Methodology for Measuring Polarization of Political Discourse: Case of Comparing Oppositional and Patriotic Discourse in Online Social Networks

  • Tamara ShcheglovaEmail author
  • Galina Gradoselskaya
  • Ilia Karpov
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics book series (PROMS, volume 315)


The paper analyzes speech markers and semantic concepts typical for patriotic and oppositional discourse in social networks. About 100 000 posts from Facebook, VKontakte, and LiveJournal were analyzed, and 35 000 most frequent speech markers were processed, of which 1800 markers were selected for analysis. The alternative method to TF–IDF metric for specific text markers identification is proposed. The features of oppositional discourse in comparison with the patriotic discourse were formulated. On the one hand, the analysis of sets of speech markers that characterize political groups allows us to understand social models and attitudes embedded in the discourse and the subsequent behavior of representatives of these groups. On the other hand, it is possible to extend a set of keywords for text search of a certain political orientation, based on the obtained results.



The study has been funded by the Russian Academic Excellence Project “5–100”.


  1. 1.
    Bally, S.: Language and Life. URSS, Moscow (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Dijk, T.: Discourse and Communication. Walter de Gryuter, Berlin (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    van Dijk, T.: News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum (1988)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Eissa, M.: Polarized discourse in the news. Procedia Soc. Behav. Sci. 134, 70–91 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fairclough, N.: Critical Discourse Analysis. The Critical Study of Language. Longman, London (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gonawela, J.: Studying political communication on Twitter: the case of small data. Curr. Opin. Behav. Sci. 18, 97–102 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horvath, J.: Critical analysis of Obama’s political discourse. In: International Conference of Language, Literature and Culture in a Changing Transatlantic (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Issers, O.: Communicative Strategies and Tactics of the Russian Language. URSS, Moscow (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kim, D., Seo, D., Cho, S., Kang, P.: Multi-co-training document classification using various document representations: TF-IDF, LDA, and Doc2Vec. Inf. Sci. (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lotman, Y.: The Semiosphere. Art-SPB, Saint-Petersburg (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Makeeva, L.: Language, Ontology and Realism. Publishing House of the Higher School of Economics, Moscow (2011)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manning, C., Raghavan, P., Schutze, H.: Scoring, term weighting, and the vector space model. In: Introduction to Information Retrieval. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monroe, B., Colaresi, M., Quinn, K.: Fightin’ words: lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Polit. Anal. 16(4), 372–403 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    De Saussure, F.: Works on Linguistics. Progress, USSR (1977)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Shipilov, A.: Opposition “us–them” in sociocultural development. Philos. Leg. Thought: Alm. 5, 280–304 (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tsivyan, T.: Model of the World and its Linguistic Basis. URSS, Moscow (2009)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara Shcheglova
    • 1
    Email author
  • Galina Gradoselskaya
    • 1
  • Ilia Karpov
    • 1
  1. 1.National Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations