscie juz swoich Boossow z Wybrzeza: Walesa, Tusk ,Dulkiewicz czy jak jej tam ktorzy sprzedali wasze stocznie ,waszprzemysl ,nawet wodociagi i scieki niemcom.

[Once you win elections you will get the money, you have already had your bosses from the Coast: Walesa, Tusk, Dulkiewicz or whatever she's called who sold your shipyards, your industry, even water pipes and sewage to Germans.]

(52) Upadajcie. Papa. PS. Niech Wam POpomoze. [Go bankrupt. Bye-bye. PS. PO should help you.]

As can be seen in the above comments, the tourism industry representatives are referred to as “postcommunists”. Often a play on words is used to combine both the name of the party (Civic Platform - PO) and “postcommunists” with reference to this group. As argued by Klosinska and Rusinek (2019: 206-207), in the rhetoric of “good change” the term has a polarizing and accusatory function. “Postcommunists” arguably intend to destroy everything that the Law and Justice party along with their “good change” programme want to implement, according to their principles, to cherish Polish national tradition and to create a political system which will guarantee dignity and stable existence for Polish citizens. Placed in opposition to this programme, the tourism industry is seen as not catering for the needs of ordinary Poles and offering services many of these Poles cannot afford.

Discussion and conclusions

The Covid-19 pandemic has had a significant impact not only on public health but also on the global economy, along with many aspects of social life. The tourism industry has been hit hard by coronavirus lockdowns and travel restrictions, finding itself on the brink of unprecedented crisis. The objective behind the present article has been to examine the public response to calls for government financial help coming from that sector in Poland. To this end we have focused on online discourses revolving around the crisis in the tourism industry, working on the assumption that they will both reflect people's perceptions of professionals working in it and co-construct the crisis within collective consciousness. While limited in its scope, the analysis has provided some interesting insights as regards perceptions of tourism itself, the role of this branch in the country's economy as well as stereotypical representations of those who work in it.

Public online response to pleas for help coming from tourism professionals has been overwhelmingly hostile and negative, which, as we have argued, can be attributed to three factors, namely perceptions of how tourism-related businesses work, sociocultural factors including emotionality patterns characteristic for Polish people, and “the techno-discursive design” of the online media. The analysis of data clearly demonstrates that public understanding of industry dynamics is far from comprehensive. Referring to tour guides, travel agencies and hotel owners as well as bar owners at the Polish seaside selling fish and chips, commenters base their generalizations on personal experience. Even though in 2019 the Polish tourism industry was said to contribute 6% to GDP and provide employment for over 700 000 people, it is by many commenters assessed negatively and seen as “parasitic” on Polish society. The fact that prices in tourism-related services (especially those concerning outbound tourism) are high has two consequences when it comes to perceptions of this sector. Firstly, it is a simplification (visible in the comments) that high prices of services translate into high income for those who provide these services. Examples of expensive cars and other luxurious goods given by commenters to illustrate this claim act as epistemic and axiological proximization triggers, and so do other stereotypical representations associated with the industry. Secondly, this fact leads to anger and envy on the part of those who cannot afford such services. Why should the existence of the sector they cannot benefit from be justified? Furthermore, the work of the tourist industry professionals is considered neither hard nor particularly skilled, as at first glance it is not associated with physical labour seen as an indicator of hard work. While trips abroad are frequently part and parcel of a tourism professionals' job, they are seen by others as holiday-time activities. We thus see a discursively constructed opposition between hard physical labour and something which is stereotypically perceived as an enjoyable way of spending time, often in distant exotic places. Finally, there is a stereotype rooted in the Polish collective mentality that financial success is often the result of fraudulent and unfair practices involving the exploitation of others or, at least, of the system (the topos of abuse).

Socio-political polarization, creating a conducive environment for incivility, also clearly reverberates in the online discourses we studied. “Us” vs “them”, with a dividing line along political affiliations, encompasses various groups and individuals. We thus have opposition and tensions between “the elites” and the rest of society that includes “ordinary Poles”. It is the latter that are associated with Polish values, tradition, and often also with hard physical labour. Tourism industry professionals are considered to both belong to, and cater for the former group. While such an opposition is not only reflected in various public discourses, including those we studied (constituted nature of discourse), it is also discursively constructed, amplified and perpetuated by political, mainstream and social media discourses, and thus likely to affect the perceptions of society members (constitutive nature of discourse). As demonstrated in research on other situations involving physical or symbolic threats as well as scarcity of resources, the tendency to create in- and out-groups is naturally enhanced (see Larina et al. 2019). The “Other” that is either demonized or denigrated evokes anger along with other negative emotions (see Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2020). We have to remember that tourism industry professionals are just one of many other groups in Poland targeted by discourses of hostility during the time of pandemic-triggered crisis (including healthcare workers and police officers).

The “techno-discursive design” of the online media enables, facilitates and amplifies both polarization and incivility (see Khosravi Nik 2017b, 2018, Kopytowska forthcoming). Connectivity and interactivity enabled by the Internet have made it possible for people to satisfy their “compulsion for proximity”, which has become particularly relevant in a time of lockdowns and social distancing, when online interactions compensate for the lack of offline contact. At the same time, however, cyberspace has become the platform where people have the opportunity to alleviate frustrations arising from feelings of threat and insecurity. This platform has also made it possible for people with similar fears and “axiological preferences” to connect (spatio-temporal proximization) and further enhance and perpetuate their judgements and emotions (axiological and emotional proximization) (Kopytowska 2017, forthcoming). As already mentioned, strong emotions of anger and disgust (Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk 2017c) make people more likely to resort to stereotypical thinking. So does lack of accountability resulting from anonymity. Not surprisingly, then, we find in our data stereotypes and simplistic judgements, frequently leading to sweeping generalizations. Anonymity, enhancing stronger ingroup identity has also contributed to greater polarization and, in consequence, incivility towards others.

As we have argued, with its potential to transgress time and space boundaries, the Internet has in important ways transformed travel practices, as well as perceptions of places and “others”. Despite many positive implications of this transformation process, including social media activism intended to support the tourism industry in diverse ways, it has also meant creating a conducive environment for the spread of both harmful stereotypes concerning various elements of this industry and incivility targeting groups and individuals. Representational and interpersonal dimensions of proximization have thus meant providing us, media users, with opportunities for co-constructing social reality, involving both solidarity and disunity dynamics. They have also considerably transformed “the tourist gaze” taking it to a new mediated level.

cyberspace covid tourism pandemic

References

1. Baider, Fabienne & Monika Kopytowska. 2017. Conceptualising the Other: Online discourses on the current refugee crisis in Cyprus and in Poland. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13 (2). 203-233.

2. Beauregard, Guy. 1999. Travelling Stereotypes: “The Japanese Tourist” in Canada. Journal of Transnational & Crosscultural Studies 7 (1). 79-95.

3. Berger, Peter & Thomas Luckmann.1991 [1966]. The social construction of reality. A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. London: Penguin Books.

4. Biesaga, Monika. 2016. Drugie zycie leminga we wspolczesnej polszczyznie. Polonica XXXVI (36). 43-54.

5. Boden, Deirdre & Harvey L. Molotch. 1994. The compulsion of proximity. In Roger Friedland & Deirdre Boden (eds.), Now Here: Space, time, and modernity, 257-286. Berkeley: University of California Press.

6. Cap, Piotr. 2006. Legitimisation in political discourse: a cross-disciplinary perspective on the modern US war rhetoric. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Press.

7. Cap, Piotr. 2008. Towards the proximization model of the analysis of legitimization in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40. 17-41.

8. Cap, Piotr. 2010. Axiological aspects of proximization. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 392-407.

9. Cap, Piotr. 2013. Proximization: the pragmatics of symbolic distance crossing. Amsterdam: Benjamins.

10. Cap, Piotr. 2017. The Language of Fear: Communicating Threat in Public Discourse. London and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

11. Cap, Piotr. 2018a. “We don't want any immigrants or terrorists here”: The linguistic manufacturing of xenophobia in the post-2015 Poland. Discourse & Society 29 (4). 380398.

12. Cap, Piotr. 2018b. From “cultural unbelonging” to “terrorist risk”: communicating threat in the Polish anti-immigration discourse. Critical Discourse Studies 15 (3). 285-302.

13. Chilton, Paul. 2004. Analysing political discourse: theory and practice. London: Routledge.

14. Chilton, Paul. 2005. Discourse Space Theory: geometry, brain and shifting viewpoints. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 3. 78-116.

15. Chilton, Paul. 2010. From mind to grammar: coordinate systems, prepositions, constructions. In Vyvyan Evans & P. Chilton (eds.), Language, Cognition and space: the state of the art and new directions, 499-514. London: Equinox.

