Revista Cultura Científica - web logo
Submit Your Research
  • Research Article

Business Ukrainian in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Transformation of Language Norms, Professional Etiquette, and Communicative Culture

Alona Taranenko1, Olha Shuminska2, Borys Kovalenko3, Tetiana Babenko4, Nataliia Torchynska5
1Department of Social and Humanitarian Education, Communal Institution of Higher Education “Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education” of Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council, Dnipro, Ukraine
2Department of Humanities and Tourism, Faculty of Economics and Tourism, Separate Subdivision of National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine “Berezhany Agrotechnical Institute”, Berezhany, Ukraine
3Institute of Ukrainian Philology and Journalism, Kamianets-Podilskyi Ivan Ohiienko National University, Kamianets-Podilskyi, Ukraine
4Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Director, Public Institution “Kryvyi Rih Professional Medical College” of Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine
5Department of Slavic Philology, Faculty of Humanities and Pedagogy, Khmelnytskyi National University, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70517/revcc2624174
Published: 02/11/2026
: Alona Taranenko, Olha Shuminska, Borys Kovalenko, Tetiana Babenko, Nataliia Torchynska. Business Ukrainian in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Transformation of Language Norms, Professional Etiquette, and Communicative Culture. Revista Cultura Científica, 2026 Issue 24. pg. 2118-2131.

Abstract

The article develops a psycholinguistic account of how generative artificial intelligence changes professional Ukrainian-language writing, with particular attention to language norms, professional speech etiquette, communicative culture, and the educational workplace. A structured theoretical synthesis was conducted on a corpus of 29 peer-reviewed journal articles from 2022–2026. The corpus was organised into four evidence blocks: artificial intelligence in business and workplace communication; pragmatic behaviour of large language models; politeness and email communication in academic and workplace settings; and Ukrainian psycholinguistic and speech-etiquette contexts. Studies were coded for communication domain, speech act or genre, role of artificial intelligence, normative and pragmatic outcomes, relational perceptions, and contextual limitations. Because research designs and outcome measures were heterogeneous, the analysis used qualitative comparative synthesis rather than meta-analysis. The synthesis reveals three recurrent transformations. First, generative systems often strengthen formal correctness, structural coherence, and explicit politeness. Second, these gains can be accompanied by communicative conventionalisation: increased formality, formulaic organisation, reduced lexical or strategic variability, and weaker adjustment to the local interpersonal context. Third, artificial-intelligence mediation changes attributional and relational judgements: perceived authorship, authenticity, sincerity, trust, and willingness to maintain interaction may diverge from ratings of professionalism or clarity. These transformations are not uniform; their magnitude depends on communicative risk, status relations, degree of imposition, genre conventionality, source disclosure, and the extent of human revision. On this basis, a three-component model of normative optimisation, communicative conventionalisation, and attributional-relational shift is proposed. For Ukrainian professional communication, especially in higher education, generative artificial intelligence should be treated as a mediator of linguistic choice rather than a neutral editing device. The key research gap is the lack of direct empirical evidence on Ukrainian-language AI-mediated professional writing, which limits straightforward transfer of findings from English-dominant studies.

Keywords: business Ukrainian, teacher, lecturer, artificial intelligence, professional communication of teachers and lecturers, communicative culture of university lecturers, language norms, professional speech etiquette, digital communication, generative artificial intelligence, nursing communication

Abstract

The article develops a psycholinguistic account of how generative artificial intelligence changes professional Ukrainian-language writing, with particular attention to language norms, professional speech etiquette, communicative culture, and the educational workplace. A structured theoretical synthesis was conducted on a corpus of 29 peer-reviewed journal articles from 2022–2026. The corpus was organised into four evidence blocks: artificial intelligence in business and workplace communication; pragmatic behaviour of large language models; politeness and email communication in academic and workplace settings; and Ukrainian psycholinguistic and speech-etiquette contexts. Studies were coded for communication domain, speech act or genre, role of artificial intelligence, normative and pragmatic outcomes, relational perceptions, and contextual limitations. Because research designs and outcome measures were heterogeneous, the analysis used qualitative comparative synthesis rather than meta-analysis. The synthesis reveals three recurrent transformations. First, generative systems often strengthen formal correctness, structural coherence, and explicit politeness. Second, these gains can be accompanied by communicative conventionalisation: increased formality, formulaic organisation, reduced lexical or strategic variability, and weaker adjustment to the local interpersonal context. Third, artificial-intelligence mediation changes attributional and relational judgements: perceived authorship, authenticity, sincerity, trust, and willingness to maintain interaction may diverge from ratings of professionalism or clarity. These transformations are not uniform; their magnitude depends on communicative risk, status relations, degree of imposition, genre conventionality, source disclosure, and the extent of human revision. On this basis, a three-component model of normative optimisation, communicative conventionalisation, and attributional-relational shift is proposed. For Ukrainian professional communication, especially in higher education, generative artificial intelligence should be treated as a mediator of linguistic choice rather than a neutral editing device. The key research gap is the lack of direct empirical evidence on Ukrainian-language AI-mediated professional writing, which limits straightforward transfer of findings from English-dominant studies.

