Ontological Transformation of Language in the Generative AI Era: A Cross-Disciplinary Scoping Review

Abstract

The systematic integration of generative AI into language practices is fundamentally transforming how meaning is constructed, transmitted, and related to identity. Yet how this transformation is mapped across education, philosophy, and communication disciplines, what conceptual gaps persist, and where theoretical bridges can be built between these fields has not been addressed from an integrated perspective. This study conducts a scoping review based on the methodological framework of Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and the PRISMA-ScR reporting guidelines (Tricco et al., 2018) to address this gap. A database search across Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC, and Google Scholar covering the period January 2019–March 2026, conducted in February–March 2026 yielded 792 records; following screening, 95 studies were included in the final analysis. Content analysis guided by the PCC (Population-Concept-Context) framework revealed five main thematic areas: linguistic homogenization and identity transformation; authenticity, authorship, and epistemic agency; discourse, meaning-making, and communication transformation; philosophical and ontological frameworks; and pedagogical responses and AI literacy. The findings extend the semantic-erosion literature at the conceptual level, mapping from a cross-disciplinary perspective how the ontological ground of language is being destabilized across the axes of authenticity, referentiality, and dialogic alterity. The study proposes concrete orientations for educational policy and future research agendas.

Keywords

• scoping review
• generative AI
• ontology of language
• linguistic homogenization
• epistemic agency

Üretken Yapay Zekâ Çağında Dilin Ontolojik Dönüşümü: Disiplinlerarası Bir Kapsam Derlemesi

Abstract

Üretken yapay zekânın (YZ) dil pratiklerine sistematik biçimde eklemlenmesi, anlamın inşa edilme, aktarılma ve kimlikle ilişkilendirilme biçimlerini köklü biçimde dönüştürmektedir. Bu dönüşümün eğitim bilimleri, felsefe ve iletişim disiplinlerinde nasıl haritalandığı, hangi kavramsal boşlukların sürdüğü ve disiplinler arasındaki teorik köprülerin nerede kurulabileceği ise henüz bütünleşik bir perspektiften ele alınmamıştır. Bu çalışma, söz konusu boşluğu doldurmak amacıyla Arksey ve O'Malley'nin (2005) metodolojik çerçevesi ile PRISMA-ScR (Tricco vd., 2018) raporlama kılavuzu temelinde bir kapsam derlemesi (scoping review) gerçekleştirmiştir. Ocak 2019–Mart 2026 tarihleri arasında Web of Science, Scopus, ERIC ve Google Scholar veri tabanlarında yürütülen tarama sonucunda 792 kayıda ulaşılmış; eleme sürecinin ardından 95 çalışma nihai analize dahil edilmiştir. PCC (Population-Concept-Context) çerçevesiyle yönlendirilen içerik analizi, beş ana tematik alan ortaya koymuştur: dil homojenleşmesi ve kimlik dönüşümü; özgünlük, yazarlık ve epistemik faillik; söylem, anlam inşası ve iletişim dönüşümü; felsefi ve ontolojik çerçeveler; pedagojik yanıtlar ve YZ okuryazarlığı. Bulgular, alan yazında semantik aşınmaya ilişkin belgelenen dönüşümü kavramsal düzeyde genişletmekte; dilin ontolojik zemininin —özgünlük, göndergesellik ve diyalojik öteki eksenlerinde— nasıl sarsıldığını disiplinlerarası bir perspektiften haritalandırmaktadır. Çalışma, eğitimsel politikalar ve gelecek araştırma gündemleri için somut yönelimler önermektedir.

Keywords

• kapsam derlemesi
• üretken yapay zekâ
• dilin ontolojisi
• dil homojenleşmesi
• epistemik faillik

References

1. Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
2. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation (S. F. Glaser, Çev.). University of Michigan Press.
3. Bozkurt, A. (2024). GenAI et al.: cocreation, authorship, ownership, academic ethics and integrity in a time of generative AI. Open Praxis, 16(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.55982/openpraxis.16.1.654
4. Braidotti, R. (2013). The posthuman. Polity Press.
5. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
6. Dilek, Z., & Bilici, M. (2025). Research trends in artificial intelligence in mathematics education: A descriptive review of graduate theses and international articles. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 9(4), 137–164. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jmse/article/1809669
7. Firdaus, T., Wardani, E., Pratiwi, S. E., Kurniasih, S., Hidayah, N., & Putra, M. F. O. (2025). Research trend virtual reality in education: Bibliometric analysis. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 9(1), 28–46. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jmse/article/1611312
8. Gerlich, M. (2025). AI tools in society: Impacts on cognitive offloading and the future of critical thinking. Societies, 15(1), 6. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc15010006

9. Hayles, N. K. (1999). How we became posthuman. University of Chicago Press.
10. Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought (A. Hofstadter, Çev.). Harper & Row.
11. Jose, B., Cleetus, A., Joseph, B., Joseph, L., Jose, B., & John, A. K. (2025). Epistemic authority and generative AI in learning spaces: rethinking knowledge in the algorithmic age. Frontiers in Education, 10, 1647687. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1647687
12. Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. E. Aromataris ve Z. Munn (Ed.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis içinde. JBI. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-12
13. Raitskaya, L., & Tikhonova, E. (2025). The 2025 landscape of generative AI in scholarly writing and publishing: A scoping review of uses and ethical approaches. Journal of Language and Education, 11(4), 5–51. https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2025.29876
14. Slimi, Z. (2026). A systematic critical review of generative AI's impact on authorship, pedagogy, and integrity (2023–2025). Frontiers in Education, 11, 1769680. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2026.1769680
15. Sourati, Z., Karimi-Malekabadi, F., Ozcan, M., McDaniel, C., Ziabari, A., Trager, J., Tak, A., Chen, M., Morstatter, F., & Dehghani, M. (2025). The shrinking landscape of linguistic diversity in the age of large language models [Ön baskı]. arXiv:2502.11266. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.11266
16. Sourati, Z., Ziabari, A. S., & Dehghani, M. (2026). The homogenizing effect of large language models on human expression and thought. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 30(9), 805–816. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2026.01.003
17. Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., Hempel, S., Akl, E. A., Chang, C., McGowan, J., Stewart, L., Hartling, L., Aldcroft, A., Wilson, M. G., Garritty, C., . . . Straus, S. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
18. Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations (G. E. M. Anscombe, Çev.). Blackwell.
19. Yılmaz, E., & Aladağ, S. (2024). Eleştirel okuryazarlık ölçeğinin geliştirilmesi: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışmaları. Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies in Education, 8(4), 173–185. https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/pub/jmse/article/1586330