16. Chilton, Paul. 2014. Language, space and mind: the conceptual geometry of linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

17. Dube Kaitano, Godwell Nhamo & David Chikodzi. 2020. COVID-19 cripples global restaurant and hospitality industry. Current Issues in Tourism. DOI: 10.1080/13683500.2020.1773416

18. Duckitt, John. 2006. Differential effects of right wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation on outgroup attitudes and their mediation by threat from and competitiveness to outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32. 684-696.

19. Fairclough, Norman & Ruth Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction, 14-31. London: Sage.

20. Feifer, Maxine. 1985. Going Places. London: Macmillan.

21. Gursoy, Dogan & Christina G. Chi. 2020. Effects of COVID-19 Pandemic on Hospitality Industry: Review of the Current Situations and a Research Agenda. Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management 29 (5). 527-29. DOI: 10.1080/19368623.2020.1788231

22. Halpern, Daniel & Jennifer Gibbs. 2013. Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior 29 (3). 1159-1168.

23. Hammett, Daniel. 2014. Tourism Images and British Media Representations of South Africa. Tourism Geographies 16 (2). 221-36. Hardaker, Claire & Mark McGlashan 2015. `Real men don't hate women': Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics 91. 81-93.

24. Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and cognitive science: new perspectives on immigration discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave.

25. Hepp, Andreas. 2013. Cultures of mediatization. Cambridge: Polity Press.

26. Hutchby, Ian. 2001. Technolgies, texts, and affordances. Sociology 35 (2). 441-456.

27. Janicki, Mariusz & Wieslaw Wladyka. 2012. Strategia leminga. www.polityka.pl Retrieved from: https://www.polityka.pl/tygodnikpolityka/kraj/1528687,1,kim-jest-polityczny-leming.read

28. Jun, Jungmi & Kyeung Mi Oh. 2015. Framing Risks and Benefits of Medical Tourism: A Content Analysis of Medical Tourism Coverage in Korean American Community Newspapers. Journal of Health Communication 20 (6). 720-27. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018574

29. KhosraviNik, Majid. 2014. Critical discourse analysis, power and new media discourse. In Yusuf Kalyango & Monika Kopytowska (eds.), Why Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World, 287-306. New York: Peter Lang.

30. KhosraviNik, Majid. 2017a. Right wing populism in the West: Social Media Discourse and Echo Chambers. Insight Turkey 19 (3). 53-68.

31. KhosraviNik, Majid. 2017b. Social Media Critical Discourse Studies (SM-CDS).” In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.), Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis, 583-596. London: Routledge.

32. KhosraviNik, Majid. 2018. Social Media Techno-Discursive Design, Affective Communication and Contemporary Politics. Fudan Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences 11. 427-442.

33. KhosraviNik, Majid & Johann Unger. 2016. Critical discourse studies and social media: Power, resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyers (eds.), Methods of critical discourse studies, 3rd ed, 205-233. London: Sage.

34. KhosraviNik Majid & Eleonora Esposito. 2018. Online hate, digital discourse and critique: Exploring digitally-mediated discursive practices of gender-based hostility. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 14 (1). 45-58.

35. Kilgarriff, Adam, Vit Baisa, Jan Busta, Milos Jakubicek, Vojtech Kovar, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychly & Vit Suchomel. 2014. The Sketch Engine: ten years on. Lexicography 1 (1). 7-36.

36. Klosinska, Katarzyna & Michal Rusinek. 2019. Dobra zmiana, czyli jak rzqdzi siq swiatem za pomocq slow. Krakow: Wydawnictwo Znak.

37. Kopytowska, Monika. 2013. Blogging as the mediatization of politics and a new form of social interaction - a case study of Polish and British political blogs. In Piotr Cap & Urszula Okulska (eds.), Analyzing Genres in Political Communication, 379-421. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

38. Kopytowska, Monika. 2014. Pictures in our heads: Crisis, conflict, and drama. In Yusuf Kalyango & Monika Kopytowska (eds.), Why Discourse Matters: Negotiating Identity in the Mediatized World, 89-109. New York: Peter Lang.

39. Kopytowska, Monika. 2015a. Mediating identity, ideology and values in the public sphere: Towards a new model of (constructed) social reality. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 11 (2). 133-156. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/lpp-2015-0008

40. Kopytowska, Monika. 2015b. Ideology of `here' and `now'. Critical Discourse Studies 12 (3). 347-365.

41. Kopytowska, Monika. 2015c. Covering conflict: between universality and cultural specificity in news discourse genre and journalistic style. International Review of Pragmatics (Special Issue on Communicative styles and genres: between universality and culture- specificity) 7. 308-339.

