International Journal of Philology

Modern discourse of Internet communication: Linguistic aspect

Iryna Dudko, Nataliia Zaitseva
Download article
Abstract

The study of Internet-discourse language was caused by the necessity to examine its linguistic and stylistic features to facilitate effective information exchange within the global network, particularly in business and educational domains. The research was aimed to identify the characteristics of modern Internet-discourse language. The methodological framework was comprised with contextual-interpretative and descriptive methods based on external (logicalpsychological techniques, interlevel interpretation) and internal interpretation (paradigmatic and syntagmatic approaches employing opposition analysis), alongside distributive analysis techniques for examining the functioning of linguistic units. The study identified the influence of various factors on the formation and usage of linguistic constructions in the texts of Internetdiscourse. Key lexical features of Internet-discourse included frequent use of reduction techniques, substitution of word segments with phonetically similar numerals and replacement of double letters with symbols among others. At the syntactic level ellipsis is a productive phenomenon that facilitates the economisation of verbal effort in information exchange. Punctuation marks in the Internet communication serve to convey the emotional tone of a message; the greater repetition of identical punctuation marks, the stronger emotional intensity is conveyed. Each punctuation mark is associated with distinct emotions. In addition, the language of the Internet uses a diverse range of graphic tools (emoticons, memes, demotivators) that help to make the Internet communication successful. The results of the study enhance knowledge in the fields of communicative and applied linguistics and can also be used in lexicographical practice, in teaching relevant linguistic courses, and in developing methodological guidelines for effective computer-mediated communication

Keywords

discourse; communication; Internet-discourse; communicative Linguistics; applied Linguistics

Suggested citation
Dudko, I., & Zaitseva, N. (2024). Modern discourse of Internet communication: Linguistic aspect. International Journal of Philology, 15(3), 9-21. https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog/3.2024.09
References

[1] 4Ever Young Anti-Aging Solutions. (n.d). Retrieved from http://surl.li/gyncav.

[2] AbuSa’aleek, A. (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.

[3] Baron, N. (2003). Language of the Internet. In The Stanford handbook for language engineers (pp. 59-127). Stanford: CSLI Publications. doi: 10.57912/23845377.v1.

[4] Baron, N. (2008). Always on: Language is an online and mobile world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.001.0001.

[5] Bob’s short English lessons. Meaning of IMHO. (n.d). Retrieved from https://surl.li/dndybq.

[6] Böhmer, A., & Schwab, G. (2024). Digital teaching and learning in higher education: Culture, language, social issues. Bielefeld. doi: 10.25656/01:28429.

[7] Bongers, B. (2021). Understanding interaction: The relationships between people, technology, culture, and the environment. Evolution, technology, language and culture (Vol. 1). New York: Taylor & Francis Group. doi: 10.1201/9781315373386.

[8] Chernysh, O. (2022). Modern English-language Internet discourse. Scientific Bulletin of PNPU after K.D. Ushynsky, 34, 118-129.

[9] Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511487002.

[10] Dosenko, A. (2021). Mobile discourse of communication platforms. State and Regions. Series: Social Communications, 2(46), 112-116. doi: 10.32840/cpu2219-8741/2021.2(46).

[11] Frolova, I. (2009). The strategy of confrontation in English-language discourse. Kharkiv: Karazin Kharkiv National University.

[12] Giannoulis, E., & Wilde, L. (2019). Emoticons, “Kaomoji”, and emoji: The transformation of communication in the digital. New York: Routledge.

[13] Grimm, R., & Delfmann, P. (2017). Digital communication: Language, protocols and data formats in open networks. Berlin: De Gruyter Oldenbourg.

[14] Halynska, Yu. (2022). International business communications: Lecture notes. Sumy: Sumy State University.

[15] Hudz, N. (2013). Internet discourse as an integral part of modern communication. Bulletin of Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University, 4, 228-232.

[16] Hudz, N. (2015). Internet discourse as a new type of communication: Structure, language design, genre formats. In Modern linguistic studies: Study guide (pp. 61-87). Zhytomyr: Zhytomyr Ivan Franko State University Publishing House.

[17] Ilienko, O., & Shumeiko, L. (2021). Directions and trends of the study of political discourse in modern conditions of digitalization (linguistic and pragmatic aspects). Scientific Notes of the National University Ostroh Academy. Philology, 11(79), 72-75. doi: 10.25264/2519-2558-2021-11(79)-72-75.

[18] Izotova, N., Polishchuk, M., & Taranik-Tkachuk, K. (2021). Discourse analysis and digital technologies: (TikTok, hashtags, Instagram, YouTube): Universal and specific aspects in international practice. Amazonia Investiga, 10(44), 198-206. doi: 10.34069/AI/2021.44.08.19.

[19] Karpa, I. (2010). Functional and pragmatic characteristics of interactive virtual communication (based on the material of the information and reference service Yahoo! Answers). (PhD thesis, Kherson State University, Kherson, Ukraine).

[20] Koknova, T. (2022). Internet discourse: Definition of the concept and general characteristics (diachronic aspect). Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Philology, 57, 53-55. doi: 10.32841/2409-1154.2022.57.13.

[21] Lanchukovska, N., & Shalyov, A. (2023). Internet discourse – the linguistic aspect. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanitarian University. Philology, 60(1), 73-76. doi: 10.32841/2409-1154.2023.60.1.17.

[22] Lukashenko, N. (2006). Spanish-language Internet discourse: Communicative-pragmatic and linguistic-stylistic aspects. (PhD dissertation, Kyiv National Linguistic University, Kyiv, Ukraine).

[23] Marx, K. (2019). Internetlinguistics. Heidelberg: The University Press Winter. doi: 10.33675/2019-82537869.

[24] McWhorter, J. (n.d). Txtng is killing language. JK!!!. Retrieved from http://surl.li/qirqbl.

[25] Paul, S. (2022). Got 2 Luv U. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDq3fNew1rU.

[26] Rupprecht, W. (2014). Introduction to the theory of cognitive communication. How language, information, energy, internet, brain and mind are connected. Wiesbaden: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-658-05498-4.

[27] Serazhim, K. (2002). Discourse as a socio-linguistic phenomenon: Methodology, architecture, variability. Kyiv: Institute of Journalism.

[28] Shcherbak, O. (2016). Discourse of German-language internet news: Linguistic and rhetorical aspect. (PhD thesis, II Mechnikov Odesa National University, Odesa, Ukraine).

[29] Shevchenko, I. (Ed.) (2005). Discourse as a cognitive-communicative phenomenon. Kharkiv: Constanta.

[30] Shkvorchenko, N. (2019). Internet discourse as a linguistic category. Topical Issues of the Humanities, 23(3), 62-68. doi: 10.24919/2308-4863.3/23.166373.

[31] SSM Santa Rosa. (n.d). Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/share/p/15TBvuj7fy/.

[32] Stolyarova, M. (2005). Etiquette in virtual English-language communication (based on chatline sessions). (Doctoral dissertation, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv).

[33] Vzheshch, Ya. (2012). Internet discourse: The problem of defining the concept, features of the structure. Bulletin of Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University, 14, 15-19.

[34] Zahnitko, A. (2008). Fundamentals of discourse studies. Donetsk: DonNU.