Size Matters: Digital Social Networks and Language Change

Social networks play a role in language variation and change, and the social network theory has offered a powerful tool in modeling innovation diffusion. Networks are characterized by ties of varying strength which influence how novel information is accessed. It is widely held that weak-ties promote change, whereas strong ties lead to norm-enforcing communities that resist change. However, the model is primarily suited to investigate small ego networks, and its predictive power remains to be tested in large digital networks of mobile individuals. This article revisits the social network model in sociolinguistics and investigates network size as a crucial component in the theory. We specifically concentrate on whether the distinction between weak and strong ties levels in large networks over 100 nodes. The article presents two computational methods that can handle large and messy social media data and render them usable for analyzing networks, thus expanding the empirical and methodological basis from small-scale ethnographic observations. The first method aims to uncover broad quantitative patterns in data and utilizes a cohort-based approach to network size. The second is an algorithm-based approach that uses mutual interaction parameters on Twitter. Our results gained from both methods suggest that network size plays a role, and that the distinction between weak ties and slightly stronger ties levels out once the network size grows beyond roughly 120 nodes. This finding is closely similar to the findings in other fields of the study of social networks and calls for new research avenues in computational sociolinguistics.

[1]  Tao Gong,et al.  Language change and social networks , 2008 .

[2]  B. Preisler English in Danish and the Danes English , 2003 .

[3]  T. Nevalainen Mobility, Social Networks and Language Change in Early Modern England , 2000 .

[4]  Sali A. Tagliamonte,et al.  Peaks Beyond Phonology: Adolescence, Incrementation, and Language Change , 2009 .

[5]  Maxime Lenormand,et al.  Immigrant community integration in world cities , 2016, PloS one.

[6]  飯島 周 「会話の文法」に関する一考察 : Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written Englishの場合 , 1999 .

[7]  M. Laitinen Ongoing changes in English modals : On the developments in ELF , 2016 .

[8]  Alice H. Oh,et al.  Sociolinguistic analysis of Twitter in multilingual societies , 2014, HT.

[9]  Jennifer Golbeck,et al.  Multilingual use of Twitter: Social networks at the language frontier , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[11]  Leonard M. Freeman,et al.  A set of measures of centrality based upon betweenness , 1977 .

[12]  J. Milroy,et al.  Linguistic change, social network and speaker innovation , 1985, Journal of Linguistics.

[13]  Jonas Lundberg,et al.  Revisiting weak ties : Using present-day social media data in variationist studies , 2017 .

[14]  Balachander Krishnamurthy,et al.  A few chirps about twitter , 2008, WOSN '08.

[15]  Jonas Lundberg,et al.  Towards a language independent Twitter bot detector , 2019, DHN.

[16]  Scott A. Hale Global connectivity and multilinguals in the Twitter network , 2014, CHI.

[17]  Matthew E. Brashears,et al.  The weakness of tie strength , 2016, Soc. Networks.

[18]  Marshall Van Alstyne,et al.  The Diversity-Bandwidth Tradeoff , 2010 .

[19]  Alex Pentland,et al.  Urban characteristics attributable to density-driven tie formation , 2012, Nature Communications.

[20]  徐 大明,et al.  语言变异与变化 = Linguistic variation and change , 2006 .

[21]  Vesa Kuikka,et al.  Influence spreading model used to analyse social networks and detect sub-communities , 2018, Computational Social Networks.

[22]  Nikolas Coupland,et al.  What is Sociolinguistic Theory , 1998 .

[23]  C. McCarty,et al.  Comparing Two Methods for Estimating Network Size , 2001 .

[24]  Kari Nissinen,et al.  National Survey on the English Language in Finland : Uses, Meanings and Attitudes , 2011 .

[25]  Mark S. Granovetter T H E S T R E N G T H O F WEAK TIES: A NETWORK THEORY REVISITED , 1983 .

[26]  Carmen Llamas,et al.  19. Social Networks , 2013 .

[27]  Diansheng Guo,et al.  Understanding U.S. regional linguistic variation with Twitter data analysis , 2016, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[28]  Mark S. Granovetter The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

[29]  Rosina L. Lippi-Green Social network integration and language change in progress in a rural alpine village , 1989, Language in Society.

[30]  Jonas Lundberg,et al.  The Nordic Tweet Stream: A Dynamic Real-Time Monitor Corpus of Big and Rich Language Data , 2018, DHN.

[31]  Scott A. Hale,et al.  Where in the World Are You? Geolocation and Language Identification in Twitter* , 2013, ArXiv.

[32]  J. Milroy,et al.  Social network and social class: Toward an integrated sociolinguistic model , 1992, Language in Society.

[33]  E. Schneider,et al.  Sociolinguistic Theory: Linguistic Variation and Its Social Significance , 1999 .

[34]  U. Brandes A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality , 2001 .

[35]  L Devies,et al.  Social factors , 1999, International Journal of Obesity.

[36]  Geoffrey Leech,et al.  Where have all the modals gone? An essay on the declining frequency of core modal auxiliaries in recent standard English , 2014 .

[37]  David Sánchez,et al.  Mapping the Americanization of English in space and time , 2017, PloS one.

[38]  M. Modiano Euro-English: A Swedish perspective , 2003, English Today.

[39]  W. Labov Principles Of Linguistic Change , 1994 .

[40]  Robin I. M. Dunbar Neocortex size as a constraint on group size in primates , 1992 .

[41]  Charles Perez,et al.  Graph Creation and Analysis for Linking Actors: Application to Social Data , 2016 .

[42]  Carolyn Penstein Rosé,et al.  Computational Sociolinguistics: A Survey , 2016, Computational Linguistics.

[43]  Xiao Ma,et al.  When Do People Trust Their Social Groups? , 2019, CHI.