This study incorporates text mining into critical discourse analysis to give a corpus-assisted discourse study of the Congressional hearing on TikTok. Topic modeling reveals two main concerns: TikTok’s ties to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and its digital management practices. Co-occurrence network analysis shows Republicans prioritized political matters, whereas Democrats focused on technical and managerial issues. Manual analysis finds that Chew’s responses show the preference for denying strategies, though tactics varied by question types. This explains U.S. media’s criticism of Shouzi Chew’s uncooperative attitude and underscores the increasing intertwinement of science communication and politics in Congressional hearings.
AllahyariRA (1997) The micro-politics of worthy homelessness: Interactive moments in congressional hearings. Sociological Inquiry67(1): 27–47.
2.
AlphonsoG (2010) Hearth and soul: Economics and culture in partisan conceptions of the family in the Progressive Era, 1900–1920. Studies in American Political Development24(2): 206–232.
3.
AsenRGentW (2019) Reconsidering symbolic use: A situational model of the use of research evidence in polarised legislative hearings. Evidence & Policy15(4): 525–541.
4.
BaffyM (2020) Doing ‘being interrupted’ in political talk. Language in Society49(5): 689–715.
5.
BakerP (2006) Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing.
6.
BakerP (2014) ‘Bad wigs and screaming Mimis’: Using corpus-assisted techniques to carry out critical discourse analysis of the representation of trans people in the British Press. In: HartCCapP (eds) Contemporary Critical Discourse Studies. London: Bloomsbury Publishing, pp.211–236.
7.
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.
8.
Balkan-SahinS (2020) Tracing discursive strategies to understand the U.S. withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear deal. Uluslararasi Iliskiler-International Relations17(66): 61–76.
9.
BednarekMCrosthwaitePGarcíaAI (2020) Corpus linguistics and education in Australia. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics43(2): 105–116.
10.
BonnicksenAL (2000) Cloning and beyond: Shaping public policy in a pluralistic context. Cloning2(3): 146–148.
11.
BursteinPHirshCE (2007) Interest organizations, information, and policy innovation in the U.S. Congress. Sociological Forum (Randolph, N.J.)22(2): 174–199.
12.
CapanoGHowlettMPalLA, et al. (2023) Dealing with the challenges of legitimacy, values, and politics in policy advice. Policy and Society42(3): 275–287.
13.
CarlinEPRemmelRS (2022) Assessing US congressional exposure to the issue of emerging infectious disease risk prior to 2020. Health Security20(3): 212–221.
14.
CarrTP (2006) Hearings in the House of Representatives: A guide for preparation and procedure. In: Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress. Austin, TX: University of North Texas Libraries Government Documents Department.
15.
ChenFWangG (2023) A social network approach to critical discourse studies. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities38(2): 515–529.
16.
DaviesSR (2021) An empirical and conceptual note on science communication’s role in society. Science Communication43(1): 116–133.
17.
DudoABesleyJC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One11(2): e0148867.
18.
EpsteinDMedziniR (2022) Conversations with fellow leaders: Privacy framing in congressional hearings after Cambridge Analytica. Telecommunications Policy46(10): 102427.
19.
FaehnrichBRuserA (2019) ‘Operator, please’ – Connecting truth and power at the science-policy interface. Journal of Science Communication18(3): 1–17.
20.
FisherDRLeifeldPIwakiY (2012) Mapping the ideological networks of American climate politics. Climatic Change116(3–4): 523–545.
21.
FriginalEHardyJA (2021) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Approaches to Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
22.
GiglioniC (2019) Discursive construction of ethos-based framework for public identity: Investigative congressional hearings. Lingue e Linguaggi33: 109–124.
23.
GiglioniC (2020) Linguistic and Rhetorical Perspectives on Congressional Hearings. Berlin: Frank & Timme.
HaarmanLLombardoL (eds) (2009) Evaluation and Stance in War News. New York, NY: Continuum Publishing.
26.
HiguchiK (2016) A two-step approach to quantitative content analysis: KH Coder tutorial using Anne of Green Gables (Part I). Ritsumeikan Social Science Review52(3): 77–91.
27.
HiguchiK (2017) A two-step approach to quantitative content analysis: KH Coder tutorial using Anne of Green Gables (Part II). Ritsumeikan Social Science Review53: 137–147.
28.
KadkhodaeeEGhasemi TariZ (2019) Otherising Iran in American political discourse: Case study of a post-JCPOA senate hearing on Iran sanctions. Third World Quarterly40(1): 109–128.
29.
LeechG (1992) Corpora and theories of linguistic performance. In: SvartvikJ (ed.) Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Publishing, pp.105–122.
30.
LiuM (2024) Towards a ‘synergy’ of text mining and critical discourse analysis: A corpus-assisted discourse study of imagining China in Hong Kong political discourse. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities39(2): 625–637.
31.
LiuMHuangJ (2024) Framing responsibilities for climate change in Chinese and American newspapers: A corpus-assisted discourse study. Journalism25(8): 1792–1811.
32.
LiuMHuangJ (In press) Incorporating text mining into critical discourse studies: A corpus-assisted discourse study of press representations of climate change in China. In: ForchtnerBZappettiniF (eds) Handbook on Critical Discourse Studies. London: Edward Elgar.
33.
