Dialogic Studies in Digital Communication: Pragmatic Analysis of Online Discourse

Authors

  • Zarifa Sadigzade

    Department of English and Translation, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Nakhchivan State University, Nakhchivan 7000, Azerbaijan
  • Sevinj Aziz

    Department of English and Translation, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Nakhchivan State University, Nakhchivan 7000, Azerbaijan
  • Ismet Jafarova

    Department of English and Translation, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Nakhchivan State University, Nakhchivan 7000, Azerbaijan
  • Akif Hashimov

    Independent Researcher, Toruń 87-100, Poland
  • Gunay Aliyeva

    Department of English and Translation, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Nakhchivan State University, Nakhchivan 7000, Azerbaijan
  • Bulbul Hajiyeva

    Department of English and Translation, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Nakhchivan State University, Nakhchivan 7000, Azerbaijan
  • Hasan Alisoy

    Department of English and Translation, Faculty of Foreign Languages, Nakhchivan State University, Nakhchivan 7000, Azerbaijan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i10.10835
Received: 5 July 2025 | Revised: 1 August 2025 | Accepted: 13 August 2025 | Published Online: 24 September 2025

Abstract

Digital communication platforms have reshaped how people engage in dialogue across linguistic and cultural boundaries. This study examines online discourse through a pragmatic lens to understand how dialogic communication unfolds in multilingual, computer-mediated contexts. Dialogic communication—defined as the negotiated exchange of ideas—encourages openness, ethics, and mutual understanding, yet how these ideals are realized among second-language users online remains unclear. This research identifies pragmatic features of online dialogic discourse, explores how second-language speakers co-construct meaning, and evaluates the benefits and challenges of dialogic interaction. A mixed-methods discourse analysis was conducted on a corpus of public online discussions (≈100 participants; ≈50,000 words) involving diverse non-native English speakers, combining quantitative corpus techniques with qualitative pragmatic analysis. Findings reveal that participants exchanged multiple perspectives, signaled openness to difference, and employed pragmatic strategies to negotiate meaning. Online discourse enhanced transparency, social presence, and knowledge co-construction, though challenges such as multitasking, divided attention, and absent presence were evident. Nevertheless, digital platforms can support authentic dialogic exchanges when communicators adopt dialogic attitudes and when platform design facilitates sustained interaction. Grounded in pragmatics and dialogic theory, this study demonstrates that online discourse—even among non-native speakers—can embody genuine dialogue, with implications for education, identity-building, and intercultural collaboration. By aligning with SDG 4 (Quality Education) and SDG 17 (Partnerships), the findings underscore how dialogic digital spaces can advance lifelong learning and cross-cultural engagement.

Keywords:

Computer-Mediated Communication; Discourse Analysis; Social Presence; Second-Language Pragmatics; Dialogic Interaction; Intercultural Communication; Knowledge Co-Construction; Lifelong Learning

References

[1] Kent, M.L., Taylor, M., Building dialogic relationships through the World Wide Web. Public Relations Review. 24(3), 321–334. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80143-X

[2] United Nations, 2015. Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. United Nations: New York, NY, USA.

[3] Herring, S.C., 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In: Barab, S.A., Kling, R., Gray, J.H., (eds.). Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA. pp. 338–376.

[4] Clark, H.H., Brennan, S.E., 1991. Grounding in communication. In: Resnick, L.B., Levine, J.M., Teasley, S.D., (eds.). Perspectives on Socially Shared Cognition. APA: Washington, DC, USA. pp. 127–149.

[5] Gergen, K.J., 2002. The challenge of absent presence. In: Knoespel, K., (ed.). The Impact of Mobile Communication on Social and Individual Life. Peter Lang: Frankfurt, Germany. pp. 227–241.

[6] Gunawardena, C.N., Lowe, C.A., Anderson, T., 1997. Analysis of a global online debate and the development of an interaction analysis model for examining social construction of knowledge in computer conferencing. Journal of Educational Computing Research. 17(4), 397–431. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2190/7MQV-X9UJ-C7Q3-NRAG

[7] Vygotsky, L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA.

