「民粹行為者」一詞經常含糊地用來描述在意識形態光譜上處於極端兩側的政黨以及政治人物，理論上假設既然他們被歸類在同一個類別，左右派民粹行為者之間應該有許多共通的傳播特徵，然而多數研究卻對此抱持相左的意見。當學界逐漸開始關注左右翼民粹政黨∕民粹人物的社群媒體傳播行為時，這個爭論依然持續著。鑑於過去研究相互衝突的論點，本文探究傳統左右意識形態的差別是否可能區分社群媒體上的民粹傳播模式。透過提出一個結合民粹語言與傳播風格的理論框架，本研究論證左右翼民粹行為者在利用社群媒體傳播民粹式語言的同時，雙方有著相似的論述模式。本研究結合共詞分析與社會網絡分析，分析德國極右派「德國另類選擇黨」（AfD）領先候選人Alice Weidel以及極左派「左翼黨」（Die Linke）領先候選人Sahra Wagenknecht在2017年聯邦議會競選期間的臉書貼文。首先，本研究指出兩位政黨候選人的論述模式皆符合四個民粹傳播特徵，且嘗試透過形塑敵我對立的社會認同動員選民；第二，一方面「愛國宣示」的風格強化民粹論述中人民與少數社會群體之間的差異，另一方面「危機強調」的風格則是透過議題操作強化人民與政治菁英的衝突。

The term ‘populist actors’ vaguely describes certain political parties and figures on the edges of the ideological spectrum. Theoretically, it assumes that there are similar communicative features among right-left populist actors since they are given the same label. Nevertheless, most studies have indicated that scholars hold contradicting viewpoints on this issue. This dispute continues when scholarly attention is being directed worldwide to the social media communication of right-wing and left-wing populist parties/politicians. In view of the conflicting insights of previous research, this study investigates whether the conventional left-right distinction makes it possible to differentiate populist communicative patterns found on social media. By proposing a theoretical framework combining populist rhetoric and communication styles, we argue that right-wing and left-wing populist actors are alike in using social media to disseminate such populist rhetoric, while sharing similar communicative patterns. Combining co-occurrence analysis and social network analysis, this study analyzed Facebook posts made by the radical right AfD top candidate Alice Weidel and the radical left Die Linke top candidate Sahra Wagenknecht during the 2017 federal election period. First, our findings show that all four populist characteristics are present in both candidates’ posts. These posts are framed to mobilize voters by taking up ‘antagonistic’ identities. Second, the populist discourse tends to foster so-called ‘horizontal’ conflict (i.e., discrimination against minority social groups for the benefit of others) through a patriotic style, as well as ‘vertical’ conflict (i.e., ‘the people’ versus ‘the elites’, ‘the establishment’) through a crisis rhetoric style.