Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Studies
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.209–242

The reference corpus matters

Comparing the effect of different reference corpora on keyword analysis

| Iowa State University
| Iowa State University
This study investigates the effect that reference corpora of different registers have on the content of keyword lists. The study focusses on two target corpora and the keyword lists generated for each when using three distinct reference corpora. The two target corpora consist of published research by faculty at two PhD-granting programs in applied linguistics in North America. The reference corpora comprise published research in applied linguistics, newspaper and magazine articles, and fiction texts, respectively. The findings suggest that while common keywords representing each target corpus emerge regardless of the reference corpus used in the analysis, there are also substantial differences. Primarily, using a reference corpus of the same sub-register as the target corpus better highlights content unique to each target corpus while using a reference corpus of a different register better uncovers words that reflect the register that the target corpora represent. Implications for conducting keyword analysis are discussed.
Keywords: keyword analysis, register, reference corpus, target corpus
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Reference corpus and register
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Corpora
    • 2.2Conducting keyword analysis
    • 2.3Dispersion
  • 3.Case studies
    • 3.1Case study 1: Keywords generated against a reference corpus of the same sub-register
    • 3.2Case study 2: Keywords generated against reference corpora of different sub-registers
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 25 September 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18001.gel
References (35)
References
Anthony, L. (2018). AntConc (3.5.6) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from <[URL]>
Baker, P. (2004). Querying keywords: Questions of difference, frequency, and sense in keywords analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 32(4), 346–359. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bondi, M. (2010). Perspectives on keywords and keyness: An introduction. In M. Bondi & M. Scott (Eds.), Keyness in texts (pp. 1–18). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, J. (2009). Keyness: Words, parts-of-speech and semantic categories in the character-talk of Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet* . International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(1), 29–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–). The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990-present. Available online at <[URL]>
Egbert, J. (2007). Quality Analysis of Journals in TESOL and Applied Linguistics. TESOL Quarterly, 41(1), 157–171. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gabrielatos, C. (2018). Keyness analysis: Nature, metrics and techniques. In C. Taylor & A. Marchi (Eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse: A critical review (pp. 225–258). New York, NY: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A., & Millar, N. (2018). The language of civil engineering research articles: A corpus-based approach. English for Specific Purposes, 511, 1017. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. (2013). More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2008). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 403–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hirch, R., & Geluso, J. (2017, October). Capturing ‘aboutness’: Comparing and contrasting three methods of keyword analysis. Paper presented at Second Language Research Forum (SLRF), Ohio State University, Columbus, OH.
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2018). “In this paper we suggest”: Changing patterns of disciplinary metadiscourse. English for Specific Purposes, 511, 18–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jones, E., Oliphant, E., & Peterson, P. (2001–). SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python. <[URL]> (22 August 2017).
Keynes, J. M. (1936). The general theory of employment, interest, and money. New York, NY: Harcourt and Brace. E-text available from The University of Adelaide Library Electronic Texts Collection. <[URL]>
Lijffijt, J., Nevalainen, T., Säily, Papapetrou, P., Puolamäki, K., & Mannila, H. (2016). Significance testing of word frequencies in corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 31(2), 374–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahlberg, M. (2007). Clusters, key clusters and local textual functions. Corpora, 2(1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mastropierro, L., & Mahlberg, M. (2017). Key words and translated cohesion in Lovecraft’s At the Mountains of Madness and one of its Italian translations. English Text Construction, 10(1), 78–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paquot, M., & Bestgen, Y. (2009). Distinctive words in academic writing: A comparison of three statistical tests for keyword extraction. In A. Jucker, D. Schreier, & M. Hundt (Eds.), Corpora: Pragmatics and discourse (pp. 247–269). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pojanapunya, P., & Watson Todd, R. (2016). Log-likelihood and odds ratio: Keyness statistics for different purposes of keyword analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(1), 133–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. (2008). Log-likelihood and effect size calculator. <[URL]> (22 December 2017).
Scott, M. (2010). Problems in investigating keyness, or clearing the undergrowth and marking out trails… In M. Bondi & M. Scott (Eds.), Keyness in texts (pp. 43–57). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018). WordSmith Tools (Version 7.0) [Computer Software]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2018b). WordSmith Tools Manual (Version 7.0). Stroud, Gloucestershire: Mike Scott and Lexical Analysis Software. <[URL]> (15 April 2018).
Scott, M. & Tribble, S. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stubbs, M. (2010). Three concepts of keywords. In M. Bondi & M. Scott (Eds.), Keyness in texts (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Upton, G., & Cook, I. (2014). A dictionary of statistics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
van Raan, A. F. (2005). Measuring science. In H. F. Moed, W. Glänzel, & U. Schmoch (Eds.), Handbook of quantitative science and technology research (pp. 19–50). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Xiao, R., & McEnery, A. (2005). Two approaches to genre analysis: Three genres in modern American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 33(1), 62–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Hashimoto, Brett & Kyra Nelson
2024. Recent trends in corpus design and reporting: A methodological synthesis. Research in Corpus Linguistics 12:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
Trnavac, Radoslava & Encarnacion Hidalgo Tenorio
2024. Breach of pacta sunt servanda: A corpus-assisted analysis of newspaper discourse on the AUKUS agreement. Applied Corpus Linguistics 4:3 ► pp. 100108 ff. DOI logo
Kyröläinen, Aki-Juhani & Veronika Laippala
2023. Predictive keywords: Using machine learning to explain document characteristics. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 5 DOI logo
Rowson, Tatiana S., Sylvia Jaworska & Iwona Gibas
2023. Hot topic: Examining discursive representations of menopause and work in the British media. Gender, Work & Organization 30:6 ► pp. 1903 ff. DOI logo
강, 소미, 하연 장 & 주연 장
2023. 코퍼스를 활용한 한국 사회 10년 비건 패션, 뷰티 변화 분석. Journal of the Korean Society of Clothing and Textiles 47:4 ► pp. 625 ff. DOI logo
Karpenko-Seccombe, Tatyana
2021. Separatism: a cross-linguistic corpus-assisted study of word-meaning development in a time of conflict. Corpora 16:3 ► pp. 379 ff. DOI logo
Pojanapunya, Punjaporn & Richard Watson Todd
2021. The influence of the benchmark corpus on keyword analysis. Register Studies 3:1 ► pp. 88 ff. DOI logo
Walsh, Catherine
2020. Constructing Experts Without Expertise: Fiscal Reporting in the British Press, 2010–2016. Journalism Studies 21:15 ► pp. 2059 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 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.