The Algorithm as a Hidden Addressee of Speech Acts: pragmatic communicative strategies in Polish-language social media discourse
Linguistic research
Marcin Pawlicki
Jan Kochanowski University image/svg+xml
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3731-0443
Published 2026 October 5
https://doi.org/10.15388/RESPECTUS.2026.50.2
PDF
HTML

Keywords

algospeak
speech acts
pragmatics
algorithmic content moderation
algorithmic addressee
social media discourse
digital philology

How to Cite

Pawlicki, M. (2026) “The Algorithm as a Hidden Addressee of Speech Acts: pragmatic communicative strategies in Polish-language social media discourse”, Respectus Philologicus, 50(50 (55), pp. 22–29. doi:10.15388/RESPECTUS.2026.50.2.

Abstract

The article proposes a pragmatic account of how social media platform algorithms operate as functional, hidden addressee of speech act. It begins with a review of research on algorithmic content moderation, users’ algorithmic awareness, the concept of the algorithmic addressee, and the phenomenon of algospeak. The first part discusses key findings concerning content moderation and strategies used to increase the visibility of online content. The second part develops the central argument that, while algorithms are not participants in communication in any psychological or intentional sense, they nevertheless constitute pragmatically relevant recipient entities whose anticipated responses shape the form of users’ utterances. An analysis of examples of algospeak demonstrates that these linguistic practices are not merely manifestations of linguistic creativity but also communicative strategies directed simultaneously at human users and algorithms. The article concludes by arguing for a reconsideration of classical pragmatic categories in the study of platform-mediated communication.

PDF
HTML

References

Austin, J. L., 1975. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bucher, T., 2017. The algorithmic imaginary: Exploring the ordinary affects of Facebook algorithms. Information, Communication & Society, 20 (1), pp. 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086. Available at: <https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1369118X.2016.1154086>. [Accessed 11 May 2026].

Calhoun, K., Fawcett, A., 2023. “They edited out her nip nops”: Linguistic innovation as textual censorship avoidance on TikTok. Language@Internet, 21, pp. 1–30. https://doi.org/10.14434/li.v21.37371. Available at: <https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/li/article/view/37371/39943>. [Accessed 06 May 2026].

Cotter, K., 2019. Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram. New Media & Society, 21 (4), pp. 895–913. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818815684. Available at: <https://kelleycotter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NMS_visibilitygame.pdf>. [Accessed 14 May 2026].

Fillies, J., Paschke, A., 2024. Simple LLM based approach to counter algospeak. In: Proceedings of the 8th Workshop on Online Abuse and Harms (WOAH 2024). Mexico City: Association for Computational Linguistics, pp. 136–145. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2024.woah-1.10. Available at: <https://aclanthology.org/2024.woah-1.10/>. [Accessed 15 May 2026].

Fillies, J., Robertson, R. E., Hancock, J., 2026. Algospeak, hiding in the open: The trade-off between legible meaning and detection avoidance. Preprint, arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2605.06619. [Accessed 09 May 2026].

Gorwa, R., Binns, R., Katzenbach, C., 2020. Algorithmic content moderation: Technical and political challenges in the automation of platform governance. Big Data & Society, 7 (1), pp. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951719897945. Available at: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2053951719897945>. [Accessed 15 May 2026].

Grice, H. P., 1975. Logic and conversation. In: Eds. P. Cole, J. L. Morgan. Syntax and semantics, 3. Speech acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.

Klug, D., Steen, E., Yurechko, K., 2023. How algorithm awareness impacts algospeak use on TikTok. In: Companion Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2023, pp. 234–237. https://doi.org/10.1145/3543873.3587355. Available at: <https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3543873.3587355>. [Accessed 10 May 2026].

Searle, J. R., 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438.

Stano, S., 2022. Linguistic guerrilla warfare 2.0: On the “forms” of online resistance. Rivista Italiana di Filosofia del Linguaggio, pp. 177–186. https://doi.org/10.4396/2022SFL13. Available at: <https://iris.unito.it/bitstream/2318/1937091/1/2023_STANO%20Simona_Linguistic%20Guerrilla%20Warfare%202.0_RIFL.pdf>. [Accessed 08 May 2026].

Steen, E., Yurechko, K., Klug, D., 2023. You can (not) say what you want: Using algospeak to contest and evade algorithmic content moderation on TikTok. Social Media + Society, 9 (3), pp. 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231194586. Available at: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/20563051231194586>. [Accessed 17 May 2026].

Willenberg, M., 2024. TW: su1(1d3 – Multimodal self-censorship on YouTube. JournaLIPP, 9, pp. 99–123. https://doi.org/10.5282/journalipp/4907. Available at: <https://lipp.ub.uni-muenchen.de/lipp/article/view/4907>. [Accessed 15 May 2026].

Creative Commons License

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

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.