Cover not available

In:Conspiracy Theory Discourses
Edited by Massimiliano Demata, Virginia Zorzi and Angela Zottola
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 98] 2022
► pp. 215–238

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Chapter 10
COVID-19 conspiracy theories as affective discourse

 | Chinese University of Hong Kong
Published online: 1 December 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.98.10lee
Abstract
This chapter analyzes online reactive comments to news reports on COVID-19 conspiracy theories, with a focus on hate speech on the origin(s) of the coronavirus. Largely mediated by feelings and ‘polarized emotionality’ (Boler and Davis 2018), COVID-origin conspiracy theories mobilize distinct affective publics online: commenters include supporters of China-origin theories and US-origin theories, and non-believers of conspiracy theories respectively. Informed by the theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), this study explores (i) the emotion-triggering discursive strategies surrounding COVID-origin conspiracy theories and (ii) the linguistic devices that realize these strategies. The analysis is based on 849 reactive comments to five Hong Kong-based COVID-origin news reports posted on Facebook. The study has found that such reactive comments to COVID-origin conspiracy theories share similar discourse strategies with those identified in the literature of discriminatory discourse and (covert) hate speech. Both believers and non-believers of conspiracy theories tap into the topoi of danger and threats, and strategically employ referentials, scare tactics, quasi-fallacious argumentations, and intensification/mitigation to legitimize their ideological stances. These strategies stir up negative emotions channeled through COVID-origin conspiracy theories. This chapter reveals the intricate relationship of conspiracy theories, affect, and hate speech in mediatized society.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Conspiracy theories and COVID-19 origins
  • 3.Conspiracy theories as mediatized affective discourse
    • 3.1Emotion, affect, and online hate speech
    • 3.2COVID-origin conspiracy theories as discursive action of affect
      • 3.2.1Discursive strategies of negative emotions
  • 4.Data and categories of analysis
  • 5.Discursive construction of COVID-origin conspiracy theories
    • 5.1Nomination/referential strategies
    • 5.2Scare tactics and hypothetical future
    • 5.3Quasi-rational fallacious argumentation
    • 5.4Intensifying and mitigation strategies
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (57)
References
Ahmed, Sara. 2004. The Cultural Politics of Emotion. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Assimakopoulos, Stavros, Fabienne H. Baider, and Sharon Millar (eds.). 2017. Online Hate Speech in the European Union: A Discourse-Analytic Perspective. Cham: Springer Nature. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Badjatiya, Pinkesh, Shashank Gupta, Manish Gupta, and Vasudeva Varma. 2017. “Deep Learning for Hate Speech Detection in Tweets.” In Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on World Wide Web Companion, ed. by Rick Barrett, 759–760. Geneva: International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baider, Fabienne, and Maria Constantinou. 2020. “Covert Hate Speech: A Contrastive Study of Greek and Greek Cypriot Online Discussions with an Emphasis on Irony.” Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 8 (2): 262–287. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barton, David, and Carmen Lee. 2013. Language Online: Investigating Digital Texts and Practices. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bergmann, Eirikur. 2018. Conspiracy & Populism: The Politics of Misinformation. Cham: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “Populism and the Politics of Misinformation.” Safundi 21 (3): 251–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boler, Megan, and Elizabeth Davis. 2018. “The Affective Politics of the “Post-Truth” Era: Feeling Rules and Networked Subjectivity.” Emotion, Space and Society 27: 75–85. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bolsen, Toby, Risa Palm, and Justin T. Kingsland. 2020. “Framing the Origins of COVID-19.” Science Communication 42 (5): 562–585. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bouko, Catherine, and David Garcia. 2019. “Citizens’ Reactions to Brexit on Twitter. A Content and Discourse Analysis.” In Discourses of Brexit, ed. by Veronika Koller, Susanne Kopf, and Marlene Miglbauer, 171–190. Abingdon: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
boyd, danah. 2010. “Social Network Sites as Networked Publics: Affordances, Dynamics, and Implications.” In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites, ed. by Zizi Papacharissi, 39–58. NY: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brotherton, Robert, and Christopher C. French. 2014. “Belief in Conspiracy Theories and Susceptibility to the Conjunction Fallacy.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 28 (2): 238–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bruns, Axel, Stephen Harrington, and Edward Hurcombe. 2020. “Corona? 5G? or Both?’: The Dynamics of COVID-19/5G Conspiracy Theories on Facebook.” Media International Australia 177 (1): 12–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calvert, Clay. 1997. “Hate Speech and Its Harms: A Communication Theory Perspective.” Journal of Communication 47 (1): 4–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Meilin, and John Flowerdew. 2019. “Discriminatory Discursive Strategies in Online Comments on YouTube Videos on the Hong Kong Umbrella Movement by Mainland and Hong Kong Chinese.” Discourse & Society 30 (6): 549–572. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiluwa, Innocent, and Presley Ifukor. 2015. “‘War Against Our Children’: Stance and Evaluation in# BringBackOurGirls Campaign Discourse on Twitter and Facebook.” Discourse & Society 26 (3): 267–296. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chow, Gregory. 2006. “Are Chinese Official Statistics Reliable?.” CESifo Economic Studies 52 (2): 396–414. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Depoux, Anneliese, Sam Martin, Emilie Karafillakis, Raman Preet, Annelies Wilder-Smith, and Heidi Larson. 2020. “The Pandemic of Social Media Panic Travels Faster Than the COVID-19 Outbreak.” Journal of Travel Medicine 27 (3): 1–4. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Douglas, Karen, Aleksandra Cichocka, and Robbie M. Sutton. 2020. “Motivations, Emotions and Belief in Conspiracy Theories.” In Routledge Handbook of Conspiracy Theories, ed. by Michael Butter, and Peter Knight, 181–191. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dresner, Eli, and Susan C. Herring. 2010. “Functions of the Nonverbal in CMC: Emoticons and Illocutionary Force.” Communication Theory 20 (3): 249–268. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Agneta, Eran Halperin, Daphna Canetti, and Alba Jasini. 2018. “Why We Hate.” Emotion Review 10 (4): 309–320. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John, and Solomon Leong. 2010. “Presumed Knowledge in the Discursive Construction of Socio-Political and Cultural Identity.” Journal of Pragmatics 42 (8): 2240–2252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garde-Hansen, Joanne and Kristyn Gorton. 2013. Emotion Online: Theorizing Affect on the Internet. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gitari, Njagi Dennis, Zhang Zuping, Hanyurwimfura Damien, and Jun Long. 2015. “A Lexicon-Based Approach for Hate Speech Detection.” International Journal of Multimedia and Ubiquitous Engineering 10 (4): 215–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical Discourse Analysis and Cognitive Science: New Perspectives on Immigration Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huffaker, David. 2010. “Dimensions of Leadership and Social Influence in Online Communities.” Human Communication Research 36 (4): 593–617. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jaworsky, Bernadette Nadya, and Runya Qiaoan. 2020. “The Politics of Blaming: The Narrative Battle between China and the US over COVID-19.” Journal of Chinese Political Science 26 (2): 295–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Rodney (ed.). 2021. Viral Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
KhosraviNik, Majid. 2010. “Actor Descriptions, Action Attributions, and Argumentation: Towards a Systematization of CDA Analytical Categories in the Representation of Social Groups.” Critical Discourse Studies 7 (1): 55–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
KhosraviNik, Majid, and Johann W. Unger. 2016. “Critical Discourse Studies and Social Media: Power, Resistance and Critique in Changing Media Ecologies.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd edition), ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 205–233. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ksiazek, Thomas B., and Nina Springer. 2020. User Comments and Moderation in Digital Journalism: Disruptive Engagement. Abington: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lantian, Anthony, Dominique Muller, Cécile Nurra, Olivier Klein, Sophie Berjot, and Myrto Pantazi. 2018. “Stigmatized Beliefs: Conspiracy Theories, Anticipated Negative Evaluation of the Self, and Fear of Social Exclusion.” European Journal of Social Psychology 48 (7): 939–954. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Carmen. 2020. “Doxxing as Discursive Action in a Social Movement.” Critical Discourse Studies. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2021. “#HateIsAVirus: Talking about COVID-19 ‘Hate’.” In Viral Discourse, ed. by Rodney Jones, 61–68. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Carmen, and Dennis Chau. 2018. “Language as Pride, Love, and Hate: Archiving Emotions Through Multilingual Instagram Hashtags.” Discourse, Context & Media 22: 21–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, Francis L. F., and Joseph M. Chan. 2018. Media and Protest Logics in the Digital Era: The Umbrella Movement in Hong Kong. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leggitt, John S., and Raymond W. Gibbs. 2000. “Emotional Reactions to Verbal Irony.” Discourse Processes 29 (1): 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. Vol. 2. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
