Language, culture, cognition and communication: The paradigms of modern linguistic research

Full Text

1. Introduction

This issue explores the correlation between language, culture, cognition and communication, this topic was widely duscussed at the VII Firsova’s Readings (October, 23–25, 2025) held in memory of the distinguished Russian linguist Natalia M. Firsova at the Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University) since 2014. Firsova’s research devoted considerable attention to the influence of culture on language and communication, as well as the linguistic and communicative variability that creates difficulties in intercultural communication (e.g. Firsova 2000, 20002, 2004 to name a few). The Firsova’s Readings has become a powerful international forum for the discussion of most current issues in linguistic and interdisciplinary research.

The conference once again demonstrated the interdisciplinary nature of modern linguistic research, focused on a person who thinks, speaks, feels, and who cannot live outside of society and communication. As noted earlier (e.g. Ebzeeva 2021), the interdisciplinary research paradigm has led not only to the convergence of linguistics with other humanities, resulting in the emergence of psycholinguistics, sociolinguistics, linguacultural studies, etc., but also to the convergence of humanities with natural sciences, which led to the emergence of such disciplines, as cognitive linguistics, computational linguistics, corpus linguistics, neurolinguistics, ecological linguistics, which expanded the research field and proposed new research directions (e.g. Akhutina 2026, Chernigovskaya 2016, Druzhinin 2025, Ebzeeva et al. 2023, Furkó 2025, Goddard 2021, Ingram 2007, Plungyan 2008, Shuneiko 2026, Poole 2022, 2025, Ponton 2024, among many others.).

The introductory article identifies several key areas that, as the conference results demonstrated, are most relevant to contemporary linguistics. The focus remains on the relationship between language, culture, cognition and communication; discourse-pragmatic studies; emotive linguistics; sociolinguistic research, including sociocultural identity, linguistic varieties and gender studies; cognitive studies of language. A new challenge and a new research field is human interaction with artificial intelligence (AI), which also constitutes a form of communication (Ponton & Manlello 2026).

2. The correlation of language, culture, cognition and communication

The correlation between language, culture, cognition and communication is the core focus of the Russian Journal of Linguistics, regularly discussed in its pages and at the conferences ‘Firsova’s Readings’. Communication here is understood in its broadest sense — interpersonal, intercultural, interstate, media, online,
author-reader, as well as human-AI communication.

It has long been proven that language provides us with a tool for communication, however, how to construct it, how to express communicative intentions, how to convey feelings and emotions, and how to demonstrate one’s attitude toward one’s interlocutor—this knowledge is provided by culture, which is defined as the collective intelligence, the collective memory of a people (Lotman 2004), and as the “software of the mind” (Hofstede 1991). In other words, culture defines human consciousness and guides human activity, including communicative activity.

Currently, comparative studies aimed at identifying ethnocultural differences do not pursue the path of accumulating facts, but aim to systematize them, which allows us to see the systematic nature of the differences identified and their cultural predetermination. As Wierzbicka (2003) notes, in different societies and communities, people speak differently; these differences are profound and systemic, they reflect different cultural values, or at least different value hierarchies, and different communicative styles can be explained in terms of independently established different cultural values ​​and cultural priorities (Wierzbicka 2003: 69). The regularity and systematic nature of culturally determined differences in language use have enabled researchers to systematize them as ethnocultural communication styles, or communicative ethnostyles (House 2006, Larina 2009, 2015, 2025) and to identify their dominant features. People’s communication styles and preferences reflect their identity. Thus, through language, a person can express his or her identity, which is multilayered and includes individual, social and cultural traits (Eslami et al. 2023: 32).

Identity is closely connected with discourse. Identity arises from communication and functions as a complex interweaving of the collective, refracted through the prism of individuality, and the individual, embedded in the collective (Leontovich 2017: 252). When considering the interaction of language, culture, cognition and communication, linguacultural identity deserves special attention. It manifests itself in linguistic behavior through which a language user verbalizes all concepts, values, and schemes of conduct practiced in a particular lingua-culture (Bilá et al. 2020, Larina et al. 2017).

The vocabulary of a language provides us with objective data on key words that identify the values ​​of the culture served by a given language (Bromhead & Ye 2020, Wierzbicka 1997), including communicative values ​​that regulate human behavior and shape discursive and pragmatic features. Words contain culturally marked meanings that accumulate encoded information about the psychology and values ​​of an ethnic group (Leontovich 2022: 51). These values, fixed in mind, regulate people’s communicative behavior.

As research in cross-cultural pragmatics has shown, the same speech acts are performed differently in different linguistic cultures, in accordance with the understanding of politeness shared by a given society and its norms corresponding to the sociocultural context (e.g., Fernández-Mallat & Moyna 2025, Haugh & Chang 2019, Litvinova & Larina 2023, Larina 2009, Malyuga & McCarthy 2021, Wierzbicka 2003, etc.). These facts testify to the sociocultural determination of communicative behavior and serve as further confirmation of the correlation between language, culture, cognition and communication.

Moreover,cultureis the mainfactordetermining the formation of varieties ofpluricentriclanguages (Firsova 2002, Proshina 2026). Research in the field of World Englishes provides convincing evidence showing how representatives of local cultures adapt English to express their cultural and communicative values (e.g. Botha & Bernaisch 2025, Nelson et al. 2020, Proshina & Nelson 2020, Soomro & Larina 2024, to name a few).

3. Discursive-pragmatic studies

Discursive-pragmatic studies represent a unifying research field that examines the use of language and its functioning in institutional, social, cultural, emotional, and other contexts. As a result, a wide variety of discourses become objects of study—everyday interpersonal discourse, media discourse, academic discourse, political discourse, diplomatic discourse, advertising discourse, gender discourse, religious discourse, as well as artistic discourse, poetic discourse, film discourse, etc. (e.g. Breeze 2020, Gritsenko 2021, Karasik 2022, Sánchez Macarro & Cabrejas-Peñuelas 2014, Zykova 2021 among many others). In other words, discourse analysis examines language use in all spheres of human life and activity.

With the digitalization of society, new types of discourse are emerging that explore communication in virtual space—digital discourse, internet discourse and network discourse. Researchers focus on the creativity of social media users, new linguistic forms, the influence of digital discourse on the system of standard language and its norms, the multimodal means provided by digital technologies, sociocultural and psychological factors, and the ideologies underlying the creation of digital texts and identity (e.g. Bou-Franch & Blitvich 2019, Romanova 2023, Rhee 2023, and many others). Digital media discourse explores how this type of discourse is created and perceived, linking linguistic research with the theoretical foundations of communication, political science, journalism, etc. (Đorđević 2022).

The development of digital technologies has expanded the possibilities of online communication, including intercultural communication, stimulating interest in the study of online cultures (e.g. Danet & Herring 2007, Lee 2017). Linguists feared that the dominance of English could lead to a decrease in cultural and linguistic diversity in discursive practices. However, as numerous studies have shown, despite existing similarities in online communication, its participants exhibit significant cultural differences (e.g. Eslami et al. 2023, Rhee 2023, Xie et al. 2021, and others). Thus, the connection between language, culture, and communication can also be traced in the virtual context.

This interconnectedness is also clearly evident in artistic discourse, which represents a unique mode of aesthetic and ethnocultural worldview (Ignatenko 2025). The author of a literary text acts as a representative of their culture and displays not only their personal but also their sociocultural identity. Moreover, the same text, when transferred to a different linguistic and cultural context, can receive new interpretations and content, acquiring numerous polycode and multimodal interpretations (e.g. Chesnokova et al. 2024).

The discursive approach to the analysis of language has expanded the research field, by adding new objects of study, including linguistic creativity in various types of discourse — artistic, poetic, advertising, academic, etc. (Zykova 2021), politeness strategies in various speech acts and genres (Haugh & Chang 2019, Larina 2009, Leech 2014 among many others), the development and functioning of discursive-pragmatic markers (Floricic & Sokolova 2025, Heine et al. 2024, Traugott 2022 ), the expression of emotions in various social and cultural contexts and discourses (Alba-Juez & Haugh 2025, Mackenzie & Alba-Juez 2019, Ponton & Larina 2022, etc.), the study of metaphor against the background of a wide linguistic, cultural and discursive contexts (Kövecses 2005, Sun et al. 2021, Zibin & Solopova 2024), postcolonial linguistics (Levisen 2024) and many others.

4. Psycholinguistic studies of discourse

Discourse theory has become the foundation for many areas of linguistic research. One of these areas is the study of emotions which has evolved into the linguistics of emotion (Alba-Juez & Haugh 2025, Firsova 2004, Ionova 2022, Mackenzie & Alba-Juez 2019, Shakhovsky 2015, 2018, to name a few). In addition to the verbalization of emotions, which shape a modal worldview with ethnocultural characteristics (Gladkova 2013, 2022, Ignatenko 2023, Sakaba 2026, Wierzbicka 1999, etc.), researchers focus on the semiotic, pragmatic and discursive aspects of emotions in various contexts. Of great interest are comparative studies to identify the meanings and functions of emotions in different cultures (e.g. Alba-Juez & Haugh 2025, Larina 2009, Leontovich & Yakusheva 2014, Pavlenko 2002).

Several special issues of the Russian Journal of Linguistics have been devoted to the study of emotions in discourse (see Russian Journal of Linguistics 2025, 1; 2018, 22(1); 2021, 25(3)). These issues, along with the growing literature in psychology, sociology and linguistics, indicate that the role of emotions in various spheres of public life has become more prominent. Researchers speak of the emotionalization of public space, i.e., the intensification and legitimization of emotions and emotional discourse in public spheres of life (Lerner & Rivkin-Fish 2021). Emotionalization is observed in both everyday interpersonal interactions and institutional ones, including those areas for which emotions were recently considered uncharacteristic (e.g. diplomatic, economic and financial discourses) (Zappettini et al. 2021: 588). Emotionalization is observed in the media, where emotions are used as one of the most important means of persuasion (Zappettini
et al. 2021), and it has become an integral feature of political discourse (Breeze 2020 et al.).

Discourse-pragmatic studies demonstrate the importance of emotions in such phenomena as implicature, irony, humor and metaphor (see Alba-Juez & Larina 2018), as well as in the expression of positive and negative evaluations, the semantics and pragmatics of which may not coincide. The importance of the emotional component in communication and the diversity of the functions of emotions have prompted researchers to distinguish between such phenomena as emotionality and emotiveness, examining them in terms of politeness, impoliteness, and rudeness, and to identify a category such as emotive politeness (Larina 2019, Larina & Ponton 2022), which is defined as “emotional/emotive sensitivity and focus on the feelings of others, ethics in the expression of one’s own feelings and emotions, and the provision of communicative support to the interlocutor” (Larina 2025b:121). Emotive politeness intersects with ecological emotiology (Shakhovsky 2016), which studies the techniques and methods of emotional balancing, conflict amortization, mitigation of verbal aggression, the formation of the ability for emotional tolerance, etc. Its goal is to orient participants in communication towards a positive vector of communication in all its types and spheres.

Other research topics include the use of emotional/emotive words and conceptual metaphors in various contexts and discourses, the use and functions of obscene and invective vocabulary, emoticons in online communication, pauses and silence as markers of aggressive speech, and much more (for details, see Alba-Juez & Larina 2018). Researchers have also focused on emotiveness and emotive density in artistic discourse (Ignatenko 2023) as a multimodal and pragmatic phenomenon of systemic linguistic relations.

5. Cognitive studies of language in the digital era and other issues

The correlation between language and cognition, the role of language in conceptualizing and categorizing the world, in cognitive processes and the generalization of human experience, in generating and interpreting the meaning of utterances in various sociocultural contexts—these questions continue to interest researchers working within a multidisciplinary paradigm (e.g. Zolyan & Tulchinsky 2024, Zolyan et al. 2024). Cognitive linguistic research analyzes how humans perceive the world, conceptualize knowledge and verbalize it, forming a linguistic picture of the world (Kasevich 2026 et al.). These issues cannot be addressed within the confines of a single research field, as they are linked to philosophical, social
and psychological aspects, integrating cognitive linguistic research into an interdisciplinary paradigm. This allows researchers to go beyond linguistic analysis and description of the phenomena under study, finding explanations for the results obtained and tracing the relationship between language, cognition and communication.

