International Journal of Philology

English as a tool for cognitive recovery: The role of language education in rehabilitation and social integration in wartime Ukraine

Liudmyla Shanaieva-Tsymbal, Nataliia Zaitseva, Indira Renska, Dmytro Teriaiev
Download article
Abstract

The research explores how English language education serves as a vital tool for the cognitive recovery, psychological support, and social reintegration of individuals affected by war. By fostering neuroplasticity and building self-confidence, language learning significantly aids in overcoming war-related trauma. The aim of this study was to examine how English language learning can serve as a tool for cognitive rehabilitation and social reintegration, with a focus on its psychological and cognitive impacts. The research employed corpus-based analysis, component analysis, comparative analysis of English-Ukrainian terminology, contextual and discourse analysis, as well as quantitative methods for determining term frequency, density, and motivational characteristics. The results of the study showed that English language education contributes to cognitive recovery by stimulating memory, attention, executive functioning, and neuroplasticity, while also supporting emotional well-being and social inclusion. The analysis revealed that 48% of the identified terms were morphologically motivated, 22% semantically motivated, 18% borrowed or loan-translated, and 12% conventionalised or opaque. Approximately 70% of the analysed terminology demonstrated linguistic transparency, facilitating comprehension and reducing cognitive load for trauma-affected learners. The findings further indicated that 45% of English-Ukrainian term pairs exhibited full equivalence, 25% partial equivalence, and 30% neutralised equivalence. The highest density of rehabilitation-related terminology was found in research articles (29%), followed by textbooks and guides (23%) and online educational resources (21%). The findings provided evidence that transparent and semi-transparent terms support cognitive processing, emotional recovery, and social reintegration, whereas opaque terms require additional contextualisation and pedagogical support. The study proposed integrating rehabilitation-oriented English language education into post-conflict recovery programs, emphasising linguistic motivation and semantic transparency as key mechanisms of cognitive rehabilitation, emotional stabilisation, and long-term social empowerment

Keywords

war-affected individuals; digital pedagogy; neuroplasticity; inclusive education; social empowerment; post-traumatic stress disorder; rehabilitation-oriented education

Suggested citation
Shanaieva-Tsymbal, L., Zaitseva, N., Renska, I., & Teriaiev, D. (2026). English as a tool for cognitive recovery: The role of language education in rehabilitation and social integration in wartime Ukraine. International Journal of Philology, 17(2), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog/2.2026.23
References
  1. Aristotle. (1993). De anima. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Berkes, M., & Bialysto, E. (2022). Bilingualism as a contributor to cognitive reserve: What it can do and what it cannot do. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease & Other Dementias, 37. doi: 10.1177/15333175221091417.
  3. Bondarchuk, J., Khomenko, O., Vasylenko, O., & Yanchuk, O. (2024). Innovative strategies for learning English during wartime in Ukraine: Focusing on students’ motivation and preferences. Revista Romaneasca Pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 16(4), 378-399. doi: 10.18662/rrem/16.4/920.
  4. Brouwer, J., van den Berg, F., Knooihuizen, R., Loerts, H., & Keijzer, M. (2025). The effects of language learning on cognitive functioning and psychosocial well-being in cognitively healthy older adults: A semi-blind randomised controlled trial. Aging, Neuropsychology, and Cognition, 32(2), 270-306. doi: 10.1080/13825585.2024.2384107.
  5. Cap, P. (2019). Discourse studies: Between social constructionism and linguistics. A critical overview. Topics in Linguistics, 20(2). doi: 10.2478/topling-2019-0006.
  6. Fernández-Silva, S. (2019). The cognitive and communicative functions of term variation in research articles: A comparative study in psychology and geology. Applied Linguistics, 40(4), 624-645. doi: 10.1093/applin/amy004.
  7. Fernyhough, C., & Borghi, A.M. (2023). Inner speech as language process and cognitive tool. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(12), 1180-1193. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2023.08.014.
  8. Gryshchenko, O. (2024). Discourse: Knowledge, news, and fake intertwined. Philological Review, 1(23), 4-11.  doi: 10.31499/2415-8828.1.2024.306854. 
  9. Havryliuk, A. (2025). Educational reintegration of male and female veterans of the Russian-Ukrainian war in the context of socio-humanitarian transformations. International Journal of Pedagogy, Innovation and New Technologies, 9. doi: 10.32702/2307-2156.2025.9.1.
  10. Illenko, O., Tsehelska, M., & Kuznetsova, L. (2023). Teaching English in wartime: Challenges and opportunities for community building and social change: Book of convention papers. Lviv: PE “Marusych”.
  11. Komar, O. (2020). Modern methods of implementation a communicative approach in English teaching. Collection of Scientific Papers of Uman State Pedagogical University, 3, 107-114. doi: 10.31499/2307-4906.3.2020.219098.
  12. Kroll, J.F., Bobb, S.C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(3), 159-163. doi: 10.1177/0963721414528511.
  13. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (2008). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  14. Li, P., & Lan, Y.-J. (2022). Digital language learning (DLL): Insights from behavior, cognition, and the brain. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 25(3), 361-378. doi: 10.1017/S1366728921000353.
  15. Li, Y., Breithaupt, F., Hills, T., Lin, Z., Chen, Y., Siew, C.S., & Hertwig, R. (2024). How cognitive selection affects language change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 121(1), article number e2220898120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2220898120.
  16. Ness, T., Langlois, V.J., Kim, A.E., & Novick, J.M. (2025). The state of cognitive control in language processing. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 20(2), 219-240. doi: 10.1177/17456916231197122.
  17. Ortiz, J., Millan, R., & Sloan-Pena, G. (2025). Linguistic diversity and bilingualism in post-TBI cognitive recovery: Is there a cognitive reserve effect? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 40(2). doi: 10.1093/arclin/acaf084.186.
  18. Rehak, R. (2021). The language labyrinth: Constructive critique on the terminology used in the AI discourse. In P. Verdegem (Ed.), AI for everyone? London: University of Westminster Press. doi: 10.16997/book55.f.
  19. Sarnovska, N. (2022). Blended learning technology as one of the foreign language teaching methods in the conditions of education during wartime. Grail of Science,12-13, 458-462. doi: 10.36074/grail-of-science.29.04.2022.079.
  20. Sichka, V., Darragh, J.J., & Petrie, G.M. (2025) Trauma-sensitive English teaching and SEL amid war in Ukraine. ELT Journal, 80(2), 240-250. doi: 10.1093/elt/ccaf044.
  21. Vysotskyi, A.V., & Romanchuk, S.M. (2024). The main problems of modern Ukrainian cognitive linguistics: Changing the paradigm of thinking in the conditions of the Russian-Ukrainian war. Transcarpathian Philological Studies, 35, 16-20. doi: 10.32782/tps2663-4880/2024.35.2.