Using decade-stratified samples from the Corpus of Historical American English (COHA; 1900–2000), we manually annotated 4,200 nominal tokens drawn from informational prose and a fiction control. Nominal heads were coded for eventive vs agentive type using formal diagnostics (argument-realisation cues, event-modification, and distributional properties), while noun-phrase context was coded for internal argument expression (especially of-PP complements, as in the analysis of the data), agent expression (by-PP/genitive, as in the analysis by Smith), and structural complexity (premodification, postmodification, and NP length). Mixed-effects modelling reveals a significant positive time trend for eventive nominalisations relative to agentive nominalisations in informational prose (β = 0.032, p < 0.001; odds +3.3% per decade, approximately +38% over the century). Eventive nominals also increasingly realise internal arguments via of-PP complements (β = 0.025, p = 0.002) while overt agent expression declines (p = 0.021). No comparable shift is attested in fiction.

These findings show that the historical move toward noun-phrase compression is not only a quantitative rise in modification but also a qualitative restructuring of nominalisation strategies: twentieth-century informational prose reorients from participant-reference toward process-packaging nominal heads that support argument embedding and hierarchical information packaging. The result is a grammar of scientific discourse in which processes are increasingly recast as manipulable “things”, enabling compact exposition while backgrounding human agency, a tendency that qualitative critics of academic style have also observed from rhetorical perspectives.

The study focuses on political Internet discourse in Eastern contexts (China, Japan, Iran), where indirect communication, ritualized rhetoric, and hierarchical discourse traditions intensify strategies of simulated coherence. The theoretical framework draws on the ideas of A. Camus, M. Heidegger, G. Deleuze, F. Guattari, J. Kristeva, and L. Wittgenstein. The methodological approach combines critical discourse analysis, philosophical hermeneutics, cognitive linguistics, and selected natural language processing tools.

The empirical corpus comprises samples of political digital communication from the aforementioned regions, which enables the identification of ritually stabilized linguistic constructions that create an illusion of sense without substantive cognitive content. As a result, an original typology of linguistic strategies for sense destabilization is proposed at the lexical, syntactic, pragmatic, and algorithmic levels. The findings demonstrate that contemporary digital political communication is characterized by simulational coherence, where grammatical correctness persists despite the erosion of semantic depth. The study contributes to understanding linguistic mechanisms of post-truth discourse and information warfare in the digital age.

Using a mixed-method approach, the study combines quantitative frequency analysis with qualitative discourse analysis. Impoliteness strategies were categorized into on-record and off-record types, including positive impoliteness, negative impoliteness, sarcasm, and implicated impoliteness. The results show that on-record impoliteness dominates the dataset (76.2%), with positive impoliteness being the most frequent strategy. Users commonly employ explicit criticism, accusations, and ridicule to challenge the credibility or competence of political actors. Although less frequent, sarcasm serves as an important off-record strategy that allows users to express criticism indirectly.

The findings suggest that impoliteness in Reddit political discussions functions both as a form of interpersonal aggression and as a rhetorical resource for expressing political dissatisfaction. The study contributes to the understanding of how impoliteness operates in computer-mediated communication and highlights the role of online platform environments in shaping confrontational political discourse.