Take Their Word for It: The Symbolic Role of Linguistic Style Matches in User Communities

Abstract

People interested in the research are advised to contact the author for the final version of the publication, or visit the DOI to the publisher's website.• The final author version and the galley proof are versions of the publication after peer review.• The final published version features the final layout of the paper including the volume, issue and page numbers. Link to publication General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal.If the publication is distributed under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the "Taverne" license above, please follow below link for the End User Agreement:

Decoding social media speak: developing a speech act theory research agenda

“…Yet, the style of communication is equally important, according to speech act theorists (Meibauer, 2005, Ludwig et al 2013, Ludwig et al 2014 Not only do the messages' contents and hence the intentions diverge (recommending vs. dissuading), but the styles in which they are written hint at other relevant information.…”

“…Depending on the epistemological position taken, such social media speak are either (1) accounts of what customers do or (2) symbolical reflections on customers' intentions (Ludwig et al 2013, Ludwig et al 2014, Pollach 2012, Taylor and van Every 2010. For both positions, the sheer volume of online conversations and their unstructured, verbatim nature renders traditional market research methods (e.g., surveys, experiments, interviews, focus groups) ineffective (Kambil et al, 2005).…”

Untangling a Web of Lies: Exploring Automated Detection of Deception in Computer-Mediated Communication

“…Such common ground perceptions in written communication may occur through the largely unconscious process of linguistic style matching [46]. The convergent use of similar linguistic styles enhances understanding and perceptions of a common social identity while decreasing perceptions of social distance [53]. In online textbased negotiations, closer matches in function word usage (e.g., uses of pronouns, articles, conjunctions, prepositions, auxiliary verbs, high-frequency adverbs, negations, and quantifiers) as part of the interactional exchange increase interpersonal rapport and agreement among potential partners [44].…”

“…For LSM, we followed recent research on interactional exchanges in CMC [53] and calculated it as the degree to which a partner produces usage intensities of function words that are similar to those the account manager used in the previous e-mail. First, we text mined the proportion of function word (CueWords) uses for each of the nine function word categories [46].…”

“…Deceivers have an interest in making themselves appear more accommodating and likable [14], which may manifest itself in close and rapid alignment of their communication style with that of their conversant across interactional exchanges. Following recent information systems research, such style alignment in CMC is symbolically reflected and may be measured considering the linguistic style matching between conversants [53]. Extending speech act theory to the meta level of conversation, we explore whether rapid LSM indicates deception in CMC.…”