Article

Linguistic and social aspects of internet discourse: Challenges and prospects

Tetiana Shynkar, Tetiana Levchenko
Retrieved from Volume 10, No. 1, 2025 Pages 22–31
Received
31.10.2024
Revised
10.02.2025
Accepted
21.03.2025
Views
1168

Abstract

The article examined the concept of discourse and its various typologies, which are the subject of interdisciplinary research. Special attention was paid to electronic discourse, which includes such subtypes as computer, virtual and Internet discourse. It was determined that the development of information technologies has significantly influenced the peculiarities of communication in the digital environment, contributing to the emergence of new forms of interaction, changes in speech practices and adaptation of natural language to technological conditions. Internet discourse is a key form of modern communication that combines both verbal and non-verbal elements, including emojis, graphic selections and sound phrases. The author also examined the impact of Internet communication on language styles, including the tendency to shorten statements, use abbreviations and introduce new expressive means. The role of English as a universal means of communication in the virtual space is noted, which affects the linguistic situation in Ukraine. The study has established that the digital environment contributes to the formation of new communication strategies and speech norms, which are gradually being consolidated in the language practice of users. The analysis of the texts of online communication has shown the existence of stable models of interaction that are highly contextual and expressive. It was found that agrammatism, characteristic of online communication, is not an accidental phenomenon, but functions as a means of increasing the speed and convenience of communication. The study has confirmed that online discourse plays an important role in the transformation of the modern language, influencing the norms of written and oral communication. The obtained results allow to predict further changes in the language behaviour of users of digital platforms, which are associated with the further development of technology and globalisation processes

