Digital Technologies Research and Applications

Article

Mapping the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Sociolinguistics: A Bibliometric and Keyword-Based Content Analysis

Downloads

https://doi.org/10.54963/dtra.v5i2.2297
Rugaiyah, Idayani, A., Roziah, Suryanti, N., & Gazali, N. (2026). Mapping the Intersection of Artificial Intelligence and Sociolinguistics: A Bibliometric and Keyword-Based Content Analysis. Digital Technologies Research and Applications, 5(2), 30–49. https://doi.org/10.54963/dtra.v5i2.2297
Volume 5 Issue 2: June 2026 (in progress)
Copyright (c) 2026 Rugaiyah, Andi Idayani, Roziah, Nunuk Suryanti, Novri Gazali
Creative Commons License

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

Copyright

The authors shall retain the copyright of their work but allow the Publisher to publish, copy, distribute, and convey the work.

License

Digital Technologies Research and Applications (DTRA)  publishes accepted manuscripts under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Authors who submit their papers for publication by DTRA agree to have the CC BY 4.0 license applied to their work, and that anyone is allowed to reuse the article or part of it free of charge for any purpose, including commercial use. As long as the author and original source are properly cited, anyone may copy, redistribute, reuse, and transform the content.

Authors

  • Rugaiyah

    Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru 28125, Indonesia
  • Andi Idayani

    Department of English Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru 28125, Indonesia
  • Roziah

    Department of Indonesian Language and Literature Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru 28125, Indonesia
  • Nunuk Suryanti

    Department of Accounting Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru 28125, Indonesia
  • Novri Gazali

    Department of Physical Education, Faculty of Teacher Training and Education, Universitas Islam Riau, Pekanbaru 28125, Indonesia

Received: 14 January 2026; Revised: 3 February 2026; Accepted: 3 March 2026; Published: 13 April 2026

This research investigates the dynamic relationship of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Sociolinguistics through bibliometric mapping in association with keyword content analysis. Utilizing 69 extracted publications (2013–2024) after systematic deduplication, the study combines quantitative trend analysis with keyword-based thematic interpretation. From an initial collection of 98 records obtained from Scopus (n = 64) and Web of Science (n = 34), a subset of 48 publications was sampled further pursuant to their conceptual relevance. Bibliometric analysis with the software ScientoPy and VOSviewer was employed to reveal publication trajectories, top contributors, influential journals, geographic patterns, and knowledge hot spots. This mapping was supplemented with a qualitative examination of the space mapped using five major terms: Computational Sociolinguistics, Natural Language Processing (NLP), ChatGPT, language and machine learning enabling us to track prevalent themes and concepts structuring the field. These results indicate that scholarly interest in the sociolinguistic aspects of AI-mediated communication has grown substantially, especially pertaining to language ideology, identity construction, and algorithmic influence on discourse. Instead of portraying computational methods as passive and neutral tools, the findings imply that technology such as NLP and large language models can be seen as both reproducing and destabilizing linguistic hierarchies, bringing to light critical questions regarding representation, diversity, and equity in digital space. In this work, we map the intersection of AI and Sociolinguistics through a combination of bibliometric mapping and keyword-based interpretation, thus giving an overview of how the field has evolved over time. This finding implies that debates about ethical and culturally inclusive AI design are coalescing into prominence in the literature.

Keywords:

Artificial Intelligence Sociolinguistics Ideology Language Standarization Algorithmic Mediation Identity Formation ChatGPT

