Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia Anna Marmulyak 1 , Anzhela Posokhova 2 , Tetiana Lypchenko 3 , Oksana Pylypets 4 , Nadiia Salamin 5 1 Doctor of Philosophy, Teacher at the Department of Ukrainian Studies and Intercultural Communication, Faculty of Psychology and Social Protection, Lviv State University of Life Safety, Lviv, Ukraine. E-mail: anya.marmulyak@gmail.com; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7526-5850 2 Ph. D. in Philology, Associate Professor, Associate Professor at the Department of Language Skills Training (main affiliation), Lviv State University of Internal Affairs; Associate Professor at the Department of Ukrainian Studies and Intercultural Communication, Faculty of Psychology and Social Protection, Lviv State University of Life Safety; Lviv, Ukraine. E-mail: posokh3006@gmail.com; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3330-0195 3 Lecturer of the Department of Ukrainian Studies and Intercultural Communication, Faculty of Psychology and Social Protection, Lviv State University of Life Safety, Lviv, Ukraine. E-mail: tetyanalypchenko@ukr.net; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0173-3372 4 Teacher at the Department of Ukrainian Studies and Intercultural Communication, Faculty of Psychology and Social Protection, Lviv State University of Life Safety, Lviv, Ukraine. E-mail: opylypets362@gmail.com; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6083-3325 5 Lecturer, Department of Ukrainian Studies and Intercultural Communication, Faculty of Psychology and Social Protection, Lviv State University of Life Safety, Lviv, Ukraine. E-mail: salaminnadia2@gmail.com; ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3403-9918 Resumen. Basándose en un análisis comparativo de la experiencia ucraniana e internacional (guerra a gran escala, pandemia de COVID-19, desastres naturales), el artículo revela importantes transformaciones en el comportamiento del discurso en tiempos de crisis. Los resultados muestran que el discurso de las situaciones de emergencia se caracteriza por el predominio de actos de habla directivos, la viola- ción sistemática de las máximas comunicativas de Grice y la transición de las redes sociales al estatus de plataforma integrada para la comunicación de emergencia y la estabilización psicológica. El artículo también destaca los mecanismos lingüísticos de la guerra de información, en particular las tecnologías manipuladoras (minimización del lenguaje, sabotaje semántico, ruido informativo) y las estrategias eficaces para su Recibido: 06/03/2026 ~ Aceptado: 01/06/2026 INTERACCIÓN Y PERSPECTIVA Revista de Trabajo Social ISSN 2244-808X ~ Dep. Legal pp 201002Z43506 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21174152 Vol. 16 (3): 1126 - 1139 pp, 2026

Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia 1127 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1126 - 1139 Words that endure: an analysis of linguistic behavior in emergencies Abstract. Based on a comparative analysis of Ukrainian and international ex- perience (full-scale war, COVID-19 pandemic, natural disasters), the article reveals significant transformations in speech behavior in times of crisis. e results show that the discourse of emergency situations is characterized by the dominance of directive speech acts, systematic violation of Grice’s communicative maxims, and the transition of social media to the status of an integrated platform for emergency communica- tion and psychological stabilization. e article also highlights the linguistic mecha- nisms of information warfare, in particular manipulative technologies (language minimization, semantic sabotage, information noise) and effective strategies for their neutralization based on the principles of accuracy, verification and consolidation of discourse. e data obtained can be used to optimize crisis communication of govern- ment institutions, media, and NGO. Keywords: team resilience, value, territorial community, digitalization, content. INTRODUCTION e significance of researching speech behavior in emergencies is conditioned by the devel- opment of crises in various areas, from socio-political tensions to global pandemics and environ- mental catastrophes. Communication, in these situations, stops being informative and becomes, among other things, a handful of crucial instruments for collective action, resource management, and social and psychological survival. e theoretical framework of the study is a multidisciplinary approach drawing on linguis- tic pragmatics, crisis communication theory, risk communication, and critical discourse analysis. is enables multilevel analysis: from the micro level, which focuses on individual speech acts and their illocutionary force, to the meso and macro, which encompass identification of institu- tional strategies and socially shared narratives with ideological content. A separate subject of consideration is the transformation of the communication environ- ment under the influence of digitalization, in particular the functioning of social networks as multifunctional platforms for emergency alerts, operational coordination of assistance, and the formation of communities of psychological mutual support. e aim of the article is to identify and systematize the peculiarities of the speech behavior of communication actors (government institutions, mass media, and citizens) in different types of emergencies based on a comparative analysis of Ukrainian and foreign experience. neutralización basadas en los principios de precisión, verificación y consolidación del discurso. Los datos obtenidos pueden utilizarse para optimizar la comunicación de crisis de las instituciones gubernamentales, los medios de comunicación y las ONG. Palabras clave: resiliencia del equipo, valor, comunidad territorial, digitalización, contenido.

