Abstract
The aim of the current paper is to formulate a conception of pragmatic patterns characterizing the construction of individual and collective identities in virtual communities (in our case: the Twitter community). We have explored several theoretical approaches and frameworks and relevant empirical data to show that the agents building virtual communities are ’extended selves’ grounded in a highly dynamic and compressed, linguistically mediated virtual network structure. Our empirical evidence consists of a study of discourse related to the Latvian parliamentary elections of 2010. We used a Twitter corpus (in Latvian) harvested and statistically evaluated using the Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) algorithm and complemented with qualitative and quantitative content analysis. Special emphasis is given to opinion leaders (journalists, politicians, public relations specialists, academics etc.) in Twitter communication, instead of attempting to cover the entire body of discourse including all Twitter participants.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bird, S., Klein, E., Loper, E.: Natural Language Processing with Python. O’Reilly (2009)
Boyd, D., Golder, S., Lotan, G.: Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. In: HICSS-43, January 6. IEEE, Kauai (2010)
Brewer, M.B.: The social self: On being the same and different at the same time. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17, 475–482 (1991)
Brewer, M.B., Gardner, W.: Who is this “we”? Levels of collective identity and self representations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71, 83–93 (1996)
Clark, A.: Pressing the flesh: Exploring a tension in the study of the embodied, embedded mind. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research (2006)
Clark, H.H., et al.: Common ground and the understanding of demonstrative reference. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behaviour 22, 245–258 (1983)
Coulson, S., et al.: Looking back: Joke comprehension and the space structuring model. Humor. 19, 229–250 (2006)
Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics and the nature of language. In: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences: Conference on the Origin and Development of Language and Speech, vol. 280, pp. 20–32 (1976)
Glushko, R.J., Maglio, P.P., Matlock, T., Barsalou, L.W.: Categorization in the wild. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 12, 129–135 (2008)
Haythornthwaite, C.: Social networks and online community. In: Joinson, A., McKenna, K., Postmes, T., Reips, U.-D. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Internet Psychology, pp. 121–137. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2007)
Heit, E., Nicholson, S.P.: The opposite of republican: polarization and political categorization. Cognitive Science 34, 1503–1516 (2010)
Hsu, C.-L., Park, H.W.: Sociology of hyperlink networks of Web 1.0, Web 2.0, and Twitter: a case study of South Korea. Social Science Computer Review (2010), doi:0894439310382517
Langacker, R.W.: Grammar and Conceptualization. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2000)
Lassen, D.S., Brown, A.S.: Twitter: the electoral connection? Social Science Computer Review (September 23, 2010), doi:0894439310382749
Laurent, J.P., et al.: On understanding idiomatic language: the salience hypothesis assessed by ERP’s. Brain Research 1068, 151–160 (2006)
Manning, C.D., Schutze, H.: Foundations of Statistical Natural Language Processing. The MIT Press, Cambridge (2003)
Medin, D.L., Lynch, E.B., Solomon, K.E.: Are there kinds of concepts? Annual Review of Psychology 51, 121–147 (2000)
Mitchell, J., Lapata, M.: Composition in distributional models of semantics. Cognitive Science 34, 1388–1429 (2010)
Nosek, B.A., Graham, J., Hawkins, C.B.: Implicit political cognition. In: Gawronski, B., Payne, B.K. (eds.) Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory, and Applications, pp. 548–564. The Guilford Press, New York (2010)
Smith, E.R., Henry, S.: An in-group becomes part of the self:Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 22, 635–642 (1996)
Spivey, M., Richardson, D., Fitneva, S.: Thinking outside the brain: Spatial indices to linguistic and visual information. In: Henderson, J., Ferreira, F. (eds.) The Interface of Vision, Language, and Action, pp. 161–189. Psychology Press, New York (2004)
Tumasjan, A., Sprenger, T.O., Sandner, P.G., Welpe, I.M.: Predicting elections with twitter: what 140 charcters reveal about political sentiment. In: Proceedings of the 4th International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, pp. 178–185 (2010)
Yardi, S., Boyd, D.: Dynamic debates: an analysis of group polarization over time on Twitter. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(5), 316–327 (2010)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Šķilters, J., Kreile, M., Bojārs, U., Brikše, I., Pencis, J., Uzule, L. (2012). The Pragmatics of Political Messages in Twitter Communication. In: García-Castro, R., Fensel, D., Antoniou, G. (eds) The Semantic Web: ESWC 2011 Workshops. ESWC 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 7117. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25953-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-25953-1_9
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-25952-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-25953-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)