Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 25:1 (2020) ► pp.62–88
Electronic supplement analysis of multiple texts
Exploring discourses of UK poverty in Below the Line comments
Published online: 16 April 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19049.pat
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19049.pat
Abstract
This paper adapts O’Halloran, K. (2010). Critical reading of a text through its electronic supplement. Digital Culture and Education, 2(2), 210–229. electronic supplement analysis
(ESA) to investigate debates about UK poverty in online newspaper articles and reader responses to those articles. While
O’Halloran’s method was originally conceived to facilitate close reading, this paper modifies ESA for corpus-based discourse
analysis by scaling it up to include multiple texts. I analyse (key-)keywords and concordances to compare seven articles from the
Mail Online (2010–2015) with their 2354 reader responses generated using the newspapers’ Below the Line (BTL)
comments feature. The analysis provides a snapshot of the discourses BTL commenters draw upon when writing about UK poverty.
Unemployment, benefits receipt, and single parenthood were repeatedly referred to in the newspaper articles and their comments,
but BTL commenters also drew on personal narratives and (fictional) anecdotes to index notions of flawed consumerism, scroungers,
and the deserving and undeserving poor.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Representing poverty and the poor
- 3.Electronic supplement analysis
- 4.Adapting ESA and data selection
- 5.Analysing poverty BTL
- 5.1Individual stimulus/response pairs
- 5.2Trends across texts
- 5.3Acceptance and rejection among commenters
- 6.Discussion
- 7.Conclusions
- Notes
References
References (29)
Baker, P., & McEnery, T. (2015). Who benefits when discourse gets democratised? Analysing a Twitter corpus around the British Benefits Street debate. In P. Baker & T. McEnery (Eds.), Corpora and Discourse Studies (pp. 244–265). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Bauman, Z. (2004). Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (2nd edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.
Cassiman, S. A. (2008). Resisting the neo-liberal poverty discourse: On constructing deadbeat dads and welfare queens. Sociology Compass, 2(5), 1690–1700.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Jackson, J. (2016, March 17). Independent, Mirror, Express and Star Suffer Sharp Fall in Traffic. Guardian. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 2019).
Jewell, J. (2014, November 7). Love them or hate them, BTL comments have changed journalism forever. The Conversation. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 2019).
Kehoe, A., & Gee, M. (2012). Reader comments as an aboutness indicator in online texts: Introducing the Birmingham Blog Corpus. Varieng, 121. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 2019).
Kiesling, S. F. (2009). Style as stance. In A. Jaffe (Ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives (pp. 171–194). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levitas, R., Head, E., & Finch, N. (2006). Lone mothers, poverty and social exclusion. In C. Pantazis, D. Gordon, & R. Levitas (Eds.), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain (pp. 405–430). Bristol: The Policy Press.
Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Marsh, S. (2012). Bridging the gap: Interdisciplinary insights into the securitization of poverty. Discourse and Society, 23(3), 274–296.
Lundström, R. (2013). Framing fraud: Discourse on benefit cheating in Sweden and the UK. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 630–645.
O’Halloran, K. (2010). Critical reading of a text through its electronic supplement. Digital Culture and Education, 2(2), 210–229.
Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Paterson, L. L., & Gregory, I. N. (2019). Representations of Poverty and Place. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Paterson, L. L., Coffey-Glover, L., & Peplow, D. (2016). Negotiating stance within discourses of class: Reactions to Benefits Street. Discourse & Society, 27(2), 195–214.
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549.
(2009). Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment [Computer software]. Computing Department, Lancaster University. Available from [URL] (last accessed November 2019).
Roberts, C. (2017). The language of ‘welfare dependency’ and ‘benefit cheats’: Internalising and reproducing the hegemonic and discursive rhetoric of ‘benefit scroungers’. In A. Mooney & E. Sifaki (Eds.), The Language of Money and Debt (pp. 189–204). Basingstoke: Palgrave.
(n.d.). Downloading BNC or ANC word lists. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 2019).
Taylor, C. (2013). Searching for similarity using corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora, 8(1), 81–113.
Cited by (8)
Cited by eight other publications
Harkins, Steven & Jairo Lugo-Ocando
Harrington, Leigh, Maria Fano Gonzalez & Kevin Frank Gerigk
Paterson, Laura L
Tarkiainen, Laura, Helena Blomberg & Christian Kroll
CHUA, Shi Min
Strani, Katerina & Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak
Morrison, James
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.