1128 Marmulyak, Posokhova, Lypchenko, Pylypets, Salamin Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 MATERIALS AND METHODS e theoretical basis was formed by key concepts that consider language as a social action: J. Austin’s theory of speech acts and principles of cooperative communication, which allowed us to understand the pragmatics and structure of crisis communication. In addition, the sociocogni- tive approach and critical discourse analysis (Van Dijk, 2008; Fowler, 1991) were used to study the ideological components and mechanisms of shaping public perception, as well as theories of crisis and risk communication (Coombs, 2015; Sandman, 2012) to assess the effectiveness of institutional strategies. A separate object of study was the communication practices in social networks, which were analyzed using content analysis and interpretive text analysis, which allowed us to classify the functions of content and study new linguistic formats (hashtags, memes) (Tryhuba et al., 2024. e case study analysis allowed us to study specific phenomena in depth, such as air raid alert information in Ukraine. All the results were systematized and summarized using the appropriate method. e source base included both primary sources (official SES messages, texts from social media, memes) and secondary sources (scientific articles, reports of international organizations and research by Ukrainian scholars) (Ilychok et al., 2023). is multidimensional method guar- anteed profound and holistic investigation of speech behaviour in emergencies (Verbytska et al., 2025). LITERATURE REVIEW Classical pragmatics theories constitute the cornerstone of the research. e theory of speech acts, developed by the philosopher John Austin (Austin, 1962) and further elaborated in the philosophy of John Searle, constitutes an analytic tool for examining how speech utterances in emergency scenarios enact social reality by obligating the addressees or changing the security status of the subjects and Paul Grice’s maxims of cooperative principle (Grice, 1975) particularly his notion of maxims of communication in this context is fundamental for interpreting strategic infringements to the rules of common discourse, such as those of the crisis discourse where these maxims are systematically breached when the messages become categorical and simplified with stress on immediate action rather than full context with the aim to serve a superior pragmatic end of harm avoidance, population mobilization and discouragement of panic conditions. To ad- dress the macro level of speech interaction and its connections with social structures, the analysis drew on the sociocognitive and the critical discourse analytic framework of Teun van Dijk (Van Dijk, 2008), which enabled us to analyze how social representations, frames such as “war for sur- vival” or “natural disaster,” and mental image of threat are constructed and transported via mass and social media discourse leading to identification of “mechanisms through which particular renditions of events become prominent and come to shape collective actions and legitimize gov- ernment measures” and at this level of analysis has been further supplemented by the works of Fowler (1991) on language and ideology in the newspaper and the anthology edited by Hodges and Nilep (2007) on discourse, war, and terrorism – which addresses the linguistic construction of conflict.

Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia 1129 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1126 - 1139 The particular nature of the institutional response is disclosed by the further special- ized theories of crisis communication and risk communication: beginning with the strategic perspective of Coombs (2015) and the cycles of crisis management and regaining trust in the organization which is the basis for the evaluation of actions of public authorities, while the foundational handbook edited by Heath and O’Hair (2009) brings an integrated risk and crisis communication viewpoint to a comprehensive summary of the discipline, and the contributions by Seeger et al. (2003) enhance organizational crisis communication fo- cusing on the function of communication in crisis renewal and learning. Sandman (2012) put forward the seminal model “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” which suggests that scientific data about the danger is matched by a second stream of information for the risk recipients’ about their own emotional and societal reactions to the risk that in many instances exerts greater influence upon the actual level of perceived risk and this is reinforced by the study of Slovic and Ball (2011) with regard to the psychology of risk perception that argues that people are not risk calculations in the rational and statistical sense of the term but rather constructs their assessment based on heuristics and affective images, whereas research by Slovic and Ball (2011) on making decisions under risk emphasizes on the importance of fast and frugal heuristics and transparent communication formats (e.g., natural frequencies instead of probabilities) which allow people to better understand their own decisions. Emerging issues such as digital media and global health emergencies are discussed in more recent research, with Micheli et al. (2020) investigating ways young adults use digital media to access information and support, a finding that is important for crisis communication in the digital age, and practical frameworks and best practices learned from mass emergency including the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters are found in the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (2020) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (2019), and the role of social media in disaster communication is also extensively reviewed in Palen and Hughes (2018), who identify how social media platforms may serve as a means for timely information as well as a vector for rumors, and insight into enhancing early warning announcements as an essential feature of crisis communication is provided by the Kodera et al. (2021). Hansson et al. (2020) “communicative vulnerability” research offers a heuristic to explain why certain groups are more impacted by crises, and studies by Austin et al. (2012) examine crisis information seeking audiences in a social-mediated environment underlining the need to understand information-seeking behaviors, while Humanitarian Re- sponse Platform (2021) advises volunteers and those working in the human services field on how to communicate with affected people. e Ukrainian case, especially in wartime, is illuminated by a handful of core texts, as Iryna Shevchenko (Shevchenko, 2022) analyzes American social media discourse on the Russia- Ukraine war through multimodality showings the way narratives are constructed and trafficked globally and Bower (2024) made informative examination of war-time perception of informa- tion messages that can be used for communicating in an effective manner, whereas the linguistic and pragmatic characteristics of political discourse including Preventive and political discourse are examined by Tehməzova (2025) as well as Oleniuk (2016), who scrutinizes the verbalization of the notion of danger in magazine advertisement discourse revealing how risk is linguistically formed even in the commercial sphere.

1130 Marmulyak, Posokhova, Lypchenko, Pylypets, Salamin Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 eoretically informed analysis, the level of speech and its pragmatics (Austin, 1962, Grice, 1975) on the one hand and the levels of trust formation and trust maintenance (Coombs, Seeger, Sellnow, Ulmer; Sandman) and the social construction of reality and ideology through discourse (van Dijk, 2008; Fowler, 1991) are also considered while I draw on the cognitive and emotional sides of risk perception (Slovic and Ball, 2011) which acts as a crucial bridge between these levels in narrating how people think and behave in crisis messages and paired with this multi-tiered methodological lens provides a rich conceptual framework to study language use during disas as a tool for survival, governance, and group cohesion in times of volatiliy. RESULTS e theoretical bases of speech communication in emergencies are fourfold and relate theoretical perspectives that, when taken together, constitute a multilevel analysis framework. At the level of individual acts of communication linguistic pragmatics studies the aberrant conducts in communication, for example, in emergency situations proc hastens the achieve- ment of practical ends, taking as an example when an order or warning takes precedence over the completeness or exactness of a message. From a more pragmatic perspective, crisis com- munication theory offers tools for strategic planning, analyzing the effectiveness of messages, and restoring public trust in disaster recovery processes. Risk communication, a closely related paradigm, deals with the psychological component of threat perception and contends that risk is not assessed solely on the amount of objective danger but also on emotional reactions also referred to as ‘‘outrage’’. erefore, effective communication should take this factor into account, proactively work- ing with trust and refuting disinformation. In order to systematize the theoretical basis of the study and demonstrate the inter- action of different scientific paradigms, Table 1 presents a summary of key approaches to analyzing speech behavior in emergencies. The theory of speech behavior in emergencies is constructed on four related approaches, which together form a multilevel instrument of analysis (refer to Table 1). The educational and preventive aspect is the foremost task of the authoritative dis- course in an emergency This function is verbalized through a bundle of invariant speech features such as the predominance of imperative models, a high level of lexical unification, the use of impersonal constructions and the presence of explicit spatial and temporal co- ordinates. A contrastive study of national corpora, in particular, operational messages of the State Emergency Service of Ukraine and protocols of the Japanese early warning system, allows us to identify invariant (common) and variable (culturally determined) features.

Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia 1131 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1126 - 1139 TABLE 1. eoretical approaches to the analysis of speech behavior in emergency situations. eoretical Paradigm Concepts Applicables to Emergency Analysis Linguistic pragmatics Acts of speech; principle of cooperation; maxims of com- munication. Analyzes the strategic deviation or violation of the maxims of quality, quantity, relation, and manner in stress/emergency, for reali- zing urgent communicative purposes such as orders, warnings, and immediate instruc- tions in these situations. Discourse analysis Discourse, framing, ideology, sociocognitive context. Studies how media and organizations frame (e.g., “war” vs. “special operation,” “wave” vs. “pandemic”) a crisis and influence public na- rratives and perceptions. Crisis communication theory Response strategies, trust res- toration, stakeholder com- munication. Keep attention to planning, organizing, and evaluating communication-based policies and procedures that an organization and/ or a government agency employ during an emergency and in disaster situations. Communication about risk Risk perception, emotional response, the “Risk = Hazard + Outrage” formula Assesses the emotional content of crisis com- munications and the importance of offering messages that are transparent, that cultivate trust, and that actively manage public con- cern and uncertainty. Source: author’s development. The basic invariant is the principle of linguistic economy and semantic unambiguity. But this structural constancy is occupied by various cultural code’s contents. The Japa- nese practice shows the transformation from technical messages to operational formulas (“Protect your head”) that have an emotional component. The same trend is evident in Ukrainian discourse on air raid alerts: from terse signals to elaborate messages interwoven with motivational and patriotic rhetoric. The findings of the analysis in terms of the major pragmatic goals, types of speech acts, lexical and syntactic analysis, and psychological as- pects are systematized in Table 2. International studies confirm similar trends. For example, during earthquakes, hashtags be- come a tool for “locality production” - bringing victims together in virtual communities to share information about safe places or the need for help. Palen and Hughes (2018) identify several key roles of social media: “information civilian corps” (voluntary data collection), social support system, and platform for counter-narratives.

1132 Marmulyak, Posokhova, Lypchenko, Pylypets, Salamin Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 TABLE 2. Comparative analysis of instructional messages in Ukrainian and foreign experience. Criteria Ukrainian Experience (Air Raid Alerts) EU/US Experience (COVID-19 Lockdowns) Linguistic Features and Pragmatics Summary Rapid notification of a life threat and mobilization for emergency response. Control of disease spread and mana- gement of longer- term social behavior. Ukrainian communication is conveyed in the imperati- ve form telling people what to do immediately, while EU/US communication is normative discourse telling people what to do in the lon- ger term and to comply with social responsibility. Type of speech act Directives and warnings involved in prompting the response of an imme- diate action. Directives and de- clarative sentences of general rules and duties. Public speech acts that trans- formed the status of the liste- ner, for example, an order to take shelter versus a duty to obey restrictions). Lexical features Attention!”, “Air raid alert!,” “Seek shelter!,” “Im- mediately!”. Phrases such as “Stay at home,” “Social distancing,” “Non-essential businesses are closed. Chronic use of sa- fety-, threat- and restriction-related le- xemes. In Ukrainian, messages em- ploy short imperative verbs, in contrast, EU/US discour- se employs the language of regulation. Syntactic features Short nominative and im- perative sentences; imper- sonal constructions. More complex decla- rative sentences with causal or conditional relations (“in order to,” “to prevent”). Ukraine: focus on the maxims of manner – clear, concise and unambiguous. EU/US: more appeal to the maxims of quality and quantity – more detailed explanations and justifications of the measures. Psychological aspect Gradual adoption of more empathetic langua- ge among otherwise neu- tral communication (e.g., “Take care of yourselves— you are our defenders”). Initial messaging is of- ten considered smart or vague (e.g., “grea- ter risk”), to the point of creating public dis- content. Good crisis communications provide clear guidance along with empathy and encoura- gement, and can help to mi- tigate emotional distress and bolster public trust. Source: author’s own work. In times of crisis communication, social media are considered to be transformed from tra- ditional one way communication to multi-directional communication. Is fulfills a number of essential social functions, allowing for wide dissemination of information, public participa- tion, coordination of aid, psychological support, and acting as a social mobilization vehicle. is change demonstrates that social media are now being seen as part of the infrastructure within the field of emergency management, rather than being considered as the conventional means of informing.

Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia 1133 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1126 - 1139 is space is constructed according to explicit communicative functions, which manifest in linguistic features and (inter alia) in specific digital discourse genres. e universality of these functions was confirmed both by the experience of the Ukrainian war and the experience of global practice in natural and man-made disasters, as well as pandemics. Table 3 provides a sum- mary of the functions, their aims, linguistic markers and specific instances. Yet the digital space also poses risks for communication. e widespread dissemination of disinformation and distorted narratives undermines trust in official bodies. A study has shown that in times of war, messages from friends in messengers and trusted Telegram channels are more trusted by the public than traditional media. At the same time, modern armed conflicts, of which the Russian-Ukrainian war is a canonical example, have turned into complex information and communication campaigns in which language practices acquire the functionality of a direct weapon. The tools of lin- guistic analysis allow us to identify and systematize specific manipulative mechanisms, the theoretical foundations of which have been developed in the analysis of military discourse Tehməzova (2025) and adapted to the specifics of the Ukrainian context in recent studies (Oleniuk, 2016). e analysis of information warfare in the context of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict reveals a systemic confrontation of speech strategies. e aggressor is actively using three key manipula- tion tactics. TABLE 3. Functions and linguistic features of social media content during emergencies (based on Ukrainian and international experience). Criteria Ukrainian Experience (Air Raid Alerts) EU/US Experience (COVID-19 Lockdowns) Linguistic Features and Pragmatics Objective Rapid notice of a life-threatening situation and preparedness to act immediately. Control of disease spread and manage- ment of long-term social behavior. In Ukrainian communi- cation imperative forms are used to stress im- mediate action, EU/US communications are ba- sed on a normative dis- course that appeals to long-term compliance, and social responsibility. Type of speech act Directives and warnings that are targeted at a short-term behaviou- ral effect. Commands and declarative state- ments which contain rules and duties. Dominance of perfor- mative SAs changing the hearer’s status (e.g. an order to take shelter vs. a duty to adhere to R). Lexical features “Attention!”, “Air Raid Alert!”, “Take Shelter!”, “Immediately!”. “Stay at home”, “Social distan- ce”, “Non-essential businesses are closed.” Words related to sa- fety and threats and restrictions are overu- sed. Ukrainian narratives consist of short com- mand verbs, EU/US na- rratives consist of regu- latory language.

1134 Marmulyak, Posokhova, Lypchenko, Pylypets, Salamin Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 Criteria Ukrainian Experience (Air Raid Alerts) EU/US Experience (COVID-19 Lockdowns) Linguistic Features and Pragmatics Syntax Short nominative and imperative sentences; impersonal construc- tions. More complex de- clarative sentences co-occur with causal/ conditional relations (“in order to,” “to pre- vent”) Ukraine: focus on maxim of manner – clear, concise and unam- biguous. EU/US: greater emphasis on quality and quantity maxims – more detailed reasoning and justification of measures. Psychological aspect ere was an incremental change from neutral information state- ments to statements of support (e.g.,”Look after yourselves – you are our defenders”). e first messages were frequently des- cribed as techno- cratic or uncertain (e.g.,”elevated risk”), occasionally to the frustration of the pu- blic. Good crisis commu- nication provides clear instructions empathe- tically with a sense of motivation, which helps to mitigate psychologi- cal distress and enhance public trust. Source: author’s own work. Firstly, these are ersatz speech acts aimed at performative distortion of reality, such as the announcement of a full-scale invasion as a “special operation”, which corresponds to an attempt to minimize the scale of crimes according to Austin’s theory of speech acts (Austin, 1962). Secondly, the tactic of semantic sabotage is used, which consists in deliberately filling words with generally positive connotations (“denazification”, “liberation”) with a completely opposite, aggressive meaning. is is a form of ideological distortion aimed at legitimizing crimes through language manipulation. As part of this tactic, information noise is systematically produced – the massive and simul- taneous dissemination of heterogeneous, contradictory and usually unreliable data. e purpose of this kind of noise is not to argue for one position or another, but to intentionally disrupt the thought processes of the target audience. erefore, the effectiveness of this technique is not measured by how convinced people become, but by how disoriented they are, and how much they lose trust in their sources of information in general. e Ukrainian side, on the other hand, has developed a range of effective countermoves which combine to form a resilient communica- tion front line according. e strategy of calling a spade a spade is a direct response to linguis- tic minimization and semantic sabotage; the clear nomination of the aggressor and its crimes (“genocide”, “war crimes”) forms an unambiguous frame of perception. Information warfare as a component of hybrid conflict turns language into a direct weapon, where clearly defined language strategies of the aggressor and defense are confronted. eir systematic analysis allows not only to identify the mechanisms of manipulation, but also to formulate effective resistance practices. Table 4 structures the opposing tactics aimed at destabilization and consolidation with spe- cific linguistic tools and theoretical justification based on the example of the Russian-Ukrainian war. TABLE 3. CONTINUACIÓN

Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia 1135 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1126 - 1139 us, the key to success lies in the systematic application of counterstrategies: accurately naming reality (full-scale war, aggression) versus its semantic minimization, openly deconstruct- ing manipulative terms (“denazification”) instead of ignoring them, providing a single space of trusted information sources as opposed to information noise, humanizing narratives (stories of specific people) versus dehumanizing them, and forming an inclusive discourse of solidarity (‘we’, “together”) in response to attempts to split. TABLE 4. Speech strategies in information warfare: aggressor tactics and defense counterstrate- gies (using the example of the Russian-Ukrainian war). Aggressor’s Tactics (Goal: Disorientation, Demoralization, Legitimization of Aggression) Defensive Counterstrategy (Goal: Consolidation, Truthful Information, Legitimization of Defense) Linguistic Tools and Examples 1. Linguistic leveling down: narrowing the semantic scale and the value of events. Accurate naming policy: applying accurate and explicit names to things and events corresponding to their real es- sence. Aggressor: “special operation,” “incident.” Defense: “full-scale war,” “aggression,” “genocide,” “war crimes.” 2. Semantic diversion: the employment of terms with positive connotations to characterize harmful activities. Dissecting emotive meta- phors: interpretation of the real signification of propagan- distic utterances. Aggressor: “destruction of Nazis in Ukraine,” “liberation,” “defen- ding Russian speakers.” Defense: Public education, e.g. “With ‘de- nazification’ Russia means the eli- mination of Ukrainian state and nationhood.” 3. Information noise: spread of massive amounts of contradictory or false information designed to fatigue the public and sow confusion. Centralization and validation: dependence on official valida- ted channels, and selectively debunking the worst misinfor- mation. Aggressor: fake news on city su- rrenders or on political leaders betraying the country. Defense: official information channels of the General Staff and the unified information websites; the rule of only debunking the most har- mful disinformation. 4. Demonization and dehumanization: representation of the adversary as impious, hazardous, or nonhuman. Humanization and personali- zation: focus on personal sto- ries of soldiers, civilians, and victims to regain human view. Aggressor: “Ukrainian neo-Na- zis,” “Bandera junta.” Defense: Interviews with soldiers, doctors, rescuers; stories of civilian victims (for example, tales from Mariu- pol). 5. Social division strategy: efforts to exacerbate domestic social, linguistic, or geographical tensions. ere was a line of unity and consolidation: and language was kept inclusive and collec- tive to promote national cohe- sion. Aggressor: Narratives Ukrainian audiences along the language or regional cleavage lines in Ukrai- ne. Defense: Inclusive pronouns can be utilized (“we,” “our,” ”to- gether”), as well as the tagline “United together,” and the phrase “Strength through unity.” Source: author’s own development.

1136 Marmulyak, Posokhova, Lypchenko, Pylypets, Salamin Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 DISCUSSION An empirical analysis of Ukrainian and foreign experience has revealed systemic patterns in speech behavior during emergencies. In particular, instructional discourse in times of crisis is char- acterized by a high degree of standardization and pragmatic adaptation. e comparative analysis of the messages of the SES of Ukraine and the early warning systems of Japan showed the presence of both invariant features, such as language economy, semantic unambiguity and the prevalence of imperative constructions, and culturally determined differences. In particular, Japanese messages combine operational instructions with emotional support, while Ukrainian messages evolve from laconic signals to motivational and patriotic messages, reflecting adaptation to the ongoing crisis. Meanwhile, social media is evolving into a multi-faceted communication space that fulfills five key functions: rapid information flow, verification and debunking of disinformation, coor- dination of aid, psychological support, and mobilization activism. For instance, in the full-scale war in Ukraine, the Emergency Situation Service (SES) and Oblast State Administration (OVA) Telegram channels emerged as the most trusted source for 78% of the population, which shows that the classic media have lost the monopoly on current information. In a hybrid conflict, information warfare actively uses specific language tactics, including language minimization (e.g., the term “special operation”), semantic sabotage (‘denazification’, “liberation”), information noise, and demonization of the enemy. In response, the Ukrainian side has developed effective counterstrategies (see Table 4 for details), such as accurate naming of reality (“full-scale war”, “genocide”), deconstruction of manipulative terms, centralization of trusted sources, humanization of the narrative, and inclusive solidarity discourse. A generalization of the identified patterns is presented in a theoretical model of the interac- tion of crisis communication factors (Figure 1), which visualizes the relationship between the crisis context, discursive modes, communication channels, speech strategies, and the final social effects. FIGURE 1. Schematic representation of the interaction of the main factors of speech behavior in emergencies. Source: author’s development.

Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia 1137 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1126 - 1139 Generalizing international practices allows us to identify key principles of organizing com- munication during emergencies. Of fundamental importance is the principle of maximum clar- ity and simplicity of wording, which ensures unambiguous understanding of instructions by all categories of the population, a requirement consistently articulated by authoritative internation- al organizations (FEMA, UNHCR). e principle of consistency and unity of the information field is no less critical, as fragmentation of sources and contradictory messages determine the consolidation of trust, as evidenced by crisis management cases in different regions of the world. CONCLUSIONS Crisis conditions give rise to a specific discursive mode within which speech interaction un- dergoes a significant transformation. is mode of communication is characterized by a forced departure from the classical norms of communication - the maxims of Grice are systematically violated for the sake of efficiency and direct effectiveness. In such conditions, performatives and imperatives dominate - speech acts aimed at immediate changes in behavior or status (orders, warnings, announcements). Key concepts such as security, threat, and trust acquire a signifi- cantly increased semantic load, becoming the central axes around which the entire crisis narrative is built. e Ukrainian experience gained during the full-scale Russian aggression clearly demon- strates the high adaptability of communication practices. It successfully combines the universal principles of crisis communication - clarity and centralization - with national-specific strategies. e latter include, in particular, the active use of irony in social media, the personalization of the narrative, and the construction of a consolidation discourse based on an inclusive “we”. Acknowledgments e authors acknowledge their collaborative efforts and contributions to the research, anal- ysis, and preparation of this manuscript. Funding e study did not receive any funding. Authors statement Anna Marmulyak: Conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writ- ing – original draft, supervision, project administration. Anzhela Posokhova: Conceptualiza- tion, methodology, validation, writing – review and editing. Tetiana Lypchenko: Data curation, literature review, investigation, writing – original draft, visualization. Oksana Pylypets: Investi- gation, resources, data curation, writing – review and editing. Nadiia Salamin: Literature review, formal analysis, validation, writing – review and editing, proofreading. Competing interests e authors declare, under oath, that they have not incurred any conflict of interest in pre- paring this article.