References

  1. Lucy, L.; Bamman, D. Gender and Representation Bias in GPT-3 Generated Stories; Association for Computational Linguistics: Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2021; pp. 48–55. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2021.nuse-1.5
  2. Sheng, E.; Chang, K.-W.; Natarajan, P.; et al. The Woman Worked as a Babysitter: On Biases in Language Generation. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), Hong Kong, China, November 2019; pp. 3407–3412. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/d19-1339
  3. Blasi, D.; Anastasopoulos, A.; Neubig, G. Systematic Inequalities in Language Technology Performance across the World’s Languages. In Proceedings of the 60th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Dublin, Ireland, May 2022; pp. 5486–5505. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2022.ACL-LONG.376
  4. Joshi, P.; Santy, S.; Budhiraja, A.; et al. The State and Fate of Linguistic Diversity and Inclusion in the NLP World. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, online, July 2020; pp. 6282–6293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.ACL-MAIN.560
  5. Kreutzer, J.; Caswell, I.; Wang, L.; et al. Quality at a Glance: An Audit of Web-Crawled Multilingual Datasets. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. 2022, 10, 50–72. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/tacl_a_00447
  6. Ruder, S.; Peters, M.E.; Swayamdipta, S.; et al. Transfer Learning in Natural Language Processing. In Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Minneapolis, MN, USA, June 2019; pp. 15–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/n19-5004
  7. Hovy, D.; Prabhumoye, S. Five Sources of Bias in Natural Language Processing. Lang. Linguist. Compass 2021, 15, e12432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/lnc3.12432
  8. Helm, P.; Bella, G.; Koch, G.; et al. Diversity and Language Technology: How Language Modeling Bias Causes Epistemic Injustice. Ethics Inf. Technol. 2024, 26, 8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-023-09742-6
  9. Blodgett, S.L.; Barocas, S.; Daumé, H.; et al. Language (Technology) is Power: A Critical Survey of ‘Bias’ in NLP. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Online, July 2020; pp. 5454–5476. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.ACL-MAIN.485
  10. Jones, T. African American English Intensifier Dennamug: Using Twitter to Investigate Syntactic Change in Low-Frequency Forms. Front. Artif. Intell. 2023, 5, 683104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2022.683104
  11. Morin, C.; Desagulier, G.; Grieve, J.A.C.K. A Social Turn for Construction Grammar: Double Modals on British Twitter. Eng. Lang. Linguist. 2024, 28, 275–303. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674323000576
  12. Puertas, E.; Moreno-Sandoval, L.G.; Redondo, J.; et al. Detection of Sociolinguistic Features in Digital Social Networks for the Detection of Communities. Cogn. Comput. 2021, 13, 518–537. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12559-021-09818-9
  13. Moreno-Sandoval, L.G.; Pomares-Quimbaya, A.; Alvarado-Valencia, J.A. Celebrity Profiling through Linguistic Analysis of Digital Social Networks. Comput. Soc. Netw. 2021, 8, 16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/S40649-021-00097-W
  14. Gonzales, W.D.W. Broadening Horizons in the Diachronic and Sociolinguistic Study of Philippine English with the Twitter Corpus of Philippine Englishes (TCOPE). Eng. World-Wide 2023, 44, 403–434. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/EWW.22047.GON
  15. Ilbury, C.; Grieve, J.; Hall, D. Using Social Media to Infer the Diffusion of an Urban Contact Dialect: A Case Study of Multicultural London English. J. Socioling. 2024, 28, 45–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/JOSL.12653
  16. Demaj, U.; Vandenbroucke, M. Persistence of Ethnic and Linguistic Division During the COVID-19 Pandemic Outbreak in Kosovo. In COVID-19 and a World of Ad Hoc Geographies; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 2361–2379. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-94350-9_128
  17. Rahman, A.; Raj, A.; Tomy, P.; et al. A Comprehensive Bibliometric and Content Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in Language Learning: Tracing between the Years 2017 and 2023. Artif. Intell. Rev. 2024, 57, 107. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-023-10643-9
  18. Liu, C.-Y.; Yin, B. Affective Foundations in AI-Human Interactions: Insights from Evolutionary Continuity and Interspecies Communications. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2024, 161, 108406. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2024.108406
  19. Dhamija, P.; Bag, S. Role of Artificial Intelligence in Operations Environment: A Review and Bibliometric Analysis. TQM J. 2020, 32, 869–896. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/TQM-10-2019-0243
  20. Bawack, R.R.E.; Wamba, S.F.; Carillo, K.D.A.; et al. Artificial Intelligence in E-Commerce: A Bibliometric Study and Literature Review. Electron. Mark. 2022, 32, 297–338. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12525-022-00537-z
  21. Zhang, L.; Ling, J.; Lin, M. Artificial Intelligence in Renewable Energy: A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 14072–14088. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EGYR.2022.10.347
  22. Knani, M.; Echchakoui, S.; Ladhari, R. Artificial Intelligence in Tourism and Hospitality: Bibliometric Analysis and Research Agenda. Int. J. Hosp. Manag. 2022, 107, 103317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJHM.2022.103317
  23. Kartal, G.; Yeşilyurt, Y.E. A Bibliometric Analysis of Artificial Intelligence in L2 Teaching and Applied Linguistics between 1995 and 2022—Addendum. ReCALL 2024, 37, 441. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344024000284
  24. Yaseen, M.G.; Alkattan, H.; Farhan, L. The Evolution of Computational Linguistics: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends from 1966 to 2023. Appl. Data Sci. Anal. 2025, 2025, 83–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58496/ADSA/2025/005
  25. Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology. Qual. Res. Psychol. 2006, 3, 77–101. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706QP063OA
  26. Klarin, A. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Content Analysis: Guidelines and Contributions of Content Co-Occurrence or Co-Word Literature Reviews. Int. J. Consum. Stud. 2024, 48, e13031. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/IJCS.13031
  27. Wang, Z.Y.; Li, G.; Li, C.Y.; et al. Research on the Semantic-Based Co-Word Analysis. Scientometrics 2012, 90, 855–875. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-011-0563-Y
  28. Donthu, N.; Kumar, S.; Mukherjee, D.; et al. How to Conduct a Bibliometric Analysis: An Overview and Guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 2021, 133, 285–296. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2021.04.070
  29. Zupic, I.; Čater, T. Bibliometric Methods in Management and Organization. Organ. Res. Methods 2015, 18, 429–472. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629
  30. Nguyen, P.M.B.; Pham, X.L.; Truong, G.N.T. A Bibliometric Analysis of Research on Tourism Content Marketing: Background Knowledge and Thematic Evolution. Heliyon 2023, 9, e13487. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13487
  31. Sharma, K.; Khurana, P. Growth and Dynamics of Econophysics: A Bibliometric and Network Analysis. Scientometrics 2021, 126, 4417–4436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-021-03884-4
  32. Hassan, W.; Duarte, A.E. Bibliometric Analysis: A Few Suggestions. Curr. Probl. Cardiol. 2024, 49, 102640. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.CPCARDIOL.2024.102640
  33. Gyau, E.B.; Sakuwuda, K.; Asimeng, E. A Comprehensive Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization of Publications on Environmental Innovation. J. Scientometr. Res. 2023, 12, 544–557. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5530/JSCIRES.12.3.052
  34. You, C.; Awang, R.; Wu, Y.; et al. Bibliometric Analysis of Global Research Trends on Higher Education Leadership Development Using Scopus Database from 2013–2023. Discov. Sustain. 2024, 5, 246. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43621-024-00432-x
  35. Belmonte, J.L.; Segura-Robles, A.; Moreno-Guerrero, A.J.; et al. Machine Learning and Big Data in the Impact Literature: A Bibliometric Review with Scientific Mapping in Web of Science. Symmetry 2020, 12, 495. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/SYM12040495
  36. Alkhammash, R. Bibliometric, Network, and Thematic Mapping Analyses of Metaphor and Discourse in COVID-19 Publications from 2020 to 2022. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 1062943. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1062943
  37. Pranckutė, R. Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World. Publications 2021, 9, 12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/PUBLICATIONS9010012
  38. Santamaria-Granados, L.; Mendoza-Moreno, J.F.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, G. Tourist Recommender Systems Based on Emotion Recognition—A Scientometric Review. Future Internet 2020, 13, 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/FI13010002
  39. Sweileh, W.M. Bibliometric Analysis of Global Scientific Literature on Vaccine Hesitancy in Peer-Reviewed Journals (1990–2019). BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1252. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/S12889-020-09368-Z
  40. Abdullah, K.H. Publication Trends in Biology Education: A Bibliometric Review of 63 Years. J. Turk. Sci. Educ. 2022, 19, 465–480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.36681/tused.2022.131
