Asia Pacific Journal of Corpus Research (아시아태평양코퍼스연구)

Institute for Corpus Research (국립인천대학교 코퍼스연구소)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Novel Theory of Support in Social Media Discourse

  • Received : 2020.05.13
  • Accepted : 2020.08.11
  • Published : 2020.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This paper aims to inform people how to support each other on social media. It alludes to an architecture for social media discourse and proposes a novel theory of support in social media discourse. It makes a methodological contribution. It combines predominately artificial intelligence with corpus linguistics analysis. It is on a large-scale dataset of anonymised diabetes-related user's posts from the Facebook platform. Log-likelihood and precision measures help with validation. A multi-method approach with Discourse Analysis helps in understanding any potential patterns. People living with Diabetes are found to employ sophisticated high-frequency patterns of device-enabled categories of purpose and content. It is with, for example, linguistic forms of Advice with stance-taking and targets such as Diabetes amongst other interactional ways. There can be uncertainty and variation of effect displayed when sharing information for support. The implications of the new theory aim at healthcare communicators, corpus linguists and with preliminary work for AI support-bots. These bots may be programmed to utilise the language patterns to support people who need them automatically.

Keywords

References

  1. Abdallah, Z. S., Carman. M., & Haffari, G. (2017). Multi-domain evaluation framework for named entity recognition tools. Computer Speech and Language, 43, 34-55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csl.2016.10.003
  2. Adophis, S., & Knight, D. (2020). English language and the digital humanities. In Adophis, S., & Knight, D. (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of English Language and Digital Humanities (pp. 1-3). Oxford: Taylor & Francis.
  3. Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93-124.
  4. Blei, D. M. (2012). Probabilistic topic models. Communications of the ACM, 55(4), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.1145/2133806.2133826
  5. Blei, D. M., Ng, A. Y., & Jordan, M. I. (2003). Latent dirichlet allocation. Journal of Machine Learning Research, 3(1), 993-1022.
  6. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In Englebretson, R. (Ed.), Stance-taking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  7. Davison, K. P., & Pennebaker, J. W. (1997). Virtual narratives: Illness representations in online support groups. In Petrie, K. J., & Weinman, J. A. (Eds.), Perceptions of Health and Illness: Current Research and Applications (pp. 463-486). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
  8. Goldsmith, D. (2009). Soliciting advice: The role of sequential placement in mitigating face threat. Communication Monograph, 67(1), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637750009376492
  9. Halliday, M. A. K. (1967). Notes on transitivity and theme in English. Journal of Linguistics, 3 (1), 177-274. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700016601
  10. Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
  11. Harvey, K., & Koteyko, N. (2013). Exploring Health Communication: Language in Action. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
  12. Hunt, D., & Koteyko, N. (2015). What was your blood sugar reading this morning? Representing diabetes self-management on Facebook. Discourse and Society, 26(4), 445-463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926515576631
  13. Krishnamurthy, R. (1996). Ethnic, racial and tribal: The language of racism? In Caldas-Coulthard, C. R., & Coulthard, M. (Eds.), Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis (pp. 129-49). London: Routledge.
  14. Lehmann, W. (1987). Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Locher, M. A., & Limberg. H. (2012). Advice in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  16. Martin, J. R., & White. P. R. R. (2005). The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  17. Martin, J. R. (2000). Beyond exchange: APPRAISAL systems in English. In Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 142-75), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  18. Partington, A. (2008). The armchair and the machine: Corpus-assisted discourse studies. In Taylor Torsello, C., Ackerley, K. & Castello, E. (Eds.), Corpora for University Language Teachers (pp. 189-213). Bern: Peter Lang.
  19. Sillence, E. (2013). Giving and receiving peer advice in an online breast cancer support group. Cyberpsychology, Behaviour, and Social Networking, 16(6), 480-485. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2013.1512
  20. Smith, C., Crook. N., Dobnik. S., & Charlton, D. (2011). Interaction strategies for an affective conversational agent. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environments, 20(5), 395-411. https://doi.org/10.1162/PRES_a_00063
  21. Suler, J. (2004). The online disinhibition effect. Cyberpsychology and Behaviour, 7(3), 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1089/1094931041291295
  22. Tannen, D., & Trester. A.M. (2013). Discourse 2.0: Language and New Media. Washington: Georgetown University Press.
  23. Townsend, L., & Wallace, C. (2017). The ethics of using social media data in research: a new framework. In Woodfield, K. (Ed.), The Ethics of Online Research: Advances in Research Ethics and Integrity (pp.189-207). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Limited.
  24. Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.

Cited by

  1. 1 권 1 호의 연구 동향과 연구 방법에 관한 고찰 vol.1, pp.1, 2020, https://doi.org/10.22925/apjcr.2020.1.1.127