Understanding how social power structures affect the way we interact with one another is of great interest to social scientists who want to answer fundamental questions about human behavior, as well as to computer scientists who want to build automatic methods to infer the social contexts of interactions. In this paper, we employ advancements in extra-propositional semantics extraction within NLP to study how author commitment reflects the social context of an interaction. Specifically, we investigate whether the level of commitment expressed by individuals in an organizational interaction reflects the hierarchical power structures they are part of. We find that subordinates use significantly more instances of non-commitment than superiors. More importantly, we also find that subordinates attribute propositions to other agents more often than superiors do --- an aspect that has not been studied before. Finally, we show that enriching lexical features with commitment labels captures important distinctions in social meanings.
There is a large body of literature in the social sciences that studies power as a social construct (e.g., @cite_38 @cite_4 @cite_10 @cite_7 @cite_15 ) and how it relates to the ways people use language in social situations (e.g., @cite_39 @cite_44 @cite_47 @cite_13 @cite_36 @cite_2 @cite_22 @cite_12 ). Recent years have seen growing interest in computationally analyzing and detecting power and influence from interactions. Early work in computational power analysis used social network analysis based approaches @cite_43 @cite_6 @cite_23 or email traffic patterns @cite_28 . Using NLP to deduce social relations from online communication is a relatively new area of active research.
@cite_13 @cite_38 @cite_47 @cite_4 @cite_22 @cite_7 @cite_36 @cite_28 @cite_6 @cite_39 @cite_44 @cite_43 @cite_23 @cite_2 @cite_15 @cite_10 @cite_12
2110589779 2250334514 2147154374 2536769020
Sociolinguists have long argued that social context influences language use in all manner of ways, resulting in lects. This paper explores a text classification problem we will call lect modeling, an example of what has been termed computational sociolinguistics. In particular, we use machine learning techniques to identify social power relationships between members of a social network, based purely on the content of their interpersonal communication. We rely on statistical methods, as opposed to language-specific engineering, to extract features which represent vocabulary and grammar usage indicative of social power lect. We then apply support vector machines to model the social power lects representing superior-subordinate communication in the Enron email corpus. Our results validate the treatment of lect modeling as a text classification problem -- albeit a hard one -- and constitute a case for future research in computational sociolinguistics. We investigate the interaction of power, gender, and language use in the Enron email corpus. We present a freely available extension to the Enron corpus, with the gender of senders of 87 messages reliably identified. Using this data, we test two specific hypotheses drawn from the sociolinguistic literature pertaining to gender and power: women managers use face-saving communicative strategies, and women use language more explicitly than men to create and maintain social relations. We introduce the notion of “gender environment” to the computational study of written conversations; we interpret this notion as the gender makeup of an email thread, and show that some manifestations of power differ significantly between gender environments. Finally, we show the utility of gender information in the problem of automatically predicting the direction of power between pairs of participants in email interactions. Understanding social interaction within groups is key to analyzing online communities. Most current work focuses on structural properties: who talks to whom, and how such interactions form larger network structures. The interactions themselves, however, generally take place in the form of natural language --- either spoken or written --- and one could reasonably suppose that signals manifested in language might also provide information about roles, status, and other aspects of the group's dynamics. To date, however, finding domain-independent language-based signals has been a challenge. Here, we show that in group discussions, power differentials between participants are subtly revealed by how much one individual immediately echoes the linguistic style of the person they are responding to. Starting from this observation, we propose an analysis framework based on linguistic coordination that can be used to shed light on power relationships and that works consistently across multiple types of power --- including a more "static" form of power based on status differences, and a more "situational" form of power in which one individual experiences a type of dependence on another. Using this framework, we study how conversational behavior can reveal power relationships in two very different settings: discussions among Wikipedians and arguments before the U. S. Supreme Court. Recent advances in Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning provide us with the tools to build predictive models that can be used to unveil patterns driving judicial decisions. This can be useful, for both lawyers and judges, as an assisting tool to rapidly identify cases and extract patterns which lead to certain decisions. This paper presents the first systematic study on predicting the outcome of cases tried by the European Court of Human Rights based solely on textual content. We formulate a binary classification task where the input of our classifiers is the textual content extracted from a case and the target output is the actual judgment as to whether there has been a violation of an article of the convention of human rights. Textual information is represented using contiguous word sequences, i.e., N-grams, and topics. Our models can predict the court’s decisions with a strong accuracy (79 on average). Our empirical analysis indicates that the formal facts of a case are the most important predictive factor. This is consistent with the theory of legal realism suggesting that judicial decision-making is significantly affected by the stimulus of the facts. We also observe that the topical content of a case is another important feature in this classification task and explore this relationship further by conducting a qualitative analysis.