Cover not available
Part of
Corpus Approaches to Social Media
Edited by Sofia Rüdiger and Daria Dayter
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 98] 2020
► pp. 131–146

Chapter 6
Double trouble

Are 280-character tweets comparable to 140-character tweets?

| LMU München

Linguistic data from social media is often discussed in the light of constraints, be it due to character limits or the putatively short attention span of users. In November 2017, Twitter eased one such constraint, increasing the maximum length of tweets from 140 to 280 characters. The present longitudinal study shows that this change has had an effect on the linguistic surface structure of tweets, especially in regard to optional syntactical and metatextual features. I discuss the origin and nature of these changes and their relation to hard constraints of social media platforms in addition to highlighting the impact on methodological aspects of future longitudinal studies of Twitter data which may cover periods both before and after the switch.

Keywords: Twitter, social media, character limit, constraint, variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methodology
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Lexical variation
    • 3.2Variation in punctuation
    • 3.3Metatextual variation
  • 4.Discussion and conclusion
    • 4.1Theoretical implications
    • 4.2Methodological implications
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.98.06ebe
References
Bieswanger, Markus
2013 Micro-linguistic structural features of computer-mediated communication. In Pragmatics of Computer-Mediated Communication [Handbooks of Pragmatics 9], Susan Herring, Dieter Stein & Tuija Virtanen (eds), 463–486. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caruso, Assunta, Folino, Antonietta, Parisi, Francesca & Trunfio, Roberto
2014 A statistical method for minimum corpus size determination. In Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Textual Data Statistical Analysis (JADT 2014), Emilie Née (ed.), 135–146. [URL] (23 February 2020).
Clement, Jessica
2019 Most famous social network sites 2019, by active users. Statista. March 2019 <[URL] (27 March 2019).
Dorsey, Jack
2017 Twitter post (untitled). Twitter. 26 September 2017. [URL] (23 February 2020).
Gligorić, Kristina, Anderson, Ashton & West, Robert
2018 arXiv.org, 6 April 2018. How constraints affect content: The case of Twitter’s switch from 140 to 280 characters. [URL] (23 February 2020).
Hu, Yuheng, Talamadupula, Kartik & Kambhampati, Subbarao
2013 Dude, srsly? The surprisingly formal nature of Twitter’s language. In Proceedings of the Seventh International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media, 8–11 July 2013, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA, Emre Kiciman (ed.), 244–253. Palo Alto CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
Joyce, Caneel K.
2009 The Blank Page: Effects of Constraint on Creativity. PhD dissertation, London School of Economics.Google Scholar
Mayikama, Koji
2016 magicfor: Magic functions to obtain results from for loops. 18 December 2016. CRAN. [URL] (23 February 2020).
Rambukanna, Nathan
2015 From #racefail to #ferguson: The digital intimacies of race-activist hashtag publics. In The Fibreculture Journal, Pip Shea, Tanya Notley, Jean Burgess & Su Ballard (eds), 150–188. Sydney, Australia: Fibreculture Journal, Open Humanities Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnoebelen, Tyler
2012 Do you smile with your nose: Stylistic variation in Twitter emoticons. In University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics 18(2): Article 14. [URL] (23 February 2020).
Tatman, Rachael & Paullada, Amandalynne
2017 Social identity and punctuation variation in the #BlueLivesMatter and #BlackLivesMatter Twitter communities. [URL] (23 February 2020).
Tidyverse Team
2019 tidyverse: An opinionated collection of R packages designed for data science. GITHUB. [URL] (23 February 2020).
twintproject
2019 twint: Open-source Twitter intelligence. GITHUB, [URL] (23 February 2020).
Wickham, Hadley
2019 stringr: Simple, Consistent Wrapper for Common String Operations. 10 February 2019. CRAN. [URL] (23 February 2020).
Zappavigna, Michele
2015 Searchable talk: The linguistic function of hashtags. Social Semiotics 25(3): 274–291. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Biri, Ylva
2022. Epistemic stance in the climate change debate. Register Studies 4:2 ► pp. 232 ff. DOI logo
HONKAPOHJA, ALPO & IMOGEN MARCUS
2024. The long history of shortening: a diachronic analysis of abbreviation practices from the fifteenth to the twenty-first century. English Language and Linguistics 28:1 ► pp. 43 ff. DOI logo
Liimatta, Aatu
2023. Register variation across text lengths. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 28:2 ► pp. 202 ff. DOI logo
Neumeier, Lisza-Sophie
2023. Twitter for academic purposes: An analysis of scholarly communication through conference tweets. In #YouthMediaLife & Friends, ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo
Sluchinski, Kerry
2024.  Ta as an emergent language practice of audience design in CMC. Narrative Inquiry 34:1 ► pp. 78 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.