Email this article Facing #emergencies. The linguistic role of keywords, hashtags and retweets in communicating critical events
Abstract
In recent years, social media platforms have had a tremendous impact on the online world due to their effectiveness in multimodal communication events (Herring 2001). Social media users benefit from the digital nature of such interactions to gather data for different purposes, including discourse-related ones (Zappavigna 2012). Hashtags, in this sense, have proved to be an effective tool that is used to broaden communication but also to prompt real-life actions, especially to face and manage critical or emergency situations (Olteanu et al. 2015). This specific device is more likely to be used effectively on Twitter, a popular micro-blog used as an information aggregator and catalyst for action (Zappavigna 2015). Following previous studies focusing on the same topic (Burnap et al. 2014; Hughes, Palen 2009), the paper examines examples of context-based words and/or purpose-specific hashtags to explore their use by different sets of users with diverse intentions and aims. Twitter data are retrieved by means of real-time data mining tools (Brooker et al. 2016) to create relevant keyword- or hashtag-based sample corpora dealing with emergency situations (Aug – Sep 2017: two terror attacks and a natural disaster) which have caused remarkable media exposure. Data from such corpora identify some relevant words used in such situations, grouped according to several variables such as event-related, channel-dependent or sentiment-based criteria. Furthermore, an aggregated analysis is carried out in order to retrieve the most common patterns used to highlight performativity, thus emphasising the role of purpose-specific communication. Finally, a comparison of aggregated corpora with different tool-specific features (retweets) highlights the importance of such tool-specific devices in magnifying the range of communication effectiveness occurring in a proper ‘online discourse community’ (Herring 2008).
References
Agichtein E., Castillo C., Donato D., Gionis A. and Mishne G. 2008, Finding High-Quality Content in Social Media, in Najork M., Broder A., Chakrabarti S. (eds.), WSDM ‘08 proceedings of the 2008 International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, Palo Alto, California, USA – February 11-12, 2008, ACM Press, pp. 183-194.
Baker P. 2006, Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis, Continuum, London/New York.
Baron N.S. 1984, Computer Mediated Communication as a Force in Language Change, in “Visible Language” XVIII [2], Spring 1984, pp. 118-141.
Barton D. and Lee C. 2013, Language Online – Investigating Digital Texts and Practices, Routledge, London/New York 2013.
Boyd D., Golder S. and Lotan G. 2010, Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter, in Sprague R.H. (ed.), Proceedings of the 43rd Hawaii International Conference on Systems Science (HICSS-43 2010), 5-8 January 2010, Koloa, Kauai, HI, USA, IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos, California (USA).
Bredl K., Hünninger J. and Jensen J.L. (eds.) 2014, Methods for Analysing Social Media, Routledge, London/New York.
Brooker P., Barnett J. and Cribbin T. 2016, Doing social media analytics, in “Big Data & Society” 3 [2], pp. 1-12.
Bruns A. and Burgess J. 2011, The use of Twitter Hashtags in the Formation of Ad Hoc Publics, paper presented at the 6th European Consortium for Political Research General Conference, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, 25-27 August 2011.
Bruns A. and Liang Y.E. 2012, Tools and methods for capturing Twitter data during natural disasters, in “First Monday” 17 [4]. http://firstmonday.org/article/view/3937/3193 (11.12.2020).
Bruns A. and Stieglitz S. 2012, Quantitative Approaches to Comparing Communication Patterns on Twitter, in “Journal of Technology in Human Services” 30 [3-4], pp. 160-185.
Burnap P., Williams M.L., Sloan. L., Rana O., Housley W., Edwards A., Knight V., Procter R. and Voss A. 2014, Tweeting the terror : modelling the social media reaction to the Woolwich terrorist attack, in “Social Network Analysis and Mining”, 4 [1], p. 206. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13278-014-0206-4 (11.12.2020).
Crystal D. 2011, Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide, Routledge, London/New York.
Cunha E., Magno G., Comarela G., Almeida V., Gonçalves M.A. and Benvenuto F. 2011, Analyzing the Dynamic Evolution of Hashtags on Twitter: a Language-Based Approach, in Nagarajan M., Gamon M. (eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media (LSM 2011), Portland, Oregon 23 June 2011, Omnipress Inc., Madison WI (USA), pp. 58-65.
Dickinson P. 2013, ‘B/w U & me’: The Functions of Formulaic Language in Interactional Discourse on Twitter, in “Linguistic Journal” 7 [1], pp. 7-38.
Giltrow J. and Stein D. 2009, Genres in the Internet – Innovation, evolution, and genre theory, in Giltrow J., Stein, D. (eds.), Genres in the Internet – Issues in the theory of genre, Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia 2009, pp. 1-26.
Herring S.C. 2001, Computer-Mediated Discourse, in Tannen D., Hamilton H.E. and Schriffin D. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Blackwell, Malden/Oxford, pp. 612-634.
Herring S.C. 2008, Virtual community, in Given L.M. (ed.), Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods, SAGE Publications, London, pp. 920-921.
Herring S.C. 2015, Language and the Internet, in Donsbach W. (ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Communication, Wiley Blackwell, Chichester (United Kingdom), pp. 322-323.
Herring S.C. and Androutsopoulos J. 2015, Computer-Mediated Discourse 2.0, in Tannen D., Hamilton H.E., Schriffin D. (eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, 2nd ed., Wiley, Hoboken 2015, pp. 127-151.
Higham J.P. and Hebets E.A. 2013, An introduction to multimodal communication, in “Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology” 67 [9], pp. 1381-1388.
Hoffmann C.R. and Bublitz W. (eds.) 2017, Pragmatics of Social Media, De Gruyter, Berlin.
Hughes A.L. and Palen L. 2009, Twitter Adoption and Use in Mass Convergence and Emergency Events, in Landgren J., Jul S. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International ISCRAM Conference – Gothenburg, Sweden, May 2009.
Jikoun V., de Rijke M., Ackermans P., Geleijnse G. and Weerkamp W. 2010, Mining User Experiences from Online Forums: an Exploration, in Hachey B. and Osborne M., Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Workshop on Computational Linguistics in a World of Social Media – Los Angeles, California, June 2010, Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL), Stroudsburg, PA (USA), pp. 17-18.
Johnson D. 2014, Reading, Writing, and Literacy 2.0. Teaching with Online Texts, Tools, and Resources, K-8, Teachers College Press, New York/London.
Jovanovic D., van Leeuwen T. 2018, Multimodal Dialogue on social media, in “Social Semiotics” 28 [5], pp. 683-699.
Kaplan A.M. and Haenlein M. 2010, Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media, in “Business Horizons” 53, pp. 59-68.
Kehoe A. and Gee M. 2011, Social tagging: A new perspective on textual ‘aboutness’, in Rayson P., Hoffmann S., Leech G. (eds.), Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English – Methodological and Historical Dimensions of Corpus Linguistics, Volume 6. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/06/kehoe_gee/ (11.12.2020).
Kern R. and Develotte C. (eds.) 2018, Screens and Scenes: Online Multimodal Communication and Intercultural Encounters. Theoretical and Educational Perspectives, Routledge, London/New York.
Kim D. and Vorobel O. 2017, Discourse Communities: From Origins to Social Media, in Wortham S., Kim D., May S. (eds.), Discourse and Education. Encyclopedia of Language and Education, Springer International Publishing AG, Cham, Switzerland, pp. 267-281.
Khosravinik M. 2017, Social Media Critical Discourse Studies (SM – CDS), in Flowerdew J., Richardson J. (eds.), Handbook of Critical Discourse Analysis, Routledge, London, pp. 582-596.
Kress G., van Leeuwen T. 2006, Reading Images. The Grammar of Visual Design, Routledge, London and New York.
Leppänen S., Westinen E. and Kytölä S. 2017, Social Media Discourse, (Dis)identifications and Diversities, Routledge, London/New York.
Martin J.R. 2009, Realisation, Instantiation and Individuation: some Thoughts on Identity in Youth Justice Conferencing, in “D.E.L.T.A.” 25, pp. 549-583.
Marwick A.E. and boyd d. 2010, I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience, in “New Media & Society” 13 [1], pp. 114-133.
McEnery T. and Hardie A. 2012, Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge/New York.
Mendoza M., Poblete B. and Castillo C. 2010, Twitter Under Crisis: Can we trust what we RT?, 1st Workshop on Social Media Analytics (SOMA ‘10), Washington, DC, pp. 71-79.
O’Reilly T. and Milstein S. 2012, The Twitter Book (2nd ed.), O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (California).
Olteanu A., Vieweg S. and Castillo C. 2015, What to Expect When the Unexpected Happens: Social Media Communications Across Crises, CSCW ‘15 Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, Vancouver, Canada, pp. 994-1009.
Partan S.R. 2013, Ten unanswered questions in multimodal communication, in “Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology” 67 [9], pp. 1523-1539.
Reiß K. and Vermeer H. J. 2014, Towards a General Theory of Translational Action. Skopos Theory explained, Routledge, London/New York.
Shohamy E. 2006, Language Policy – Hidden agendas and new approaches, Routledge, London/New York.
Swales J. 1990, Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Swales J. 2011, The Concept of Discourse Community, in Wardle E. and Downs D. (eds.), Writing about writing, Bedford St. Martins, Boston, p. 466-478.
Thurlow C., Lengel L. and Tomic A. 2004, Computer Mediated Communication – Social Interaction and the Internet, Sage Publications, London.
Zappavigna M. 2012, Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web, Continuum International Publishing Group, London/New York.
Zappavigna M. 2014, Searchable audiences: The linguistic functions of hashtags, paper presented at Australasian Audience Research Symposium: Data, context and meaning. University of New South Wales, 22 April 2014.
Zappavigna M. 2015, Searchable talk: the linguistic functions of hashtags, in “Social Semiotics” 25 [3], p. 274-291.
Full Text: pdf
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
