Abstract
Among the categories of the telecom and internet frauds, the online romance scam is of particular concern for its sharp rise of victim numbers and the huge amount of cost. A social semiotic approach could be used to investigate the victim identity of the online romance scam from the aspects of the (re)construction and interpretation of discursive practices. The range of papers in this section shows that the study of text, context and the way that people use semiotic resources to produce communication, to create and manage events and to interpret them.
Funding source: National Social Science Foundation
Award Identifier / Grant number: 20ZDA062
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the major project of the National Social Science Foundation under Grant 20ZDA062.
References
Aransiola, Joshua Oyeniyi & Suraj Olalekan Asindemade. 2011. Understanding cybercrime perpetrators and the strategies they employ in Nigeria. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 14. 759–763. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2010.0307.Search in Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhaĭlovich. 1981. The dialogic imagination: Four essays. In Michael Holquist (ed.), Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.Search in Google Scholar
Berger, Peter L. & Thomas Luckmann. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.Search in Google Scholar
Bernstein, Basil. 2000. Pedagogy, symbolic control, and identity: Theory, research, critique. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Search in Google Scholar
Buchanan, Tom & Monica T. Whitty. 2014. The online dating romance scam: Causes and consequences of victimhood. Psychology, Crime and Law 20(3). 261–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2013.772180.Search in Google Scholar
Bucholtz, Mary & Kira Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7(4–5). 585–614. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407.Search in Google Scholar
Burr, Vivian. 2003. Social constructionism, 2nd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203694992Search in Google Scholar
Button, Mark, Chris Lewis & Jackie Tapley. 2009. Fraud typologies and victims of fraud. London: National Fraud Authority.Search in Google Scholar
Candlin, Christopher N. 1997. General editor’s preface. In Britt-Louise Gunnarsson, Per Linell & Bengt Norberg (eds.), The construction of professional discourse, vii–xiv. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Chandler, Daniel. 2002. Semiotics: The basics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203166277Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008. Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach. Semiotica 172(1/4). 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1515/SEMI.2008.088.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2011. A sociosemiotic interpretation of linguistic modality in legal settings. Semiotica 185(1/4). 123–146. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.036.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le & Winnie Cheng. 2012. Legal interpretation: Meaning as social construction. Semiotica 191(1/4). 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0086.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, Winnie Cheng & King Kui Sin. 2014. Revisiting legal terms: A semiotic perspective. Semiotica 202(1/4). 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2014-0051.Search in Google Scholar
Clark, Candace. 1987. Biography and sympathy margin. American Journal of Sociology 93(2). 290–321. https://doi.org/10.1086/228746.Search in Google Scholar
Cobley, Paul. 2001. The Routledge companion to semiotics and linguistics. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Cobley, Paul & Anti Randviir. 2009. Introduction: What is sociosemiotics?. Semiotica 173(1/4). 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2009.001.Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2007. The quest for meaning: A guide to semiotic theory and practice. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Search in Google Scholar
Danesi, Marcel. 2009. Explaining change in language: A cybersemiotic perspective. Entropy 11. 1055–1072. https://doi.org/10.3390/e11041055.Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul & John Heritage (eds.). 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer, Peter, Stephen E. G. Lea & Kath M. Evans. 2013. Why do individuals respond to fraudulent scam communications and lose money? The psychological determinants of scam compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 43. 2060–2072. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12158.Search in Google Scholar
Furnell, Steven. 2005. Internet threats to end-users: Hunting easy prey. Network Security 7. 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1353-4858(05)70258-0.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1978. Language as a social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1994 [1985]. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Hodge, Robert & Gunther R. Kress. 1988. Social semiotics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2000. Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Jewitt, Carey & Rumiko Oyama. 2001. Visual meaning: A socialsemiotic approach. In Theo van Leeuwen & Jewitt Carey (eds.), Handbook of visual analysis, 134–156. London: SAGE.10.4135/9780857020062.n7Search in Google Scholar
Ledin, Per & David Machin. 2016. The evolution of performance management discourse in corporate strategy diagrams for public institutions. Discourse, Context & Media 13. 122–131. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2016.05.004.Search in Google Scholar
Lee, Jinkook & Horacio Soberon-Ferrer. 1997. Consumer vulnerability to fraud: Influencing factors. Journal of Consumer Affairs 31(1). 70–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6606.1997.tb00827.x.Search in Google Scholar
Li, Jian. 2017. A sociosemiotic interpretation of legal terms: A case study on ordinary residence. Journal of Zhejiang Gongshang University 4. 59–65.Search in Google Scholar
Marshall, Jessica. 2017. The challenges posed by scammers to online support groups: The “deserving” and the “undeserving” victims of scams. In Tim Owen, Wayne Noble & Faye Christabel Speed (eds.), New perspectives on cybercrime, 213–240. Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-319-53856-3_12Search in Google Scholar
Matulewska, Aleksandra. 2013. Legilinguistic translatology: A parametric approach to legal translation. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.10.3726/978-3-0351-0535-3Search in Google Scholar
McKeller, Gordon Bruce. 1978. The place of socio-semiotics in contemporary thought. In Ross Steelle & Terry Threadgold (eds.), Language topics: Essays in honour of Michael Halliday, 523–548. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/z.lt2.81mckSearch in Google Scholar
Mumby, Dennis & Robin Clair. 1997. Organizational discourse. In Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process: Discourse studies, vol. 2. London: SAGE.10.4135/9781446289068.n14Search in Google Scholar
Randviir, Anti & Paul Cobley. 2010. Sociosemiotics. In Cobley Paul (ed.), The Routledge companion to semiotics, 118–134. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Rege, Aunshul. 2009. What’s love got to do with it? Exploring online dating scams and identity fraud. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 3. 494–512.Search in Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant & Stefan Slembrouck. 1996. Language, bureaucracy, and social control. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Titus, Richard M. & Angela R. Gover. 2001. Personal fraud: The victims and the scams. In Graham Farrell & Ken Pease (eds.), Repeat victimization: Crime prevention studies, 133–151. New York: Criminal Justice Press.Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203647028Search in Google Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2008. Understanding pragmatics. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar
Walter, Joseph B.. 1996. Computer-mediated communication impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction. Communication Research 23(1). 3–43.10.1177/009365096023001001Search in Google Scholar
Whitty, Monica T. 2018. Do you love me? Psychological characteristics of romance scam victims. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 21(2). 105–109. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2016.0729.Search in Google Scholar
Whitty, Monica T. & Tom Buchanan. 2012. The online romance scam: A serious cybercrime. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 15(3). 181–183. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2011.0352.Search in Google Scholar
Whitty, Monica T. & Tom Buchanan. 2016. The online dating romance scam: The psychological impact on victims – both financial and non-financial. Criminology and Criminal Justice 16(2). 176–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895815603773.Search in Google Scholar
Ye, Ning, Jixian Pang & Jian Li. 2014. A sociosemiotic interpretation of police interrogations. Semiotica 201(1/4). 269–280. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2014-0027.Search in Google Scholar
Ye, Ning, Le Cheng & Yun Zhao. 2019. Identity construction of suspects in telecom and internet fraud discourse: From a sociosemiotic perspective. Social Semiotics 29(3). 319–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2019.1587847.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
