Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:

This study examines how digital platforms shape bilingual advertising in post-Soviet Georgia, addressing three questions: (1) What linguistic strategies (loanwords, code-switching, hybrid forms) prevail? (2) How do urban and rural consumers perceive these strategies? (3) How do state regulations and platform constraints shape advertisers’ choices?

Design/methodology/approach:

We employ a mixed-methods design combining corpus analysis (200 digital advertisements from Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, Google Ads), consumer surveys (225 respondents stratified by age, education, settlement type), and focus groups with 16 advertising professionals. The approach applies offline–online nexus frameworks to examine platform-mediated language practices.

Data and analysis:

The corpus (January–June 2024) was coded for linguistic strategies using inter-coder reliability (Cohen’s κ = 0.85). Survey data (Cronbach’s α = .85) were analyzed via analysis of variance (ANOVA) to compare perceptions across demographics. Focus group transcripts underwent thematic analysis (κ = 0.78).

Findings/conclusions:

Partial English use (43%) prevails, driven by code-switching and hybrid forms like “ქეშბექი” (keshbeki, cashback). Younger respondents aged 18–50 (67%) view English ads as innovative, while 35% of all respondents express linguistic marginalization concerns. Advertisers navigate tensions between Georgia’s Advertising Act mandating Georgian-language content and Google Ads’ technical inability to support Georgian script, creating “platform-enforced bilingualism.”

Originality:

This is the first systematic study of English in Georgian advertising. It introduces “platform-enforced bilingualism” as a concept bridging prestige models and structural constraint perspectives, demonstrating how corporate platform governance supersedes national language policy in digital commercial spaces.

Significance/implications:

The study extends nexus scholarship to commercial contexts and post-Soviet language policy frameworks. It reveals asymmetric feedback loops where online platform constraints shape offline linguistic norms more powerfully than policies shape online practices, with implications for language policy revision and bilingual education in digitally mediated environments.

Keywords

English language development advertising communications Georgian society globalization linguistic identity bilingualism cultural exchange post-Soviet studies linguistic landscape offline–online nexus platform-enforced bilingualism mixed-methods

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Androutsopoulos

(2013). Code-switching in computer-mediated communication. Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication, 9, 667–694.

Androutsopoulos

(2015). Networked multilingualism: Some language practices on Facebook and their implications. International Journal of Bilingualism, 19(2), 185–205.

Androutsopoulos

(2024). The offline-online nexus. In Blackwood

Tufi

Amos

(Eds.), The Bloomsbury handbook of linguistic landscapes (pp. 441–456). Bloomsbury Academic.

Bhatia

T. K.

(1992). Discourse functions and pragmatics of mixing: Advertising across cultures. World Englishes, 11(2-3), 195–215.

Blackwood

Tufi

Amos

(Eds.). (2024). The Bloomsbury handbook of linguistic landscapes. Bloomsbury Academic.

Blommaert

Maly

(2019). Invisible lines in the online-offline linguistic landscape (Tilburg Papers in Culture Studies No. 223). https://repository.tilburguniversity.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/2b1b5df6-63ef-426a-8533-c9a926f2494d/content

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.

Canagarajah

(2013). Translingual practice: Global Englishes and cosmopolitan relations. Routledge.

Cook

(1992). The discourse of advertising. Routledge.

10.

Crystal

(2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486999

11.

Dimock

(2019, January 17). Defining generations: Where Millennials end and Generation Z begins. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/01/17/where-millennials-end-and-generation-z-begins/

12.

Fowler

F. J.

Jr. (2013). Survey research methods (5th ed.). Sage.

13.

Gerritsen

Nickerson

Van Hooft

Van Meurs

Nederstigt

Starren

Crijns

(2007). English in product advertisements in Belgium, France, Germany, the Netherlands and Spain. World Englishes, 26(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-971X.2007.00510.x

14.

Gochitashvili

(2025). Linguistic characteristics of advertising texts in Georgian. Language and Culture, 10, 128–136.

