Keywords
human–AI communication
conceptualization
cognitive linguistics
frame semantics
anthropomorphism
communicative partner
ChatGPT.
How to Cite
Abstract
The rapid development of conversational artificial intelligence has changed not only how people obtain information but also how they linguistically understand the technology with which they communicate. Users describe AI systems as tools, assistants, teachers, experts, study buddies, friends, and even as something between a machine and a person. Such expressions are not simple stylistic choices. They reveal different ways of conceptualizing the same technological system. The present study examines these conceptualizations from a cognitive-linguistic perspective. The study argues that the emerging concept of AI as a communicative partner is therefore structurally dynamic: AI may be construed as a tool in one interaction, a teacher in another, and a socially meaningful interlocutor in another. This finding is relevant to cognitive linguistics, pragmatics, human– machine communication, and the study of emerging digital discourse.References
1. Durgungoz, A., & Kharrufa, A. (2026). “ChatGPT is like a study buddy, a teacher and sometimes just a friend”: A longitudinal exploration of students’ interactions, perception and acceptance. Interactive Learning Environments, 34(2), 758–777. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2025.2509276
2. Enam, M. D. A., Murmu, C., & Dixon, E. (2025). “Artificial Intelligence – Carrying us into the Future”: A study of older adults’ perceptions of LLM-based chatbots. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 41(21), 13747–13770. https://doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2025.2476710
3. Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111–137). Seoul: Hanshin Publishing Company.
4. Guzman, A. L., & Lewis, S. C. (2020). Artificial intelligence and communication: A Human–Machine Communication research agenda. New Media & Society, 22(1), 70–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819858691
5. Karnam, S. K., Dash, A., Gummadi, K., Mukherjee, A., Weber, I., & Zannettou, S. (2026). Bowling with ChatGPT: On the evolving user interactions with conversational AI systems. In Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2026 (pp. 9711–9721). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3774904.3792978
6. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Mamatov, A. E. (2012). Tilga kognitiv yondashuvning mohiyati nimada? In Tilshunoslikning dolzarb masalalari: Prof. A. Nurmonov tavalludining 70 yilligiga bag‘ishlangan ilmiy-amaliy anjuman materiallari (pp. 212–219). Andijon.
9. Manoli, A., Pauketat, J. V. T., & Anthis, J. R. (2025). Characterizing relationships with companion and assistant large language models. In Companion of the 2025 Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW Companion ’25) (pp. 312–319). ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/3715070.3749245
10. Rosch, E. (1978). Principles of categorization. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization (pp. 27–48). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Safarov, Sh. (2008). Pragmalingvistika. Toshkent: O‘zbekiston milliy ensiklopediyasi. See particularly pp. 69–70.
12. Safarov, Sh. S. (2006). Kognitiv tilshunoslik. Jizzax: Sangzor. See particularly p. 91