Cover not available
Part of
From Text to Political Positions: Text analysis across disciplines
Edited by Bertie Kaal, Isa Maks and Annemarie van Elfrinkhof
[Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture 55] 2014
► pp. 27–46

Comparing the Position of Canadian Political Parties using French and English Manifestos as Textual Data

| Université Laval, Department of Political Science
| Université Laval, Department of Political Science
Recently, computer-assisted, quantitative methods have been developed to position political parties. These word-based textual analysis techniques rely exclusively on the relative frequency of words. As such they do not necessitate the knowledge of any particular language to extract policy positions from texts. However, different languages have different word distributions and other syntactic idiosyncrasies. These differences might provoke word-based textual analysis techniques to extract noticeably different positions from parallel texts that are similar in every aspect except language. How crippling is this potential disadvantage when comparing political texts written in different languages? It is this chapter’s objective to determine the effect of language on the two word frequency methods Wordscores and Wordfish by comparing the policy positions of Canadian parties as extracted from their English and French party manifestos.
Published online: 7 May 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.55.02col
References (42)
References
Benoit, K. and M. Laver. 2006. Party Politics in Modern Democracies. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2007a. Benchmarks for text analysis: A response to Budge and ­Pennings. Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 130–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007b. Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 90–107. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Compared to what? A comment on “A robust transformation procedure for interpreting political text” by Martin and Vanberg. Political Analysis 16(1), pp. 101–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bräuninger, T. and M. Debus. 2008. Der Einfluss von Koalitionsaussagen, programmatischen Standpunkten und der Bundespolitik auf die Regierungsbildung in den deutschen Ländern. Politische Vierteljahresschrift 49(2), pp. 309–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budge, I., H.-D. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara and E. Tanenbaum (eds). 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences I. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Budge, I. 2000. Expert judgments of party policy positions: Uses and limitations in political research European Journal of Political Research 37(1), pp. 103–113. DOI logo DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Budge, I. and P. Pennings. 2007. Do they work? Validating computerized word frequency estimates against policy series. Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 121–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Castles, F.G. and P. Mair. 1984. Left-right political scales: Some ‘expert’ judgments. European Journal of Political Research 12(1), pp. 73–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Debus, M. 2009. Pre-electoral commitments and government formation. Public Choice 138(1), pp. 45–64. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, J.D. and R. Inglehart. 1995. Expert interpretations of party space and party locations in 42 societies. Party Politics 1(1), pp. 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hug, S. and T. Schulz. 2007. Left-right positions of political parties in Switzerland. Party Politics 13(3), pp. 305–330. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irvine, W. 1987. Canada 1945–1980: Party platforms and campaign strategies. In I. Budge, D. Robertson and D. Hearl (eds), Ideology, Strategy, and Party Change: Spatial Analysis of Post-War Elections Programmes in Nineteen Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 73–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jian-Yun, N., M. Simard, P. Isabelle and R. Durand. 1999. Cross-language information retrieval based on parallel texts and automatic mining of parallel texts from the web. In Proceedings of the 22nd annual international ACM SIGIR conference on Research and development in information retrieval. Berkeley, California, United States: ACM.
Johnston, R. 2008. Polarized pluralism in the Canadian party system: Presidential address to the Canadian Political Science Association, June 5, 2008. Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique 41(4), pp. 815–834. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keman, H. 2007. Experts and manifestos: different sources – Same results for comparative research? Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 76–89. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kleinnijenhuis, J., and P. Pennings. 1999. A probabilistic keyword approach to textual analysis. In Mannheim Joint Sessions of the ECPR. Mannheim.Google Scholar
Klemmensen, R., S.B. Hobolt and M.E. Hansen. 2007. Estimating policy positions using political texts: An evaluation of the wordscores approach. Electoral Studies 26(4), pp. 746–755. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Klingemann, H.-D., A. Volkens, J. Bara, I. Budge and M.D. McDonald. 2007. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knutsen, O. 1998. The strength of the partisan component of left-right identity: A comparative longitudinal study of left-right party polarization in eight west European countries. Party Politics 4(1), pp. 5–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. 1998. Party policy in Britain 1997: Results from an expert survey. Political Studies 46(2), pp. 336–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. and K. Benoit. 2005. Estimating party policy positions: Japan in comparative context. Japanese Journal of Political Science 6(2), pp. 187–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, M., K. Benoit and J. Garry. 2003. Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data. The American Political Science Review 97(2), pp. 311–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, M., K. Benoit and N. Sauger. 2006. Policy competition in the 2002 French legislative and presidential elections. European Journal of Political Research 45(4), pp. 667–697. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. and J. Garry. 2000. Estimating policy positions from political texts. American Journal of Political Science 44(3), pp. 619–634. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Laver, M. and W.B. Hunt. 1992. Policy and Party Competition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lederer, M. 1994. La traduction aujourd’hui: le modèle interprétatif. Vanves: Hachette F. L. E.Google Scholar
Lowe, W. 2008. Understanding wordscores. Political Analysis 16(4), pp. 356–371. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magin, R., M. Freitag and A. Vatter. 2009. Cleavage structures and voter alignments within nations. Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 3(2), pp. 231–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mair, P. 2001. Searching for the positions of political actors: A review of approaches and a critical evaluation of expert surveys. In M. Laver (ed.), Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors. New York: Routledge, pp. 10–29.Google Scholar
Marks, G., L. Hooghe, M.R. Steenbergen and R. Bakker. 2007. Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 23–38. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, L.W. and G. Vanberg. 2008. A robust transformation procedure for interpreting political text. Political Analysis 16(1), pp. 93–100. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McCallum, A. and K. Nigam. 1998. A comparison of event models for naive Bayes text classification. In AAAI-98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization.
Monroe, B.L., M.P. Colaresi and K.M. Quinn. 2008. Fightin’ words: Lexical feature selection and evaluation for identifying the content of political conflict. Political Analysis 16(4), pp. 372–403. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Proksch, S.-O. and J.B. Slapin. 2009. Position taking in European parliament speeches. British Journal of Political Science 40, pp. 587–611. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ray, L. 2001. A natural sentence approach to the computer coding of party manifestos. In M. Laver (ed.), Estimating the Positions of Political Actors. New York: Routledge, pp. 149–161.Google Scholar
. 2007. Validity of measured party positions on European integration: assumptions, approaches, and a comparison of alternative measures. Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 11–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Slapin, J.B. and S.-O. Proksch. 2008. A scaling model for estimating time-series party positions from texts. American Journal of Political Science 52(3), pp. 705–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vinay, J.-P. and J. Darbelnet. 2003 [1977]. Stylistique comparée du français et de l’anglais : Méthode de traduction. Laval: Groupe Beauchemin.Google Scholar
Volkens, A. 2007. Strengths and weaknesses of approaches to measuring policy positions of parties. Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 108–120. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Whitefield, S., M.A. Vachudova, M.R. Steenbergen, R. Rohrschneider, G. Marks, M.P. ­Loveless, and L. Hooghe. 2007. Do expert surveys produce consistent estimates of party stances on European integration? Comparing expert surveys in the difficult case of Central and Eastern Europe. Electoral Studies 26(1), pp. 50–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yang, Ch. C. and K. Wing Li. 2003. Automatic construction of English/Chinese parallel corpora.Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 54(8), pp. 730–742. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Daigneault, Pierre-Marc, Dominic Duval & Louis M. Imbeau
2018. Supervised scaling of semi-structured interview transcripts to characterize the ideology of a social policy reform. Quality & Quantity 52:5 ► pp. 2151 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.