Cover not available
Part of
Exploring Language and Society with Big Data: Parliamentary discourse across time and space
Edited by Minna Korhonen, Haidee Kotze and Jukka Tyrkkö
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 111] 2023
► pp. 54–88

Chapter 2
Salient differences between Australian oral parliamentary discourse and its official written records

A comparison of ‘close’ and ‘distant’ analysis methods

| Utrecht University | North-West University
| The Australian National University | Macquarie University
| Macquarie University
| North-West University | University of Amsterdam
This chapter addresses the question of editorial practice for the Australian Hansard with the use of an aligned corpus of transcribed audio recordings and the corresponding Hansard records, covering the period 1946–2015. A more traditional, qualitative, bottom-up approach is taken by manually analysing the data to compile a list of differences in the two types of records. In addition, a deductive, quantitative approach is adopted by using the multidimensional analysis method of Biber (1988) to identify significant differences in the frequencies of (clusters of) features between the oral transcripts and written Hansard records and interpret these. Our primary aim is to provide insight into methodological questions associated with working with big linguistic data. Alongside this, we report findings about differences between the written Hansard and the original speeches: reduction of spoken language processing features and informality, greater conservatism, and more density – although these differences decrease over time.
Keywords: Australian Hansard, close reading, distant reading, editorial practice, informality, conservatism, spoken language
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The ‘Hansard hazard’
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpus
    • 3.2‘Close reading’ methodology
    • 3.3‘Distant reading’ methodology
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1‘Close reading’ results
      • 4.1.1Pronouns
      • 4.1.2Discourse markers
      • 4.1.3Modals
    • 4.2‘Distant reading’ results
      • 4.2.1Dimension score analysis
      • 4.2.2Analysis of individual features
  • 5.Discussion and conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 November 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.111.02kot
References
Biber, Douglas
1988 Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 The ubiquitous oral versus literate dimension: A survey of multidimensional studies. In Measured Language: Quantitative Studies of Acquisition, Assessment, and Variation, Jeffrey Connor-Linton & Luke Wander Amoroso (eds), 1–20. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
(eds) 1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Cribb, V. Michael & Rochford, Shivani
2018 The transcription and representation of spoken political discourse in the UK House of Commons. International Journal of English Linguistics 8(2): 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, Cecilia
2016 The political consequences of Hansard editorial policies: The case for greater transparency. Australasian Parliamentary Review 31(2): 145–160.Google Scholar
Gravlee, G. Jack
1981 Reporting proceedings and debates in the British Commons. Central States Speech Journal 32(2): 85–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hansard
2008 Hansard Usage and Editing Guide. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
Hibbert, Liesel
2003 Changing language practices in parliament in South Africa. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies 21(3): 103–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kotze, Haidee
2019 Does editing matter? Editorial work, endonormativity and convergence in written Englishes in South Africa. In English in Multilingual South Africa, Raymond Hickey (ed.), 101–126. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee & Smith, Adam
2018 Colloquialization and densification in Australian English: A multidimensional analysis of the Australian Diachronic Hansard Corpus. Australian Journal of Linguistics 38(3): 293–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruger, Haidee, van Rooy, Bertus & Smith, Adam
2019 Register change in the British and Australian Hansard (1901–2015). Journal of English Linguistics 47(3): 183–220. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Law, Melanie
2019 The Role of Editorial Intervention in Ongoing Language Variation and Change in South African and Australian English. PhD dissertation, Macquarie University / North-West University.
Law, Melanie & Kotze, Haidee
2021 Gender, writing and editing in South African Englishes: Genitive alternation in multifactorial perspective. In Gender in World Englishes, Tobias Bernaisch (ed.), 205–232. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey, Hundt, Marianne, Mair, Christian & Smith, Nicholas
2009 Change in Contemporary English: A Grammatical Study. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacDonagh, Michael
1913 The Reporters’ Gallery. London: Hodder & Stoughton. [URL] (1 September 2017).Google Scholar
Mollin, Sandra
2007 The Hansard hazard: Gauging the accuracy of British parliamentary transcripts. Corpora 2(2): 187–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moretti, Franco
2013 Distant Reading. London: Verso.Google Scholar
Nini, Andrea
2014 Multidimensional analysis tagger 1.1. [URL] (1 September 2017).
Slembrouck, Stef
1992 The parliamentary Hansard “verbatim” report: The written construction of spoken discourse. Language and Literature 1(2): 101–119. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sutherland, Lorraine & Farrell, Stephen
2013 The history, workings and future challenges of Hansard. [URL] (30 November 2019).