  41. Yang, Q.; Yang, D.; Li, P.; et al. Resilient City: A Bibliometric Analysis and Visualization. Discrete Dyn. Nat. Soc. 2021, 2021, 5558497. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5558497
  42. Yudistira, R.; Rafiek, M.; Herdiani, R.; et al. A Bibliometric Analysis of Sociolinguistic Research in the Past Decade: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities. AIP Conf. Proc. 2022, 3065, 030026. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0225229
  43. Nurhuda, N.; Gazali, N.; Abdullah, K.H.; et al. Retrospective of Five Years Research of School Leadership in Asia (2018–2022): A Scientometric Paradigm. Int. J. Eval. Res. Educ. 2023, 12, 1390–1398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.11591/ijere.v12i3.26350
  44. Hamel, R.E. The Dominance of English in the International Scientific Periodical Literature and the Future of Language Use in Science. AILA Rev. 2007, 20, 53–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/AILA.20.06HAM
  45. Lunny, C.; Pieper, D.; Thabet, P.; et al. Managing Overlap of Primary Study Results across Systematic Reviews: Practical Considerations for Authors of Overviews of Reviews. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2021, 21, 140. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01269-y
  46. Rogers, G.; Szomszor, M.; Adams, J. Sample Size in Bibliometric Analysis. Scientometrics 2020, 125, 777–794. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-020-03647-7
  47. McKeown, S.; Mir, Z.M. Considerations for Conducting Systematic Reviews: Evaluating the Performance of Different Methods for De-Duplicating References. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01583-y
  48. Goel, A.; Prabha, C.; Sharma, P.; et al. Emerging Research Trends in Data Deduplication: A Bibliometric Analysis from 2010 to 2023. Arch. Comput. Methods Eng. 2024, 31, 3313–3330. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S11831-024-10074-X
  49. Hammer, B.; Virgili, E.; Bilotta, F. Evidence-Based Literature Review: De-Duplication a Cornerstone for Quality. World J. Methodol. 2023, 13, 390–398. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5662/WJM.V13.I5.390
  50. Ruiz-Rosero, J.; Ramirez-Gonzalez, G.; Viveros-Delgado, J. Software Survey: ScientoPy, a Scientometric Tool for Topics Trend Analysis in Scientific Publications. Scientometrics 2019, 121, 1165–1188. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03213-w
  51. González-Valiente, C.L.; Costas, R.; Noyons, E.; et al. Terminological (di) Similarities between Information Management and Knowledge Management: A Term Co-Occurrence Analysis. Mob. Netw. Appl. 2021, 26, 336–346. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S11036-020-01643-Y
  52. Gazali, N.; Saad, N. Job Satisfaction Among Physical Education Teachers: A Scientometric Review. ASM Sci. J. 2024, 19, 1–13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.32802/ASMSCJ.2023.1439
  53. van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software Survey: VOSviewer, a Computer Program for Bibliometric Mapping. Scientometrics 2010, 84, 523–538. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3
  54. Cascella, M.; Perri, F.; Ottaiano, A.; et al. Trends in Research on Artificial Intelligence in Anesthesia: A VOSviewer-Based Bibliometric Analysis. Intelig. Artif. 2022, 25, 126–137. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4114/INTARTIF.VOL25ISS70PP126-137
  55. Kumpulainen, M.; Seppänen, M. Combining Web of Science and Scopus Datasets in Citation-Based Literature Study. Scientometrics 2022, 127, 5613–5631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-022-04475-7
  56. Olmeda-Gómez, C.; Ovalle-Perandones, M.A.; Perianes-Rodríguez, A. Co-Word Analysis and Thematic Landscapes in Spanish Information Science Literature, 1985–2014. Scientometrics 2017, 113, 195–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/S11192-017-2486-8
  57. Howley, I.; Penstein Rosé, C. Modeling the Rhetoric of Human-Computer Interaction. In Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Techniques and Environments (HCI 2011); Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2011; pp. 341–350. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-21605-3_38
  58. Morales Sánchez, D.; Moreno, A.; Jiménez López, M.D. A White-Box Sociolinguistic Model for Gender Detection. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 2676. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/app12052676
  59. Grieve, J.; Bartl, S.; Fuoli, M.; et al. The Sociolinguistic Foundations of Language Modeling. Front. Artif. Intell. 2025, 7, 1472411. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1472411
  60. Abitbol, J.L.; Karsai, M.; Magué, J.P.; et al. Socioeconomic Dependencies of Linguistic Patterns in Twitter: A Multivariate Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference, Lyon, France, 23–27 April 2018; pp. 1125–1134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3178876.3186011
