Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Studies
Vol. 2:1 (2020) ► pp.1–36

Are online news comments like face-to-face conversation?

A multi-dimensional analysis of an emerging register

| Simon Fraser University
| Simon Fraser University
This article focuses on the question of whether online news comments are like face-to-face conversation or not. It is a widespread view that online comments are like “dialogue”, with comments often being referred to as “conversations”. These assumptions, however, lack empirical back-up. In order to answer this question, we systematically explore register-relevant properties of online news comments using multi-dimensional analysis (MDA) techniques. Specifically, we apply MDA to establish what online comments are like by describing their linguistic features and comparing them to traditional registers (e.g. face-to-face conversation, academic writing). Thus, we tap the SFU Opinion and Comments Corpus and the Canadian component of the International Corpus of English. We show that online comments are not like spontaneous conversation but rather closer to opinion articles or exams, and clearly constitute a written register. Furthermore, they should be described as instances of argumentative evaluative language.
Keywords: register variation, social media language, corpus linguistics, multi-dimensional analysis
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Social media language, online news comments and register analysis
  • 3.Data
  • 4.Multi-dimensional analysis
    • 4.1Features and frequencies
    • 4.2Factor analysis
  • 5.Variational dimensions
  • 6.Are online news comments like face-to-face conversation?
  • 7.Concluding remarks
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19012.ehr
References (58)
References
Beckner, C., Blythe, R., Bybee, J., Christiansen, M. H., Croft, W., Ellis, N. C., Holland, J., Ke, J., Larsen-Freeman, D., & Schoenemann, T. (2009). Language is a complex adaptive system: Position paper. Language Learning, 59(s1), 1–26.Google Scholar
Benamara, F., Inkpen, D., & Taboada, M. (2018). Language in social media: Exploiting discourse and other contextual information. Special issue of Computational Linguistics, 44(4). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bernini, G., & Schwartz, M. (2006). Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Egbert, J. (2016). Register variation on the searchable web: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 95–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (1994). Sociolinguistic perspectives on register. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Bruce, R. F., & Wiebe, J. M. (1999). Recognizing subjectivity: A case study in manual tagging. Natural Language Engineering, 5(2), 187–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bruce, Ian. 2010. Evolving Genres in Online Domains: The hybrid genre of the participatory news article. In A. Mehler, S. Sharoff, & M. Santini (Eds.), Genres on the web: Computational models and empirical studies (pp. 323–348). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
Cambria, M. (2016). Commenting, interacting, reposting: A systemic-functional analysis of online newspaper comments. In S. Gardner & S. Alsop (Eds.), Systemic functional linguistics in the digital age (pp. 81–95). Sheffield: Equinox.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I., & Grieve, J. (2019). Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS ONE 14(9): e0222062. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Dimensions of abusive language on Twitter. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online (pp. 1–10). Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coe, K., Kenski, K., & Rains, S. A. (2014). Online and uncivil? Patterns and determinants of incivility in newspaper website comments. Journal of Communication, 64(4), 658–679. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collot, M., & Belmore, N. (1996). Electronic Language: A new variety of English. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 13–28). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daems, J., Speelman, D., & Ruette, T. (2013). Register analysis in blogs: Correlation between professional sector and functional dimensions. Leuven Working Papers in Linguistics, 2(1), 1–27.Google Scholar
Demata, M., Heaney, D., & Herrring, S. C. (2018). Language and discourse of social media. New challenges, new approaches. Special issue of Altre Modernità, I–X.Google Scholar
Diakopoulos, N. (2015). Picking the NYT Picks: Editorial criteria and automation in the curation of online news comments. ISOJ Journal, 6(1), 147–166.Google Scholar
Diessel, H. (2017). Usage-based linguistics. Oxford research encyclopedia of linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dziuban, C. D., & Shirkey, E. C. (1974). When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin, 81(6), 358–361. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Godes, D., & Mayzlin, D. (2004). Using online conversations to study word-of-mouth communication. Marketing Science, 23(4), 545–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E., & Nekrasova, T. (2010). Variation among blog text types: A multi-dimensional analysis. In A. Mehler, S. Sharoff, & M. Santini (Eds.), Genres on the web: Computational models and empirical studies (pp. 303–322). New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate data analysis: Pearson new international edition, always learning (7th ed.). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
(1996b). Introduction. In S. C. Herring (Ed.), Computer-mediated communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 1–10). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2004). Slouching toward the ordinary: Current trends in computer-mediated communication. New Media & Society, 6(1), 26–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Kiesling, S. F., Pavalanathan, U., Fitzpatrick, J., Han, X., & Eisenstein, J. (2018). Interactional stancetaking in online forums. Computational Linguistics, 44(4), 683–718. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ko, K.-K. (1996). Structural characteristics of computer-mediated language: A comparative analysis of InterChange discourse. Electronic Journal of Communication/La Revue Électronique de Communication, 6(3), 1–28.Google Scholar
Kolhatkar, V., & Taboada, M. (2017a). Constructive language in news comments. In Proceedings of the First Workshop on Abusive Language Online (pp. 11–17). Vancouver: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Using New York Times Picks to identify constructive comments. In Proceedings of the 2017 EMNLP Workshop: Natural Language Processing meets Journalism (pp. 100–105). Copenhagen: Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kolhatkar, V., Wu, H., Cavasso, L., Francis, E., Shukla, K., & Taboada, M. (2019). The SFU Opinion and Comments Corpus: A corpus for the analysis of online news comments. Corpus Pragmatics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marcoccia, M. (2004). On-line polylogues: Conversation structure and participation framework in internet newsgroups. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(1), 115–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGuire, J. (2015, November 30). Uncivil dialogue: Commenting and stories about indigenous people. CBC News. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Mehler, A., Sharoff, S., & Santini, M. (2010). Genres on the web: Computational models and empirical studies. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Moens, M.-F., Boiy, E., Mochales Palau, R., & Reed, C. (2007). Automatic detection of arguments in legal texts. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law (pp. 225–230). Palo Alto, CA: Association for Computing Machinery.Google Scholar
Napoles, C., Tetreault, J., Rosato, E., Provenzale, B., & Pappu, A. (2017). Finding good conversations online: The Yahoo News Annotated Comments Corpus. In Proceedings of the 11th Linguistic Annotation Workshop (pp. 13–23). Valencia. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nauroth, P., Gollwitzer, M., Bender, J., & Rothmund, T. (2015). Social identity threat motivates science-discrediting online comments. PLoS One, 10(2), e0117476. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, J., & Columbus, G. (2010). The ICE-Canada Corpus. (Version 1). Retrieved from <[URL]>
Nini, A. (2014). Multidimensional Analysis Tagger – Manual (Version 1.3). Retrieved from <[URL]>
North, S. (2007). ‘The voices, the voices’: Creativity in online conversation. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 538–555. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Reagle, J. M. (2015). Reading the comments: Likers, haters, and manipulators at the bottom of the web. Cambridge: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rösner, L., Winter, S., & Krämer, N. C. (2016). Dangerous minds? Effects of uncivil online comments on aggressive cognitions, emotions, and behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 581, 461–470. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taboada, M., Brooke, J., Tofiloski, M., Voll, K., & Stede, M. (2011). Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics, 37(2), 267–307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C., & Singer, Y. (2003). Feature-rich part-of-speech tagging with a cyclic dependency network. Proceedings of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, 252–259. Stroudsburg, PA: ACL.Google Scholar
Tseronis, A. (2011). From connectives to argumentative markers: A quest for markers of argumentative moves and of related aspects of argumentative discourse. Argumentation, 25(4), 427–447. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Eemeren, F. H., Houtlosser, P., & Snoeck Henkemans, A. F. (2007). Argumentative indicators in discourse: A pragma-dialectical study. New York, NY: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Weizman, E., & Dori-Hacohen, G. (2017). On-line commenting on opinion editorials: A cross-cultural examination of face work in the Washington Post (USA) and NRG (Israel). Discourse, Context & Media, 191, 39–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, L. (2003). Second language acquisition and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Woollaston, V. (2013, September 30). Online conversations are damaging how we speak to each other in real life: Author claims people could soon “forget” how to handle social situations. Daily Mail. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Yates, S. J. (1996). Oral and written linguistic aspects of computer conferencing: A corpus based study. In S. Herring (Ed.), Computer-Mediated Communication: Linguistic, social, and cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (10)

