A Robust Framework for Estimating Linguistic Alignment in Twitter Conversations

When people talk, they tend to adopt the behaviors, gestures, and language of their conversational partners. This "accommodation" to one's partners is largely automatic, but the degree to which it occurs is influenced by social factors, such as gender, relative power, and attraction. In settings where such social information is not known, this accommodation can be a useful cue for the missing information. This is especially important in web-based communication, where social dynamics are often fluid and rarely stated explicitly. But connecting accommodation and social dynamics on the web requires accurate quantification of the different amounts of accommodation being made. We focus specifically on accommodation in the form of "linguistic alignment": the amount that one person's word use is influenced by another's. Previous studies have used many measures for linguistic alignment, with no clear standard. In this paper, we lay out a set of desiderata for a linguistic alignment measure, including robustness to sparse and short messages, explicit conditionality, and consistency across linguistic features with different baseline frequencies. We propose a straightforward and flexible model-based framework for calculating linguistic alignment, with a focus on the sparse data and limited social information observed in social media. We show that this alignment measure fulfills our desiderata on simulated data. We then analyze a large corpus of Twitter data, both replicating previous results and extending them: Our measure's improved resolution reveals a previously undetectable effect of interpersonal power in Twitter interactions.

[1]  Cindy K. Chung,et al.  The Psychological Functions of Function Words , 2007 .

[2]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Measuring User Influence in Twitter: The Million Follower Fallacy , 2010, ICWSM.

[3]  T. Chartrand,et al.  Chapter 5 Human Mimicry , 2009 .

[4]  R. Krauss,et al.  Dominance and accommodation in the conversational behaviours of same- and mixed-gender dyads. , 1988 .

[5]  Lauren E. Scissors,et al.  Language Style Matching Predicts Relationship Initiation and Stability , 2011, Psychological science.

[6]  M. Pickering,et al.  Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue , 2004, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[7]  Adam N. Joinson,et al.  Finding Zelig in Text: A Measure for Normalising Linguistic Accommodation , 2014, COLING.

[8]  Katherine A. Heller,et al.  The Bayesian Echo Chamber: Modeling Social Influence via Linguistic Accommodation , 2015, AISTATS.

[9]  H. Giles,et al.  Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequence. , 1991 .

[10]  H. Triandis Cognitive Similarity and Communication in a Dyad , 1960 .

[11]  James W. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC2007) , 2007 .

[12]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Observer Perception of Dominance and Mirroring Behavior in Human-Robot Relationships , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[13]  H. Giles,et al.  Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics , 2010 .

[14]  Jeffrey T. Hancock,et al.  Language Style Matching as a Predictor of Social Dynamics in Small Groups , 2010, Commun. Res..

[15]  J. Pittam,et al.  Accent Accommodation in the Job Interview , 1997 .

[16]  R. Baaren,et al.  Mimicry for money: Behavioral consequences of imitation , 2003 .

[17]  A. Botinis,et al.  Intonation , 2001, Speech Commun..

[18]  A. Graesser,et al.  Pronoun Use Reflects Standings in Social Hierarchies , 2014 .

[19]  Cristian Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil,et al.  Chameleons in Imagined Conversations: A New Approach to Understanding Coordination of Linguistic Style in Dialogs , 2011, CMCL@ACL.

[20]  W. S. Condon,et al.  A segmentation of behavior , 1967 .

[21]  Kathleen Ferrara Contexts of Accommodation: Accommodation in therapy , 1991 .

[22]  Bill Noble,et al.  Centre Stage: How Social Network Position Shapes Linguistic Coordination , 2015, CMCL@NAACL-HLT.

[23]  M. Natale CONVERGENCE OF MEAN VOCAL INTENSITY IN DYADIC COMMUNICATION AS A FUNCTION OF SOCIAL DESIRABILITY , 1975 .

[24]  Jiqiang Guo,et al.  Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. , 2017, Journal of statistical software.

[25]  M. G. Pittau,et al.  A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models , 2008, 0901.4011.

[26]  Brendan T. O'Connor,et al.  Improved Part-of-Speech Tagging for Online Conversational Text with Word Clusters , 2013, NAACL.

[27]  Judee K. Burgoon,et al.  Models of reactions to changes in nonverbal immediacy , 1984 .

[28]  H. H. Clark,et al.  Understanding by addressees and overhearers , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  Michael I. Jordan,et al.  Latent Dirichlet Allocation , 2001, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[30]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Mark my words!: linguistic style accommodation in social media , 2011, WWW.

[31]  Donald M. Taylor,et al.  Speech markers in social interaction , 1979 .

[32]  Joseph Hilbe,et al.  Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models , 2009 .

[33]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic Style Matching in Social Interaction , 2002 .

[34]  Yafei Wang,et al.  Linguistic Adaptation in Conversation Threads: Analyzing Alignment in Online Health Communities , 2014 .

[35]  Yang Xu,et al.  An Evaluation and Comparison of Linguistic Alignment Measures , 2015, CMCL@NAACL-HLT.

[36]  Michael C. Frank,et al.  Audience size and contextual effects on information density in Twitter conversations , 2015, CMCL@NAACL-HLT.

[37]  H. Kucera,et al.  Computational analysis of present-day American English , 1967 .

[38]  Augusto Gnisci,et al.  Sequential strategies of accommodation: a new method in courtroom. , 2005, The British journal of social psychology.

[39]  D. Byrne Attitudes and Attraction , 1969 .

[40]  Stephanie Kelter,et al.  Surface form and memory in question answering , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[41]  J. Pennebaker,et al.  Linguistic styles: language use as an individual difference. , 1999, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[42]  Philip Lieberman,et al.  Intonation, Perception, And Language , 1967 .

[43]  Ryan L. Boyd,et al.  Did Shakespeare Write Double Falsehood? Identifying Individuals by Creating Psychological Signatures With Text Analysis , 2015, Psychological science.

[44]  Clifford Nass,et al.  Does computer-generated speech manifest personality? an experimental test of similarity-attraction , 2000, CHI.

[45]  M. Pickering,et al.  Linguistic alignment between people and computers , 2010 .

[46]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  Echoes of power: language effects and power differences in social interaction , 2011, WWW.