  61. Tarrade, L.; Magué, J.P.; Chevrot, J.P. Detecting and Categorising Lexical Innovations in a Corpus of Tweets. Psychol. Lang. Commun. 2022, 26, 313–329. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/plc-2022-15
  62. Nissan, E. ONOMATURGE: An Artificial Intelligence Tool and Paradigm for Supporting National and Native Language Fostering Policies. AI Soc. 1991, 5, 202–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01891916
  63. Hovy, D.; Rahimi, A.; Baldwin, T.; et al. Visualizing Regional Language Variation across Europe on Twitter. In Handbook of the Changing World Language Map; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 3719–3742. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02438-3_175
  64. Mengesha, Z.; Heldreth, C.; Lahav, M.; et al. “I Don’t Think These Devices are Very Culturally Sensitive.”—Impact of Automated Speech Recognition Errors on African Americans. Front. Artif. Intell. 2021, 4, 725911. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/FRAI.2021.725911
  65. Astuti, L.W.; Sari, Y. Code-Mixed Sentiment Analysis Using Transformer for Twitter Social Media Data. Int. J. Adv. Comput. Sci. Appl. 2023, 14, 498–504. DOI: https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2023.0141053
  66. Guo, Z.; Lai, A.; Thygesen, J.H.; et al. Large Language Models for Mental Health Applications: Systematic Review. JMIR Ment. Health 2024, 11, e57400. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/57400
  67. Waliya, Y.J. Technolingualism and Multilingualism on the Web 3.0: Ubek Et Rica Blog. Ezikov Svyat (Orbis Linguarum) 2024, 22, 118–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37708/ezs.swu.bg.v22i3.11
  68. Tran, H.; Stell, A. Beyond Borders or Building New Walls?: The Potential for Generative AI in Recolonising the Learning of Vietnamese Dialects and Mandarin Varieties. Aust. Rev. Appl. Linguist. 2024, 47, 284–308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.24135.tra
  69. Xiao, Y.; Yu, S. Can ChatGPT Replace Humans in Crisis Communication? The Effects of AI-Mediated Crisis Communication on Stakeholder Satisfaction and Responsibility Attribution. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 2025, 80, 102835. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2024.102835
  70. Yibokou, K.S.; Boulton, A.; Kalyaniwala, C.; et al. Spontaneous Use of Generative Artificial Intelligence and Influence on Collaborative Learner Writing. Alsic 2025, 28. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/13F6G
  71. Zhang, X.; Umeanowai, K.O. Exploring the transformative influence of artificial intelligence in EFL context: A comprehensive bibliometric analysis. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2025, 30, 3183–3198. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-024-12937-z
  72. Blommaert, J. Sociolinguistic Restratification in the Online-Offline Nexus: Trump’s Viral Errors. In Language Policies and the Politics of Language Practices; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 7–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-88723-0_2
  73. Sanei, T. Normativity, Power, and Agency: On the Chronotopic Organization of Orthographic Conventions on Social Media. Lang. Soc. 2022, 51, 453–480. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404521000221
  74. Laitinen, M.; Fatemi, M.; Lundberg, J. Size Matters: Digital Social Networks and Language Change. Front. Artif. Intell. 2020, 3, 46. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2020.00046
  75. Laitinen, M.; Lundberg, J. ELF, Language Change, and Social Networks: Evidence from Real-Time Social Media Data. In Language Change: The Impact of English as a Lingua Franca; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 179–204. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108675000.011
  76. Goel, R.; Soni, S.; Goyal, N.; et al. The Social Dynamics of Language Change in Online Networks. In Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 41–57. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47880-7_3
  77. Gonzales, W.D.W. When to (not) Split the Infinitive: Factors Governing Patterns of Syntactic Variation in Twitter-Style Philippine English. Eng. Lang. Linguist. 2024, 28, 305–339. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674323000631
  78. Grondelaers, S.; Van Hout, R.; Van Halteren, H.; et al. Why Do We Say Them When We Know it Should be They? Twitter as a Resource for Investigating Nonstandard Syntactic Variation in the Netherlands. Lang. Var. Change 2023, 35, 223–245. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394523000121
  79. Konisi, L.Y.; Aso, L.; Taembo, M. The Maintenance of Landawe Language and Its Correlation to People’s Attitudes in North Konawe, Southeast Sulawesi. Linguistica Silesiana 2024, 45, 135–152.
  80. Dijkstra, J.; Heeringa, W.; Jongbloed-Faber, L.; et al. Using Twitter Data for the Study of Language Change in Low-Resource Languages. A Panel Study of Relative Pronouns in Frisian. Front. Artif. Intell. 2021, 4, 644554. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.644554
