Abstract
This case study is an example of interdisciplinary research, which couples the linguistic aspects with the study of public political discourse in social media. The purpose of the study is to identify how “realism” terms and national/global agenda are represented in Twitter discourse of leaders of countries which claim to be global powers today. Obviously, it is impossible to claim a high status in the modern world without participation in global discussions (including the level of influence on public opinion in Twitter). We collect data from official accounts of the U.S. President Donald Trump, France’s President Emmanuel Macron, Russia’s President Vladimir Putin, and Russia’s Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Then we propose a research method developed by us which contains 5 stages. The main method of research is traditional content analysis, not only selective (under this or that theory), but also “front-line” one. We are interested in the subject matter (key, most frequent vocabulary) that dominates the considered texts. We separate the same amounts of text (approximately 33 000 words) in the content of the Twitter pages of Trump, Macron, Putin and Medvedev. Then we quantify the words and identify the key concepts which are specific for political realism and political idealism. We perform a “frontal” general analysis of all the most frequently used concepts. We make a quantitative assessment of the nature of the use of political leaders’ key concepts (this stage of analysis is divided on several sub-stages). Finally we compare the frequency of concepts’ use by leaders of the West and Russia.
Putin-Medvedev pair has obvious coincidences with Trump at the external level, but a significant divergence in the base level, i.e. this is another picture of the world, another choice of subjects, in contrast to Trump-Macron pair. Russian leaders are focused on domestic problems of the country. Global agenda is not sufficiently represented in Twitter accounts of Russian leaders. Trump and Macron discuss common (global) themes herewith they have different ideological preferences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Aharony, N.: Twitter use by three political leaders: an exploratory analysis. Online Inf. Rev. 36(4), 587–603 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1108/14684521211254086
Ausserhofer, J., Maireder, A.: National politics on Twitter. Inf. Commun. Soc. 16(3), 291–314 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.756050
Baumer, E., Sinclair, J., Irvine, B.: ‘America is like metamucil’: fostering critical and creative thinking about metaphor in political blogs. In: CHI 2010: Expressing and Understanding Opinions in Social Media, pp. 1437–1446 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753541
Beer, F., Balleck, B.: Realist/idealist texts: psychometry and semantics. Peace Psychol. Rev. 1(1), 38–44 (1994)
Bodrunova, S.S., Litvinenko, A.A., Gavra, D.P., Yakunin, A.V.: Twitter-based discourse on migrants in Russia: the case of 2013 bashings in Biryulyovo. Int. Rev. Manage. Mark. 5, 97–104 (2015)
Bolgov, R., Filatova, O., Tarnavsky, A.: Analysis of public discourse about Donbas conflict in Russian social media. In: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Cyber Warfare and Security, ICCWS 2016, pp. 37–46 (2016)
van Dijk, T.A.: Cognitive situation models in discourse production: the expression of ethnic situations in prejudiced discourse. In: Forgas, J.P. (ed.) Language and Social Situations. Springer Series in Social Psychology, pp. 61–79. Springer, New York (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-5074-6_4
Doroshenko, L., Schneider, T., Kofanov, D., et al.: Ukrainian nationalist parties and connective action: an analysis of electoral campaigning and social media sentiments. Inf. Commun. Soc. 1–20 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2018.1426777
Fischer, E., Reuber, R.A.: Social interaction via new social media: (how) can interactions on Twitter affect effectual thinking and behavior? J. Bus. Ventur. 26, 1–18 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent.2010.09.002
Gillen, J., Merchant, G.: Contact calls: Twitter as a dialogic social and linguistic practice. Lang. Sci. 35, 47–58 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2012.04.015
Habermas, J.: Relationship to the world and rational aspects of action in four sociological concepts of action. Sociol. obozrenie (Sociol. Rev.) 7(1) (2008). [in Russian]
Marvick, A., Boyd, D.: I tweet honestly, i tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New Media Soc. 13(1), 114–133 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313
Munson, S., Resnik, P.: The Prevalence of Political Discourse in Non-Political Blogs (2010)
Page, R.: The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: the role of hashtags. Discourse Commun. 6(2), 181–210 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481312437441
Potapova, R.K.: Social network discourse as an object of interdisciplinary research. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference “Discourse as social activity: priorities and prospects”, pp. 20–22 (2014). [in Russian]
Spina, S., Cancila, J.: Gender Issues in the interactions of italian politicians on twitter: identity, representation and flows of conversation. Int. J. Cross-Cult. Stud. Environ. Commun. 2(2), 147–157 (2013)
Tregubov, N.A.: Articulation of ideas about political modernization in rhetoric of Putin and Medvedev: an attempt of comparative content analysis. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Seria: Politologiya 3(11), 69–81 (2010). [in Russian]
Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T., Sandner, P., Welpe, I.: Election forecast with Twitter: how 140 characters reflect the political landscape. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 29, 1–17 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439310386557
Woolley, J., Limperos, A., Oliver, M.: The 2008 presidential election, 2.0: a content analysis of user-generated political Facebook groups. Mass Commun. Soc. 13(5), 631–652 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2010.516864
Xifra, J., Grau, F.: Nanoblogging PR: the discourse on public relations in Twitter. Public Relat. Rev. 36, 171–174 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.02.005
Yakoba, I.A.: Deconstruction of Donald Trump’s discourse (cases of his 2016 elections speeches). Diskurs Pi 1(26), 164–169 (2017). [in Russian]
Yardi, S., Boyd, D.: Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc. 30(5), 316–327 (2010)
Zappavigna, M.: Enacting Identity in microblogging through ambient affiliation. Discourse Commun. 8, 1–20 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313510816
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bolgov, R., Chernov, I., Ivannikov, I., Katsy, D. (2019). Battle in Twitter: Comparative Analysis of Online Political Discourse (Cases of Macron, Trump, Putin, and Medvedev). In: Chugunov, A., Misnikov, Y., Roshchin, E., Trutnev, D. (eds) Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia. EGOSE 2018. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 947. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13283-5_28
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-13283-5_28
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-13282-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-13283-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)