Conversation levels and interaction communicative resources on Twitter

  • Noemí Elisa Guerrero Contreras Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Keywords: social media, Twitter, face-to-face conversation, communication resources, online interaction, participants, microblogging, turn taking


The goal of this research is to do a review of the online communication, taking as axis the analysis of the interactive communication characteristics in the social media versus the face-to-face conversation. The Twitter communication is an example that, similarly to the communication in presence, it is deemed conversational. In the first place, by means of the data group of cases study, this investigation will focus in examine different strategies like the retweet, the mentions (@), the hashtag function and the direct replies as resources via the users can be integrated in the conversation. Secondly, will be generally contrasted the communication properties inside to the virtual interaction frame compared the face to face conversation characteristics. Thus, this paper study how the communicative interactional resources on Twitter are established as conversational practices.


Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Noemí Elisa Guerrero Contreras, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Noemí Elisa Guerrero Contreras graduated in Hispanic Language and Literatures from the National Autonomous University of Mexico, specialized in Linguistics. She holds a Master’s degree in Hispanic Linguistics by the same university, where she studied cognitive semantics under the supervision of Professor Ricardo Maldonado. Among her research interests are cognitive grammar, Spanish linguistics, syntax/semantics interface, computational linguistics and variationist sociolinguistics.


Androutsopoulos, J. (2011). Language change and digital media: a review of conceptions and evidence. In Coupland, N. y T. Kristiansen (eds.), Standard Languages and Language Standards in a Changing Europe (pp. 2-15). Oslo: Novus.

Baron, N. S. (1984). Computer Mediated Communication as a Force in Language Change. Visible Language, 18 (2), pp. 118-141.

Baym, N. (1996). The Emergence of Community in Computer-Mediated Communication. En Jones, S. (ed.) Cybersociety: Computer Mediated Communication and Community (pp. 138-163). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Bays, H. (1998). Framing and face in Internet exchanges: A socio-cognitive approach. Linguistik Online, 1(1). Recuperado de

boyd, D., Golder, S., and Lotan (2010). Tweet, Tweet, Retweet: Conversational Aspects of Retweeting on Twitter. HICSS-43. IEEE: Kauai, HI, January 6, pp. 1-10.

boyd, D. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics. Affordances, dynamics, and implications. En Papacharissi, Z. (ed.) A networked self. Identity, community, and culture on social network sites (pp. 39-58). New York, London: Routledge.

boyd, D. y Crawford, K. (2012). Critical questions for big data. Information. Communication & Society, 15(5), pp. 662-679.

Brown, P., and Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. En Goody, E. N. (Ed.) Questions and politeness: strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Brown, P., y Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cherny, L. (1995). The Modal Complexity of Speech Events in a Social MUD. Electronic Journal of Communication, Vol. 5, n. 4.

Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics. London: Routledge.

De Moor, A. (2010). Conversations in Context: A Twitter Case for Social Media Systems Design. In I-SEMANTICS ‘10 Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Semantic Systems, pp. 1-8.

Cunha, E., Magno G., Comarela, G., Almeida, V., Gonçalves, M. y Benevenuto, F. (2011). Analyzing the dynamic evolution of hashtags on twitter: a language-based approach. Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media (LSM 2011) (pp. 58-65).

Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (2013). El género de opinión. Los blogs. En Fuentes Rodríguez, C. (coord.), Imagen social y medios de comunicación (pp. 77-92). Madrid: Arco Libros.

Goffman, E. (1975). Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Goffman, E. (1976). Replies and Responses. Language in Society, 5: 3, pp. 257-313.

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Grice, H.P. (1975). Logic and conversation. En Cole, P. y Morgan, J. (eds.) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3 (pp. 41-58). New York: Academic Press.

Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E. y Nekrasova, T. (2010). Variation among blog text types: A multi-dimensional analysis. In Mehler, A., Sharoff, S. y Santini, M. (eds.) Genres on the Web: Corpus Studies and Computational Models (pp. 303-322). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Haase, M. et al. (1997). Internetkommunication und Sprachwandel. Sprachwandel durch Computer. Institut für semantische Informationsverarveitung, Universität Osnabrück.

Herring, S. C. (1999). Interactional Coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4,4, pp. 1-13.

Herring, S. C. (2008). Language and the Internet. En Donsbach, W. (Ed.) International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 2640-2645). Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.

Honeycutt, C. y Herring, S. (2009). Beyond Microblogging: Conversation and Collaboration in Twitter. Proceedings 42nd HICSS, IEEE Press, pp. 1-10.

Hu, Y., Talamadupula, K. y Kambhampati, S. (2013). Dude, srsly?: The surprisingly formal nature of twitter’s language. Proceedings of ICWSM, pp. 244-253.

Huang, J., Thornton, K. M. y Efthimiadis, E. N. (2010). Conversational Tagging in Twitter. HT ‘10 Proceedings of the 21st ACM conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, pp. 173-178.

Huberman, B., Romero, D. y Wu, F. (2009). Social Networks that Matter: Twitter Under the Microscope. First Monday. 14(1).

Java, A., Song, X., Finn, T. y Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Proceedings Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, ACM Press, pp. 56-65.

Kelly, R. (2009). Twitter Study Reveals Interesting Results About Usage. San Antonio: PA.

Lakoff, G. (1973). Humanistic Linguistics. En Dineen, F.P. (Ed.) Georgetown Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1987). Minimization and conversational inference. En Bertuccelli Papi, M. y Verschueren, J. (Eds.) The pragmatic perspective: Selected papers from the 1985 International Pragmatics Conference (pp. 61-129). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Levinson, S. C. (1988). Putting linguistics on a proper footing. En Goofman E., ed. by P. Drew, A. Wootton (pp. 161-227). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mancera Rueda, A. (2014). Cortesía en 140 caracteres: interacciones en Twitter entre periodistas y prosumidores. Revista de Filología, núm. 32, pp. 163-181.

Pano Alamán, A. y Mancera Rueda, A. (2014). La “conversación” en Twitter: las unidades discursivas y el uso de marcadores interactivos en los intercambios con parlamentarios españoles en esta red social. Estudios de Lingüística del Español, 35.1, pp. 234-268.

Reddy, S., Stanford, J. y Zhong, J. A. (2014). Twitter-Based Study of Newly Formed Clippings in American English. 2014 Annual Meeting of the American Dialect Society, January 4, Minneapolis.

Rossi, L. y Magnani, M. (2014). Conversation Practices and Network Structure in Twitter. Proceedings of the Sixth International AAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (pp. 563-566). Palo Alto, CA: The AAAI Press.

How to Cite
Guerrero Contreras, N. (2016). Conversation levels and interaction communicative resources on Twitter. Texts in Process, 2(1), 145-161.
Working papers