15.

Google. (n.d.). Unsupported language [Help Center article]. Google Ads Help. https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/6333734?hl=en

16.

Hiippala

Hausmann

Tenkanen

Toivonen

(2019). Exploring the linguistic landscape of geotagged social media content in urban environments. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(2), 290–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy049

17.

Hornikx

van Meurs

(2020). Foreign languages in advertising: Language choice and its effects. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31691-4

18.

Hornikx

van Meurs

de Boer

(2010). English or a local language in advertising? The appreciation of easy and difficult English slogans in the Netherlands. Journal of Business Communication, 47(2), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943610364524

19.

Ignotaitė

(2024). Translanguaging between Lithuanian and English on “Twitter” [Doctoral dissertation, Klaipėda University]. ResearchGate. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/377174280_Translanguaging_between_Lithuanian_and_English_on_Twitter

20.

Ivkovic

Lotherington

(2009). Multilingualism in cyberspace: Conceptualising the virtual linguistic landscape. International Journal of Multilingualism, 6(1), 17–36.

21.

Kelly-Holmes

(2005). Advertising as multilingual communication. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230503014

22.

Krippendorff

(2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage.

23.

Kulyk

(2013). Language policy in the Ukrainian media: Authorities, producers, and consumers. Europe-Asia Studies, 65(7), 1417–1443. https://doi.org/10.1080/09668136.2013.824137

24.

Kuppens

A. H.

(2010). English in advertising: Examining the voice of cosmopolitan identity. Applied Linguistics, 31(1), 115–136. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amp018

25.

Lekiashvili

(2024). The evolution of English slang among Georgian youth: A study of linguistic hybridity and cultural identity. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 11(2), 58–63. https://doi.org/10.15640/ijll.v11n2a7

26.

Lyons

(2019). Filtered linguistic landscapes: Minority languages in the economies of Instagram. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 23(4), 386–407.

27.

Martin

(2002). Mixing English in French advertising. World Englishes, 21(3), 375–402. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00258

28.

Parliament of Georgia. (1995). Constitution of Georgia (English trans.). https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/30346?publication=36

29.

Parliament of Georgia. (2018). Law of Georgia on advertising (No. 1304). https://matsne.gov.ge/en/document/view/31840

30.

Pavlenko

(2008). Multilingualism in post-Soviet countries: Language revival, language removal, and sociolinguistic theory. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(3–4), 275–314.

31.

Piller

(2003). Advertising as a site of language contact. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0267190503000254

32.

Shaverdashvili

Chkhikvadze

(2022). English as a foreign language in Georgia. In Tsagari

M. M.

Georgiou

J. A.

(Eds.), Policies and practice in language learning and teaching (pp. 289–306). Peter Lang.

33.

Shohamy

Gorter

(Eds.). (2009). Linguistic landscape: Expanding the scenery. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203930960

34.

Spolsky

Shohamy

(2000). Language practice, language ideology, and language policy. In King

K. A.

Hornberger

N. H.

Kim

Y. K.

(Eds.), Language policy and pedagogy: Essays in honor of A. Ronald Walton (pp. 1–42). John Benjamins Publishing Company.

35.

Themistocleous

(2021). From public to digital spaces: Spatial and media practices of the 2017 “Unite Cyprus Now” peace protests. Discourse, Context & Media, 42, 1–15.

36.

Vaicekauskienė

(2023). The sociolinguistic dynamics of Russian and English in post-1990 Lithuania. World Englishes, 42(4), 749–767. https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12615

37.

D. D.

Chan

(2007). Multilingual mix in Hong Kong advertising, pre- and post-1997. Asian Journal of Communication, 17(3), 301–317. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292980701305925

English in Georgian Digital Advertising: Platform Constraints,Consumer Perceptions,and the Offline–Online Nexus

Abstract

Aims and objectives/purpose/research questions:

Design/methodology/approach:

Data and analysis:

Findings/conclusions:

Originality:

Significance/implications:

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References