Article published In:
Metaphor and the Social World: Online-First Articles

The role of metonymy in social identity

ORCID logo | The Open University
In this study the role of metonymy in relation to social identity is investigated in naturally occurring internet discourse of social groups. Two Reddit subreddits banned for promoting hate based on identity are compared with two unbanned subreddits that predominantly relate to the same gender-focused concerns. It is found that metonymies to reference social identity are more prevalent in the two banned subreddits, where they represent both social in-groups, and out-groups. Analysis of their use in conjunction with other variables identified as having psychological significance finds that each metonymy has a particular role and psychological characterisation. And consideration of diachronic change in the prevalence and cooccurrence of the metonymies provides insights into the evolution of the identity and concerns of the groups. It is concluded that metonymies at the group level support access to and reification of evolving group-specific conceptualisations, and that this in turn supports group identity. Considering metonymies of social groups in large corpora may thus support understanding of group-specific attitudes, and their evolution over time, including in relation to potential hatefulness of discourse.
Keywords: metonymy, social identity, hateful attitudes, gender concerns, in-group, out-group, group polarisation, computational linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Background
  • 2.Data
    • 2.1Ethical considerations
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Natural language processing
    • 3.2Metonymy identification
      • 3.2.1Keyword analysis
    • 3.3Psychologically relevant variables
      • 3.3.1Emotional valence
      • 3.3.2Personal pronouns
      • 3.3.3Entropy
    • 3.4Diachronic analysis
    • 3.5Factor analysis
    • 3.6Supervised machine learning classification
    • 3.7Network analysis
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Keyword metonymies of social identities in each group
      • 4.1.1r/GenderCritical
      • 4.1.2r/Feminism
      • 4.1.3r/MGTOW
      • 4.1.4r/MensRights
    • 4.2How are the metonymies used?
      • 4.2.1r/GenderCritical collocates of keyword metonymies
      • 4.2.2r/MGTOW collocates of keyword metonymies
    • 4.3How distinct is the psychological characterisation of the metonymies
      • 4.3.1r/GenderCritical
      • 4.3.2r/MGTOW
    • 4.4How are the metonymies used over time
      • 4.4.1r/GenderCritical relationships between metonymies over time
      • 4.4.2r/MGTOW relationships between metonymies
  • 5.Discussion
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 27 January 2025
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/msw.23029.dil
References (46)
References
Aarts, B. (2011). Oxford Modern English Grammar. OUP Oxford.Google Scholar
Anthony, L. (2022). AntConc. [URL]
BAAL. (2021). Recommendations on Good Practice in Applied Linguistics. 4th Edition. [URL]
Baumgartner, J. (2022). Pushshift.io. Pushshift.Io. [URL]
Biggs, J. (2024). factor-analyzer: A Factor Analysis tool written in Python (Version 0.5.0) [Python; MacOS, Microsoft :: Windows, POSIX, Unix]. [URL]
BPS. (2017). Ethics Guidelines for Internet-mediated Research. [URL]
Branscombe, N. R., & Wann, D. L. (1994). Collective self-esteem consequences of outgroup derogation when a valued social identity is on trial. European Journal of Social Psychology, 24 (6), 641–657. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate? Journal of Social Issues, 55 (3), 429–444. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Briffault, R. (1931). The Mothers: The Matriarchal Theory of Social Origins. Macmillan.Google Scholar
cardiffnlp. (2022). Cardiffnlp/twitter-roberta-base-sentiment-latest · Hugging Face. [URL]
Cervone, C., Augoustinos, M., & Maass, A. (2021). The Language of Derogation and Hate: Functions, Consequences, and Reappropriation. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40 (1), 80–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dancygier, B., & Sweetser, E. (2014). Figurative Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
DeWilde, B. (2024). Textacy Documentation [Computer software]. [URL]
Feyaerts, K. (1999). Metonymic Hierarchies: The Conceptualization of Stupidity in German Idiomatic Expressions. In Metonymy in Language and Thought (p. 309). John Benjamins. [URL]. DOI logo
