Previous studies of online (collective) identity have explored how social media–specific practices like hashtags can enable identity construction and affiliation with a wider community of users. Practices such as mentioning and retweeting have also been discussed in the literature but the practice of following as a discourse practice is underexplored. This article presents a corpus-based Critical Discourse Analytical approach to the study of collective identity on Twitter that focuses on the relationships between following and language use and details a study conducted on the language used by followers of the Football Lads Alliance – a protest group who say they are ‘against all extremism’. This approach was fruitful in identifying correlations between salient discourses in follower profile descriptions and their tweets and suggests that a portion of the followership constructs identity in relation to radical right-wing and populist discourse specifically concerning Islam/Muslims.
BakerPLevonE (2015) Picking the right cherries? A comparison of corpus-based and qualitative analyses of news articles about masculinity. Discourse & Communication9(2): 221–236.
2.
BakerPMcGlashanM (in press) Critical Discourse Analysis: A comparison of discourses around Romanians in The Daily Express with its readers’ comments. In: AdolphsSKnightD (eds) The Routledge Handbook of English Language and the Digital Humanities. London: Routledge.
3.
BakerPGabrielatosCMcEneryT (2013) Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The Representation of Islam in the British Press. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
4.
BakerPGabrielatosCKhosraviNikM, et al. (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK press. Discourse & Society19(3): 273–306.
5.
BrindleA (2016) Cancer has nothing on Islam: A study of discourses by group elite and supporters of the English defence league. Critical Discourse Studies13: 444–459.
6.
BrubakerRCooperF (2000) Beyond ‘identity’. Theory and Society29: 1–47.
7.
ChiluwaIIfukorP (2015) ‘War against our children’: Stance and evaluation in #BringBackOurGirls campaign discourse on Twitter and Facebook. Discourse & Society26(3): 267–296.
8.
CopseyN (2010) The English Defence League: Challenging Our Country and Our Values of Social Inclusion, Fairness and Equality. London: Faith Matters.
9.
EckertPMcConnell-GinetS (1992) Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology21: 461–490.
10.
EngelJWodakR (2013) ‘Calculated ambivalence’ and holocaust denial in Austria. In: WodakRRichardsonJE (eds) Analysing Fascist Discourse: European Fascism in Talk and Text. New York: Routledge, pp. 73–96.
11.
FaircloughNWodakR (1997) Critical discourse analysis. In: Van DijkTA (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. London: SAGE, pp. 258–284.
12.
FowlerR (1991) Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the British Press. London: Routledge.
13.
GustafssonNWeinrybN (2019) The populist allure of social media activism: Individualized charismatic authority. Organization. DOI: 10.1177/1350508419828565.
14.
HallidayMAMatthiessenCM (2014) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning, 4th edn.London: Routledge.
15.
HardakerCMcGlashanM (2016) ‘Real men don’t hate women’: Twitter rape threats and group identity. Journal of Pragmatics91: 80–93.
16.
KallisA (2019) Islamophobia and the radical right in Europe: Nostalgia or alternative Utopia? In: ZempiIAwanI (eds) The Routledge International Handbook of Islamophobia. London: Routledge, pp. 363–373.
17.
KhosraviNikM (2017) Social media Critical Discourse Studies (SM-CDS). In: FlowerdewJRichardsonJE (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 582–596.
18.
KhosraviNikMUngerJ (2016) Critical Discourse Studies and social media: Power resistance and critique in changing media ecologies. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, 3rd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 206–233.
19.
KollerV (2012) How to analyse collective identity in discourse – Textual and contextual parameters. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines5(2): 19–38.
KrzyżanowskiM (2016) Recontextualisation of neoliberalism and the increasingly conceptual nature of discourse: Challenges for critical discourse studies. Discourse & Society27(3): 308–321.
22.
McEneryTMcGlashanMLoveR (2015) Press and social media reaction to ideologically inspired murder: The case of Lee Rigby. Discourse & Communication9(2): 237–259.
23.
MarchiATaylorC (2018) Introduction: Partiality and reflexivity. In: TaylorCMarchiA (eds) Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A Critical Review. London: Routledge, pp. 1–15.
24.
MartinJRWhitePR (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
25.
MautnerG (2009) Corpora and critical discourse analysis. In: BakerP (ed.) Contemporary Corpus Linguistics. London: Continuum, pp. 32–46.
26.
PageR (2012) The linguistics of self-branding and micro-celebrity in Twitter: The role of hashtags. Discourse & Communication6(2): 181–201.
27.
PageR (2018) Narratives Online: Shared Stories in Social Media. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
ReisiglMWodakR (2009) The discourse historical approach (DHA). In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods for Critical Discourse Analysis, 2nd edn.London: SAGE, pp. 87–121.
29.
RichardsonJEWodakR (2009) Recontextualising fascist ideologies of the past: Right-wing discourses on employment and nativism in Austria and the United Kingdom. Critical Discourse Studies6(4): 251–267.
30.
RosenbachA (2008) Animacy and grammatical variation – findings from English genitive variation. Lingua118: 151–171.
SwalesJ (1990) Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
Tognini-BonelliE (2001) Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
34.
Van DijkTA (2005) Politics, ideology, and discourse. In: Wodak RR. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics: Volumen on Politics and Language. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 728–740.
35.
Van DijkTA (2009) Critical Discourse Studies: A sociocognitive approach. In: WodakRMeyerM (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: SAGE, pp. 62–86.
36.
Van LeeuwenT (2008) Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
WengerE (1998) Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
WiddowsonHG (2000) On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied Linguistics21(1): 3–25.
WodakR (2011) ‘Us’ and ‘them’: Inclusion and exclusion – Discrimination via discourse. In: DelantyGWodakRJonesP (eds) Identity, Belonging and Migration. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, pp. 54–77.
41.
ZappavignaM (2017) Twitter. In: HoffmanCRBublitzW (eds) Pragmatics of Social Media. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter, pp. 201–224.
42.
ZappavignaM (2018) Searchable Talk: Hashtags and Social Media Metadiscourse. London: Bloomsbury.