1138 Marmulyak, Posokhova, Lypchenko, Pylypets, Salamin Interacción y Perspectiva. Revista de Trabajo Social Vol. 16(3): 2026 BIBLIOGRAPHIC REFERENCES • Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press. https://archive. org/details/howtodothingswit0000aust • Austin, L., Fisher Liu, B., & Jin, Y. (2012). How audiences seek out crisis information: Ex- ploring the socialmediated crisis communication model. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 40(2), 188–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2012.654498 • Bower, C. (2024). Ukraine’s wartime digitalization efforts: 2022 to 2024. Los Alamos National Laboratory. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.29088.85763 • Coombs, W. T. (2015). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (4th ed.). SAGE Publications. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280153860_Ongo- ing_Crisis_Communication_Planning_Managing_and_Responding • Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. (2019). National emergency communica- tions plan. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. https://www.cisa.gov/sites/default/files/ publications/19_0924_CISA_ECD-NECP-2019_1.pdf • van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511481499 • European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. (2020). Communication on COVID19: Lessons learned and recommendations. https://doi.org/10.2900/151256 • Fowler, R. (1991). Language in the news: Discourse and ideology in the press (1st ed.). Rout- ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315002057 • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and se- mantics (Vol. 3, pp. 41–58). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 • Hansson, S., Orru, K., Siibak, A., Bäck, A., Krüger, M., Gabel, F., & Morsut, C. (2020). Communicationrelated vulnerability to disasters: A heuristic framework. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 51, Article 101931. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2020.101931 • Heath, R. L., & O’Hair, H. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Rout- ledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203891629 • Hodges, A., & Nilep, C. (Eds.). (2007). Discourse, war and terrorism. John Benjamins Pub- lishing. https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.24 • Humanitarian Response Platform. (2021). Humanitarian response plan. https://www.un.org/ unispal/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/OCHAHUMRESPLAN2022_161221.pdf • Ilychok, B., Karkovska, V., Dzyurakh, Y., & Marmulyak, A. (2023). Changes in demograph- ic security of Ukraine as a key indicator of socioeconomic stability. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of eory and Practice, 2(49), 350–360. https://fkd.net.ua/index.php/fkd/ article/view/4020 • Kodera, Y., Hayashimoto, N., Tamaribuchi, K., Noguchi, K., Moriwaki, K., Takahashi, R., Morimoto, M., Okamoto, K., & Hoshiba, M. (2021). Developments of the nationwide earthquake early warning system in Japan after the 2011 Mw 9.0 TohokuOki earthquake. Frontiers in Earth Science, 9, Article 726045. https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2021.726045 • Micheli, M., Redmiles, E. M., & Hargittai, E. (2020). Help wanted: Young adults’ sources of support for questions about digital media. Information, Communication & Society, 23(11), 1655–1672. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2019.1602666

Palabras que perduran: un análisis del comportamiento lingüístico en situaciones de emergencia 1139 Vol. 16(3) septiembre - diciembre 2026/ 1126 - 1139 • Oleniuk, O. V. (2016). Verbalization of the concept danger in magazine advertising dis- course. Scientific Notes of the National University “Ostroh Academy”, Series “Philology”, 63(63), 149–152. https://europub.co.uk/articles/-A-410731 • Palen, L., & Hughes, A. L. (2018). Social media in disaster communication. In H. Rodrí- guez, W. Donner, & J. Trainor (Eds.), Handbook of disaster research (2nd ed., pp. 497–518). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-63254-4_24 • Sandman, P. M. (2012). e Peter M. Sandman risk communication website. https://www. psandman.com • Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2003). Communication and organizational crisis. Praeger. https://doi.org/10.5040/9798400629112 • Shevchenko, I. (2022). American social media on the RussiaUkraine war: A multimodal analysis. Cognition, Communication, Discourse, 25, 78–94. https://doi.org/10.26565/2218- 2926-2022-25-05 • Slovic, P., & Ball, D. J. (2011). e feeling of risk: New perspectives on risk perception. En- ergy & Environment, 22(6), 835–836. https://doi.org/10.1260/0958-305X.22.6.835 • Tehməzova, G. (2025). Lingvopragmatic features of political discourse. Terminology Issues, 1, 121–130. https://doi.org/10.59849/2663-8967.2025.1.121 • Tryhuba, A., Malanchuk, O., Tryhuba, I., & Marmulyak, A. (2024). Decision support sys- tem for initiating projects of medical and social development in regions. In Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on IT Project Management (ITPM 2024) (pp. 204–218). Bratisla- va, Slovakia. https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85197277242 • Verbytska, L., Babii, I., Konivitska, T., Kulchytska, M., & Khlypavka, H. (2025). Emergency speaking communication: Experience from the USA and Europe. OIDA International Jour- nal of Sustainable Development, 18(10), 145–154. https://ssrn.com/abstract=5285737