Cover not available

Article published In: Register Studies
Vol. 1:2 (2019) ► pp.209–242

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

The reference corpus matters

Comparing the effect of different reference corpora on keyword analysis

 | Iowa State University
 | Iowa State University
Published online: 25 September 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18001.gel
Abstract
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.
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
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilmore, A., & Millar, N. (2018). The language of civil engineering research articles: A corpus-based approach. English for Specific Purposes, 511, 1017. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B. (2013). More than discipline: uncovering multi-dimensional patterns of variation in academic research articles. Corpora, 8(2), 153–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gries, S. Th. (2008). Dispersions and adjusted frequencies in corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 403–437. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M. (2007). Clusters, key clusters and local textual functions. Corpora, 2(1), 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). WordSmith Tools (Version 7.0) [Computer Software]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018b). WordSmith Tools Manual (Version 7.0). Stroud, Gloucestershire: Mike Scott and Lexical Analysis Software. <[URL]> (15 April 2018).
Stubbs, M. (2010). Three concepts of keywords. In M. Bondi & M. Scott (Eds.), Keyness in texts (pp. 21–42). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Upton, G., & Cook, I. (2014). A dictionary of statistics (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Cvrček, Václav & Martina Berrocal
2025. Sibling-texts keyword analysis: exploring topic and register keywords. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 40:3 ► pp. 762 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Wenyuan & NaRi Shin
2025. A corpus-based Spanish media reports analysis of Tokyo Olympic female soccer players. European Journal for Sport and Society ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
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
Wang, Zheng
2024. A Corpus-Linguistics-Based Comparison of AI-Aided Writing and Students' Writing. Journal of Big Data and Computing 2:4 ► pp. 132 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 30 november 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue