Analysis of Semantic and Syntactic Features of Cyberbullying on Instagram and X: Iranian Users

Document Type : .

Author
elahe kamari
Assistant Professor, Department of English Language Teaching, Farhangian University, Tehran, Iran
10.30465/lsi.2026.51844.1804
Abstract
Abstract
This study investigates the semantic and syntactic patterns of Persian-language cyberbullying among Iranian users on Instagram and X (formerly Twitter). Employing a mixed-methods approach combining qualitative thematic analysis and corpus linguistics, a dataset of n=500 cyberbullying incidents (August–December 2024) was analyzed. The findings reveal that Persian cyberbullying heavily relies on specific semantic targets, with 45% constituting gendered or sexualized slurs, alongside metaphorical dehumanization. Syntactically, perpetrators frequently employ agent-obscuring structures (70%), such as pro-drop and passive constructions, to evade accountability. Furthermore, emphatic punctuation is highly prevalent, with 65% of messages utilizing multiple exclamation marks. The study concludes that cyberbullying in Persian utilizes culturally specific linguistic mechanisms not fully captured by Western-centric algorithms. Developing localized, context-aware artificial intelligence tools is essential for the effective automated detection and mitigation of cyber-aggression in Persian-speaking digital environments.
Keywords: Content analysis, Cyberbullying, Instagram, Iranian Users, Semantic analysis, Syntactic Structure, X,
1. Introduction
The rapid expansion of social media has fundamentally transformed interpersonal communication, simultaneously facilitating a rise in digital hostility. Cyberbullying, generally defined as intentional and repeated harm inflicted through electronic mediums, has emerged as a critical global issue (Smith et al., 2008; Vandebosch & Van Cleemput, 2008). The psychological ramifications of such online aggression are severe, often correlating with elevated anxiety, depression, and even suicidal ideation among victims (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010).
While significant research has been conducted on English-language cyberbullying, non-Western linguistic contexts remain underexplored. In Iran, the widespread adoption of platforms like Instagram and X has generated unique environments for digital interaction. Persian-language cyberbullying exhibits specific cultural and linguistic markers that differentiate it from patterns observed in English contexts. Addressing this gap is vital for understanding the socio-linguistic dimensions of online aggression. Therefore, this study aims to answer the following research questions:
1. What are the dominant semantic targets and thematic categories utilized by Iranian users in cyberbullying incidents?
2. Which specific syntactic and orthographic structures are predominantly employed to convey hostility and minimize perpetrator accountability?
3. How do the distinct architectural features of Instagram and X influence the linguistic manifestation of cyberbullying?
2. Literature Review
Research on cyberbullying has evolved to recognize the complexity of online harassment. Early studies focused on defining the phenomenon and its prevalence (Smith et al., 2008). Subsequent comprehensive meta-analyses, such as that by Kowalski et al. (2014), highlighted the multifaceted nature of cyberbullying, emphasizing the roles of anonymity and platform architecture in facilitating aggressive behavior.
Moving beyond general psychological impacts, researchers have increasingly utilized linguistic and computational approaches to detect online abuse. Dadvar et al. (2013) demonstrated that incorporating user context and specific linguistic features significantly improves the accuracy of machine learning models in identifying cyberbullying. In the Iranian context, Badri et al. (2021) adopted a multidimensional approach, showing that socio-cultural factors deeply influence the nature of cyber-aggression among Iranian youth. However, detailed syntactic and semantic analyses of Persian cyberbullying texts remain scarce, necessitating targeted corpus-based investigations to decode the specific linguistic strategies employed by Iranian users.
3. METHODOLOGY
This study utilized a descriptive-analytical design, integrating qualitative thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006) and corpus linguistics (O’Keeffe & McCarthy, 2010). A purposive sample of n=500 text units containing aggressive content was collected (n=250 from public Instagram comments, n=250 from X posts) between August and December 2024. Data collection focused on trending hashtags and controversial public figures. The dataset was annotated and analyzed using MAXQDA 2022 for thematic coding and AntConc for corpus linguistics queries. Reliability was established through dual-coding of a 20% subsample, yielding a high inter-rater agreement (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89).
4. Results
4.1 Semantic Patterns
The most prevalent pattern was identity-based insult targeting personal characteristics. As shown in Table 1, 45% of offensive vocabulary was gender-based or body-referential, disproportionately targeting women through sexualized slurs. Appearance insults constituted 30%, with higher prevalence on Instagram consistent with its visual orientation. The remaining 25% comprised insults referencing ethnicity (8%), family (7%), and intelligence or mental health (10%).
Table 1
Distribution of Offensive Vocabulary Categories




Category


Frequency (%)




Gender-based / body-referential


45%




Physical appearance


30%




Ethnicity / nationality


8%




Family


7%




Intelligence / mental health / morality


10%




Beyond insult, three further semantic patterns were identified: threats (both disclosure of private information and physical harm); defamation through false declarative statements presented as objective facts; and dehumanizing metaphor, including animal comparisons (gāv (cow), khuk (pig), meymun (monkey)) and cutting irony deploying honorific titles sarcastically (Profesor! Fylsuf!).
4.2 Syntactic and Stylistic Patterns
Thematic analysis revealed five primary semantic targets. The most dominant category was gendered and body-referential insults (45%), followed by attacks on physical appearance (30%). Attacks on intelligence, mental health, or morality constituted 10%, while ethnicity/nationality (8%) and family references (7%) comprised the remainder. Metaphorical dehumanization was a key strategy, frequently utilizing animal comparisons (e.g., “gāv” [cow], “khuk” [pig]). Sarcasm was also prevalent, often employing honorifics pejoratively (e.g., “Profesor!” [Professor!]).
5. Discussion
The findings reveal that cyberbullying among Iranian users on Instagram and X is shaped by both universal patterns of online aggression and features highly specific to the Persian language and cultural context.
The significant prevalence of gender-based and body-referential insults (45\%) aligns with the multidimensional nature of cyberbullying globally, where attackers exploit societal vulnerabilities (Kowalski et al., 2014). However, as Badri et al. (2021) observed, the manifestation of these attacks is deeply embedded in the socio-cultural fabric of Iran, where honor, gender roles, and moral reputation carry substantial weight. Metaphorical dehumanization (using animal terms) and sarcastic honorifics serve as calculated strategies to strip targets of their social standing, validating the assertion by Vandebosch and Van Cleemput (2008) that cyberbullying involves complex, intentional power imbalances rather than mere impulsive anger.
Furthermore, the syntactic analysis reveals a strategic linguistic evasion of accountability. By employing agent-obscuring constructions in 70\% of the aggressive utterances, perpetrators minimize their visible role in the harassment. The morphological flexibility of the Persian language, particularly its pro-drop nature, facilitates this obfuscation far more readily than grammatically rigid languages. This linguistic complexity supports the findings of Dadvar et al. (2013), who argued that relying solely on profanity lexicons is inadequate; detecting cyberbullying requires a deep understanding of structural and context-specific linguistic features.
Platform differences also played a crucial role, corroborating the findings of Smith et al. (2008) and Kowalski et al. (2014) regarding the impact of digital mediums. Instagram’s visually driven architecture fostered sustained appearance-based insults in localized comment threads, whereas X’s text-centric, fast-paced environment encouraged rapid, irony-heavy attacks and collective dogpiling.
6. CONCLUSION
This study demonstrates that Persian cyberbullying is not merely direct verbal abuse, but a linguistically calculated behavior characterized by specific semantic targets and syntactic obfuscation. Given the severe psychological distress associated with such victimization (Hinduja & Patchin, 2010), proactive mitigation strategies are essential. The findings emphasize that current, predominantly English-centric detection algorithms are insufficient for identifying Persian cyber-aggression due to their inability to parse nuanced syntactic omissions, sarcastic honorifics, and cultural metaphors. Consequently, integrating Persian corpus linguistics (O’Keeffe & McCarthy, 2010) into the development of localized, context-aware AI tools is imperative for fostering safer digital environments for Iranian users.
Bibliography:
Badri, R., Kariman, N., Ozgoli, G., & Farsimadan, M. (2021). Sociocultural aspects of cyberbullying among Iranian youth: A qualitative study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36(11-12), NP6007-NP6031.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Dadvar, M., Trieschnigg, D., Ordelman, R., & de Jong, F. (2013). Improving cyberbullying detection with user context. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 35th European Conference on IR Research (pp. 693–696). Springer.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221.
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137.
O’Keeffe, A., & McCarthy, M. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. Routledge.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A Qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 11(4), 499–503
Keywords
Cyberbullying
Semantic analysis
Syntactic structure
Iranian users
Content analysis
Subjects
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Badri, M., Nuaimi, A. A., Guangul, F. M., & Rashedi, A. (2021). Social media usage and challenges: A study in the United Arab Emirates. International Journal of Information Management Data Insights, 1(2), 100038.
 Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. Continuum. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Bauman, S. (2013). Cyberbullying: What Does Research Tell Us? Theory Into Practice, 52(4), 249–256. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2013.829727
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Brewer, G., & Kerslake, J. (2015). Cyberbullying, self-esteem, empathy and loneliness. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 255–260.
Lonigro, A., Schneider, B. H., Laghi, F., Baiocco, R., Pallini, S., & Brunner, T. (2015). Is cyberbullying related to trait or state anger?. Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 46, 445-454.
Dadvar, M., Trieschnigg, D., Ordelman, R., & de Jong, F. (2013). Improving cyberbullying detection with user context. In Advances in Information Retrieval: 35th European Conference on IR Research, ECIR 2013 (pp. 693-696). Springer.
Dinakar, K., Jones, B., Havasi, C., Lieberman, H., & Picard, R. (2012). Common sense reasoning for detection, prevention, and mitigation of cyberbullying. ACM Transactions on Interactive Intelligent Systems (TiiS), 2(3), 1-30.
Festl, R., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2013). Peer influence, internet use and cyberbullying: A comparison of different context effects among German adolescents. Journal of Children and Media, 7(4), 486–501.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2010). Bullying, cyberbullying, and suicide. Archives of Suicide Research, 14(3), 206–221.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2015). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding to cyberbullying (2nd ed.). Corwin Press.
Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and opportunities of social media. Business Horizons, 53(1), 59–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2009.09.003
Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., & Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: A critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychological Bulletin, 140(4), 1073–1137. oi: 10.1037/a0035618. 
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Edinburgh University Press.
Nahar, V., Li, X., & Pang, C. (2012). An effective approach for cyberbullying detection. Communications in Information Science and Management Engineering, 2(9), 238.
Olweus, D. (2012). Cyberbullying: An overrated phenomenon? European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9(5), 520-538.
Patchin, J. W., & Hinduja, S. (2012). Cyberbullying: An update and synthesis of the research. In Cyberbullying prevention and response: Expert perspectives (pp. 13-35). Routledge.
Patton, M. Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage publications.
Reynolds, K., Kontostathis, A., & Edwards, L. (2011). Using machine learning to detect cyberbullying. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Machine Learning and Applications Workshops (Vol. 2, pp. 241-244). IEEE.
Runions, K., Shapka, J. D., Dooley, J., & Modecki, K. (2013). Cyber-aggression and victimization and social information processing: Integrating the medium and the message. Psychology of Violence, 3(1), 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030511
Salawu, S., He, Y., Lumsden, J., & Olatunji, S. O. (2020). Approaches towards the detection of cyberbullying: A survey. IEEE Transactions on Affective Computing, 13(2), 861-880.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In Language, mind, and knowledge (pp. 344-369). University of Minnesota Press.
Slonje, R., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Cyberbullying: Another main type of bullying? Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 49(2), 147–154.
Smith, P. K., López-Castro, L., Robinson, S., & Görzig, A. (2020). Consistency of findings on cyberbullying: A comparison of two national studies in England. Nordic Psychology, 72(1), 6-19.
Smith, P. K., Mahdavi, J., Carvalho, M., Fisher, S., Russell, S., & Tippett, N. (2008). Cyberbullying: Its nature and impact in secondary school pupils. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 49(4), 376–385.
Tokunaga, R. S. (2010). Following you home from school: A critical review and synthesis of research on cyberbullying victimization. Computers in Human Behavior, 26(3), 277–287.
Van Hee, C., Lefever, E., Hoste, V., Jacobs, G., & Montero Perez, M. (2015). Detection of cyberbullying in social media text. In Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Computational Approaches to Subjectivity, Sentiment and Social Media Analysis (pp. 31-35).
Waseem, Z., & Hovy, D. (2016). Hateful symbols or hateful people? predictive features for hate speech detection on twitter. In Proceedings of the NAACL student research workshop (pp. 88-93).[1]
 
استناد به این مقاله: کمری، الهه. (1404). بررسی ویژگی های معنایی و نحوی زورگویی سایبری در اینستاگرام و ایکس: کاربران ایرانی. زبان و زبان‌شناسی، 21(42)، 193- 232.
doi: 10.30465/lsi.2026.51844.1804
Language and Linguistics
Volume 21, Issue 42
August 2026
Pages 203-232