UDC

[81’27:004.357](045)

DOI

10.37482/2687-1505-V499

Authors

e-mail: irinakuznetsova231223@mail.ru, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0443-4685

Abstract

The dynamics of modern technologies leads to the creation of new multimedia means of communication, especially on the Internet. The relevance of this study lies in exploring Internet communication as a new form of communication, characterized by a high degree of digitalization and having a profound impact on language. The purpose of this article was to identify and analyse the frequency of use of new linguosemiotic means of Internet communication. The research is based on the works and concepts of semiotics, Internet linguistics, media linguistics, pragmatics, communication theory, cognitive linguistics and sociolinguistics. The methods used include observation, content analysis, experiment in the form of a sociolinguistic questionnaire, and interpretive analysis. The author systematizes hybrid verbal (written and oral) and non-verbal (graphic, audial, musical) means found at different semiotic levels of the Internet language. The results of the study demonstrate that the Internet language is not just a hybrid between the oral and the written forms, but a new form of language that develops according to its own laws and produces its own creative genres. Based on a content analysis of 1500 online messages and a survey of 20 5 users, it was found that digital communication is actively selecting and creating semiotic signs that combine emotionality, interactivity, attractiveness and personalization. The dominance of visual and auditory elements is accompanied by the adaptation of textual and game formats to new algorithms. The increased use of multicode symbols is driven by the need to compress information and accelerate its transmission. The identified trends allow us to single out Internet language as a new semiotic system. This paper contributes to Internet linguistics, cognitive linguistics and media linguistics by expanding our understanding of linguistic processes on the Internet. The analysis of the linguistic features of Internet communication, including specific vocabulary, grammatical structures, spelling and symbols (emoticons, smileys, emoji, etc.), contributes to a better understanding and use of the Internet language for scientific and practical purposes. At the same time, it is important to draw attention to the problem of poor use of language as well as to control the Internet language, which calls for new research approaches.

Keywords

Internet language, semiotic system, cognitive processes, linguocognitive means, language use, sociolinguistic experiment

References

1. Goroshko E.I. Internet-zhanr i funktsionirovanie yazyka v Internete: popytka refleksii [Internet Genre and Functioning of Language on the Internet: An Attempt at Reflection]. Zhanry rechi: sbornik nauchnykh statey. Vyp. 6. Zhanr i yazyk [Speech Genres: Collected Papers. Iss. 6. Genre and Language]. Saratov, 2009, pp. 111–127.
2. Ryabtseva N.K. Otlichitel’nye osobennosti internet-kommunikatsii v metalingvisticheskom i prikladnom aspekte [Internet Communication and Its Essential Distinctions: A Metalinguistic and Applied Perspective]. Lingvistika i metodika prepodavaniya inostrannykh yazykov [Linguistics and Methods for Teaching Foreign Languages]. Iss. 9. Moscow, 2017, pp. 387–429. Available at: https://iling-ran.ru/library/sborniki/for_lang/2017_09/14.pdf (accessed: 26 October 2019).
3. Kolokol’tseva T.N., Lutovinova O.V. (eds.). Internet-kommunikatsiya kak novaya rechevaya formatsiya [Internet Communication as a New Speech Formation]. Moscow, 2018. 328 p.
4. Akhrenova N.A. Internet-lingvistika: dominantnyy podkhod [Internet Linguistics: A Dominant Approach]. Moscow, 2022. 178 p.
5. Crystal D. Language and the Internet. Cambridge, 2001. 272 p.
6. Crystal D. Txtng: The Gr8 Db8. Oxford, 2008. 239 p.
7. Bolter J.D. Writing Space: Computers, Hypertext, and the Remediation of Print. London, 2001. 248 p. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781410600110
8. Bolter J.D. Examining and Changing the World of Media. Utz R., Johnson V.B., Denton T. (eds.). Humanistic Perspectives in a Technological World. Atlanta, 2014, pp. 37–39.
9. Kress G. Multimodality: A Social Semiotic Approach to Contemporary Communication. London, 2010. 212 p.
10. Kress G., van Leeuwen T. Reading Images: The Grammar of Visual Design. London, 2020. 310 p.
11. Brier S. Cybersemiotics: Why Information Is Not Enough. Toronto, 2008. 544 p. https://doi.org/10.3138/9781442687813
12. Brier S. Cybersemiotics: A New Foundation for Transdisciplinary Theory of Information, Cognition, Meaningful Communication and the Interaction Between Nature and Culture. Integr. Rev., 2013, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 220–263. Available at: https://integral-review.org/issues/vol_9_no_2_brier_cybersemiotics.pdf (accessed: 5 June 2025).
13. Manovich L. The Language of New Media. Cambridge, 2001. 354 p.
14. Lotman Yu.M. Semiosfera [Semiosphere]. St. Petersburg, 2000. 704 p.
15. Rolgayzer A.A. Internet Comments to French Political News: Linguapragmatic Features. Virtual Commun. Soc. Netw., 2022, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 136–142 (in Russ.). https://doi.org/10.21603/2782-4799-2022-1-3-136-142
16. Son L.P. Yazyk internet-kommunikatsii: vtorichnyy glottogenez i formirovanie novoy simvoliko-semioticheskoy sistemy [The Language of Internet Communication: Secondary Glottogenesis and the Formation of a New SymbolicSemiotic System]. Organizatsionnaya psikholingvistika, 2023, no. 3, pp. 67–79. Available at: https://psycholinguistic. ru/arhiv/2023%E2%84%963(23).pdf (accessed: 5 June 2025).
17. Shaev Yu.M. Semiotika smysla v virtual’nom prostranstve i sovremennye informatsionnye tekhnologii [Semiotic of Sense in the Virtual Space and Modern Information Technologies]. Sovremennye problemy nauki i obrazovaniya, 2012, no. 6. Available at: https://science-education.ru/ru/article/view?id=7797 (accessed: 5 June 2025).
18. Galantucci B. Experimental Semiotics: A New Approach for Studying Communication as a Form of Joint Action. Top Cogn. Sci., 2009, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 393–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1756-8765.2009.01027.x
19. Delliponti A.D., Raia R., Sanguedolce G., Gutowski A., Pleyer M., Sibierska M., Placiński M., Żywiczyński P., Wacewicz S. Experimental Semiotics: A Systematic Categorization of Experimental Studies on the Bootstrapping of Communication Systems. Biosemiotics, 2023, vol. 16, pp. 291–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12304-023-09534-x
20. Baudrillard J. Simulacres et Simulation. Paris, 1981. 235 p. (Russ. ed.: Bodriyyar Zh. Simulyakry i simulyatsii. Moscow, 2018. 318 p.).
21. Leone M. The Semiotics of the Face in Digital Dating: A Research Direction. Digit. Age Semiot. Commun., 2019, vol. 2, pp. 18–40. https://doi.org/10.33919/dasc.19.2.2
22. Marino G. Cultures of the (Masked) Face. Sign Syst. Stud., 2021, vol. 49, no. 3-4, pp. 318–337. https://doi.org/10.12697/SSS.2021.49.3-4.04
23. Gonçalves K., Erba F., Semadeni F., Demircan H. Ephemeral, Mobile, and Multilingual Signs in Public Space: A Pedagogic Case Study of Stickers. Gorter D., Cenoz J. (eds.). The Handbook of Linguistic Landscapes and Multilingualism. Newark, 2025, pp. 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781394231805.ch35