Вестник Волгоградского государственного университета. Серия 2. Языкознание1998-99112409-197910.15688/jvolsu2.2026.3.12OtherИСКУССТВЕННЫЙ ИНТЕЛЛЕКТ И АНГЛИЙСКИЙ ЯЗЫК: ВЛИЯНИЕ ГЕНЕРАТИВНЫХ МОДЕЛЕЙ НА ДИСКУРСИВНЫЕ ПРАКТИКИ, СТИЛЬ И ЯЗЫКОВУЮ КОМПЕТЕНЦИЮARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE: THE IMPACT OF GENERATIVE MODELS ON WRITTEN DISCOURSE, STYLE, AND LINGUISTIC COMPETENCEАль-БаятиЯссин Шариф СаидAl-BayatiYassien Shareef SaedYassien_shareef@ijsu.edu.iqhttps://orcid.org/0000-0001-7219-0235Imam Ja’afar Al-Sadiq University; Directorate of Religious Education and Islamic StudiesBaghdadIraqУниверситет Имама Джафара Аль-Садика; Дирекция религиозного образования и исламоведенияг. БагдадИрак290920262531371472811202502022026https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/CC BY 4.0https://l.jvolsu.com/index.php/ru/archive-ru/1041-science-journal-of-volsu-linguistics-2026-vol-25-no-3/diskussii/3109-al-bayati-ya-s-iskusstvennyj-intellekt-i-anglijskij-yazyk-vliyanie-generativnykh-modelej-na-diskursivnye-praktiki-stil-i-yazykovuyu-kompetentsiyu-na-angl-yaz

В статье рассматривается многоаспектное влияние искусственного интеллекта (ИИ), особенно генеративных (как ChatGPT) и аналогичных языковых моделей (LLM), на английский язык. Анализ сосредоточен на письменном дискурсе, его стилистических нормах, текстовых категориях и жанровых конвенциях, а также меняющихся представлениях о языковой компетенции в цифровую эпоху. Опираясь на анализ дискурса, стилистику и социолингвистику, исследование показывает, как ИИ, выступающий одновременно в качестве средства и способа коммуникации, трансформирует текстовые стандарты, ставя под вопрос авторство и стирая границы между человеческим и машинным дискурсом. ИИ также является не просто технологическим субъектом дискурса, порождающим текст по тем или иным алгоритмам, а непосредственным фактором языковой эволюции, способствующим лингвистической стандартизации и формирующим унифицированную глобальную форму английского языка, знаменующую переход от индивидуального к распределенному познанию, от социально обусловленной конвенциональности жанров к их вероятностному конструированию, определяемому пользовательским вводом и вычислительной рекомбинацией. В работе делается вывод, что понимание этих процессов имеет решающее значение для сохранения языкового разнообразия и формирования критической грамотности в эпоху алгоритмического авторства.

This article examines the multifaceted impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on contemporary English written communication, with particular attention to generative models such as ChatGPT and other large language models (LLMs). The analysis centers on written discourse, addressing stylistic formation, textual categories, genre conventions, and the redefinition of linguistic competence within digital contexts. Drawing on discourse analysis, stylistics, and sociolinguistics, the research demonstrates that AI technologies, functioning as both medium and mode of communication, are transforming textual conventions, challenging traditional notions of authorship, and blurring the distinction between human and machine discourse. The central argument asserts that AI operates not only as an autonomous agent in linguistic evolution – generating texts through specific algorithms – but also as a crucial driver of linguistic standardization. This process produces texts lacking human nuance, fosters stylistic and genre hybridization, and contributes to the emergence of a homogenized global form of English. Ultimately, LLMs signify a shift from individual to distributed cognition and from socially determined genre conventions to probabilistic constructions shaped by user input and computational recombination. The study concludes that heightened critical awareness of these developments is vital for preserving linguistic diversity and promoting interpretive literacy in an era increasingly shaped by algorithmic text production.

