Do we swear more with friends or with acquaintances? F#ck in social networks

被引:0
作者
Laitinen, Mikko [1 ,2 ]
Rautionaho, Paula [1 ]
Fatemi, Masoud [1 ,2 ]
Halonen, Mikko [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Eastern Finland, Yliopistokatu 2, Joensuu 80100, Finland
[2] Linnaeus Univ, Ctr Data Intens Sci & Applicat, Univ Platsen 1, Vaxjo 35252, Sweden
关键词
Swearing in interaction; Social networks; Social media; Fuck; Sociolinguistics; PRAGMATICS; STRENGTH; GENDER;
D O I
10.1016/j.lingua.2025.103931
中图分类号
H0 [语言学];
学科分类号
030303 ; 0501 ; 050102 ;
摘要
We investigate the uses of FUCK in digital social networks from social media, Twitter/X in this case. Social media outlets have so far been predominantly treated as massive text collections, but they can be effectively used to investigate the role of social networks in shaping human communication. We use user-generated texts from 5,660 social networks (with 435,345 users and 7.8 billion words) from three settings (UK, US, and Australia). With embedded network information, this massive dataset enables us to investigate how network properties, that of the size and the strength of the network, influence the use of offensive words in these three settings. Our findings show that Americans use FUCK most frequently, while Australians least frequently but they are highly creative with spelling variants of the word. Contrary to prior studies, we observe that people on this social media application swear more with acquaintances than with friends, but only in smaller networks in larger networks of >100 people, the differences level out. Overall, this study highlights the benefits of using social media data that can be enriched to allow access to the social networks that people interact in.
引用
收藏
页数:23
相关论文
共 58 条
  • [1] Allan K., 2018, The Oxford Handbook of Taboo Words and Language
  • [2] Allan K, 2009, VAR ENGL AR WORLD GS, VG39, P361
  • [3] [Anonymous], 1993, Dover Books on Advanced Mathematics
  • [4] [Anonymous], 4 Describing the precise mechanisms by which ONC builds up and sustains this consensus among stakeholders in health IT is the main object of this chapter. On "building up" as a practice of reality-making in actor-network theory, see, John Law in After Method: Mess in Social Science Research (London
  • [5] New York: Routledge, 2004), 94 and 160,. On stakeholder theory in political deliberation, organization management, and policy, see, R. Edward Freeman, Strategic Management: A Stakeholder Approach, Reissue (Cambridge New York Melbourne Madrid Cape Town Singapore: Cambridge University Press, 2010 [1984]). I apply a convergent approach to stakeholder theory, conceptualizing stakeholders who engage in health IT policy as operating with a shared set of professional norms, while also calling attentio
  • [6] Marc Berg, "Accumulating and Coordinating: Occasions for Information Technologies in Medical Work," Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW) 8, no. 4 (December 1999): 373-401
  • [7] R Stuart Geiger and David Ribes, "Trace Ethnography: Following Coordination through Documentary Practices," in 2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2011 44th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2011), Kauai, HI: IEEE, 2011), 1-10
  • [8] Volkmar Pipek and Volker Wulf, "Infrastructuring: Toward an Integrated Perspective on the Design and Use of Information Technology" 10, no. 5 (May 2009): 447-73., DOI DOI 10.1177/09720634221078853, Patent No. 202211010210
  • [9] Beers Fagersten K., 2012, Who's Swearing Now? The Social Aspects of Conversational Swearing
  • [10] Bernaisch T, 2022, DATA AND METHODS IN CORPUS LINGUISTICS, P163