Abstract This study aims to systematically examine discourse polarization on Chinese social media through an integrated cognitive and computational lens. It proposes a three-dimensional semantic–structural–strategic framework to capture how linguistic meaning, network structure, and discursive strategy interact to produce polarization in digital discourse. Two highly contentious cases, the Delayed Retirement policy and Yang Li’s endorsement of JD.com, are analyzed across Weibo and Little Red Book. The study focuses on posts containing adversarial language, combining BERTopic clustering, semantic network construction, Louvain community detection, and critical discourse analysis. Structural indicators quantify polarization, while cohesion and fragmentation are assessed through community purity, intra-/inter-community similarity, and cross-community edges. Ten discourse strategies are coded, and sentiment analysis reveals affective feedback mechanisms. Results show that Weibo functions as a mass polarization accelerator, characterized by rapid isolate–integrate cycles and high emotional contagion, whereas Little Red Book exhibits low-intensity, niche polarization grounded in personal narratives. The findings demonstrate a feedback loop between extreme negative emotions and intra-community interaction, reinforcing group boundaries and antagonistic framing. This study develops a novel multidimensional framework that bridges micro-level discursive cognition and macro-level network structure, advancing the methodological integration of computational linguistics and cognitive discourse analysis. By operationalizing semantic, structural, and affective dimensions of online discourse, this research expands digital humanities approaches to include networked cognition and emotion-driven polarization. It provides empirical and conceptual tools for understanding collective meaning-making in digital environments and offers actionable insights for mitigating online hostility through platform-level discourse design.
Lv et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: