Genological stratification of diplomatic discourse on Twitter

Based on the material of the countries of the Romance and Germanic language areas


  • Olga Ponomarenko Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Iryna Smushchynska Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Olena Popivniak Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Olena Tyshchenko Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv, Ukraine
  • Valentyna Kovalchuk National Pedagogical Dragomanov University, Kyiv, Ukraine


communicative linguistics, genre, microblog, tweet, virtual communication


Scientific and technological progress with all its achievements has affected various spheres of human life. Philological disciplines, including communicative linguistics, are no exception. The means of communication have changed significantly in recent decades. No one is surprised by computer-mediated interactions, the internet has become available, and it is not difficult for many people to use personal electronic gadgets. These new developments have affected both the sphere of personal communication, including business, work, and professional relationships. All this is also relevant for diplomatic discourse, the evolutionary leap of which has taken place literally in half a century: from isolation and going beyond political discourse to the level of independent development to its current functioning with the active use of the entire palette of communication tools, methods, and techniques, including Internet resources, in particular, microblogs. The purpose of this article is to determine, describe and make an attempt to predict the levels and structure of genres of diplomatic discourse in the coming decades using examples of its manifestations on Twitter in the best traditions of classical linguistics schools and considering the achievements of new research areas in linguistics.


Download data is not yet available.


Aimukhambet, Z. A., Abdilmanatkyzy, A., Baitanasova, K., Seiputanova, A., & Kurmambayeva, K. (2017). The poetic interpretation of binary opposition in the structure of myth.

Altahmazi, T. H. (2020). Collective pragmatic acting in networked spaces: The case of# activism in Arabic and English Twitter discourse. Lingua, 239, 102837.

Arosev, G. (2019). Twitter has clarified the rules for tweets of politicians.

Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of verbal creativity]. Moscow: Iskusstvo.

Batsevich, F. S. (2014). Communicative deviations and conditions for the success of the speech genre. Genres of speech , (1-2 (9-10)).

Busel, V. T. (2005). Velykyi tlumachnyi slovnyk suchasnoi ukrainskoi movy [Large explanatory dictionary of the modern Ukrainian language]. Kyiv: Perun.

Crowston, K. (2010). Internet genres. Encyclopedia of library and information science, 2583-2596.

Crystal, D. (2002). Language and the Internet. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 45(2), 142-144.

Dedukhno, A. V., & Sizonenko, N. M. (2015). Subgenres and genroids of the scientific article. SWorld, 8(3), 90-95.

Dementiev, V. V., & Sedov, K. F. (1998). Sociopragmatic aspect of the theory of speech genres. Saratov: Publishing house of the Saratov Pedagogical Institute.

Dementyev, V. V. (2010). Teoriya rechevykh zhanrov [A theory of speech genres]. Moscow: Znak.(Kommunikativnye strategii kul’tury).

Fall, J. J. (2020). Territory, sovereignty and entitlement: Diplomatic discourses in the United Nations Security Council. Political Geography, 81, 102208.

Gasparov, B. M. (1996). Language, memory, image. Linguistics of language existence. M.: New literature survey.

Gonçalves, P., Ferreira, L., Gonçalves, J., Putnik, G. D., & Cruz-Cunha, M. M. (2014). Direct communication versus virtual communication in virtual teams. Procedia Technology, 16, 3-10.

Goroshko, E. I. (2014). Polyakova TL Politicheskiy tvitting kak novyy zhanr internet-kommunikatsii (Political tweeting as a new genre of Internet communication). Voprosy psikholingvistiki, (19), 92-104.

Hayda, S. V. (1999). Conversational genres. Speech Genres, 2, 103-112.

HURKO, O. V. (2020). Intersection Of Affirmative Meanings In The Ukrainian Literary Language (On The Materials Of Contemporary Fiction). Astra Salvensis-revista de istorie si cultura, 8(Supplement), 605-617.

Jacob, E. B., Becker, I., Shapira, Y., & Levine, H. (2004). Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. TRENDS in Microbiology, 12(8), 366-372.

Jia, R., & Li, W. (2020). Public diplomacy networks: China’s public diplomacy communication practices in twitter during Two Sessions. Public Relations Review, 46(1), 101818.

Jönsson, C., & Hall, M. (2003). Communication: An essential aspect of diplomacy. International Studies Perspectives, 4(2), 195-210.

Kampf, Z. (2016). All the best! Performing solidarity in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 93, 47-60.

Koroliova, V., Grechenko, V., Kovalchuk, M., Samoilenko, V., Shevchenko, T., & Zaitseva, V. (2021). Information and communication activity of students when writing a course work on linguistics. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(1), 115-128.

Kusko, K. (2001). Discourse of foreign language communication. Lviv: Ivan Franko National University of Lviv.

Liu, W., & Wang, Y. (2020). The role of offensive metaphors in Chinese diplomatic discourse. Discourse, Context & Media, 37, 100418.

Mare, R. D. (2014). Multigenerational aspects of social stratification: Issues for further research. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 35, 121-128.

Oleksenko, I. P. (2015). Speech genre of the Internet in the context of linguistic genre studies. Scientific Bulletin of the International Humanities University, 19(2), 105-107.

Oseredchuk, O., Hloba, L., Apshay, F., Shyp, O., & Andriiv, N. M. (2021). Information communication and its role in pedagogical communication and cooperation. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 1035-1048.

Pinatih, I. D. S., Pratiwi, N. I., & Ekaresty, P. (2018). The second concert of powers: managing US-China competition on the Korean peninsula conflict in terms of international communication perspective. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 5(6), 17-25.

Pobegaylov, O. A., Myasishchev, G. I., & Gaybarian, O. E. (2016). Organization and management efficiency assessment in the aspect of linguistic communication and professional text. Procedia Engineering, 150, 2173-2177.

Ponomarenko, O. V. (2018). Diplomatic discourse in Twitter: Twitter and twitter as new genres of diplomatic communes. Style and Translation, 1(5), 282-297.

Rinartha, K., & Suryasa, W. (2017). Comparative study for better result on query suggestion of article searching with MySQL pattern matching and Jaccard similarity. In 2017 5th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management (CITSM) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.

Romaniuk, A. (2016). Comparative Analysis of Morphological Features of Male and Female Corpora Based on American Dating Show “The Bachelor US” Contestants’ Speech. Analele Universit??ii din Craiova. Seria ?tiin?e Filologice. Lingvistic?, (1-2), 96-104.

Romaniuk, O. (2018). Feminine contact-establishing communicative tactic within the framework of romantic discourse. Analele Universit??ii din Craiova. Seria ?tiin?e Filologice. Lingvistic?, (1-2), 170-181.

Sedov, KF (2009). Genre Identity in Language and Socialization of a Person. Izvestiya Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaya seriya. Ser. Filosofiya. Psikhologiya. Pedagogika , 9 , 85-89.

Selivanova, O. O. (2006). Modern linguistics: terminology encyclopedia. Poltava: Environment-K, 716.

Serazhym, K. (2003). Discourse as a sociolingual phenomenon of contemporary communicative space (methodological, pragmatically-semantic and genre-linguistic aspects: on the basis of political variety of the Ukrainian mass-media discourse). Avtoref. dis.... d-ra philol. nauk, 10(08).

Shchipitsina, LY (2015). Genre status of an online comment. Vestnik Bashkirskogo Universiteta , 20 (2).

Shmelova, T. V. (1997). Model of the speech genre. Genres of Speech, 1-2, 57-65.

Skliarenko, O., Akimova, A., & Svyrydenko, O. (2019). Psycholinguistic Peculiarities of Contextual Realisation of Concept «MACHT» in Linguistic and Cultural Space of German’s. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, 26(2), 321-340.

Torrealba, A. A. (2015). Twiplomacy: Impact of Twitter Social Network on Diplomacy. Vestnik RUDN. International Relations, 15(3), 152-166.

Uysal, N., & Schroeder, J. (2019). Turkey’s Twitter public diplomacy: Towards a “new” cult of personality. Public Relations Review, 45(5), 101837.

Vezhbitska, ?. A. (1997). Speech genres. Genres of speech, 1.

Vikulova, L. G., Makarova, I. V., & Novikov, N. V. (2016). Institutional Discourse of digital diplomacy: new communicative practices. Vestnik Volgogradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta. Serii?a? 2, I?A?zykoznanie, 15(3).

Volkova, P., Luginina, A., Saenko, N., & Samusenkov, V. (2020). Virtual Reality: Pro et Contra. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 11(4), 190-203.

Widhiasthini, N. W. (2020). Sharing economy on election campaign through social media. International Research Journal of Management, IT and Social Sciences, 7(6), 79-85.

Zu, Z. (2021). The right contextual information determining the success of communication on translation. Applied Translation, 15(1), 39–43. Retrieved from



How to Cite

Ponomarenko, O., Smushchynska, I., Popivniak, O., Tyshchenko, O., & Kovalchuk, V. (2021). Genological stratification of diplomatic discourse on Twitter : Based on the material of the countries of the Romance and Germanic language areas. Linguistics and Culture Review, 5(S4), 1176-1186.



Research Articles