  81. Alshaabi, T.; Dewhurst, D.R.; Minot, J.R.; et al. The Growing Amplification of Social Media: Measuring Temporal and Social Contagion Dynamics for over 150 Languages on Twitter for 2009–2020. EPJ Data Sci. 2021, 10, 15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-021-00271-0
  82. Krishna, D.; Gupta, V.; Kumari, K.; et al. Impact of AI-Powered Translation Tools. J. Digit. Sociohumanit. 2025, 2, 70–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.25077/jds.2.2.70-80.2025
  83. Park, S. AI Chatbots and Linguistic Injustice. J. Univ. Lang. 2024, 25, 99–119. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22425/jul.2024.25.1.99
  84. Knauth, J. Language-Agnostic Twitter-Bot Detection. In Proceedings of the Recent Advances in Natural Language Processing, Varna, Bulgaria, 2–4 September 2019; pp. 550–558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.26615/978-954-452-056-4_065
  85. Simaki, V.; Mporas, I.; Megalooikonomou, V. Age Identification of Twitter Users: Classification Methods and Sociolinguistic Analysis. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference, CICLing 2016, Konya, Turkey, 3–9 April 2018; pp. 385–395. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-75487-1_30
  86. Devi, V.; Sharma, A. Sentiment Analysis Approaches, Types, Challenges, and Applications: An Exploratory Analysis. In Proceedings of the 2022 Seventh International Conference on Parallel, Distributed and Grid Computing (PDGC), Solan, India, 25–27 November 2022; pp. 34–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/PDGC56933.2022.10053180
  87. Barakat, A.; Al Hammadi, O.; Aldhaheri, A.; et al. Arabic Dialect Identification from Speech. In Proceedings of the 2024 15th Annual Undergraduate Research Conference on Applied Computing (URC), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 24–25 April 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/URC62276.2024.10604557
  88. Glazkova, A.; Egorov, Y.; Glazkov, M. A Comparative Study of Feature Types for Age-Based Text Classification. In Analysis of Images, Social Networks and Texts; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 120–134. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-72610-2_9
  89. Hagos, D.H.; Battle, R.; Rawat, D.B. Recent Advances in Generative AI and Large Language Models: Current Status, Challenges, and Perspectives. IEEE Trans. Artif. Intell. 2024, 5, 5873–5893. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/TAI.2024.3444742
  90. Habernal, I.; Gurevych, I. Argumentation Mining in User-Generated Web Discourse. Comput. Linguist. 2017, 43, 125–179. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_A_00276
  91. Strzalkowski, T.; Shaikh, S.; Liu, T.; et al. Influence and Power in Group Interactions. In Social Computing, Behavioral-Cultural Modeling and Prediction; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2013; pp. 19–27. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37210-0_3
  92. Tikhonova, E.; Raitskaya, L. ChatGPT: Where Is a Silver Lining? Exploring the Realm of GPT and Large Language Models. J. Lang. Educ. 2023, 9, 5–11. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17323/JLE.2023.18119
  93. Dergaa, I.; Chamari, K.; Zmijewski, P.; et al. From Human Writing to Artificial Intelligence Generated Text: Examining the Prospects and Potential Threats of ChatGPT in Academic Writing. Biol. Sport 2023, 40, 615–622. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5114/BIOLSPORT.2023.125623
  94. Lund, B.; Wang, T.; Mannuru, N.R.; et al. ChatGPT and a New Academic Reality: Artificial Intelligence-Written Research Papers and the Ethics of the Large Language Models in Scholarly Publishing. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2023, 74, 570–581. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24750
  95. Lepp, H.; Smith, D.S. “You Cannot Sound Like GPT”: Signs of Language Discrimination and Resistance in Computer Science Publishing. In Proceedings of the 2025 ACM Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency, Athens, Greece, 23–26 June 2025; pp. 3162–3181. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3715275.3732202
  96. Dunn, J.; Edwards-Brown, L. Geographically-Informed Language Identification; OSF: Charlottesville, VA, USA, 2024. DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RM2F3
  97. Doval, Y.; Vilares, M.; Vilares, J. On the Performance of Phonetic Algorithms in Microtext Normalization. Expert Syst. Appl. 2024, 113, 213–222. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.07.016
  98. Curry, A.C.; Attanasio, G.; Talat, Z.; et al. Classist Tools: Social Class Correlates with Performance in NLP. In Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Bangkok, Thailand, August 2024; pp. 12643–12655. DOI: https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.acl-long.682