Keywords: business Ukrainian, teacher, lecturer, artificial intelligence, professional communication of teachers and lecturers, communicative culture of university lecturers, language norms, professional speech etiquette, digital communication, generative artificial intelligence, nursing communication

References

  1. Getchell, Kristen M., et al. “Artificial Intelligence in Business Communication: The Changing Landscape of Research and Teaching.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 85, no. 1, 2022, pp. 7–33. DOI: 10.1177/23294906221074311.

  2. Cardon, Peter W., et al. “Competencies Needed by Business Professionals in the AI Age: Character and Communication Lead the Way.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 2, 2024, pp. 223–246. DOI: 10.1177/23294906231208166.

  3. Chen, Xi, Jun Li, and Yuting Ye. “A Feasibility Study for the Application of AI-Generated Conversations in Pragmatic Analysis.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 223, 2024, pp. 14–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2024.01.003.

  4. Tantucci, Vittorio, and Carlotta Sparvoli. “AI, Be Less ’Stereotypical’: ChatGPT’s Speech Is Conventional but Never Unique.” Intercultural Pragmatics, vol. 22, no. 2, 2025, pp. 231–258. DOI: 10.1515/ip-2025-2003.

  5. Wilson, Winny, and Heath Rose. “A Genre, Scoring, and Authorship Analysis of AI-Generated and Human-Written Refusal Emails.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 2025, advance online publication. DOI: 10.1177/23294906251322890.

  6. Jung, Gayeong, and Hikyoung Lee. “Dynamic Interplay of Social Variables in Request Strategies of Workplace E-mails.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 244, 2025, pp. 10–23. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2025.05.008.

  7. Economidou-Kogetsidis, Maria, and Su Lai. “From Human to GenAI Evaluations: Comparing ChatGPT’s and Lecturers’ Perceptions of Email (Im)Politeness.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 261, 2026, pp. 178–196. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2026.05.009.

  8. Vlasenko, Olena, and Viktoriia Maistruk. “Linguistic Strategies for Professional Politeness among Aspiring Managers: An Analysis of Organizational Psycholinguistics.” East European Journal of Psycholinguistics, vol. 10, no. 1, 2023, pp. 266–280. DOI: 10.29038/eejpl.2023.10.1.vla.

  9. Bahan, M. P., and O. V. Sklyarenko. “Speech Etiquette of Contemporary Ukrainian Youth: Dynamics of Communicative Guidelines.” Messenger of Kyiv National Linguistic University. Series Philology, vol. 27, no. 1, 2024, pp. 9–18. DOI: 10.32589/2311-0821.1.2024.309598.

  10. Xia, Detong, Hanzhong Sun, Hye K. Pae, and Yudi Chen. “’I Hope This Email Finds You Well’: Exploring the Role of GenAI in Student-Faculty Email Communication.” English for Specific Purposes, vol. 84, 2026, pp. 260–278. DOI: 10.1016/j.esp.2026.07.004.

  11. Moon, Young-in. “The Effects of ChatGPT on Politeness in L2 University Students’ Email Requests to Faculty.” Modern English Education, vol. 26, 2025, pp. 352–363. DOI: 10.18095/meeso.2025.26.1.352.

  12. Cardon, Peter W., and Anthony W. Coman. “Professionalism and Trustworthiness in AI-Assisted Workplace Writing: The Benefits and Drawbacks of Writing with AI.” International Journal of Business Communication, vol. 63, no. 4, 2026, pp. 1825–1857. DOI: 10.1177/23294884251350599.

  13. Glikson, Ella, and Omri Asscher. “AI-Mediated Apology in a Multilingual Work Context: Implications for Perceived Authenticity and Willingness to Forgive.” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 140, 2023, article 107592. DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2022.107592.

  14. Lim, Joon Soo, et al. “Effects of AI versus Human Source Attribution on Trust and Forgiveness in the Identical Corporate Apology Statement for a Data Breach Scandal.” Public Relations Review, vol. 51, no. 1, 2025, article 102520. DOI: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2024.102520.

  15. Yin, Yidan, et al. “AI Can Help People Feel Heard, but an AI Label Diminishes This Impact.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 121, no. 14, 2024, article e2319112121. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2319112121.

  16. Andersson, Marta, and Dan McIntyre. “Can ChatGPT Recognize Impoliteness? An Exploratory Study of the Pragmatic Awareness of a Large Language Model.” Journal of Pragmatics, vol. 239, 2025, pp. 16–36. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2025.02.001.

  17. Cong, Yan. “Manner Implicatures in Large Language Models.” Scientific Reports, vol. 14, 2024, article 29113. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-80571-3.

