A graph-based approach to extracting narrative signals from public discourse

Narratives are key interpretative devices by which humans make sense of political reality. As the significance of narratives for understanding current societal issues such as polarization and misinformation becomes increasingly evident, there is a growing demand for methods that support their empirical analysis. To this end, we propose a graph-based formalism and machine-guided method for extracting, representing, and analyzing selected narrative signals from digital textual corpora, based on Abstract Meaning Representation (AMR). The formalism and method introduced here specifically cater to the study of political narratives that figure in texts from digital media such as archived political speeches, social media posts, political manifestos and transcripts of parliamentary debates. We conceptualize these political narratives as a type of ontological narratives: stories by which actors position themselves as political beings, and which are akin to political worldviews in which actors present their normative vision of the world, or aspects thereof. We approach the study of such political narratives as a problem of information retrieval: starting from a textual corpus, we first extract a graph-like representation of the meaning of each sentence in the corpus using AMR. Drawing on transferable concepts from narratology, we then apply a set of heuristics to filter these graphs for representations of 1) actors, 2) the events in which these actors figure, and 3) traces of the perspectivization of these events. We approach these references to actors, events, and instances of perspectivization as core narrative signals that initiate a further analysis by alluding to larger political narratives. By means of a case study of State of the European Union addresses, we demonstrate how the formalism can be used to inductively surface signals of political narratives from public discourse.

Facilitating on-line opinion dynamics by mining expressions of causation. The case of climate change debates on The Guardian

News website comment sections are spaces where potentially conflicting opinions and beliefs are voiced. Addressing questions of how to study such cultural and societal conflicts through technological means, the present article critically examines possibilities and limitations of machine-guided exploration and potential facilitation of on-line opinion dynamics. These investigations are guided by a discussion of an experimental observatory for mining and analyzing opinions from climate change-related user comments on news articles from the TheGuardian.com. This observatory combines causal mapping methods with computational text analysis in order to mine beliefs and visualize opinion landscapes based on expressions of causation. By (1) introducing digital methods and open infrastructures for data exploration and analysis and (2) engaging in debates about the implications of such methods and infrastructures, notably in terms of the leap from opinion observation to debate facilitation, the article aims to make a practical and theoretical contribution to the study of opinion dynamics and conflict in new media environments.