LEXICAL PERCEPTIONS AND DISCURSIVE REACTIONS TO THEMATIC CONSTRUCTS OF EUROPEAN STUDIES IN THE DIGITAL CONTEXT: A STUDENT-CENTERED LINGUISTIC SURVEY WITHIN THE ESPERIDTA PROJECT
Abstract
As digital transformation reshapes higher education across Europe, the language used to describe interdisciplinary fields, such as European Studies, has become increasingly complex. Within this evolving landscape, student engagement with academic terminology plays a critical role in shaping motivation, understanding, and learning outcomes. This article explores how undergraduate students at VIZJA University (Warsaw, Poland) perceive, interpret, and emotionally respond to five compound constructs central to the ESPERIDTA project: European Studies through Digital European Languages Policies, Digital Historical Developments, Digital European Law, Digital Management, and Digital Political Science. The study employed a student- centered linguistic approach, combining lexical perception analysis with discourse-oriented interpretation of qualitative responses. Over 100 students participated in surveys and open-ended reflections, offering paraphrases, emotional reactions, and commentaries on each phrase. The results reveal considerable variation in students’ clarity and familiarity scores, with terminology perceived as bureaucratic or abstract often prompting confusion, rewording, or avoidance. Constructs grounded in specific disciplines (e.g., law, politics) were more easily understood than broader or less concrete terms, such as “European Languages Policies.” Emotional responses ranged from curiosity and interest to skepticism and cognitive overload. The findings underscore the need for more reflexive and inclusive approaches to terminology in digital European Studies curricula. Educators and policymakers should consider the cognitive and affective dimensions of phrase construction, especially when integrating multilingual and digital frameworks. The study also highlights the value of engaging students as active participants in unpacking educational discourse, suggesting pathways for more accessible and resonant academic communication.
References
2. Dafouz E., & Smit U. Towards a dynamic conceptual framework for English-medium education in multilingual university settings. Applied Linguistics. 2016. 37(3), 397–415. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amu034.
3. Gendron M., & Barrett L.F. Emotion perception as conceptual synchrony. Emotion Review. 2018. 10(2), 101–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073917705717.
4. Hagoort P., & Indefrey P. The neurobiology of language beyond single words. Annual Review of Neuroscience. 2014. 37, 347–362. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-neuro-071013-013847.
5. Hinojosa J.A., Moreno E.M., & Ferré P. Affective neurolinguistics: Towards a framework for reconciling language and emotion. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience. 2020. 35(6), 813–839. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2019.1620957.
6. Jackendoff R., & Audring J. Morphology and memory: Toward an integrated theory. 2020. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/tops.12334.
7. Kapranov Y., Iwanowska B., Stadniczeńko D., & Wierzchowski T. Student perspectives on European language policies and positive developments in the digital context: From challenges to change. Молодий вчений (Young Scientist). 2025. 2(133), 154–162. https://doi.org/10.32839/2304-5809/2025-2-133-24.
8. Kissler J., & Koessler S. Emotionally positive stimuli facilitate lexical decisions – An ERP study. Biological Psychology. 2011. 86(3), 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsycho.2010.12.006.
9. Masterson M. An exploration of the potential role of digital technologies for promoting learning in foreign language classrooms: Les- sons for a pandemic. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 15(14), 83–96. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v15i14.13297.
10. Toivo W., & Scheepers C. Pupillary responses to affective words in bilinguals’ first versus second language. PLOS ONE. 2018. 14(1), e0210450. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210450.
11. Wodak R. Discourse and European integration. In A. Wiener, T. Börzel, & T. Risse (Eds.), European integration theory. 3rd ed., pp. 164–183. Oxford University Press. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1093/hepl/9780198737315.003.0008.
12. Wodak R., & Fairclough N. Recontextualizing European higher education policies: The cases of Austria and Romania. Critical Discourse Studies. 2010. 7(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900903453922.
ISSN 
.png)
