Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Synopsis Mphil

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 10

A Socio-cognitive Analysis of Hate Speech Tweets Against Pakistani

Politicians

Submitted By: Ayesha Ahmad Khan


Roll no. : F21MPAL005
Department: Applied Linguistics
Semester: 3

KINNAIRD COLLEGE FOR WOMEN UNIVERSITY,


LAHORE
(2021-23)
Table of contents

Chapter 1
Introduction ...............................................................................................1
1.1 Research questions...............................................................................2
1.2 Aims and objectives of research..........................................................2
Chapter 2
Literature review........................................................................................3
Chapter 3
Research methodology...............................................................................6
References...................................................................................................7
Introduction
Currently media plays an important role in our lives. The dominant tool of media are mobile
phones as they are purposeful in making people aware of current situations of the entire world.
The social media can prove to be the most effective platform for political as well as social
debates (Rao, 2020). Web participation has revolutionized the way we communicate and connect
(Nik & Esposito 2018). Teenagers share information and connect with others through various
platforms of social media communication including Twitter, Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp,
and others. Social media has many advantages and disadvantages. One of its major flaws is hate
speech, also known as “Cyber Hate”. Social media is rife with extremist and intolerant views,
the use of derogatory or discriminatory language based on ethnicity, religion, nationality,
race, or any other identity factor.

The media can change our perceptions about divergent things such as from what we purchase,
the people we commend and those we do not, our ideologies about political problems like
elections, immigration and health care, to social problems such as racism, fascism, gender, bias,
sexual orientation, and age. The symbols and language they use can change the way we interpret
things. Media portrays new trends in a way that it can convince people to simply accept them.

However CDA is a type of discourse analysis research that primarily studies the way social
power abuse, dominance, and inequality are enacted, reproduced, and resisted by text and talk in
social and political contexts (Van Dijk, 2004). It seeks to show how ideological presuppositions
are hidden underneath the surface structures of language choices in text (Machin & Mayr,
2012). Scholars working under the umbrella of CDA schools may work with diverse theories and
various foci, but they are bound by a concern for the investigation of the reproduction of
ideology in language (Fairclough, 1992). CDA looks into, for example, institutional, political,
gender, and media discourses (Wodak, 2001) and how certain social groups may be
misrepresented in various types of discourse.

Twitter allows users to frequently and instantly communicate electronically, by keeping a profile
that can be viewed, by default settings, publicly through a variety of devices and interfaces. This
ease of communication has enabled users to discuss social and political issues by allowing others
to see and comment on their tweets, thus giving birth to a new style of news coverage (Hsu et al.,
2013).
1.1 Research Questions
 What are the discourse structures in hate speech tweets against politicians?
 How do cognitive structures influence the content of hate speech tweets?
 How do cognition, social conditions, and discourse all contribute to the establishment of
a system that is against politicians?

1.2 Research objectives

 To describe discourse structures in hate speech tweets including lexicon, word order,
implications, presuppositions, etc. used to intensify hate speech.
 To elucidate the role of individual mental models and socially shared knowledge
in mediating between hate speech discourse structures and complex societal structures.
 To ascertain the extent to which cognition, social conditions, and discourse contribute to
the establishment of a system that speak against politicians.
Chapter 2
Literature review
According to Dijk (2016) socio-cognitive discourse studies are related to the ongoing
communicative event, social cognition, and ideologies and attitudes which exist in the minds of
language users as members of the social group. The socio cognitive approach of Van Dijk is
known as the ‘Discourse-Cognition-Society Triangle” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009). Dijk (2016)
investigated the cognitive basis of Telegraph editorial regarding Immigration in the UK. Dijk
conducted this research to know that why the text in the editorial had such a specific structure.
The journalist of the editorial while writing it presupposed knowledge and particular ideological
beliefs. The discourse structure in the editorial was actually controlled by the event, context, and
mental models. The headline of the editorial summarized that the journalist has a positive
attitude towards the actions of the government. Positive appraisal terms and metaphors in the
editorial depicted that the journalist has a positive mental model about that event. So, basically
in this research , Dijk (2016)investigated how the discourse structure of a journalist is
related to his cognition and society. He analyzed racist and anti-racist discourse in terms of the
discourse-cognition-society triangle. His research revealed that individual mental models and
social cognition mediate between discourse and societal structures. He proved that the
cognitive component is essential to CDA. Socially shared knowledge plays an important role
in the production and comprehension of discourse. Dijk stated that to understand that how
societal structures influence discourse structures, the mediation of cognition is necessary.
“Such mediation is defined in terms of the shared knowledge and ideologies of group
members and how they influence mental models that finally control the structures of
individual discourse” (Wodak & Meyer, 2009).
In the current age of digital media, e-Pakistani politics has been stirring up political
cynicism mending up invigorating hate-filled rhetoric. On one hand, keyboard warriors are
busy on social media making profane comments regarding personal lives of opposition party’s
representatives. On the other hand, political leaders address each other using derogatory
titles and use aggressive language for other party‘s supporters as well. But in case of e-
political hate speech, since politicians are public figures, they cannot abuse or threaten like other
people with unidentifiable ids on social media. Social media happens to be a stage where
politicians are actors and are meant to perform according to the script they are being assigned
with. Slogans, photos and hashtags are the props they use and audience is their supporter or
opponent (Hendriks, Duus & Ercan, 2016). Thus, the political communication on social
media is usually well thought out as compared to the language being used on traditional
media because there they exhibit spontaneous discourse that might not be very thoughtful.
Yet the online hate speech is more consequential as it stays online for long and gets viral quickly.
Among other social media sites, Twitter is reportedly stoking extreme political hostility in
Pakistan. Much academic work have been conducted about the social media’s impact on political
communication in those countries which were already economically, politically and
technologically established democratic states such as the United Kingdom and the United States.
However, only few studies were conducted about the emerging significance of the social media
in the electoral campaigns in the Asia pacific developing democracies
Twitter emerged as a major tool for spewing hate (Rao, 2020). The study investigated how three
mainstream political parties of Pakistan, utilized the Facebook and Twitter for their
electioneering in 2018. The hate speech factor and trend are not only limited towards only rivals
but the journalists also became the victim of this political trolling by the political parties and
their followers. The study concluded that the political parties were involved in promotion of hate
speech, personal character assassination and incitement of violence against each other on social
media for achieving their political goals in elections. According to the research of Graham, et al.,
“Twitter has quickly become an important online space for political communication because it
connects ordinary people to the popular, powerful and influential”.

Another report published by a non-government organization BARGAD on role of social media


in 2018 polls, illustrated that the pictures and videos shared by political actors on Facebook and
Twitter were the main source of character assassination, religious intolerance and spreading hate
speech. The hate speech trend was more on Twitter than Facebook, despite of the fact that
Twitter was having only 3.5 million users while Facebook enjoys 32 million users in Pakistan.

A research entitled “Discourse of Political Hate Speech on Twitter in Pakistan” investigated the
e-political discourse. The data was based on the tweets before and after elections 2018 (held on
July 25, 2018) from Twitter feeds of three Central Information Secretaries of three major
Pakistani political parties. The selected texts were interpreted employing the Political Discourse
Analysis approach. The analysis revealed several patterns (e.g., anti-deliberation, prejudice, and
dehumanization) which were realized through the selected spokespersons’ apparently strong
language having an intention to sabotage their opponents. Moreover, the analysis provided an
insight into how the plain political rhetoric has negative connotations.

Twitter is a platform that is increasingly preferred by the political elites for the purpose of
gaining public acclaim and propagating political ideologies (Masroor et al. 2019). The study
investigated tweets of two eminent Pakistani political figures which were chosen for unmasking
a variety of discourse strategies at work from the perspective of critical discourse analysis (CDA)
through the socio-cognitive model of ideological square. The analysis uncovered the hidden
ideological structures and strategies realized through a number of rhetorical moves in the
selected tweets.
Chapter 3
Research Methodology
This research will be purely qualitative and exploratory in nature.

Data Collection Tool


Twitter will be selected for collecting required data because of the way it facilitates political
debate and represents people’s ideology.
Sample size

20 tweets will be gathered and analyzed by the researcher.

Sample technique

The data will be selected through purposive sampling as it relies on the researcher’s choice.
References

 BARGAD (2018) Electoral Hate-speech on Social Media in Pakistan.

 Dijk, T. A. V. (2016). ‘Critical Discourse Studies: A Sociocognitive Approach.’ In


Methods for Critical Discourse Analysised. By Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer, 62-86,
selected 62-67, 75-80. London: Sage.

 Hendriks, C. M., Duus, S.,& Ercan, S. A. (2016). Performing politics on social media:
the dramaturgy of an environmental controversy on Facebook. Environmental Politics,
25(6), 1102-1125.
 Hsu, C. L., Park, S. J., & Park, H. W. (2013). Political discourse among key Twitter
users: The case of Sejong city in South Korea. Journal of Contemporary Eastern Asia,
12(1), 65–79.

 Rao MF. Hate Speech and Media Information Literacy in the Digital Age: A Case Study
of 2018 Elections in Pakistan. Global Media Journal 2020, 18:34.

 KhosarviNik, M., & Esposito, E. (2018). ONLINE HATE, DIGITAL DISCOURSE AND
CRITIQUE: EXPLORING DIGITALLY-MEDIATED DISCURSIVE PRACTICES OF
GENDER-BASED HOSTILITY. Special issue on narrating hostility, challenging hostile
Narratives, 14(1), 45–68 Doi: 10.1515/lpp-2018-0003.

 Masroor, F., Khan, Q. N., Aib, I., & Ali, Z. (2019). Polarization and ideological weaving
in Twitter discourse of politicians. Social Media + Society, 5(4), 205630511989122.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305119891220

 Van Dijk, T. (2004). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, &


H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 352e371).
Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
 Wodak, R. (2001). What CDA is about e A summary of its history, impor-
tant concepts and its developments. In R. Wodak, & M. Meyer (Eds.),
Methods of critical discourse analysis (pp. 1e13). London, UK: Sage.

 Zunaira Shafiq. (2021). Discourse of Political Hate Speech on Twitter in Pakistan. Harf-
O-Sukhan, 5(4), 230-245. Retrieved from http://www.harf-o-sukhan.com/index.php/Harf-
o-sukhan/article/view/225

You might also like