Interpretative processes and meaning construction in virtual communicative space
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20840214
Abstract
This article analyzes the specific features of interpretive processes and the main principles of meaning construction in virtual communication spaces through a systematic analysis of survey results. The study focuses on how meaning is formed from a pragmatic perspective in digital communicative environments, emphasizing the important role of context, participant-related factors, and multimodal media in the interpretation of communicative units. Particular attention is paid to the dynamic and constructive nature of meaning, emphasizing that meaning is not fixed or static, but is constantly formed and transformed in the course of discourse. The study explores how virtual interactions shape understanding through linguistic, social, and technological dimensions. The empirical part of the article is based on survey results that represent diverse interpretations of speech units in virtual communication, demonstrating how pragmatic factors contribute to meaning-making processes. By exploring these mechanisms, the research provides a deeper understanding of how individuals negotiate, interpret, and construct meaning in technologically mediated spaces. The findings contribute to broader discussions in pragmatics, discourse analysis, and virtual communication studies by offering a clearer understanding of communication practices in contemporary digital contexts.
Keywords:
Discourse interpretive process meaning construction virtual communicative space pragmatics contextReferences
Atayan, R. (1982). Pragmatic aspects of language. Nauka.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. University of Texas Press.
Crystal, D. (2006). Language and the Internet (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Dresner, E., & Herring, S. C. (2010). The functions of nonverbal media in computer-mediated communication: Emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory, 20(3), 249–268.
Dürscheid, C. (2020). Introduction to written linguistics. UTB.
Dürscheid, C., & Frehner, C. (2013). Email, SMS, MMS: The linguistic creativity of asynchronous discourse. Peter Lang.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics. 41–58. Academic Press.
Karasik, V. I. (2002). The language sphere: Personality, concepts, discourse. Gnosis.
Kiseleva, L. A. (1978). Issues of speech influence. Leningrad University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Matveyeva, T. V. (1984). Functional styles of language. Moscow.
Murugova, E. V., & Lopatukhina, T. A. (2012). Modern paradigms of studying the personality of language. DGTU.
Pervukhina, S. V., & Churikov, M. P. (2021). Digital communication and pragmatics. Journal of Language Studies, 15(29), 45–60.
Revyakina, N. P. (2013). “Globanglization” and language in the paradigm of professional knowledge. Academic Bulletin of the Rostov Branch of the Russian Customs Academy, 1(14), 92–96.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1986). Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge University Press.
Stepanov, Y. S. (1981). Semiotics. Nauka.
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Sage.
Published
Downloads
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Muminova Aziza Arslonovna, Rasulova Mukhlisa Sharof kizi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
