Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ https://hdl.handle.n...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

This Research product is the result of merged Research products in OpenAIRE.

You have already added 0 works in your ORCID record related to the merged Research product.

Linguistic Analysis of Toxic Language on Social Media

Authors: Gevers, Ine; Markov, Ilia; Daelemans, Walter;

Linguistic Analysis of Toxic Language on Social Media

Abstract

The increasing popularity of online communication platforms entails a profound interest in the automatic detection of toxic language, since the effects of user anonymity or issues with content moderation can result in hostile environments. Linguistic analysis can be an important tool for discovering language patterns discriminating between toxic and non-Toxic language, leading to the development of more robust detection systems. In this paper, we investigate several linguistic features of online Dutch toxic comments compared to non-Toxic comments. We focus on three main research questions investigating the differences between the two types of comments: Average length, lexical diversity, and linguistic standardness of comments. More specifically, we compared the average number of tokens per comment, the type-Token ratio, (variants of) the content-To-function-word ratio, the propositional idea density, the use of emoji and emoticons, the punctuation to non-punctuation ratio, and measured the level of linguistic standardness combining features such as word choice, character flooding, and unconventional capitalization. The analysis was performed on the LiLaH dataset, which contains over 36,000 Dutch Facebook comments related to the LGBT community and migrants. We conclude that toxic comments are different from their non-Toxic counterpart regarding all the investigated linguistic features. Additionally, we compared our results to Slovene and English. Our analysis suggests that there are commonalities but also remarkable differences in the linguistic landscape of toxic language across the three languages that may lead to further research.

Countries
Netherlands, Belgium
Keywords

SDG 16 - Peace, Linguistics, SDG 10 - Reduced Inequalities, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    citations
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
citations
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Green