Dialectograms: Machine Learning Differences between Discursive Communities
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Word embeddings provide an unsupervised way to understand differences in word usage between discursive communities. A number of recent papers have focused on identifying words that are used differently by two or more communities. But word embeddings are complex, high-dimensional spaces and a focus on identifying differences only captures a fraction of their richness. Here, we take a step towards leveraging the richness of the full embedding space, by using word embeddings to map out how words are used differently. Specifically, we describe the construction of dialectograms, an unsupervised way to visually explore the characteristic ways in which each community use a focal word. Based on these dialectograms, we provide a new measure of the degree to which words are used differently that overcomes the tendency for existing measures to pick out low frequent or polysemous words. We apply our methods to explore the discourses of two US political subreddits and show how our methods identify stark affective polarisation of politicians and political entities, differences in the assessment of proper political action as well as disagreement about whether certain issues require political intervention at all.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 48 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 11 Feb 2023.
Builds on
19 of 48 references.
References · 19
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2013Efficient Estimation of Word Representations in Vector Spacecited by 4,346
- 2019DistilBERT, a distilled version of BERT: smaller, faster, cheaper and lightercited by 4,243
- 2013Distributed Representations of Words and Phrases and their Compositionalitycited by 3,462
- 2016Semantics derived automatically from language corpora contain human-like biasescited by 894
- 2017Word Embeddings Quantify 100 Years of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypescited by 251
- 2016Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Changecited by 219
- 2013Exploiting Similarities among Languages for Machine Translationcited by 187
- 2016Linear Algebraic Structure of Word Senses, with Applications to Polysemycited by 165
- 2020SemEval-2020 Task 1: Unsupervised Lexical Semantic Change Detectioncited by 105
- 2018The Geometry of Culture: Analyzing Meaning through Word Embeddingscited by 87
- 2018Factors Influencing the Surprising Instability of Word Embeddingscited by 31
7 more
- 2020We Don't Speak the Same Language: Interpreting Polarization through Machine Translationcited by 23
- 2018A La Carte Embedding: Cheap but Effective Induction of Semantic Feature Vectorscited by 17
- 2016Quantifying and Reducing Stereotypes in Word Embeddingscited by 14
- 2019Analytical Methods for Interpretable Ultradense Word Embeddingscited by 13
- 2016Ultradense Word Embeddings by Orthogonal Transformationcited by 8
- 2021(Mis)alignment Between Stance Expressed in Social Media Data and Public Opinion Surveyscited by 8
- 2020Machine learning as a model for cultural learning: Teaching an algorithm what it means to be fatcited by 7
Built on by
Not cited yet.