moonshot. “From #Coronaviruscoverup to #NukeChina.” April 29, 2020. [URL]
Papacharissi, Zizi. 2015. Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology, and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2005. Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “The Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA).” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (3rd edition), ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 23–61. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reyes, Antonio. 2011. “Strategies of Legitimization in Political Discourse: From Words to Actions.” Discourse & Society 22 (6): 781–807. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sahlane, Ahmed. 2012. “Argumentation and Fallacy in the Justification of the 2003 War on Iraq.” Argumentation 26 (4): 459–488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schild, Leonard, Chen Ling, Jeremy Blackburn, Gianluca Stringhini, Yang Zhang, and Savvas Zannettou. 2020. ““Go Eat a Bat, Chang!”: An Early Look on the Emergence of Sinophobic Behavior on Web Communities in the Face of Covid-19.” Preprint. [URL]
Sierra, Sylvia. (2021). A Mexican Autodefensa Facebook Group’s use of binarity, legitimization strategies, and topoi of religion, family and struggle. Discourse, Context & Media, 42, 100497. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stieglitz, Stefan, and Linh Dang-Xuan. 2013. “Emotions and Information Diffusion in Social Media – Sentiment of Microblogs and Sharing Behavior.” Journal of Management Information Systems 29 (4): 217–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993. Elite Discourse and Racism. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2009. “Discourse as the Recontextualization of Social Practice: A Guide.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (2nd edition), ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 144–161. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo, and Ruth Wodak. 1999. “Legitimizing Immigration Control: A Discourse-Historical Analysis.” Discourse Studies 1 (1): 83–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wellman, Barry. 2002. “Little Boxes, Glocalization, and Networked Individualism.” In Digital Cities II: Computational and Sociological Approaches, ed. by Makoto Tanabe, Peter Van den Besselaar, and Toru Ishida, 10–25. Heidelberg: Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wesch, Michael. 2009. “YouTube and You: Experiences of Self-Awareness in the Context Collapse of the Recording Webcam.” Explorations in Media Ecology 8 (2): 19–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth. (2008). Us’ and ‘them’: Inclusion and exclusion-Discrimination via discourse. Identity, belonging and migration, 54–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Critical Discourse Analysis,” In Routledge Companion to English Studies ed. by Constant Leung, Brian V. Street, 332–346. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. 2009. “Critical Discourse Analysis: History, Agenda, Theory and Methodology.” In Methods of Critical Discourse Studies (2nd edition), ed. by Ruth Wodak, and Michael Meyer, 1–33. London: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ziegele, Marc, Mathias Weber, Oliver Quiring, and Timo Breiner. 2018. “The Dynamics of Online News Discussions: Effects of News Articles and Reader Comments on Users’ Involvement, Willingness to Participate, and the Civility of Their Contributions.” Information, Communication & Society 21 (10): 1419–1435. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Li, Neville Chi Hang, Carmen Lee & Rodney H. Jones
2025. Ways of seeing and discourse strategies of naming the novel coronavirus in the US and Hong Kong. Applied Linguistics Review 16:1 ► pp. 37 ff. DOI logo
Tafi, Vanessa, Bryn Alexander Coles, Simon Goodman, Scott Yates & Christopher Elsey
2024. Scepticism or conspiracy? A discourse analysis of anti-lockdown comments to online newspaper articles. Critical Discourse Studies 21:4 ► pp. 482 ff. DOI logo
Zubar, Petro
2024. The Role and Structure of Conspiracy Theories in the Discourse of Coronasceptics in Ukraine. Scientific notes of the Institute of Journalism :1 (84) ► pp. 118 ff. DOI logo
Musolff, Andreas
2023. Permacrisis, Conspiracy Stories and Metaphors. Półrocznik Językoznawczy Tertium 8:1 ► pp. 5 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 8 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue