Linguistic Specificity of English-Language Communicative Practices in Social Media and Messaging Platforms

Introduction. The relevance of this study stems from linguistics' interest in describing the functional varieties of discourse, particularly the communicative practices of modern English, shaped by the situational-regime parameter of discourse.

Methodology and sources. The study is based on an interdisciplinary approach integrating qualitative linguistic methods, particularly the interpretive method, as well as social network theories, the diffusion of innovations, and speech community theory. The empirical analysis draws on data from a subcorpus of electronic communication texts, part of the British National Corpus (BNC2014), comprising approximately 5 million words.

Results and discussion. It has been established that digital communication is characterized by its own discursive norms that determine the communicative behavior of its participants. The specific nature of digital communicative practices is determined by the need for original information presentation and the formation of sociolinguistic identity in virtual communicative communities, which are expressed through linguistic innovations reflecting the substantive-formal, tonal-pragmatic, and genre-stylistic characteristics of digitally mediated communication. Neologisms, register and style switching, violations of spelling, grammar, and stylistic norms, as well as the active use of multimodal resources, including emojis, memes, and GIFs, serve as means of phatic communication and serve a primarily entertaining function, serve as markers of sociolinguistic identity and originality. It is concluded that digital discourse is a complex communicative phenomenon that is transforming modern English while preserving its functional integrity. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings for sociolinguistics, digital literacy, and language education are discussed, highlighting the need to recognize digital communicative practices as legitimate and socially determined forms of linguistic expression.

Conclusion. The proposed methodology can be used for further study of online discourse genres and their communicative characteristics in the context of globalization.

1. Bou-Franch, P. and Garcés-Conejos Blitvich, P. (2019), Analyzing Digital Discourse: New Insights and Future Directions, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, CHE.

2. Galichkina, E.N. (2012), “Computer communication: linguistic status, symbolic means, genre space”, Dr. Sci. (Philology) Thesis, VSSPU, Volgograd, RUS.

3. Kolokol'tseva, T.N. and Lutovinova, O.V. (eds.) (2025), Internet-kommunikatsiya kak novaya rechevaya formatsiya [Internet communication as a new speech formation], 5th ed., Flinta, Moscow, RUS.

4. Karasik, V.I. (2020), Yazykovye kartiny bytiya [Linguistic pictures of life], Pushkin Institute, Moscow, RUS.

5. Crystal, D. (2001), Language and the Internet, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139061197

6. Tagliamonte, S.A., Denis, D. (2012), “Linguistic ruin? LOL! Instant messaging and teen language”, American Speech, vol. 87, no. 1, pp. 3–34. DOI: 10.1215/00031283-2008-001

7. Baron, N.S. (2008), Always on: Language in an online and mobile world, Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195313055.001.0001

8. Androutsopoulos, J. (2014), “Moments of sharing: Entextualization and linguistic repertoires in social networking”, J. of Pragmatics, no. 73 (1), pp. 4–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.002

9. Danesi, M. (2017), The semiotics of emoji: The rise of visual language in the age of the internet, Bloomsbury, London, UK.

10. Leppänen, S., Kytölä, S., Jousmäki, H. et al. (2013), “Entextualization and resemiotization as resources for identification in social media”, The Language of social media: communication and community on the internet, in Seargeant, Ph., Tagg, C. (eds.), Palgrave, Basingstoke, UK, pp. 112–138.

11. Milner, R.M. (2016), The World Made Meme: Public Conversations and Participatory Media, MIT Press, London, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/9780262034999.001.0001

12. Georgakopoulou, A. (2011), “Computer-mediated communication”, Pragmatics in Practice, Östman, J.-O., Verschueren, J. (eds.), John Benjamins Publ., Amsterdam, NDL, pp. 93–110.

13. Barnes, J. (1954), “Class and Committees in a Norwegian Island Parish”, Human Relations, no. 7, pp. 39–58. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700102

14. Wasserman, S. and Faust, K. (1994), Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478

15. Rogers, E.M. (2003), Diffusion of Innovations, 5th ed., Free Press, NY, USA.

16. Labov, W. (1972), Sociolinguistic patterns, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, USA.

17. British National Corpus (BNС2014), available at: https://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk/ (accessed 15.12.2025).

18. Eckert, P. and McConnell-Ginet, S. (1992), “Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice”, Annual Review of Anthropology, vol. 21, pp. 461–490. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333