Introduction

The discourse of digital media represents one of the most dynamically transforming environments of contemporary communication, in which language acquires new functional qualities, often different from those attributed to it in traditional forms of public information exchange. While classical philosophy of language analyzes language as a construct enabling the grasp of reality, its description, or logical structuration, digital media shift communication into realms where language is increasingly less a means of understanding and increasingly a tool of performativity, emotional mobilization, or symbolic dominance. In this sense, the study of language in digital media is also a study of the conditions in which language-based manipulation arises and spreads. One of the first problematic points of the contemporary environment is already the very nature of the media space, which is radically different from traditional communication.

As Slavkovský and Kutaš (2013) state, the modern understanding of language is closely linked to the so-called "linguistic turn," through which language becomes the medium of our thinking and our relationship to reality, while its analysis appears in many cases as a path to solving or unmasking pseudo-problems arising from its incorrect use. This approach is typical of the modern analytical tradition, but the digital environment reveals new complications, namely that language here is not used primarily to clarify reality, but to a large extent to create, frame, or maintain versions of reality. This shift is aptly described by Moravčíková (2020), who states that the post-truth era has brought an escalation of demagoguery, disinformation, conspiracy narratives, and other forms of manipulative influence, while digital platforms fundamentally change the mechanisms of spreading these contents and increase their effectiveness.

Language, which in the traditional understanding is a means of rational exchange of information, becomes in digital media a carrier of emotionally charged stimuli, often aimed at regulating the affective states of recipients regardless of rational arguments. A particularly important factor in this context is the emergence and dominance of so-called new language games, which are conditioned by the speed and hybrid multimodality of the digital environment. As Aleksić and Stamenković (2018) point out, these features create the preconditions for the emergence of new communication conventions, in which emotionality is heightened and space for argumentative complexity is reduced. It is precisely in the context of manipulation that this transformation is extremely important. Fischer (2022) shows that the goal of many manipulative campaigns in the online space is not to convince the recipient through rationally valid arguments, but to activate their affective predispositions and mobilize them through overexposed emotional stimuli, namely fear, anger, indignation, or a feeling of threat. Language in digital media thus acquires the nature of a tool of performative action, which in practice means that its goal is not to mediate knowledge, but to condition a reaction.

From a philosophical perspective, this is a fundamental shift. If we accept Wittgenstein's thesis that "the meaning of a word is its use," we must also accept that digital media change the very conditions of language use, and thus the nature of meaning. Language here becomes an entity shaped by algorithms, the logic of attention, and the economic interests of platforms. Bradley Warfield (2023) therefore rightly notes that online discourse is characterized by "ethically impoverished interactivity," in which qualified attention replaces dialogicality and reduces the ability to conduct communicative practices aimed at mutual understanding. These observations suggest that language in digital media cannot be understood merely as a technical or linguistic category. It is necessary to understand it in broader epistemic, social, and axiological contexts that frame its effects in the conditions of today's media environment. As Marek Mikušiak (2018) reminds us, language is situated between logic and psychology precisely because it bears traces of cognitive processes and at the same time shapes social interactions, which, as in the case of digital media, can also be significant from the perspective of power, ideology, and manipulation.

Theoretical Framework

The digital environment does not merely create new technical possibilities for communication, but modifies the very epistemic, pragmatic, and axiological frameworks in which language operates. The theoretical framework of this article therefore rests on two pillars: the first is classical concepts of the philosophy of language, which allow analyzing the structure and functioning of language as a bearer of meaning, and the second is modern approaches examining language in the conditions of digital communication, which point to its mediatization, affectivity, and algorithmic modulation.

The philosophy of language provides a tradition in which language is understood as a tool for constituting reality and at the same time as a medium of thought. Slavkovský and Kutaš (2013) remind us that the linguistic turn at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries meant a fundamental transformation of philosophical interest, namely that language became not only an object of reflection but is the key to solving philosophical problems that are often a consequence of misunderstanding its functioning.

As Morris (2007, according to Slavkovský & Kutaš, 2013) states, John Locke, who significantly influenced thinking about the relationship between thought and language, can according to the author be condensed into a set of eight theses that represent the basic starting points of his understanding of linguistic function and its relation to mental contents. It was precisely these theses that became the point where later philosophy of language, especially in the analytical tradition represented by Frege and other authors, decided either to continue or to explicitly define itself against them. Morris (2007, p. 21) thus summarizes Locke's starting points: (L1) language is determined by its function; (L2) its basic function is communication; (L3) to communicate is to convey thought; (L4) words denote components of the communicated content; (L5) these components are ideas; (L6) the ideas of one person are not directly perceivable by another person; (L7) the relationship between a word and what it denotes is arbitrary; and (L8) words in themselves have no meaning (Morris, 2007, according to Slavkovský & Kutaš, 2013, p. 21). Modern philosophy of language, however, accepted only some of these theses. As Morris (2007) shows, the analytical tradition built especially on the theses about the functionality of language, about its communicative determination, and about the arbitrariness of the linguistic sign system, specifically theses L1, L2, L7, and L8, while rejecting Locke's theory of ideas as mental representations of meaning. These shifts in the understanding of language also show that language cannot be analyzed without regard to the conditions in which it acquires its functionality and effectiveness. At present, it is necessary to extend the interpretation and approach also to today's contemporary communication environments in which language operates; digital media, for example, offer us such an opportunity.

Wittgenstein's sensitive thesis that "the meaning of a word is its use in language" acquires particular relevance in the context of digital media. If meaning is derived from use, then a change in the digital environment and its formal structures, rhythms, and communication conventions inevitably leads to a change in the meaning possibilities of language itself. In the online space, language use is characterized by discontinuity, hybridity, and overexposed emotionality, which fundamentally changes the pragmatic dimension of communication. This may mean that language in the digital space is not an extension of traditional language, but creates new language games with their own norms, which also include the potential for manipulation based on affective resonance (Fischer, 2022).

The classical logical-semantic conceptions of Frege and Russell are also of fundamental importance for understanding language in the context of media manipulation. Frege's distinction between sense and reference shows that a linguistic expression has not only a referential but also a contextual and cognitive dimension. It is precisely this cognitive dimension that is intensively exploited in digital media by manipulative strategies, meaning that linguistic forms that evoke certain mental images or affective interpretations become effective tools of influence. Similarly, Russell's emphasis on precision and logical analysis of statements represents a contrast to the imprecision and intentionality of many online communications, while their logical defectiveness is often the source of manipulative potential.

Austin and Searle shifted the philosophy of language towards pragmatics by showing that language is not only description but also action. Speech acts manifest themselves with extraordinary intensity in the digital environment; for example, certain communicative intentions of the speaker, such as promises, accusations, evaluations, are amplified by algorithms, while others undergo an immediate transformation into effects that our utterance causes in the listener, such as shock, fear, pleasure, and the like. Digital platforms thus create a situation in which pragmatic effects operate with a speed and reach that were not possible in the traditional environment. Linguistic manipulation therefore becomes a matter not only of content, but also of context, timing, and algorithmic modulation of these elements.

While classical philosophy of language allows us to understand language as a system, modern media theories show how this system is transformed in the environment of technological infrastructure. Digital media create a hybrid space in which language becomes not only an expression of individual intentions, but also a product of platform logic (Slavkovsky, Kutaš, 2013).

Social media also have enormous appeal for families, supporting everyday online communication, for example via Instagram, YouTube, or Facebook. More than a fifth of students are "online" for 4 hours a day or more, and more than half of families use shared online chat. This trend shows that the digital environment significantly influences everyday interactions and creates frameworks where language serves not only to inform, but also for affective mobilization and social influence (Gužíková, Pošteková, 2025).

As Aleksić and Stamenković (2018) state, the language of digital media is shaped by interactivity and audience participation, while new communication forms, such as comments, statuses, hashtags, and memes, create their own stylistics and pragmatics distinct from traditional media. Language here ceases to be a stable textual form, but becomes, so to speak, a fleeting, dynamic, and situated performance, that is, how we actually use language in practice. Fischer (2022) points out that contemporary manipulative strategies deliberately exploit the affective predispositions of recipients, with language functioning as a trigger of emotional reactions, not as a carrier of rational argument. Digital platforms create a so-called affective environment in which emotional signals spread faster and more effectively than rational statements. This also fundamentally changes the pragmatics of online communication, in that a successful utterance is not one that is argumentatively strong, but one that elicits an affective response such as anger, fear, or moral outrage.

Warfield (2023) characterizes the discourse of social networks as ethically impoverished, because digital platforms prioritize interactions with short attention spans, instant emotional impact, and minimal dialogicality, the exact opposite of what would support understanding or a shared sense of reality. From a philosophical perspective, this is a transformation of communicative conditions in which the ability to conduct argumentative discourse is disrupted and replaced by a culture of fragmented, monological reactions.

Erika Moravčíková (2020) emphasizes that digital media are a catalyst for the post-truth situation, in which probability becomes less important than emotional persuasiveness or ideological compatibility of information. Manipulation in this context is a natural consequence of an environment in which rational argumentation is pushed into the background. Mikušiak (2018) offers us an important methodological reminder, namely that language is situated between logic and psychology, because it is not only a formal system, but also part of mental processes and socially conditioned interpretations. Digital media further accentuate this duality by making language simultaneously influenced by the rules of algorithms, psychological reactions, and the social dynamics of online communities. Manipulative strategies are therefore implemented concurrently at the level of semantics, pragmatics, and affectivity, and these levels can increasingly less be separated from one another.

One of the most prominent manipulative techniques in the digital environment is framing, which consists of language selecting, highlighting, or even obscuring selected aspects of events. Even in traditional media, framing language was part of journalistic practice, but the digital environment elevates this technique to a new level. As Moravčíková (2020) states, in the post-truth era, framing language takes the form of a purposeful selection of information aimed at supporting an ideologically compatible interpretation of the world, with language often being a means of inducing fear, threat, or a sense of injustice or humiliation.

In the context of the philosophy of language, this is a phenomenon that can be explained by Wittgenstein's thesis about the dependence of meaning on use: if digital media use a certain linguistic frame repeatedly and in a homogeneous communicative environment, they thereby shape the very interpretive schema of reality. Language itself thus does not describe reality, but governs the access of users of social networks and other digital media to what is considered relevant, urgent, or true. Framing, once a tool of editors, is now decentralized and performed by every user, with algorithms favoring frames with the highest affective value. As Fischer (2022) showed, the effectiveness of a manipulative frame also grows in proportion to its ability to mobilize affective states, especially anger and fear, leading to the spread of content that, under rational evaluation, might not be significant or even true.

Digital media promote the use of linguistic forms that deliberately distort the referential relationship between the linguistic expression and reality. The two most common are euphemization (softening of expression – author's note) and hyperbolization (exaggeration, increase in meaning – author's note). Euphemisms serve to mask negative phenomena with more neutral formulations that reduce their severity. In the online space, it appears especially in the political scene and communication, advertising, and PR discourse, where its aim is to shape a positive interpretation without changing the factual state itself. They acquire a manipulative character precisely when they are used to systematically shift the interpretation of reality, for example in avoiding responsibility or legitimizing controversial decisions. In the case of hyperbolization, it is the opposite phenomenon, involving linguistic excess and exaggeration that increases the intensity of meaning. The digital environment favors it because hyperbolic statements are more effective in the competitive struggle for user attention on social networks. As Aleksić and Stamenković (2018) point out, the language of digital media is characterized by condensation, expressiveness, and dramatization, which are consequences of stylistic shifts caused by the multimodal environment of online communication. The essence is that in both cases, the goal of linguistic distortion is to create interpretive shifts in favor of the communicator's intentions, thus resulting in manipulation at the level of both semantics and pragmatics.

Digital platforms also change language by deforming its contextual ties. Linguistic manipulation is particularly effective when an utterance is taken out of context, allowing its reinterpretation in favor of various narratives. Warfield (2023) points out that online communication creates an environment in which ethical and discursive degradation of interaction occurs, in that fragmented inputs replace dialogue, leading to a loss of the ability to critically evaluate the meaning of utterances in their entirety. Linguistic fragmentation thus enables the selective use of quotes, visual elements, or facts to create an impression of relevance or truth where it is actually lacking. Currently, this decontextualization also supports the rapid spread of hoaxes and conspiracy narratives. Moravčíková (2020) states that one of the typical features of digital media is the circulation of isolated statements that themselves become carriers of ideological meanings regardless of their original intention or accuracy. Manipulative language itself acquires its effectiveness because it is embedded in an architecture that favors affective content. From a philosophical perspective, we could ask not only how language is used, but who decides which linguistic forms remain visible, prominent, and socially effective.

Why does emotionally charged language spread faster?

Digital platforms are based on metrics of interaction and prediction, meaning their goal is to keep users' attention as long as possible. They do not work with semantic content, but with its social performance, namely with interest, interaction, or prediction of engagement. In practice, this means that algorithms decide which linguistic acts are allowed to operate and which remain in the background. Warfield (2023) points out that the social network system creates an environment in which communication is not directed toward understanding, but toward maximizing attention, while the system itself governs the distribution and spread of discourse in a way that may be ethically impoverished.

It turns out that it is precisely affectively charged linguistic expressions that have the highest level of engagement, because they trigger emotional reactions that motivate users to interact, whether in the form of sharing, commenting, or direct reaction (Fischer, 2022). In the media environment, the core of the problem becomes not only the content of false or manipulative claims, but especially the manner of their multi-application spread, which undermines traditional norms of epistemic authority and truthfulness (Moravčíková, 2020). Algorithms thus directly influence which statements acquire the status of plausible or socially relevant.

Since the algorithmically favored communicative forms are precisely those that are affective, polarizing, or even dramatic, manipulation ceases to be an exception and becomes the norm in social discourse. Algorithms thus become invisible co-actors of communication in the digital space.

However, one must not forget the new communicative (machine) actor that is currently fundamentally changing the linguistic, epistemic, and normative conditions of digital discourse, namely AI. While in previous sections of the article algorithms were understood mainly as modifiers of the visibility of linguistic expressions, in the case of AI we are dealing with a qualitatively different phenomenon. Artificial intelligence is beginning to produce language, thereby entering the very center of the processes of meaning creation. "Despite many benefits, it also brings numerous challenges that require careful reflection. AI has the potential to change the way of thinking, learning, and even interpersonal relationships. The study maps the risks of using AI in education from the perspective of ethics, cognitive development, and social impacts, with the aim of contributing to a better understanding of how technologies shape (and deform) our educational environment." (Pošteková, 2025, p. 348).

Speech acts as defined by Austin and Searle presuppose the existence of a speaking subject who has an intention to assert, promise, or evoke something. In the case of AI, however, this intentional framework is absent, because it has no intention. Here an ontological paradox of the speech act without a speaking subject arises. However, if language operates performatively, as Fischer's (2022) analyses of the affective effects of online communication show, then AI can produce perlocutionary effects even without intentionality, which means that traditional distinctions between intentional and unintentional manipulation cease to be sustainable, because a user can be emotionally, ideologically, or even epistemically influenced by a text that has no speaking author. Thus, artificial intelligence as a machine actor can elicit a reaction, while no longer bearing linguistic or moral responsibility for it. "This process includes not only technical aspects such as speech synthesis, facial expressions, and empathy simulated through algorithms, but also a symbolic shift in which AI begins to be understood as a subject capable of interacting with people on a nearly equal level" (Pošteková, Brisudová, 2025, p. 149).

Although artificial intelligence is often presented as a technology with high potential to streamline processes, expand the availability of services, and support new forms of social interaction, its integration into communication and decision-making structures also opens fundamental ethical and social questions. One of the most visible is the gradual erosion of the authenticity of communication, in that automated responses, predictive algorithms, and generated content can disrupt the spontaneity of interpersonal exchanges, weaken the emotional depth of interaction, and undermine the relational trust that lies at the core of social coexistence (Pošteková, Brisudová, 2025).

As outlined above, although artificial intelligence as a machine actor can elicit a reaction in users, on the other hand it no longer bears linguistic or moral responsibility for it. In cases of failure of AI decision-making processes, it is often unclear who bears the moral or legal consequences. This unclear architecture of responsibility creates a state of normative elusiveness in which traditional ethical frameworks cease to provide support and the possibility of correction.

Conclusion

The reflections outlined above suggest that language in the digital environment cannot be understood as a simple continuation of the traditional communication model, but as a complex and constantly changing system that is closely linked to the technological nature of the media. Digital platforms influence not only what is said, but also how and under what conditions language can be effective. This conditionality causes meanings to cease to be stable and increasingly become subject to the dynamics of attention, speed of reaction, or emotional tuning of users. In such an environment, manipulative strategies acquire a new character, arising not only as deliberate attempts at distortion, but also as a natural consequence of the communicative mechanisms that digital technologies favor and reproduce. A particular dimension is added by the advent of artificial intelligence, which enters communication as a producer of language without an intentional framework. This represents a fundamental turning point in terms of to whom and to what we attribute authorial responsibility or intention in today's communication.

Author: Mgr. Katarína Brisudová University of Žilina, Institute of Mediamatics and Cultural Heritage

Bibliography

ALEKSIĆ, D. & STAMENKOVIĆ, I. The Language of Media in the Digital Age. In.: Balkan Social Science Review, vol. 12, pp. 101 -103, 2018

AUSTIN, J. L. How to Do Things with Words. Bratislava : Kalligram, 2004

FISCHER, A. Manipulation and the Affective Realm of Social Media. In.: JONGEPIER, F. & GUŽIKOVÁ, L. & POŠTEKOVÁ, B. Social Networks – Do They Unite or Divide the Family? In: KOCHANOWICZ, A. M., WITKOWSKI, M. & JORG, D. (eds.), Family Dynamics in a Changing World: Support, Challenges, and Adaptation. Dąbrowa Górnicza: Wydawnictwo naukowe akademii WSB, pp. 189–199, 2025.

KLENK, M. (ed.) The Philosophy of Online Manipulation. New York and London: Research in Philosophy and Technology. pp. 327-352, 2022

FREGE, G.: On Sense and Reference. In.: Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, pp. 25-50, 1892

MIKUŠIAK, M. Philosophy of Language between Logic and Psychology. Trnava: Trnava University in Trnava. p. 207, 2018

MORAVČÍKOVÁ, E. Media Manipulation And Propaganda In The Post-Truth Era. In.: Media Literacy and Academic Research. Vol. 3, No. 2, pp.37, 2020

MORRIS, M.: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. New York : Cambridge University Press, pp. 5 – 20, 2007

POŠTEKOVÁ, B.; BRISUDOVÁ, K. Artificial Intelligence as a Tool of Dehumanization? In.: ŠVEC, J. & HOREMUŽ, M. (eds.). On Questions of the Present from the Perspective of Humanities and Social Sciences. pp.149-164, 2025

POŠTEKOVÁ, B. Implementation of Artificial Intelligence in Education in Slovakia: Current State, Threats, and Ethical Implications. In: HOMOLOVÁ, M. & POŠTEKOVÁ, B. (eds.), Transformations of Knowledge: A Bridge Between Sciences I. Ružomberok: Catholic University in Ružomberok, VERBUM – Publishing House of the Catholic University, pp. 347–359, 2025.

SLAVKOVSKÝ, A. R. & KUTÁŠ, M. Introduction to the Philosophy of Language. Trnava: Faculty of Philosophy, Trnava University in Trnava. p.114, 2013

SEARLE, J. R. Mind, Language, Society. Bratislava : Kalligram, 2007

WARFIELD, B. Digital Technology and the Problem of Dialogical Discourse in Social Media. In.: Techné: Research in Philosophy and Technology. Vol. 27, no. 2, pp.220-239, 2023