1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 2, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 2, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This article focuses on the question of whether online news comments are like face-to-face conversation or not. It is a widespread view that online comments are like “dialogue”, with comments often being referred to as “conversations”. These assumptions, however, lack empirical back-up. In order to answer this question, we systematically explore register-relevant properties of online news comments using multi-dimensional analysis (MDA) techniques. Specifically, we apply MDA to establish what online comments are like by describing their linguistic features and comparing them to traditional registers (e.g. face-to-face conversation, academic writing). Thus, we tap the and the Canadian component of the . We show that online comments are not like spontaneous conversation but rather closer to opinion articles or exams, and clearly constitute a written register. Furthermore, they should be described as instances of argumentative evaluative language.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.19012.ehr
2020-04-10
2024-12-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.19012.ehr
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T.
    (2009) Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Benamara, F., Inkpen, D., & Taboada, M.
    (2018) Language in social media: Exploiting discourse and other contextual information. Special issue ofComputational Linguistics, 44(4). 10.1162/coli_a_00333
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00333 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernini, G., & Schwartz, M.
    (2006) Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110892222
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110892222 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. 10.1093/llc/8.4.243
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/8.4.243 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2016) Register variation on the searchable web: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 95–137. 10.1177/0075424216628955
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216628955 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2018) Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. 10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  10. (Eds.) (1994) Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Bruce, R. F., & Wiebe, J. M.
    (1999) Recognizing subjectivity: A case study in manual tagging. Natural Language Engineering, 5(2), 187–205. 10.1017/S1351324999002181
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1351324999002181 [Google Scholar]
  13. Bruce, Ian.
    2010 Evolving Genres in Online Domains: The hybrid genre of the participatory news article. InA. Mehler, S. Sharoff, & M. Santini (Eds.), Genres on the web: Computational models and empirical studies (pp.323–348). New York, NY: Springer.
  14. Cambria, M.
    (2016) Commenting, interacting, reposting: A systemic-functional analysis of online newspaper comments. InS. Gardner & S. Alsop (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age (pp.81–95). Sheffield: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Cattell, R. B.
    (1966) The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. 10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10
     https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0102_10 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clarke, I., & Grieve, J.
    (2019) Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS ONE14(9): e0222062. 10.1371/journal.pone.0222062
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222062 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2017) Dimensions of abusive language on Twitter. InProceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online (pp.1–10). Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W17‑3001
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-3001 [Google Scholar]
  18. Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A.
    (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. 10.1111/jcom.12104
     https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12104 [Google Scholar]
  19. Collot, M., & Belmore, N.
    (1996) Electronic Language: A new variety of English. InS. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.13–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.39.04col
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39.04col [Google Scholar]
  20. Daems, J., Speelman, D., & Ruette, T.
    (2013) Register analysis in blogs: Correlation between professional sector and functional dimensions. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics, 2(1), 1–27.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Demata, M., Heaney, D., & Herrring, S. C.
    (2018) Language and discourse of social media. New challenges, new approaches. Special issue ofAltre Modernità, I–X.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Diakopoulos, N.
    (2015) Picking the NYT Picks: Editorial criteria and automation in the curation of online news comments. ISOJ Journal, 6(1), 147–166.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Diessel, H.
    (2017) Usage-based linguistics. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.363 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C.
    (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358–361. 10.1037/h0036316
     https://doi.org/10.1037/h0036316 [Google Scholar]
  25. Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D.
    (2004) Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545–560. 10.1287/mksc.1040.0071
     https://doi.org/10.1287/mksc.1040.0071 [Google Scholar]
  26. Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E., & Nekrasova, T.
    (2010) Variation among blog text types: A multi-dimensional analysis. InA. Mehler, S. Sharoff, & M. Santini (Eds.), Genres on the web: Computational models and empirical studies (pp.303–322). New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑90‑481‑9178‑9_14
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-9178-9_14 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E.
    (2014) Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition, always learning (7th ed.). London: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Herring, S. C.
    (1996a) Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.39
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1996b) Introduction. InS. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.1–10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.39
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39 [Google Scholar]
  31. (2004) Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26–36. 10.1177/1461444804039906
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444804039906 [Google Scholar]
  32. Hunston, S.
    (2011) Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. New York, NY: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Kiesling, S. F., Pavalanathan, U., Fitzpatrick, J., Han, X., & Eisenstein, J.
    (2018) Interactional stancetaking in online forums. Computational Linguistics, 44(4), 683–718. 10.1162/coli_a_00334
     https://doi.org/10.1162/coli_a_00334 [Google Scholar]
  34. Ko, K.-K.
    (1996) Structural characteristics of computer-mediated language: A comparative analysis of InterChange discourse. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Électronique de Communication, 6(3), 1–28.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Kolhatkar, V., & Taboada, M.
    (2017a) Constructive language in news comments. InProceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online (pp.11–17). Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W17‑3002
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-3002 [Google Scholar]
  36. (2017b) Using New York Times Picks to identify constructive comments. InProceedings of the 2017 EMNLP Workshop: Natural Language Processing meets Journalism (pp.100–105). Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/W17‑4218
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-4218 [Google Scholar]
  37. Kolhatkar, V., Wu, H., Cavasso, L., Francis, E., Shukla, K., & Taboada, M.
    (2019) The SFU Opinion and Comments Corpus: A corpus for the analysis of online news comments. Corpus Pragmatics. doi:  10.1007/s41701‑019‑00065‑w
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-019-00065-w [Google Scholar]
  38. Marcoccia, M.
    (2004) On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 115–145. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00038‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00038-9 [Google Scholar]
  39. McGuire, J.
    (2015, November30). Uncivil dialogue: Commenting and stories about indigenous people. CBC News. Retrieved from https://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/community/editorsblog/2015/11/uncivil-dialogue-commenting-and-stories-about-indigenous-people.html
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Mehler, A., Sharoff, S., & Santini, M.
    (2010) Genres on the web: Computational models and empirical studies. New York: Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Moens, M.-F., Boiy, E., Mochales Palau, R., & Reed, C.
    (2007) Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. InProceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp.225–230). Palo Alto, CA: Association for Computing Machinery.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Napoles, C., Tetreault, J., Rosato, E., Provenzale, B., & Pappu, A.
    (2017) Finding good conversations online: The Yahoo News Annotated Comments Corpus. InProceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp.13–23). Valencia. 10.18653/v1/W17‑0802
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-0802 [Google Scholar]
  43. Nauroth, P., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Rothmund, T.
    (2015) Social identity threat motivates science-discrediting online comments. PLoS One, 10(2), e0117476. 10.1371/journal.pone.0117476
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0117476 [Google Scholar]
  44. Newman, J., & Columbus, G.
    (2010) The ICE-Canada Corpus. (Version 1). Retrieved from ice-corpora.net/ice/download.htm
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Nini, A.
    (2014) Multidimensional Analysis Tagger – Manual (Version 1.3). Retrieved from sites.google.com/site/multidimensionaltagger
  46. North, S.
    (2007) ‘The voices, the voices’: Creativity in online conversation. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 538–555. 10.1093/applin/amm042
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm042 [Google Scholar]
  47. Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
    (1985) A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2018) R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Reagle, J. M.
    (2015) Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the bottom of the web. Cambridge: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/10116.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/10116.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  50. Rösner, L., Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C.
    (2016) Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 58, 461–470. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.01.022 [Google Scholar]
  51. Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., & Stede, M.
    (2011) Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics, 37(2), 267–307. 10.1162/COLI_a_00049
     https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00049 [Google Scholar]
  52. Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C., & Singer, Y.
    (2003) Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 252–259. Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. Tseronis, A.
    (2011) From connectives to argumentative markers: A quest for markers of argumentative moves and of related aspects of argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 25(4), 427–447. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9215‑x
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9215-x [Google Scholar]
  54. van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F.
    (2007) Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. New York, NY: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6244‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6244-5 [Google Scholar]
  55. Weizman, E., & Dori-Hacohen, G.
    (2017) On-line commenting on opinion editorials: A cross-cultural examination of face work in the Washington Post (USA) and NRG (Israel). Discourse, Context & Media, 19, 39–48. 10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.001
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2017.02.001 [Google Scholar]
  56. White, L.
    (2003) Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511815065
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815065 [Google Scholar]
  57. Woollaston, V.
    (2013, September30). Online conversations are damaging how we speak to each other in real life: Author claims people could soon “forget” how to handle social situations. Daily Mail. Retrieved from www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2439336/Online-conversations-damaging-speak-real-life-claims-author.html
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Yates, S. J.
    (1996) Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. InS. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp.29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.39.05yat
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.39.05yat [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.19012.ehr
Loading
Are online news comments like face-to-face conversation?
Register Studies 2, 1 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19012.ehr
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.19012.ehr
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.19012.ehr
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; multi-dimensional analysis; register variation; social media language

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error