Twitter, with its 280-character limit, presents a unique challenge for political argumentation. This study investigates the possibility and nature of such arguments on the platform. The research questions address the feasibility of argumentation within Twitter's constraints, the definition of argumentative content (framed as speech acts), and the brevity at which effective arguments can be made. The study aims to establish a theoretical framework for future quantitative studies of Twitter argumentation, moving beyond existing research that predominantly focuses on structural features and sentiment analysis. Instead of a comprehensive discourse model, the researchers utilize a more basic framework analyzing speech acts. This paper initially focuses on illustrative cases, analyzing tweeted responses to Fox News and MSNBC concerning the arrest of Cesar Sayoc in October 2018, to explore the range of speech acts used and the arguments they support before moving toward statistical generalizations.

The existing literature on Twitter is vast, encompassing over 18,000 publications between 2006 and 2019. Much of this research is quantitative, focusing on structural aspects like social network analysis, hashtag usage, and user segregation along ideological lines. Qualitative studies have examined content features, emotional norms, and identity formation. Research on speech acts on Twitter has primarily been conducted outside communication studies, often employing computer-mediated methodologies for machine learning applications. While some research has categorized assertive, directive, and expressive utterances, more work is needed to analyze argumentation on Twitter within the field of communication studies.

This study employs qualitative discourse analysis to examine tweeted responses to Fox News and MSNBC regarding the arrest of Cesar Sayoc. The researchers analyzed the first 100 tweets responding to Fox News and all 42 responding to MSNBC. Tweets were categorized using broader classifications of speech acts (assertions, interrogatives, expressives, commissives, directives, and declarations). Inter-rater reliability was assessed using Cohen's kappa, demonstrating high agreement (88% or higher) for most variables. The analysis focused on identifying the types of speech acts employed and the arguments they supported, specifically examining how arguments could be conveyed through single speech acts. The study also considered the contextuality of tweets, including intertextuality (relationship between tweets), and the role of images in enhancing argumentation. The researchers acknowledged the challenge of reliably coding humor due to its subjective nature but observed its prevalence and rhetorical function in the tweets analyzed.

The analysis revealed that assertions dominated the first speech acts in tweets responding to both Fox News and MSNBC. A significant portion of tweets (approximately two-thirds) contained single speech acts, yet still conveyed argumentative points. The study demonstrated that arguments could be conveyed effectively through various speech acts, including interrogatives and expressives, illustrating the enthymematic nature of Twitter arguments. Responses to both news outlets were predominantly from left-wing users, although the limited data prevented a comprehensive analysis of argumentative styles across political affiliations. Humor was frequently employed, particularly by left-leaning users, serving to discredit the opposition, establish political subjectivity, and bolster civic support. The analysis also highlighted the importance of contextual understanding, including intertextuality and the interplay of text and images, in interpreting the arguments within tweets.

The findings demonstrate that despite the 280-character limit, Twitter facilitates substantial political argumentation. The enthymematic nature of online discourse allows for concise yet effective arguments conveyed through various speech acts, going beyond simple assertions. The prevalence of single speech acts conveying arguments underscores the underutilization of character space. The study's qualitative findings suggest avenues for future quantitative research into the prevalence of specific speech acts and argumentative patterns across different news outlets and political affiliations. The study's focus on illustrative cases necessitates further investigation to confirm the generalizability of the findings. Further research is also needed to explore the interaction between text and images in amplifying arguments on Twitter.

This study lays a theoretical foundation for understanding political argumentation on Twitter. It demonstrates the feasibility and nuanced nature of arguments within the platform's constraints, highlighting the roles of different speech acts and contextual factors. Future research should focus on quantitative analyses to confirm the prevalence of observed patterns and explore the impact of images and humor on argumentative effectiveness. The study also suggests investigating argumentative styles across the political spectrum.

The study's reliance on a limited dataset of tweets responding to specific news outlets and a specific event limits the generalizability of the findings. The challenge of reliably coding humor also necessitates further methodological development. The skewed distribution of left-leaning users in the sample may also affect the conclusions.