  18. Strachan, James W. A., et al. “Testing Theory of Mind in Large Language Models and Humans.” Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 8, no. 7, 2024, pp. 1285–1295. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-024-01882-z.

  19. Dynel, Marta. “Lessons in Linguistics with ChatGPT: Metapragmatics, Metacommunication, Metadiscourse and Metalanguage in Human–AI Interactions.” Language & Communication, vol. 93, 2023, pp. 107–124. DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2023.09.002.

  20. Wang, Junhua. “Improving ChatGPT’s Competency in Generating Effective Business Communication Messages: Integrating Rhetorical Genre Analysis into Prompting Techniques.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, vol. 54, no. 4, 2024, pp. 369–395. DOI: 10.1177/00472816241260033.

  21. Coman, Anthony W., and Peter W. Cardon. “Perceptions of Professionalism and Authenticity in AI-Assisted Writing.” Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, vol. 89, no. 2, 2026, pp. 340–359. DOI: 10.1177/23294906241233224.

  22. Hohenstein, Jess, et al. “Artificial Intelligence in Communication Impacts Language and Social Relationships.” Scientific Reports, vol. 13, 2023, article 5487. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-023-30938-9.

  23. Meng, Jingbo, Renwen Zhang, Jiaqi Qin, Yu-Jen Lee, Yi-Chieh Lee, and Nicole Ellison. “AI-Mediated Social Support: The Prospect of Human–AI Collaboration.” Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol. 30, no. 4, 2025, article zmaf013. DOI: 10.1093/jcmc/zmaf013.

  24. Formosa, Paul, Sarah Bankins, Rita Matulionyte, and Omid Ghasemi. “Can ChatGPT Be an Author? Generative AI Creative Writing Assistance and Perceptions of Authorship, Creatorship, Responsibility, and Disclosure.” AI & Society, vol. 40, no. 5, 2025, pp. 3405–3417. DOI: 10.1007/s00146-024-02081-0.

  25. Chang, Tyler A., and Benjamin K. Bergen. “Language Model Behavior: A Comprehensive Survey.” Computational Linguistics, vol. 50, no. 1, 2024, pp. 293–350. DOI: 10.1162/coli_a_00492.

  26. Soloshchuk, Lyudmila, and Yuliia Skrynnik. “Variativity of the Speaker’s Verbal and Non-Verbal Behavior in the English Managerial Discourse.” Psycholinguistics, vol. 34, no. 2, 2023, pp. 110–131. DOI: 10.31470/2309-1797-2023-34-2-110-131.

  27. Zasiekin, Serhii, and Diana Kalishchuk. “Can Machines Communicate Psychotrauma? Affective and Cognitive Shifts in AI-Translated Russia–Ukraine War Narratives.” Psycholinguistics, vol. 38, no. 2, 2025, pp. 58–76. DOI: 10.31470/2309-1797-2025-38-2-58-76.

  28. Fedoriv, Yaroslava. “Challenges in AI-Assisted Academic Writing: A Case Study.” Innovations in Language Teaching Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, 2024, pp. 35–50. DOI: 10.53463/innovltej.20240284.

  29. Van Quaquebeke, Niels, and Fabiola H. Gerpott. “Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Workplace Communication: Promises, Perils, and Recommended Policy.” Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, vol. 31, no. 4, 2024, pp. 375–381. DOI: 10.1177/15480518241289644.

Alona Taranenko
Department of Social and Humanitarian Education, Communal Institution of Higher Education “Dnipro Academy of Continuing Education'' of Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council, Dnipro, Ukraine
taranenko.dano@gmail.com
Olha Shuminska
Department of Humanities and Tourism, Faculty of Economics and Tourism, Separate Subdivision of National University of Life and Environmental Sciences of Ukraine “Berezhany Agrotechnical Institute'', Berezhany, Ukraine
Borys Kovalenko
Institute of Ukrainian Philology and Journalism, Kamianets-Podilskyi Ivan Ohiienko National University, Kamianets-Podilskyi, Ukraine
Tetiana Babenko
Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Director, Public Institution “Kryvyi Rih Professional Medical College'' of Dnipropetrovsk Regional Council, Kryvyi Rih, Ukraine
Nataliia Torchynska
Department of Slavic Philology, Faculty of Humanities and Pedagogy, Khmelnytskyi National University, Khmelnytskyi, Ukraine

How to cite:

Alona Taranenko, Olha Shuminska, Borys Kovalenko, Tetiana Babenko, Nataliia Torchynska. Business Ukrainian in the Age of Artificial Intelligence: Transformation of Language Norms, Professional Etiquette, and Communicative Culture. Revista Cultura Científica, 2026 Issue 24. pg. 2118-2131.

Publication History

  • Received: 02/08/2026
  • Accepted: 15/10/2026
  • Published: 02/11/2026
Copyright © 2026, Alona Taranenko, Olha Shuminska, Borys Kovalenko, Tetiana Babenko, Nataliia Torchynska. Published by Revista Cultura Científica. This article is published as open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Browse Advance Search