Keywords

References

  1. AbuSa’aleek, A.O. (2015). Internet linguistics: A linguistic analysis of electronic discourse as a new variety of language. International Journal of English Linguistics, 5(1), 135-145. doi: 10.5539/ijel.v5n1p135.
  2. Bezuhla, L.R. (2021). Aposiopesis and related concepts from the point of view of linguopragmatics. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Series: Philology, 51(3), 8-11. doi: 10.32841/2409-1154.2021.51-3.2.
  3. Biletska, T., Havryliuk, O., Goian, V., & Goian, O. (2023). Sports blogging: Communicative strategies in contemporary sports discourse. Ibérica, (45), 139-161. doi: 10.17398/2340-2784.45.139.
  4. Chaban, O.S., & Bezsheiko, V.H. (n.d.). Agrammatism. Great Ukrainian Encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://vue.gov.ua/Аграматизм.
  5. Chouliaraki, L., & Fairclough, N. (2021). Discourse in late modernity: Rethinking critical discourse analysis. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. doi: 10.1515/9780748610839.
  6. Crystal, D. (2004). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139164771.
  7. Danyliuk, S. (2010). Structure of the communication process in Internet communication. Scientific Notes of Vinnytsia State Pedagogical University named after Mykhailo Kotsyubynsky. Philology Series: Collection of Scientific Papers, (12), 132-136.
  8. Domnich, O., Gudmanian, A., Shutak, O., Riabokin, N., & Shpak, O. (2023). The role of internet discourse in the development of modern linguistics and its influence on scientific research. Ad Alta: Journal of Interdisciplinary Research, 13(2), 120-124.
  9. Dynel, M. (2025). Beyond social polarisation: Memetic (de)legitimisation and quasi-legitimisation of non-fungible tokens. European Journal of Communication, 40(1), 37-54. doi: 10.1177/02673231241300903.
  10. Guadagno, R.E., Muscanell, N.L., & Gitter, S. (2023). What the fork? The impact of social norm violation on user behavior. In Persuasive Technology. 18th international conference, (pp. 82–89). Eindhoven: Springer Nature Switzerland. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-30933-5_6.
  11. He, J. (2019). Two-layer reading positions in comments on online news discourse about China. Discourse & Communication, 13(5), 473-496. doi: 10.1177/1750481319856206.
  12. Karpenko, M. Yu. (2016). Linguistic features of Internet discourse. Mova, 26, 5-11. doi: 10.18524/2307-4558.2016.26.101364.
  13. KhosraviNik, M. (2022). Digital meaning-making across content and practice in social media critical discourse studies. Critical Discourse Studies, 19(2), 119-123. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2020.1835683.
  14. Kitade, K. (2000). L2 learners’ discourse and SLA theories in CMC: Collaborative interaction in internet chat. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 143-166. doi: 10.1076/0958-8221(200004)13:2;1-D;FT143.
  15. Kluver, R. (2000). Globalization, informatization, and intercultural communication. American Communication Journal, 3(3).
  16. Korolova, A.V. (2008). Strategies and tactics of communicative behavior of interlocutors in conflict situations. Studia Linguistica, 1, 48-53.
  17. Lukashenko, N.H. (2006). Spanish-language Internet discourse: Communicative-pragmatic and linguostylistic aspects (based on forums on family relationship issues). (Doctoral dissertation, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine).
  18. Malisheva, M. (2023). Network discourse as a type of electronic discourse. Bulletin of Odesa National University. Philology, 27(2(26)), 68-74. doi: 10.18524/2307-8332.2022.2(26).274983.
  19. Marukhovskа-Kartunova, O., Marukhovskyi, O., Aleksandrova, M., Ivanova, I., & Lebedenko, N. (2023). Digital journalism and the role of social media in shaping public perception of Russian aggression in Ukraine. Amazonia Investiga, 12(69), 143-153. doi: 10.34069/AI/2023.69.09.12.
  20. McLuhan, M. (2006). Texte esentiale. Bucureşti: Editura Nemira.
  21. Radio Svoboda Ukraine. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.radiosvoboda.org/.
  22. Shkola, G., Taranik-Tkachuk, K., Pashynska, L., Kozlovska, L., & Krasnopolska, N. (2022). Dispute on the Internet: The format of discourse, linguistic technologies, modern language tactics. Amazonia Investiga, 11(49), 69-75. doi: 10.34069/AI/2022.49.01.8.
  23. Shuhaiev, A.V. (2019). Internet discourse in the global epoch of social informatization. Transcarpathian Philological Studies, 1(10), 146-151. Uzhhorod: Helvetica Publishing House.
  24. Sokol, M. (2018). Have you wondered why sportspeople die? The medical weblog as a popularization tool. Discourse, Context & Media, 25, 13-24. doi: 10.1016/j.dcm.2018.07.004.
  25. Styshov, O. (2024). Uncodified colloquial phraseological units in the present-day Ukrainian language. Logos: A Journal of Religion, Philosophy, Comparative Cultural Studies & Art, 120, 204-214. doi: 10.24101/logos.2024.61.
  26. Television News Service. (n.d.). News of Ukraine and the world today. Retrieved from https://tsn.ua/.
  27. Trachuk, L., & Kaznacheieva, L. (2023). Tools of non-verbal internet communication. Library Science. Record Studies. Informology, 19(1), 59-64. doi: 10.32461/2409-9805.1.2023.276766.
  28. Ukrainian Pravda. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.pravda.com.ua/.
  29. Ukrinform. (n.d.). Ukrainian national news agency. Retrieved from https://www.ukrinform.net/.
  30. Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.rada.gov.ua/en
  31. Zahnitko, A. (2012). Dictionary of modern linguistics: Concepts and terms. Donetsk: DonNU.
  32. Zrazhevska, N.I. (2022). Media as an instrument of media control and as a means of social compulsion. State and Regions. Series: Social Communications, 1(49), 122-129. doi: 10.32840/cpu2219-8741/2022.1(49).18.

Suggested citation

Shynkar, T., & Levchenko, T. (2025). Linguistic and social aspects of internet discourse: Challenges and prospects. Society. Document. Communication, 10(1), 22-31. https://doi.org/10.69587/sdc/1.2025.22