LiuMLuY (2024) Blame-avoiding strategies for a digital scandal: A critical discourse analysis of Mark Zuckerberg’s congressional hearings. Pragmatics and Society15(3): 471–494.
34.
LynchJ (2009) Stem cells and the embryo: Biorhetoric and scientism in congressional debate. Public Understanding of Science18(3): 309–324.
35.
MahatmyaDGring-PembleLM (2014) DREAMers and their families: A family impact analysis of the DREAM Act and implications for family well-being. Journal of Family Studies20(1): 79–87.
36.
MahlDGuentherLSchäferMS, et al. (2020) “We are a bit blind about it”: A qualitative analysis of climate change-related perceptions and communication across South African communities. Environmental Communication14(6): 802–815.
37.
MandoJ (2016) Constructing the vicarious experience of proximity in a Marcellus Shale public hearing. Environmental Communication10(3): 352–364.
38.
MartinFJohnsonM (2015) More efficient topic modelling through a noun only approach. In: Proceedings of the Australasian Language Technology Association Workshop 2015, pp.111–115. London: Routledge.
39.
MautnerG (2009) Checks and balances: How corpus linguistics can contribute to CDA. In: WodakRMeyerCF (eds) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies, 2nd edn. London: Sage, pp.122–143.
40.
MautnerG (2022) What can a corpus tell us about discourse? In: O’KeeffeAMcCarthyM (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, 2nd edn. London: Routledge, pp.250–262.
41.
MetagJWintterlinFKlingerK (2023) Editorial: Science communication in the digital age – New actors, environments, and practices. Media and Communication11(1): 212–216.
42.
MillerJ (2009) Soft power and state-firm diplomacy: Congress and IT corporate activity in China. International Studies Perspectives10(3): 285–302.
43.
MoernautRMastJTemmermanM, et al. (2022) Hot weather, hot topic. Polarization and sceptical framing in the climate debate on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society25(8): 1047–1066.
44.
MorleyJBayleyP (eds) (2009) Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies on the Iraq Conflict: Wording the War. London: Routledge.
45.
NowlinMC (2016) Modeling issue definitions using quantitative text analysis. Policy Studies Journal44(3): 309–331.
46.
O’HalloranKCoffinC (2004) Checking over-interpretation and under-interpretation: Help from corpora in critical linguistics. In: CoffinCHewingsAO’HalloranK (eds) Applying English Grammar: Functional and Corpus Approaches. London: Arnold Press, pp.275–297.
47.
OkadaY (2019) Discursive construction of “antisocial” institutional conduct: Microanalysis of Takata’s failure at the US congressional hearings. Journal of Pragmatics142: 105–115.
48.
OleszekWJOleszekMJRybickiE, et al. (2015) Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
49.
PartingtonA (2004) Corpora and discourse, a most congruous beast. In: PartingtonAMorleyJHaarmanL (eds) Corpora and Discourse. Bristol: Peter Lang, pp.11–20.
50.
PernaLWOroszKKentDC (2019) The role and contribution of academic researchers in congressional hearings: A critical discourse analysis. American Educational Research Journal56(1): 111–145.
PotipiroonW (2024) Beyond bipartisan support: Analyzing the TikTok ban votes in the US House of Representatives. Global Public Policy and Governance4(2): 197–223.
53.
RaysonP (2008) From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics13(4): 519–549.
54.
Saghaye-BiriaH (2012) American Muslims as radicals? A critical discourse analysis of the US congressional hearing on ‘the extent of radicalization in the American Muslim community and that community’s response’. Discourse & Society23(5): 508–524.
55.
SayedSKMuhammadMJ (2022) A pragmatic study of image repair in crisis management selected cases. International Journal of Early Childhood Special Education14(1): 2480–2491.
56.
SegalA (2019) Seizing core technologies: China responds to US technology competition. China Leadership Monitor60: 1–12.
57.
SheingateAD (2006) Promotion versus precaution: The evolution of biotechnology policy in the United States. British Journal of Political Science36(2): 243–268.
SubtireluNC (2013) ‘English. . . It’s part of our blood’: Ideologies of language and nation in United States congressional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics17(1): 37–65.
60.
SuldovskyBAkinH (2023) The role of trust in communicating scientific consensus and the environmental benefits of genetically engineered crops: Experimental evidence of a backfire effect. Environmental Communication17(1): 101–118.
TörnbergATörnbergP (2016) Combining CDA and topic modeling: Analyzing discursive connections between Islamophobia and anti-feminism on an online forum. Discourse & Society27(4): 401–422.
63.
TzoumisK (2013) Environmental Policymaking in Congress: Issue Definitions in Wetlands, Great Lakes and Wildlife Policies. London: Routledge.
64.
Van DijkTA (1997) Political discourse and racism: Describing others in Western parliaments. In: RigginsSH (ed.) The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse, vol. 2. London: Sage, pp.31–64.
65.
VesseyR (2013) Challenges in cross-linguistic corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora8(1): 1–26.
66.
WiddowsonHG (1995) Discourse analysis: A critical view. Language and Literature4(3): 157–172.
67.
WiddowsonHG (2004) Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis, vol. 12. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
68.
YanJLeidnerDEPetersU (2024) Global techno-politics: A review of the current status and opportunities for future research. International Journal of Information Management75: 102729.
69.
YooGJ (2008) Immigrants and welfare: Policy constructions of deservingness. Journal of Immigrant and Refugee Studies6(4): 490–507.