The object of cognitive research that continues to attract attention of scholars is metaphor. Although there are universal features in metaphor, it has distinct characteristics in each lingua-culture. The variability of metaphor indicates differences in people’s experiences, the ways they interact with physical objects in their surroundings. These differences are reflected in their worldview, fixed in language and manifested in metaphorical units (see Kövecses 2005, Leontovich et al. 2023, Paul et al. 2026, Zibin & Solopova 2024, to name a few).

Artificial intelligence plays a key role in cognitive linguistics, expanding access to information, processing and analyzing large amounts of linguistic data, modeling cognitive processes, testing and refuting hypotheses, and recognizing speech. The conceptualization of artificial intelligence in the human mind and its role in society are discussed in cognitive and corpus linguistics, media linguistics, and translation theory and practice (e.g. Bernikova & Kizhaeva 2024, Galichkina 2024, Ozyumenko & Larina 2025, Ilyinova & Kochetova 2024, among others).

In addition to those listed, the conference addressed a wide range of sociolinguistic issues: the interaction of language and society, the influence of social processes on language, language policy, the future of minority languages, the status of pluricentric language varieties, the linguistic landscape, and others. Traditionally, much attention was paid to theoretical and applied issues of translation, teaching and learning foreign languages.

6. Outline of contributions to the issue

The issue opens with a theoretical article by the Brazilian linguist Claudio Márcio do Carmo, “Systemic functional linguistics and social cognition:
A theoretical approach to the relationship between language, society and culture”. It proposes a model of the interaction between systemic-functional linguistics (SFL) and social cognition, which, according to the author, makes it possible to identify the social, cultural and cognitive factors that collectively influence the semantics of discourse and facilitate effective communication. This interdisciplinary approach allows us to determine the role of language in constructing reality at the levels of situational and cultural contexts, and demonstrates that social cognition is essential for understanding the relationship between lexical grammar and discursive semantics.

Elena S. Gritsenko identifies and analyzes key paradoxes and contradictions generated by gender-inclusive communication practices, which arise contrary to its declared goals of equality and respect. An analysis of English-language texts across various genres and styles reveals that inclusive communication generates a complex set of systemic contradictions of various kinds: linguistic (between the desire to erase and simultaneously multiply gender differences, which leads to semantic tautology and a violation of linguistic conventionality); social (when inclusivity in practice turns into an instrument for excluding dissenters and marginalizing the experiences of traditional groups); and ethical (including the conflict between the ideology of self-identification and biological realities, as well as the imposition of Anglo-centric models on other linguistic cultures). The interpretation of the obtained results shows that inclusive language is not only a discourse of power, but also a tool of autocommunication aimed at redefining the core of the cultural semiosphere and consolidating a “progressive” identity.

Language contacts lead to the formation of pluricentric language varieties based on the culture and mentality of their users. However, the status of these varieties is not always clearly defined. Zoya G. Proshina explores the legitimacy of Expanding Circle English varieties, one of the most controversial topics in contemporary sociolinguistics which has been discussed repeatedly in our journal (e.g. Nelson & Proshina 2020, Shaibakova et al. 2023, Yelenevskaya & Protassova 2021). The author sets the ambitious goal of summarizing theoretical debates, presenting new data, and arguing for the recognition of idioms such as Russian English and Chinese English as fully-fledged varieties within the paradigm of World Englishes. The author identifies the factors behind the recognition of English varieties of the Expanding Circle and determines the main functions and features of Russian English. Based on these findings, a conclusion is drawn regarding the legitimacy of recognizing Russian English as an Expanding Circle English variety.

Two articles explore the issue of human interaction with artificial intelligence—a new reality of our time. Baltezarević et al. examine the use of AI in academic writing, a scholarly communication traditionally involving the author and the readership. However, in the digital age, AI often acts as an indirect participant in this communication, raising a number of legal and ethical challenges. Although this study draws on concepts and discussions relevant to linguistic research, it does not aim to conduct a detailed linguistic analysis of the data. It employs an interdisciplinary approach, examining the use of AI primarily from legal and ethical perspectives, which is relevant not only for linguists but for all authors of academic texts. Douglas Ponton and Peter Mantello view AI as a synthetic personality participating in communication. Their article, “Simulated selves: Creativity, authenticity and semiotic agency in AI companionship”, examines how users ascribe or deny agency, emotion and sincerity to AI partners, and how these constructs differ across cultural contexts—English and Japanese. Their findings suggest that synthetic selves are not a future possibility, but a discursive achievement that raises broader questions about the nature and cultural shaping of human-AI interactions.

