IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v8y2021i1d10.1057_s41599-021-00794-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How much can you say in a tweet? An approach to political argumentation on Twitter

Author

Listed:
  • Katarzyna Elliott-Maksymowicz

    (Drexel University)

  • Alexander Nikolaev

    (Drexel University)

  • Douglas Porpora

    (Drexel University)

Abstract

Besides Donald Trump, its most famous user, some 330 million people use Twitter as a platform for communication, much of it political. Yet, given the 280 character limit, how much can you say in a tweet? Although much has already been written about Twitter, little attention has been given to the nature of the argument found there. To begin filling this gap, it is necessary to identify the basic units of such an argument. Identifying them as speech acts, we demonstrate here by discourse analysis how by virtue of the enthymematic quality of public argument, much argument can be communicated even by singular speech acts and even by speech acts other than assertion.

Suggested Citation

  • Katarzyna Elliott-Maksymowicz & Alexander Nikolaev & Douglas Porpora, 2021. "How much can you say in a tweet? An approach to political argumentation on Twitter," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00794-x
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00794-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-021-00794-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-021-00794-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2011. "Ideological Segregation Online and Offline," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 126(4), pages 1799-1839.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Leopoldo Fergusson & Carlos Molina, 2020. "Facebook Causes Protests," HiCN Working Papers 323, Households in Conflict Network.
    2. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    3. Donald R. Davis & Jonathan I. Dingel & Joan Monras & Eduardo Morales, 2019. "How Segregated Is Urban Consumption?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(4), pages 1684-1738.
    4. Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante & Francesco Sobbrio, 2018. "Politics 2.0: The Multifaceted Effect of Broadband Internet on Political Participation," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 16(4), pages 1094-1136.
    5. Cason, Timothy N. & Mui, Vai-Lam, 2015. "Rich communication, social motivations, and coordinated resistance against divide-and-conquer: A laboratory investigation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 146-159.
    6. Shane Greenstein & Yuan Gu & Feng Zhu, 2016. "Ideological Segregation among Online Collaborators: Evidence from Wikipedians," Harvard Business School Working Papers 17-028, Harvard Business School, revised Mar 2017.
    7. McNamara, Trent & Mosquera, Roberto, 2024. "The political divide: The case of expectations and preferences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    8. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy, 2019. "Measuring Group Differences in High‐Dimensional Choices: Method and Application to Congressional Speech," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 87(4), pages 1307-1340, July.
    9. Caetano, Gregorio & Maheshri, Vikram, 2019. "Gender segregation within neighborhoods," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 253-263.
    10. Doh-Shin Jeon & Nikrooz Nasr, 2016. "News Aggregators and Competition among Newspapers on the Internet," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 91-114, November.
    11. Poy, Samuele & Schüller, Simone, 2016. "Internet and Voting in the Web 2.0 Era: Evidence from a Local Broadband Policy," IZA Discussion Papers 9991, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    12. Germano, Fabrizio & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2020. "Opinion dynamics via search engines (and other algorithmic gatekeepers)," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    13. Gordon Anderson & Oliver Linton & Jasmin Thomas, 2017. "Similarity, dissimilarity and exceptionality: generalizing Gini’s transvariation to measure “differentness” in many distributions," METRON, Springer;Sapienza Università di Roma, vol. 75(2), pages 161-180, August.
    14. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    15. Alejandra Agustina Martínez, 2023. "Raise your Voice! Activism and Peer Effects in Online Social Networks," Working Papers 277, Red Nacional de Investigadores en Economía (RedNIE).
    16. Charles Heckscher & John McCarthy, 2014. "Transient Solidarities: Commitment and Collective Action in Post-Industrial Societies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 52(4), pages 627-657, December.
    17. Cheng, Ing-Haw & Hsiaw, Alice, 2022. "Distrust in experts and the origins of disagreement," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 200(C).
    18. Besley, Timothy & Fetzer, Thiemo & Mueller, Hannes, 2019. "Terror and Tourism: The Economic Consequences of Media Coverage," CAGE Online Working Paper Series 449, Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE).
    19. Manudeep Bhuller & Tarjei Havnes & Edwin Leuven & Magne Mogstad, 2013. "Broadband Internet: An Information Superhighway to Sex Crime?," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 80(4), pages 1237-1266.
    20. Lorenz Graf-Vlachy & Tarun Goyal & Yannick Ouardi & Andreas König, 2022. "The politics of piracy: political ideology and the usage of pirated online media," Information Technology and Management, Springer, vol. 23(1), pages 51-63, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:8:y:2021:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-021-00794-x. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.