Conversations within Conversations: Intertextuality in Racially Antagonistic Online Discourse

Abstract

Intertextuality is a prominent feature of discourse in Usenet newsgroups devoted to controversial topics such as racism. This study analyzed one week of messages posted to alt.discrimination, a newsgroup in which multiple ideological perspectives (e.g., those of both white supremacists and black supremacists) are represented. Quantitative analysis revealed a significant correlation between type of intertextual reference and the message poster’s stance. A participant wishing to refute another’s claim tends to quote another text directly or reference its origin explicitly in some way, whereas when participants wish to lend authority to their own claim, they reference other texts without attributing them explicitly as belonging to a source. Moreover, individual speakers invoke an atmosphere of debate by alternating between pairings of stance and intertextuality types even within their own messages. However, the type of intertextual reference used has no correlation with posters’ ideologies, e.g., whether or not they are in favor of white supremacy, or whether or not they support affirmative action. These findings suggest that rather than speakers’ social group or political position determining the intertextual strategies they use to express their views, intertextual strategies are generally available to participants in online discussion to accomplish various pragmatic goals