The next two articles explore metaphor as a key tool for understanding experience and expressing social meanings and identity. Khalifah, Zibin & Altakhaineh examine the sociolinguistic use of food-related metaphors in Jordanian Arabic, focusing on how they reflect and shape perceptions of appearance, personality and social traits. The study found that food-related metaphors in Jordanian Arabic are experiential and shaped by sociolinguistic variables such as age, gender and context. Quantitative analysis revealed differences in the use of food metaphors across age and gender groups, suggesting that the underlying semantic focus of these metaphors is not fixed but is interpreted depending on the specific cultural context, reflecting and reinforcing cultural values. Indian
authors — Namrata Paul, Abhijeet Satsangi and Sanjukta Ghosh — compare conceptual metaphors for happiness in Hindi and Bengali, exploring how sociocultural, religious and philosophical factors contribute to the formation of emotional meaning in the two cultures. Both articles contribute to cross-cultural research on metaphors and provide new insights into the interactions between language, culture and cognition.

Hiromichi Sakaba continues the topic of conceptualizing emotions. He conducts his research using Japanese verbs and nouns expressing emotions, which are considered from three aspects: (1) the cause of the emotion, (2) the object of the emotion, and (3) the expression of the emotion. Using the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) to describe the semantic structures of emotions (Gladkova & Larina 2018a, b), the author proposes a semantic model that facilitates a systematic analysis of the meaning of Japanese lexemes describing emotions. The study identified some differences in the frequency of use of verbs and adjectives denoting emotions, which are interpreted in light of cultural attitudes towards emotions in Japanese society. The obtained results contribute to a deeper understanding of how speakers of different languages ​​conceptualize and classify emotional experiences, which is important for the further development of lexical typology in the field of emotions.

The issue concludes with a corpus-based study by Jiyoon Jeong and Ekaterina V. Rakhilina, aimed at comparing Russian set phrases such as malo li (chto), which function as dialogue responses, with Korean units typologically distinct from Russian and identifying the most accurate and functionally comparable analogs. The study showed that understanding the semantics and pragmatics of these phrases is only possible through an analysis of their underlying constructions and contexts. The analysis identified and resolved inconsistencies in the description of malo li (chto), which are found in databases, and clarified their functional properties. The proposed methodology refines the description of Russian phrases and offers a reliable approach to comparing them with typologically distinct languages, including Korean.

7. Conclusion

The conference, as well as the articles in this issue, demonstrated that interdisciplinarity, which involves the interaction of many scientific fields, is a crucial paradigm in contemporary linguistic research. An interdisciplinary approach enables scholars to transcend their disciplines, integrate research methods, and draw on knowledge from various subject areas, opening up new research opportunities and perspectives.

As Vladimir I. Karasik noted, “the classical dyad of linguistics—language and speech—is revealed at the modern, anthropocentric stage as linguistic consciousness and communicative behavior”, and “at the center of this understanding of the subject of linguistics is the linguistic personality, which represents the bearer of lingua-cultural, communicative and activity values...” (Karasik 2002: 429). Based on this statement and slightly modifying it, we can conclude that continued research in the field of interaction between language, culture, cognition and communication remains one of the central paradigms of modern linguistics, an approach that allows us to see the systematicity and logic in the use of language by representatives of different lingua-cultures in various sociocultural contexts. The anthropocentric paradigm has shifted the focus of research from the language system to the individual, incorporating into the research field their feelings, emotions, relationships, worldview, and the environment in which they operate. The development of digital technologies and artificial intelligence provides a powerful impetus for interdisciplinary linguistic research. This has opened up new opportunities and formed new paradigms in the field, but it also raises important legal and ethical concerns.

About the authors

Tatiana V. Larina

Author for correspondence.
Email: larina-tv@rudn.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6167-455X

Doctor Habil., Full Professor

References

Supplementary files