Skip to main content

Perceiving Speech Aggression with and without Textual Context on Twitter Social Network Site

  • 786 Accesses

Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNAI,volume 12997)

Abstract

The Internet has become the leading place for the emergence and spread of aggressive behavior. All major social network sites today work in one way or another to maintain a respectful atmosphere within their communities. Besides all this work to harmonize communication, today speech aggression is still a common fact within internet-communication on social network sites. The paper explores speech aggression perception in internet-communication of Russian speaking Twitter users. We suppose that taking into account such factors as communicative situation and communicative context, when analyzing the fact of speech aggression implementation, will increase the accuracy of determining the nature (direction) of speech aggression in the process of speech communication on social network sites. Based on ten tweet stimuli selected we perform an empirical research recruiting 45 Russian speaking recipients and asking them to detect speech aggression in tweets without and within textual context. The results of the research argue that indeed, the presence of textual context influences the interpretation of the tweet as an offensive or a defensive aggressive speech act.

Keywords

  • Perception
  • Text analysis
  • Internet mediated communication
  • Speech aggression
  • Levels of language

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-87802-3_32
  • Chapter length: 12 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   99.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-87802-3
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Communicative context within this work is understood as macro-context – the linguistic environment of a particular speech unit (a word, a phrase, an utterance, etc.). This context is wider then a phrase and goes beyond one utterance [4]. Within this work context means tweets following the stimuli tweet.

  2. 2.

    Communicative situation means a structural speech entity realized in space and time. The communicative situation characterizes the circumstances of communication in general, its incentives, its participants, etc. It includes interlocutors (a sender of the messages and recipient(s)), topic of communication (about what interlocutors communicate), motive to communicate (why they communicate), aims of interlocutors (what results they want to reach), code used by them (how they communicate), communicative style used by them (common talks, official speech etc.), place and time of communication (where and when interlocutors communicate), communicative environments (social prescriptions, taboos etc.), and ethnic peculiarities [16].

  3. 3.

    Tips for hate speech data annotation see in [20].

References

  1. Aggression in figures: Who, where and why hurts others. https://www.the-village.ru/village/city/situation/164541-agressiya-v-tsifrah

  2. Bell, K.: YouTube will remind users to ‘keep comments respectful’ before posting (2020). https://www.engadget.com/youtube-pop-up-keep-comments-respectful-185717715.html

  3. Data mining of society: aggressiveness on social media and the newest technologies to detect them (2019). https://br-analytics.ru/blog/agressivnost/

  4. Dominikan, A.: Types of contexts according to different scientific approaches. Vestnik TvGU. Series: Philology 4, 125–131 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Every second schoolchild in Russia faced aggression on the Internet (2014). https://ict-online.ru/news/n105989/

  6. Evil Moscow. https://www.the-village.ru/tags/%D0%97%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%8F%20%D0%BC%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B2%D0%B0

  7. Facebook launches campaign to drive out hate speech. https://en.ejo.ch/media-politics/hatespeech

  8. Kolezev, D.E.: Negativity bias: why do news websites keep focusing in negative events. In: Mass media Priorities and Values of the Journalism as a Profession, pp. 33–36. Ural University Press, Ekaterinburg (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Komalova, L.R.: Aggressogen Discourse: The Multilingual Aggression Verbalization Typology. Sputnik+, Moscow (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  10. Komalova, L.R.: Language and Speech Aggression. INION RAN, Moscow (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Koshkarova, N.N.: The space of conflict discourse in the genre of political interviews. Vestnik of Chelyabinsk State University 17, 54–59 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Krylov, Y.V.: Emodji’s semantics in the virtual dialogue. Vestnik of Omsk State Pedagogical University. Humanitarian Studies 2, pp. 50–52 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  13. No trolls are welcome here: YouTube will fight insulting speech in video comments (2020). https://rg.ru/2020/12/07/youtube-budet-borotsia-s-oskorbleniiami-v-kommentariiah-k-video.html

  14. Perez, S.: Twitter’s doubling of character count for 140 to 280 had little impact on length of tweets (2018). https://techcrunch.com/2018/10/30/twitters-doubling-of-character-count-from-140-to-280-had-little-impact-on-length-of-tweets

  15. Potapova, R., Komalova, L.: Lexico-semantical indices of “deprivation – aggression” modality correlation in social network discourse. In: Karpov, A., Potapova, R., Mporas, I. (eds.) SPECOM 2017. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10458, pp. 493–502. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66429-3_49

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  16. Serebrykova, A.Yu.: About components of communicative situation. Bulletin of the South Ural State University. Series: Linguistics 15(158), 30–32 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  17. Tur, A.: Facebook launches program to combat hate speech and terrorist propaganda in the UK (2017). https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/23/15860868/facebook-hate-speech-terrorism-uk-online-civil-courage-initiative

  18. Violence on TV screen as a market factor and basis for modeling the world for the domestic audience (2014). https://ctyzyrka.ru/studproekt/103-nasilie-na-televizionnom-ekrane-kak-faktor-rynka-i-osnova-miromodelirovaniya-dlya-otechestvennogo-zritelya

  19. VKontakte tests new neural network to combat hate speech (2020). https://vk.com/press/no-hate-speech

  20. Wassem, Z.: Are you a racist or am I seeing things? Annotator influence on hate speech detection on Twitter. In: Proceedings of 2016 EMNLP Workshop on Natural Language Processing and Computational Social Science, pp. 138–142. Austin, TX (2016)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liliya Komalova .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Komalova, L., Kulagina, D. (2021). Perceiving Speech Aggression with and without Textual Context on Twitter Social Network Site. In: Karpov, A., Potapova, R. (eds) Speech and Computer. SPECOM 2021. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 12997. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87802-3_32

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-87802-3_32

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-87801-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-87802-3

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)