The abundance of online medical misinformation pertaining to the treatment of menopause symptoms can create significant confusion for afflicted individuals seeking answers while browsing the Internet. This study investigates oral online menopause discourse employed by ‘health influencers’ and medical professionals in terms of its pragmatic impact. Two distinct sets of YouTube videos were selected for analysis. The first corpus consists of 20 videos (89,046 words) uploaded between 2010-2022 by individuals promoting natural hormone balancing and compounded Bioidentical Hormone Therapy (cBHT) as a treatment for menopause symptoms. The second dataset includes 16 videos (66,333 words) and was added between 2013-2022 by institutions and medical professionals advocating for Menopausal Hormone Therapy (MHT). To investigate the effects of the discourse, the study focuses on the speakers’ use of subjective mental verb projections and reporting verbs. As engagement resources, these constructions allow for an exploration of the speakers’ dialogistic positioning and commitment to the validity of the shared information. Based on part-of-speech (POS) categories and the Appraisal framework, a contrastive appraisal analysis was conducted on both corpora, examining the system of Engagement and quantifying the appraisals. Further analysis focused on the lexicogrammatical realisations of subjective epistemic and evidential formulations beyond the sentence level, including the speakers’ deployment of attitude and graduation resources. The comprehensive computer-assisted appraisal analysis shows how the interplay of deliberate objectification and affectivity may render online media content more persuasive and increase the likelihood of false information. It shows that health influencers employ a higher number of non-congruent mental verb projections in pronounce moves, in an attempt to align the audience with their own stance, even though the constructions are described as entertain resources in Appraisal theory. In entertain moves, the YouTube creators primarily select metaphorical formulations to influence the viewers’ perception of the shared information, promoting cBHT. The health influencers predominantly attributed the shared information to human sources and hearsay evidence through the amplified use of lower-value reporting verbs and lexical graduation. In contrast, the medical professionals mainly opted for mental verb projections in pronounce moves to share specific views of reality grounded in scientific consensus. As members of the scholarly community, they attributed the communicated knowledge to research evidence, employing reporting verbs that indicated a high commitment to factual information and endorsing sources. The study offers valuable insight into the rhetorical effects of pseudo-medical discourse related to the online debate on appropriate menopause treatment. As a critical discourse analysis, it underscores the need for awareness of the increasing prevalence of medical disinformation in the digital sphere, especially in the light of repeated menopause medication shortages. All tables and figures are my own.

Catering to a primarily male user population, Reddit is often said to be a breeding ground for toxic language use, which has led to the development of multiple computational classification models for the automated identification of toxicity in online conversations. Since negation can play a key role in cyberbullying, functioning as a popular stance marker in the dialogical exchange of dominating views in the digital sphere, it should not be ignored. Likewise, its use as a rhetorical strategy deserves more linguistic attention. Described as Engagement resources of disclaim in Appraisal theory, negated constructions may be employed by Reddit users to disalign themselves from divergent perspectives through so-called ad hominem attacks, not only resulting in a potentially detrimental impact on the users’ mental health, but also reproducing hegemonic relationships. Therefore, this paper examines the use of negation, in combination with various other interpersonal resources, to explore whether it is ideologically motivated. A computer-assisted appraisal analysis is conducted on 2,637 most upvoted comments and replies (49,866 words), extracted from the subreddit of r/AustralianPolitics between 11-14 April and 7-10 May 2022, during the period leading up to the so-called federal climate change election in Australia. The study appears to show evidence of a seemingly dominant negation pattern containing negative judgement and its findings tentatively suggest that some of the Australian users identifying as male may use negation as an ideologocially driven discursive strategy. This points to the possibility that the toxic language encountered on r/AustralianPolitics may be influenced by hegemonic masculinity.

This article investigates the issues of vaccine hesitancy and shaming, which arose in response to the implementation of World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 recommendations, on the social media platform of TikTok. By extending appraisal theory to include the use of visual attitudinal appraisals, the study examines the semiotic resources employed by TikTok users within the overarching context of the pandemic. A total of 254 videos expressing pro- and anti-vaccination viewpoints, posted by American and Australian users between 1 January 2021 and 31 January 2022, were extracted from the social network and subjected to a computer-assisted analysis. The study shows that vaccine hesitancy on the social networking service (SNS) is fuelled by the echo chamber effect, while any vaccine shaming on the platform may be seen as conspicuous virtue-signalling. The speakers’ evaluative language is mostly positive, since their main objective is to elicit the approval of members belonging to the same sub-cultural group. A few suggestions are made to reduce the impact of echo chambers and to encourage scientific literacy among TikTok users.