I modelli linguistici di grandi dimensioni possono supportare l’analisi critica del discorso? Un esperimento pilota
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.60923/issn.2532-8816/23143Parole chiave:
Analisi quantitativa, studi critici del discorso, Intelligenza Artificiale, modelli linguistici di grandi dimensioni, analisi critica del discorsoAbstract
Questo articolo presenta un esperimento pilota che esplora l’uso dei modelli linguistici di grandi dimensioni (Large Language Models, LLM) nel contesto dell’Analisi Critica del Discorso (Critical Discourse Analysis, CDA). Lo studio indaga fino a che punto un LLM possa riprodurre analisi del discorso orientate ideologicamente. L’approccio proposto prevede la costruzione di uno standard di riferimento basato sul consenso, ottenuto dalle annotazioni di tre valutatori umani, utilizzato poi per valutare l’accuratezza di un’analisi automatica eseguita dal LLM. Il caso di studio esamina un corpus di trenta articoli d’opinione provenienti da giornali ideologicamente diversi, per indagare come l’attacco del 7 ottobre sia stato rappresentato dai media. I risultati indicano che gli LLM si comportano bene, in particolare rispetto alle caratteristiche macro- e superstrutturali, ma possono avere difficoltà con fenomeni microstrutturali come il rilevamento dell’eufemismo, evidenziando così il loro potenziale ruolo come strumenti di supporto piuttosto che come sostituti dell’analisi umana.
Riferimenti bibliografici
Artstein, Ron, and Massimo Poesio. 2008. “Inter-Coder Agreement for Computational Linguistics.” Computational Linguistics 34 (4): 555–596. https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.07-034-R2.
Augenstein, Isabelle, Timothy Baldwin, Meeyoung Cha, Tanmoy Chakraborty, Giovanni Luca Ciampaglia, David Corney, Renee DiResta, Emilio Ferrara, Scott Hale, Alon Halevy, Eduard Hovy, Heng Ji, Filippo Menczer, Ruben Miguez, Preslav Nakov, Dietram Scheufele, Shivam Sharma, and Giovanni Zagni. 2024. “Factuality challenges in the era of large language models and opportunities for fact-checking.” Nature Machine Intelligence, 6(8), 852–863. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-024-00881-z
Chew, Ryan, Jonathan Bollenbacher, Michael Wenger, Jacob Speer, and Alice Kim. 2023. “LLM-Assisted Content Analysis: Using Large Language Models to Support Deductive Coding (Version 1).” arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2306.14924.
Cohen, Jacob. 1960. “A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 20 (1): 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000104.
Curry, Neil, Paul Baker, and Gavin Brookes. 2024. “Generative AI for Corpus Approaches to Discourse Studies: A Critical Evaluation of ChatGPT.” Applied Corpus Linguistics 4 (1): 100082. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100082.
DeJeu, Elizabeth B. 2025. “Can (and Should) LLMs Perform Critical Discourse Analysis?” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 19 (3): 188–195. https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2025.2492145.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman, Jane Mulderrig, and Ruth Wodak. 2011. “Critical Discourse Analysis.” In Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, edited by Teun A. van Dijk, 357–378. London: SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068.n17.
Fleiss, Joseph L. 1971. “Measuring Nominal Scale Agreement among Many Raters.” Psychological Bulletin 76 (5): 378–382. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619.
Gillings, Michael, Thomas Kohn, and Gerlinde Mautner. 2024. “The Rise of Large Language Models: Challenges for Critical Discourse Studies.” Critical Discourse Studies, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2024.2373733.
Holsti, Ole R. 1969. Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Kaneva, Nadia, and Stewart M. Hoover. 2009. Fundamentalisms and the Media. New York: Continuum.
Kilgarriff, Adam, Vít Baisa, Jan Bušta, Miloš Jakubíček, Vojtěch Kovář, Jan Michelfeit, Pavel Rychlý, and Vít Suchomel. 2014. “The Sketch Engine.” Lexicography 1 (1): 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9.
Krippendorff, Klaus. 2013. Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
McCombs, Maxwell E., and Donald L. Shaw. 1972. “The Agenda-Setting Function of Mass Media.” Public Opinion Quarterly 36 (2): 176–187. https://doi.org/10.1086/267990.
Missier, Chiara A. 2021. “Framing Fundamentalism in the Digital Media Space.” International Communication Studies 30 (1): 20–41.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1983. “Discourse Analysis: Its Development and Application to the Structure of News.” Journal of Communication 33 (2): 20–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.1983.tb02386.x.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1985. “Structures of News in the Press.” In Discourse and Communication, edited by Teun A. van Dijk, 69–93. Berlin: De Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110852141.69.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1988. News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993a. Elite Discourse and Racism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1993b. “Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis.” Discourse & Society 4 (2): 249–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1995a. “Discourse Analysis as Ideology Analysis.” In Language and Peace, edited by Christina Schäffner e Anita Wenden, 17–33. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1995b. “Discourse Semantics and Ideology.” Discourse & Society 6 (2): 243–289. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926595006002006.
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. “Opinions and Ideologies in the Press.” In Approaches to Media Discourse, edited by Allan Bell e Peter Garrett, 21–63. Oxford: Blackwell.
Zhu, Jing, and Yang Liu. 2024. “The Representation of Israel–Hamas Conflict in the American and Chinese News Coverage: A Corpus-Assisted Comparative Critical Discourse Analysis.” International Journal of Social Sciences and Public Administration 4 (2): 360–378. https://doi.org/10.62051/ijsspa.v4n2.49.
Downloads
Pubblicato
Come citare
Fascicolo
Sezione
Licenza
Copyright (c) 2026 Francesca Cristiano, Emiliano Giovannetti

Questo lavoro è fornito con la licenza Creative Commons Attribuzione 4.0 Internazionale.