искусственный интеллектгенеративные моделидискурсписьменная коммуникацияязыковая компетенциястилистикаartificial intelligencegenerative modelsdiscoursewritten communicationlinguistic competencestylisticsBarthes R., 1977. The Death of the Author. Barthes R. Image – Music – Text. New York, Fontana, pp. 142-148.Bender E.M., Gabry T., McMillan-Major A., Shmitchell S., 2021. On the Dangers of Stochastic Parrots: Can Language Models Be Too Big? Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, pp. 610-623. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3442188.3445922Biber D., Conrad S., 2019. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 420 p.Bourdieu P., 1991. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 302 p.Carter R., Nash W., 1990. Seeing Through Language: A Guide to Styles of English Usage. S.l., Basil Blackwell. 267 p.Chomsky N., 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MIT Press. 251 p.Clark A., 2008. Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 317 p.Clark A., Chalmers D. 1998. The Extended Mind. Analysis, vol. 58, no 1, pp. 7-19.Crystal D., 2019. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 506 p.Degaetano-Ortlieb S., 2019. Hybridization Effects in Literary Text. URL: https://stefaniadegaetano.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/abstact_cl2019_hybridization_final.pdfFairclough N., 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London, Longman. 591 p.Faridha H., Khoirunnisaa S., Maharani N., Nurjanah L., 2026. A Discourse Analysis of Cohesive Devices in Human and AI-Produced Personal Statements. English Learning Innovation, vol. 7, pp. 124-141. DOI: 10.22219/englie.v7i1.41321Farooq S., Naz T., Habib P., Sajjad K., 2026. A Comparative Linguistic Analysis of Lexical Diversity in AI-Generated and Human-Written Academic Research. Advance Social Science Archive Journal, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 846-858. URL: https://assajournal.com/index.php/36/article/view/1749Floridi L., Chiriatti M., 2020. GPT-3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences. Minds and Machines, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 681-694.Floridi L., 2023. The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Principles, Challenges, and Opportunities. Oxford, Oxford University Press. 279 p.Formosa P., Bankins S., Matulionyte R. et al., 2025. Can ChatGPT Be an Author? Generative AI Creative Writing Assistance and Perceptions of Authorship, Creatorship, Responsibility, and Disclosure. AI & Soc, vol. 40, pp. 3405-3417. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-024-02081-0Foucault M., 1984. What Is an Author? // The Foucault Reader / ed. by P. Rabinow. New York, Pantheon Books, pp. 101-120.Gao C., Wang R., 2023. Distinguishing AI-Generated and Human-Written Text Through Psycholinguistic Analysis. URL: https://arxiv.org/html/2505.01800v1Goro G., 2025. The New Literacy in the Age of AI: Educational Foundations, Pedagogical Practices, and Ethical Challenges. Vallejo R.B., ed. New Literacies in the Age of AI: Ethics, Teaching, and Writing. Montevideo, South American Publishing, pp. 2-18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.62486/978-9915-9854-5-9.ch01Halliday M.A.K., Hasan R., 2014. Cohesion in English. London, Routledge. 392 p.Halliday M.A.K., Matthiessen C., 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London, New York, Routledge. 786 p.Helm P., Bella B., Koch G., Giunchiglia F., 2023. Diversity and Language Technology: How Techno-Linguistic Bias Can Cause Epistemic Injustice. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.13714Herring S.C., Androutsopoulos J., 2015. Computer-Mediated Discourse 2.0. Tannen D., Hamilton H.E., Schiffrin D., eds. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Hoboken, John Wiley & Sons, pp. 1753-1764.Hymes D., 1972. On Communicative Competence. Pride J.B., Holmes J., eds. Sociolinguistics: Selected Readings. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books, pp. 269-293.Johansson M., Tanskanen S.-K., Chovanec J., 2021. Analyzing Digital Discourses Between Convergence and Controversy. Cham, Springer International Publishing AG. 374 p.Jones R., 2020. Mediated Discourse Analysis. Adolphs S., Knight D., eds. The Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities. London, Routledge, pp. 202-219.Krakowski S., 2025. Human-AI Agency in the Age of Generative AI. Information and Organization, vol. 35, no. 1, art. 100560 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infoandorg.2025.100560.Lee J.C.-K., Ho J.P.J., Gu M.M., 2026. Translanguaging and Artificial Intelligence in Education Development: Implications for Leadership in Language Education in a Changing World. International Journal of Applied Linguistics. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.70182Leech G., Short M., 2007. Style in Fiction. London, Pearson Education. 404 p.Liu W, Liu X., 2025. A Comparative Analysis of Syntactic Complexity in Argumentative Essays from Rhetorical Perspective: ChatGPT vs. English Native Speakers. PLoS One, vol. 20, no. 8, e0329410. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0329410Mahmud A., Hasan W., Khan A.A., 2026. Epistemic Modality in Human and AI-Generated Academic Abstracts: A Corpus-Based Analysis. Qlantic Journal of Social Sciences, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 309-318. DOI: https://doi.org/10.55737/qjss.viii.26494Masullo C., Casado A., Leivada E., Sorace A., 2025. Register Variation and Linguistic Background Modulate Accuracy in Detecting Morphosyntactic Errors. Open Journal of Romance Linguistics, vol. 11, no. 1, pp.1-36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/isogloss.527Matson J.O., 2025. How AI Has Disrupted the Meaning of Coherence. URL: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/drjohnowenmatson_how-ai-has-made-coherence-incoherent-few-activity-7373943814014738433-s5E3Muсoz-Ortiz A., Gуmez-Rodríguez C., Vilares D., 2024. Contrasting Linguistic Patterns in Human and LLM-Generated News Text. Artif Intell Rev., vol. 57, art. 265. DOI: 10.1007/s10462-024-10903-2Myntti A., Henriksson E., Laippala V., Pyysalo S., 2025. Register Always Matters: Analysis of LLM Pretraining Data Through the Lens of Language Variation. Computer Science. Computation and Language. DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2504.01542Pasquale F., 2015. The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 320 p.Pennycook A., Otsuji E., 2016. Lingoing, Language Labels and Metrolingual Practices. Applied Linguistics Review, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 259-277. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2016-0011Selwyn N., 2016. Is Technology Good for Education? Cambridge, Polity Press. 160 p.Swales J., 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 260 p.Tudino G., Qin Y., 2024. A Corpus-Driven Comparative Analysis of AI in Academic Discourse: Investigating ChatGPT-Generated Academic Texts in Social Sciences. Lingua, vol. 312, art. 103838. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103838Turing A.M., 1950. Computing Machinery and Intelligence. Mind, vol. 59, no. 236, pp. 433-460.Van Lier L., 2004. The Ecology and Semiotics of Language Learning: A Sociocultural Perspective. Norwell, MA, Kluwer Academic Publishers. 264 p.Vygotsky L.S., 1978. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Harvard University Press. 159 p.