Cited by ten other publications

Kalabikhina, Irina, Natalia Loukachevitch, Eugeny Banin & Anton Kolotusha
2024. Text as Data in Demography: Russian-language experience. In Recent Trends in Demographic Data [Working Title], DOI logo
Shakir, Muhammad
2024. An exploratory investigation of functional variation in South Asian online Englishes. English Language and Linguistics ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Tao, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2024. A Multidimensional Analysis of a High-Stakes English Listening Test: A Corpus-Based Approach. Education Sciences 14:2 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Aguiar, Joana & Pilar Barbosa
2023. Emotional Deixis in Online Hate Speech. In Hate Speech in Social Media, ► pp. 139 ff. DOI logo
Chiba, Yuya & Ryuichiro Higashinaka
2023. Analyzing Variations of Everyday Japanese Conversations Based on Semantic Labels of Functional Expressions. ACM Transactions on Asian and Low-Resource Language Information Processing 22:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Kalabikhina, Irina, Ekaterina Zubova, Natalia Loukachevitch, Anthony Kolotusha, Zarina Kazbekova, Evgeny Banin & German Klimenko
2023. Identifying Reproductive Behavior Arguments in Social Media Content Users’ Opinions through Natural Language Processing Techniques. Population and Economics 7:2 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Trnavac, Radoslava & Maite Taboada
2023. Engagement and constructiveness in online news comments in English and Russian. Text & Talk 43:2 ► pp. 235 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Xiaoli
2022. A multi-dimensional analysis of English-medium massive open online courses (MOOCs) video lectures in China. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 55 ► pp. 101079 ff. DOI logo
Ehret, Katharina & Maite Taboada
2021. The interplay of complexity and subjectivity in opinionated discourse. Discourse Studies 23:2 ► pp. 141 ff. DOI logo
Ehret, Katharina & Maite Taboada
2021. Characterising Online News Comments: A Multi-Dimensional Cruise Through Online Registers. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.