42. Kopytowska, Monika. 2017. Introduction: Discourses of Hate and Radicalism in Action. In Monika Kopytowska (ed.), Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres, 1-12. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

43. Kopytowska, Monika. 2018a. The televisualization of ritual: spirituality, spatiality and copresence in religious broadcasting. In Paul Chilton & Monika Kopytowska (eds.), Religion, Language and Human Mind, 437-473. New York: Oxford University Press.

44. Kopytowska, Monika. 2018b. Culture, Mediated Experience and the Semiotics of Distance. In Artur Galkowski & Monika Kopytowska (eds.), Current Perspectives in Semiotics: Signs, Signification and Communication, 221-234. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

45. Kopytowska, Monika. Forthcoming. “Proximization, prosumption and salience in digital discourse: on the interface of social media communicative dynamics and the spread of populist ideologies.” [Special Issue on Social Media Critical Discourse Studies]. Critical Discourse Studies.

46. Kopytowska, Monika, Julita Wozniak & Lukasz Grabowski. 2017. “From `patriotism' to hate: axiological urgency in online comments related to refugees”. In Stavros Assimakopoulos, Fabienne H. Baider & Sharon Millar (eds.), Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse- Analytic Perspective, 42-51. Berlin: Springer.

47. Kopytowska, Monika, Lukasz Grabowski & Julita Wozniak. 2017. “Mobilizing against the Other: Cyberhate, refugee crisis and proximization”. In Monika Kopytowska (ed.), Contemporary Discourses of Hate and Radicalism across Space and Genres, 57-97.

48. Lapointe, Dominic. 2020. Reconnecting Tourism after COVID-19: The Paradox of Alterity in Tourism Areas. Tourism Geographies 22 (3). 633-38. DOI: 10.1080/14616688.2020.1762115.

49. Larina, Tatiana, Vladimir Ozyumenko & Douglas Mark Ponton. 2019. Persuasion strategies in media discourse about Russia: Linguistic ambiguity and uncertainty. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 15 (1). 3-22.

50. Lea, Martin & Russel Spears. 1991. Computer-mediated communication, de-individuation and group decision-making. International Journal of Man Machine Studies 34. 283-301.

51. Lenzen, Manfred, Mengyu Li, Arunima Malik, Francesco Pomponi, Ya-Yen Sun, Thomas Wiedmann & Futu Faturay. 2020. Global Socio-Economic Losses and Environmental Gains from the Coronavirus Pandemic. PLoS ONE 15 (7). 1-13.

52. Lew, Alan A., Joseph M. Cheer, Michael Haywood, Patrick Brouder & Noel B. Salazar. 2020. Visions of travel and tourism after the global COVID-19 transformation of 2020. Tourism Geographies 22(3). 455-466.

53. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2013. Online Interconnectivity and Negative Emotion Patterning. Sociedad de la Informacion 44. 76-109.

54. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2015. Emergent group identity construal in online discussions: A linguistic perspective. In F. Zeller, C. Ponte & B. O'Neill (eds.), Revitalising Audience Research: Innovations in European Audience Research, 80-105. New York: Routledge.

55. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2017a. Identity, Emotions and Cultural Differences in English and Polish Online Comments. International Journal of Language and Culture 4 (1). 47-71.

56. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2017b. Conflict Radicalization and Emotions in English and Polish Online Discourses on Immigration and Refugees. In Stephen Croucher, Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & Paul A. Wilson (eds.), Conflict, Mediated Message and Group Dynamics: Intersections of Communication, 1-24. USA: Rowman & Littlefield.

57. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2017c. Incivility and confrontation in online conflict discourses. Lodz Papers in Pragmatics 13 (2). 347-367.

58. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara. 2020. Culture-driven emotional profiles and online discourse extremism. Pragmatics and Society 11 (2). 262-291.

59. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara & Paul A. Wilson. 2013. English Fear and Polish Strach in Contrast: GRID Approach and Cognitive Corpus Linguistic Methodology. In Jimmy Fontaine, Klaus R. Scherer & Cristina Soriano (eds.), Components of Emotional Meaning: A Sourcebook, 425-436. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

60. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara & Paul A. Wilson. 2014. Self-conscious Emotions in Collectivistic and Individualistic Cultures: A Contrastive Linguistic Perspective. In Jesus Romero-Trillo (ed.), Yearbook of Corpus Linguistics and Pragmatics vol. 2: New Empirical and Theoretical Paradigms, 123-148. Berlin: Springer.

61. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Barbara & Paul A. Wilson. 2016. Physical and Moral Disgust with Socially Believable Behaving Systems in Different Cultures. In Anna Esposito & Lakhmi C. Jain (eds.), Toward Robotic Socially Believable Behaving Systems, Volume I - Modelling of Emotions, 105-132. Cham: Springer.

62. Mazurek, Robert. 2012. Alfabet leminga. uwazamrze.pl Murti, Desideria C. W. 2020. Gaze the Struggle of Others: The Representations of Rural Places and People of Indonesia in Tourism Media for Australian Tourists. Journal of Communication Inquiry 44 (3). 231-55.

63. Musolff, Andreas. 2014. Metaphorical parasites and “parasitic” metaphors: Semantic exchanges between political and scientific vocabularies. Journal of Language and Politics 13 (2). 218-233

64. O'Regan, Michael, Jaeyeon Choe & Michael Di Giovine. 2019. Reframing and Reconceptualising Gambling Tourism in Macau as a Chinese Pilgrimage. Tourism Geographies 21 (3). 508-28.

65. Pasquinelli, Cecilia & Mariapina Trunfio. 2020. Overtouristified Cities: An Online News Media Narrative Analysis. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 28 (11). 1805-1824. DOI: 10.1080/09669582.2020.1760871.

66. Postmes, Tom, Russel Spears & Martin Lea. 2002. Intergroup differentiation in computermediated communication: Effects of depersonalization. Group Dynamics 6 (1). 3-16.

67. Reisigl, Martin & Ruth Wodak. 2001. Discourse and discrimination. London: Routledge.

68. Santana, Arthur D. 2014. Virtuous or Vitriolic. Journalism Practice 8 (1). 18-33.

69. Searle, John. 1995. The construction of social reality. London: The Penguin.

70. Searle, John. 2006. Social ontology: some basic principles. Anthropological Theory 6 (1). 12-29.

71. Searle, John. 2010. Making the social world: the structure of human civilization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

72. Shakeela, Aishath & David Weaver. 2014. The Exploratory Social-Mediatized Gaze: Reactions of Virtual Tourists to an Inflammatory YouTube Incident. Journal of Travel Research 55 (1). 113-124.

73. Tadic, Bosljka, Vladimir, Gligorijevic, Marija Mitrovic & Milovan Suvakov. 2013. Co-evolutionary mechanisms of emotional bursts in online social dynamics and networks. Entropy 15. 5084-5120.

74. Tetlock, Philip E. 1983. Accountability and judgment processes in a personality prediction task. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 45 (1). 74-83.

75. Tice, Dianne M., Ellen Bratslavsky & Roy F. Baumeister. 2001. Emotional distress regulation takes precedence over impulse control. Personality and Social Psychology 80 (1). 53-67.

76. Tomassini, Lucia & Elena Cavagnaro. 2020. The Novel Spaces and Power-Geometries in Tourism and Hospitality after 2020 Will Belong to the `Local.' Tourism Geographies 22(3). 713-19.

77. Urry, John. 1990. The Tourist Gaze. London: Sage.

78. Urry, John. 1995. Consuming places. London: Routledge.

79. Urry, John. 2002. Mobility and proximity. Sociology 36 (2). 255-274.

80. Wen, Jun, Joshua Aston, Xinyi Liu & Tianyu Ying. 2020. Effects of Misleading Media Coverage on Public Health Crisis: A Case of the 2019 Novel Coronavirus Outbreak in China. Anatolia: An International Journal of Tourism & Hospitality Research 31 (2). 331-336. DOI: 10.1080/13032917.2020.1730621 Zhang, Yunpeng & Fang Xu. 2020. Ignorance, Orientalism and Sinophobia in Knowledge Production on COVID-19. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie (Journal of Economic & Social Geography) 111 (3). 211-223. doi: 10.1111/tesg.12441 Zhao, Zhao, Minmin Zhu & Xiaofei Hao. 2018. Share the Gaze: Representation of Destination Image on the Chinese Social Platform WeChat Moments. Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing 35 (6). 726-739.

Appendix 1

Размещено на Allbest.ru