Identifying the characteristics of hyperpartisan communication that make it so amenable to sharing is crucial to combating the spread of misinformation. We analyzed a corpus of hyperpartisan and non-hyperpartisan writing produced on internet forums and found that markers of spontaneous communication are strongly predictive of hyperpartisan speech, regardless of whether that speech is left- or right-leaning. The markers of spontaneous communication included swear words, discourse markers, local pronouns like I and you, and exclamation marks. This suggests that speakers in hyperpartisan online communities exploit linguistic resources, even those without overtly political or persuasive content, to engage readers through appeal to closeness and familiarity.
AlbertsonBL (2015) Dog-whistle politics: Multivocal communication and religious appeals. Political Behavior37(1): 3–26.
2.
AllenKBurridgeK (2006) Forbidden Words. Taboo and the Censoring of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
ApplebaumA (2020) Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism. Toronto, ON: Signal.
4.
BennettK (2009) English academic style manuals: A survey. Journal of English for Academic Purposes8(1): 43–54.
5.
BirdSLoperEKleinE (2009) Natural Language Processing With Python. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media Inc.
6.
BordiaPRosnowRL (1998) Rumor rest stops on the information highway transmission patterns in a computer-mediated rumor chain. Human Communication Research25(2): 163–179.
7.
BurnettH (2017) Sociolinguistic interaction and identity construction: The view from game-theoretic pragmatics. Journal of Sociolinguistics21(2): 238–271.
8.
BurnettH (2019) Signalling games, sociolinguistic variation and the construction of style’. Linguistics and Philosophy42(5): 419–450.
9.
CarvalhoPSarmentoLSilvaMJ, et al. (2009) Clues for detecting irony in user-generated contents: oh. . .!! it’s “so easy.” In: Proceedings of the 1st international CIKM workshop on Topic-sentiment analysis for mass opinion, pp.53–56. ACM.
10.
ChristenfeldN (1995) Choices from identical options’. Psychological Science6(1): 50–55.
11.
CoeKKenskiKRainsSA (2014) Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments’. Journal of Communication64(4): 658–679.
12.
Dailey-O’CainJ (2000) The sociolinguistic distribution of and attitudes toward focuser like and quotative like. Journal of Sociolinguistics4(1): 60–80.
13.
DalyNHolmesJNewtonJ, et al. (2004) Expletives as solidarity signals in FTAs on the factory floor. Journal of Pragmatics36(5): 945–964.
EckertP (1989) Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York, NY: Teachers college press.
16.
FarisRMRobertsHEtlingB, et al. (2017) Partisanship, Propaganda, and Disinformation: Online Media and the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election. Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Research Paper, pp.1–140.
17.
FerraraKBrunnerHWhittemoreG (1991) Interactive written discourse as an emergent register. Written Communication8(1): 8–34.
18.
Fox TreeJE (2007) Folk notions of um and uh, you know, and like. Text & Talk27(3): 297–314.
19.
Fox TreeJE (2015) Discourse markers in writing. Discourse Studies17(1): 64–82.
20.
Fox TreeJEMayerSABettsTE (2011) Grounding in instant messaging. Journal of Educational Computing Research45(4): 455–475.
21.
Fox TreeJESchrockJC (1999) Discourse markers in spontaneous speech: Oh what a difference an oh makes. Journal of Memory and Language40(2): 280–295.
22.
Fox TreeJEWeldonMS (2007) Retelling urban legends. The American Journal of Psychology120(3): 459–476.
23.
FriggeriAAdamicLEcklesD, et al. (2014) Rumor cascades. In: Eighth international AAAI conference on weblogs and social media, 1–4 June, pp.101–110. Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press.
24.
GreenJA (2003) The writing on the stall: Gender and graffiti. Journal of Language and Social Psychology22(3): 282–296.
25.
HasellAWeeksBE (2016) Partisan provocation: The role of partisan news use and emotional responses in political information sharing in social media. Human Communication Research42(4): 641–661.
26.
HendersonRMcCreadyE (2019) Dogwhistles, trust and ideology. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Amsterdam colloquium, 152–160.
27.
HeylighenFDewaeleJM (2002) Variation in the contextuality of language: An empirical measure’. Foundations of Science7: 293–340.
28.
JanschewitzK (2008) Taboo, emotionally valenced, and emotionally neutral word norms. Behavior Research Methods40: 1065–1074.
29.
JayKLJayTB (2013) A child’s garden of curses: A gender, historical, and age-related evaluation of the taboo lexicon. The American Journal of Psychology126(4): 459–475.
30.
KoppenKErnestusMvan MulkenM (2019) The influence of social distance on speech behavior: Formality variation in casual speech. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory15(1): 139–165.
31.
MasonBL (1998) E-texts: The orality and literacy issue revisited. Oral Tradition13(2): 306–329.
32.
MassaroDW (2015) Two different communication genres and implications for vocabulary development and learning to read. Journal of Literacy Research47(4): 505–527.
33.
MooreRL (2004) We’re cool, mom and dad are swell: Basic slang and generational shifts in values. American Speech79(1): 59–86.
34.
MooreRL (2012) On swearwords and slang. American Speech87(2): 170–189.
35.
NarayananNBarashVKellyJ, et al. (2018) Polarization, partisanship and junk news consumption over social media in the US. arXiv preprint arXiv:1803.01845.
36.
PennebakerJWBoothRJFrancisME (2007) Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count: LIWC 2007. Austin, TA: LIWC.net.
37.
PesetskyD (1987) Wh-In-Situ: Movement and Unselective Binding. The Representation of (In)definiteness, 98–130. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
PetersKKashimaYClarkA (2009) Talking about others: Emotionality and the dissemination of social information. European Journal of Social Psychology39(2): 207–222.
39.
RaeM (2021) Hyperpartisan news: Rethinking the media for populist politics. New Media & Society23(5): 1117–1132.
SotilloSM (2000) Discourse functions and syntactic complexity in synchronous and asynchronous communication. Language Learning & Technology4(1): 77–110.
42.
SpeelmanD (2014) Logistic regression: A confirmatory technique for comparisons in corpus linguistics. In: GlynnDRobinsonJA (eds) Corpus Methods for Semantics: Quantitative Studies in Polysemy and Synonymy. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins, pp.47–533.
43.
StubbersfieldJMTehraniJJFlynnEG (2017) Chicken tumours and a fishy revenge: Evidence for emotional content bias in the cumulative recall of urban legends. Journal of Cognition and Culture17(1-2): 12–26.
44.
ThompsonDFilikR (2016) Sarcasm in written communication: Emoticons are efficient markers of intention. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication21(2): 105–120.
45.
VisK (2011) Subjectivity in News Discourse: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis of Informalization. Oisterwijk: Uitgeverij BOXPress.
46.
VosoughiSRoyDAralS (2018) The spread of true and false news online. Science359(6380): 1146–1151.
47.
WaldE (2018) Taboo language used as banter. In: AllenK (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp.333–352.
