Keywords
Signposts to objectivity?
This chapter focuses on describing, illustrating and critiquing the keywords technique, which is used to automatically identify lexical salience when comparing multiple corpora. Arguably, keywords present researchers with words that they may not have chosen to analyse in advance, thus helping to reduce researcher subjectivity. I illustrate how the identification of keywords enables researchers to embark on interesting research journeys, through examples taken from an analysis of the representation of Islam and Muslims in a corpus of British newspaper articles. However, when using large corpora, even with high cut-off points for statistical salience, hundreds of keywords may be produced, meaning that researchers need to make decisions regarding which words are worthy of detailed focus. The chapter ends with an illustrative analysis where I revisit six of my own keyword studies, arguing that researchers should consider the benefits of giving a more reflexive account of their own decision making procedures around keywords.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Keywords
- 3.The keyword Moslem
- 4.Reflexivity and keywords
- 5.Conclusion
-
Notes
-
References
References
Baker, P.
2005 Public Discourses of Gay Men. London: Routledge.
Baker, P.
2006 Using Corpora to Analyse Discourse. London: Continuum.
Baker, P.
2012 Acceptable bias? Using corpus linguistics methods with critical discourse analysis.
Critical Discourse Studies 9(3): 247–256.
Baker, P., Gabrielatos, G. & McEnery, T.
2013 Discourse Analysis and Media Bias: The Representation of Islam in the British Press. Cambridge: CUP.
Baker, P. & Love, R.
2015 The hate that dare not speak its name? Journal of Language, Aggression and Conflict 2(2): 57–86.
Baxter, J.
2003 Positioning Gender in Discourse: A Feminist Methodology. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
Code, L.
1991 What Can She Know?: Feminist Theory and the Construction of Knowledge. Ithica NY: Cornell University Press.
Eichler, M.
1991 Non-sexist Research Methods: A Practical Guide. London: Routledge.
Gabrielatos, C. & Baker, P.
2008 Fleeing, sneaking, flooding: A corpus analysis of discursive constructions of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK Press 1996–2005.
Journal of English Linguistics 36(1): 5–38.
Gabrielatos, C. & Marchi, A.
2012 Keyness: Appropriate metrics and practical issues. Paper presented at CADS International Conference 2012, 13–14 September, University of Bologna Italy.
Hardie, A.
2014 Statistical identification of keywords, lockwords and collocations as a two step procedure. Paper presented at ICAME 35 Conference 30 April – 4 May, University of Nottingham.
Marchi, A. & Taylor, C.
2009 If on a winter’s night two researchers… A challenge to assumptions of soundness of interpretation.
Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 3(1): 1–20.
Marchi, A. & Taylor, C.
2013 Experimenting with objectivity in corpus and discourse studies: Expectations about LGBT discourse and a game of mutual falsification and reflexivity. Paper presented at Corpus Linguistics Conference July 23, 2013, Lancaster University.
McEnery, T.
2006 Swearing in English: Bad Language, Purity and Power from 1586 to the Present. London: Routledge.
Partington, A., Duguid, A. & Taylor, C.
Scott, M.
2008 WordSmith Tools, version 5. Liverpool: Lexical Analysis Software.
Scott, M.
2009 In search of a bad reference corpus. In
What’s in a Word List?,
D. Archer (ed.), 79–92. London: Ashgate.
Wilson, A. & Thomas, J.
1997 Semantic annotation. In
Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Texts,
R. Garside,
G. Leech &
A. McEnery (eds), 55–65. London: Longman.
Cited by
Cited by 3 other publications
Boucher, Abigail, Marcello Giovanelli, Chloe Harrison, Robbie Love & Caroline Godfrey
2024.
Reading as a Coping Strategy. In
Reading Habits in the COVID-19 Pandemic,
► pp. 63 ff.
Boucher, Abigail, Marcello Giovanelli, Chloe Harrison, Robbie Love & Caroline Godfrey
2024.
Introduction. In
Reading Habits in the COVID-19 Pandemic,
► pp. 1 ff.
McGlashan, Mark & Alexandra Krendel
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 22 april 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.