Gustafsson Sendén, M., Lindholm, T., & Sikström, S. (2014). Selection Bias in Choice of Words: Evaluations of “I” and “We” Differ Between Contexts, but “They” Are Always Worse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 33 (1), 49–67. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagberg, A., Swart, P. J., & Schult, D. A. (2008). Exploring network structure, dynamics, and function using NetworkX (LA-UR-08-05495; LA-UR-08-5495). Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), Los Alamos, NM (United States). [URL]. DOI logo
Honnibal, M., & Montani, I. (2021). spaCy · Industrial-strength Natural Language Processing in Python. spaCy. [URL]
(2024). English · spaCy Models Documentation. English. [URL]
Hovy, D., & Spruit, S. L. (2016). The Social Impact of Natural Language Processing. Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 2: Short Papers), 591–598. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johannßen, D., & Biemann, C. (2018). Between the Lines: Machine Learning for Prediction of Psychological Traits — A Survey. In A. Holzinger, P. Kieseberg, A. M. Tjoa, & E. Weippl (Eds.), Machine Learning and Knowledge Extraction (pp. 192–211). Springer International Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54 1, 778–788. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, G. (2008). Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. (2000). Grammar and Conceptualization. Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Littlemore, J. (2015). Metonymy. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Merriam-Webster: America’s Most Trusted Dictionary. (2024). [URL]
OED. (2024). terf — Quick search results | Oxford English Dictionary. [URL]
ovarit.com. (2020). Welcome to o/GenderCritical! Please read this before posting! | Info & Rules. Ovarit. [URL]
Radden, G., & Kövecses, Z. (1999). Towards a Theory of Metonymy. In Metonymy in Language and Thought (pp. 17–59). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reicher, S., Spears, R., & Haslam, S. A. (2010). The social identity approach in social psychology. In The SAGE Handbook of Identities (pp. 45–62). SAGE. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R/Feminism. (2023). R/Feminism. [URL]
Ribeiro, M. H., Blackburn, J., Bradlyn, B., Cristofaro, E. D., Stringhini, G., Long, S., Greenberg, S., & Zannettou, S. (2021). The Evolution of the Manosphere across the Web. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 15 1, 196–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
R/MensRights. (2023). [R/MensRights]. [URL]
Rothermel, A.-K. (2023). The role of evidence-based misogyny in antifeminist online communities of the ‘manosphere’. Big Data & Society, 10 (1), 20539517221145671. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schlueter, E., Schmidt, P., & Wagner, U. (2008). Disentangling the Causal Relations of Perceived Group Threat and Outgroup Derogation: Cross-national Evidence from German and Russian Panel Surveys. European Sociological Review, 24 (5), 567–581. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
scikit-learn. (2024). Sklearn.neural_network.MLPClassifier. Scikit-Learn. [URL]
SciPy. (2022). scipy.stats.linregress — SciPy v1.9.3 Manual. [URL]
Serrà, J., Leontiadis, I., Spathis, D., Stringhini, G., Blackburn, J., & Vakali, A. (2017). Class-based Prediction Errors to Detect Hate Speech with Out-of-vocabulary Words. In Z. Waseem, W. H. K. Chung, D. Hovy, & J. Tetreault (Eds.), Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online (pp. 36–40). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sunstein, C. R. (2009). Going to Extremes: How Like Minds Unite and Divide. Oxford University Press, Incorporated. [URL]. DOI logo
Sweetser, E. (2022). Pronouns, metonymy, and identity. Cognitive Semiotics, 15 (1), 29–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1978). Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. xv, 474). Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tausczik, Y. R., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2010). The Psychological Meaning of Words: LIWC and Computerized Text Analysis Methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29 (1), 24–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C. (2012). Chapter 27 Pragmatics and language change. In The Cambridge handbook of pragmatics (pp. 549–566). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
u/worstnerd. (2020, August 20). Understanding hate on Reddit, and the impact of our new policy [Reddit Post]. R/Redditsecurity. [URL]
Wachowski, L., & Wachowski, L. (Directors). (1999). The Matrix [Video recording].Google Scholar
White, R. S. (2024). Interpellation and group polarization: Aspects of group hatred. International Journal of Applied Psychoanalytic Studies, e1873. DOI logoGoogle Scholar