[8] Tajeddin, Z., Alemi, M., 2012. L2 learners’ use of metadiscourse markers in online discussion forums. Issues in Language Teaching. 1(1), 93–121.

[9] Saadé, R.G., Huang, W., 2009. Online interaction in asynchronous learning environments: A study of student behavior and perceptions. Issues in Information Systems. 10(1), 130–138.

[10] Bakhtin, M.M., 1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Edited by M. Holquist. Translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. University of Texas Press: Austin, TX, USA.

[11] Samei, H., Howe, C., Hennessy, S., 2021. Developing domain‐independent measures of dialogic classroom talk. British Educational Research Journal, 47(6), 1724–1744. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3753

[12] Lantz-Andersson, A., 2018. Language play in a second language: Social media as contexts for emerging sociopragmatic competence. Education and Information Technologies. 23(4), 705–724. Available from: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10639-017-9631-0 (5 June 2025).

[13] House, J., 2010. Developing pragmatic competence via e-mail in a telecollaboration exchange. In: Guth, S., Helm, F., (eds.). Telecollaboration 2.0. Peter Lang: Bern, Switzerland. pp. 287–306.

[14] Garrison, D.R., Anderson, T., Archer, W., 2000. Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. Internet High Educ. 2(2–3), 87–105. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6

[15] Wei, W., Liu, J., Xu, X., 2023. Effective interactive engagement strategies for MOOC forum discussion: A self-efficacy perspective. PLoS One. 18(11), e0293668. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0293668

[16] Chadha, M., Relly, J.E., 2024. Supporting intercultural experiences in online teaching during wartime and humanitarian crises: Slack as a learning tool. Journalism & Mass Communication Educator. 79(2), 224–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10776958241234365

[17] Macagno, F., Bigi, S., 2017. Analyzing the pragmatic structure of dialogues. Discourse Studies, 19(2), 148–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445617691702

[18] Biber, D., 1993. Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing. 8(4), 243–257. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243

[19] Filius, R.M., de Kleijn, R., Uijl, S.G., 2018. Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs. Computers & Education. 125, 86–100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.06.004

[20] Barcena, E., Martín-Monje, E., 2014. Introduction: Language MOOCs — an emerging field. In: Martín-Monje, E., Bárcena, E., editors. Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries. De Gruyter Open: Berlin, Germany. pp. 1–15.

[21] Sokolik, M., 2014. What constitutes an effective language MOOC? In: Martín-Monje, E., Bárcena, E., (eds.). Language MOOCs: Providing Learning, Transcending Boundaries. De Gruyter Open: Berlin, Germany. pp. 16–32.

[22] Sallam, M., Martín-Monje, E., Li, Y., 2020. Research trends in language MOOC studies: A systematic review of the published literature (2012–2018). Comput Assist Lang Learn. 33(3), 346–373. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1744668

[23] Dennen, V.P., Hall, B.M., Hedquist, A., 2023. A systematic review of research on intersubjectivity in online learning: Illuminating opportunities for cohesion and mutual understanding. Online Learning. 27(1), 158–186. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v27i1.3430

[24] Gray, B., Egbert, J., Biber, D., 2017. Exploring methods for evaluating corpus representativeness. In: Proceedings of Corpus Linguistics Conference, Birmingham, UK, 24–28 July 2017. Available from: https://www.birmingham.ac.uk/Documents/college-artslaw/corpus/conference-archives/2017/general/paper277.pdf (5 June 2025).

Downloads

How to Cite

Sadigzade, Z., Aziz, S., Jafarova, I., Hashimov, A., Aliyeva, G., Hajiyeva, B., & Alisoy, H. (2025). Dialogic Studies in Digital Communication: Pragmatic Analysis of Online Discourse. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(10), 267–285. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i10.10835

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 10 (October 2025): In progress

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Zarifa Sadigzade, Sevinj Aziz, Ismet Jafarova, Akif Hashimov, Gunay Aliyeva, Bulbul Hajiyeva, Hasan Alisoy

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.