Online Hate Speech on Twitter from the Perspective of Pragmatics

Zhen Liu

doi:10.62051/ijsspa.v4n1.37

Authors

Zhen Liu

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v4n1.37

Keywords:

Hate Speech, Twitter, Pragmatic

Abstract

Online hate speech has become a prevalent issue in today's digital age, particularly on social media platforms like Twitter. This study examines online hate speech on Twitter through the lens of pragmatics, focusing on the linguistic aspects and communicative intentions behind such discourse. Drawing on speech act theory and pragmatics frameworks, the research delves into the characteristics and manifestations of hate speech in various online contexts. Using a mixed-methods approach, a dataset of hate speech tweets was collected and analyzed to identify patterns, language features, and underlying meanings in online hate speech interactions. The findings reveal not only the prevalence of hate speech on Twitter but also shed light on the pragmatic strategies employed by users to convey hateful messages. This study contributes to a better understanding of online hate speech dynamics and highlights the importance of considering pragmatic aspects in analyzing and addressing such harmful discourse in digital spaces. The implications of this research extend to social media moderation practices, policy development, and interventions to mitigate the spread of online hate speech.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

[1] Butler, J. (1997). Excitable Speech: A Politics of the Performative. New York: Routledge.

[2] Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power. London: Longman.

[3] Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices. London: Sage Publications.

[4] Jaworski, A., & Coupland, N. (2006). Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

[5] Lakoff, G. (2002). Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

[6] Matsuda, M. J. (1993). Public Response to Hate Speech: Considering the Victim's Story. Michigan Law Review, 87, 2320-2381.

[7] van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 249-283.

[8] Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage Publications.

[9] Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and Social Media: How We Use Language to Create Affiliation on the Web. London: Continuum.

[10] Zizek, S. (2008). Violence: Six Sideways Reflections. New York: Picador.

[11] Wang, W., Wan, Q., Cui, J., & Liu, L. (2024). The Impact of Technological Innovation and Digital Arts Development on Chinese Guangdong Higher Vocational Education: A Theoretical Model and Empirical Analysis. Transactions on Economics, Business and Management Research, 8, 145-156.

[12] Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of Social Media. Business horizons, 53(1), 59-68.

[13] Carr, C. T., & Hayes, R. A. (2015). Social media: Defining, developing, and divining. Atlantic journal of communication, 23(1), 46-65.

[14] Lehdonvirta, V., Oksanen, A., Räsänen, P., & Blank, G. (2021). Social media, web, and panel surveys: using non‐probability samples in social and policy research. Policy & internet, 13(1), 134-155.

[15] Sivarajah, U., Irani, Z., Gupta, S., & Mahroof, K. (2020). Role of big data and social media analytics for business to business sustainability: A participatory web context. Industrial Marketing Management, 86, 163-179.