differences of bearable and tolerable lexemes usage in ... · akademia techniczno-humanistyczna w...

SEBASTIAN DUNAT

Akademia Techniczno-Humanistyczna w Bielsku-Białej

Differences of bearable and tolerable lexemes usage in women and

men written language. Corpus Study of American newspapers

and magazines, based on the Corpus of Contemporary American

English

Key words: corpus linguistics, gender, quantitative statistical surveys, American newspapers

and magazines

Słowa klucze: językoznawstwo korpusowe, gender, ilościowe badania statystyczne, prasa

amerykańska

Introduction

There are many outstanding quantitative and qualitative studies on gender. Research

devoted to this topic is, to a large extent, related to the influence of feminism and feminist

theories in almost all humanities and social sciences. Language research strives to follow the

general development of feminism, starting from the basic paradigms, where speakers are ca-

tegorized in accordance with their gender, through the period when the cultural context was

important, along with the socio-psychological dimensions of gender; and dynamic socio-

structural approach at the end. For many of the researchers, only some referential changes of

such structures, mainly the change of naming, take place.1

In many works of this type, corpus linguistics is a valuable way of creating and analyzing

large amounts of data and providing answers to given questions. It can provide information

1 Holmes J., Women, Languge and Identity. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1997, nr.1/2, s. 195-196. Dostępne

online < http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9481.00012/pdf>

48 Sebastian Dunat

about the use of specific words, as well as its’ changes occurring under the influence of time.2

The fact of its value as a remarkable source of data used for quantitative research in gender

relates studies is certainly marked by Sunderland.3

In the context of the research material of this article, a corpus serves as a tool that provi-

des a wide range of possibilities. The foundation for this work is closely related to problems

with women and men communication, and the stereotypical balance of their talk; used by both

groups in relation to their needs, discussed by Holmes.4

To follow the Holmes' argumentation, which somewhat breaks the stereotype of typically

masculine or typically female language use, the researcher adopted the criteria, constituted

below, for the assessment and selection of the corpus data.

The reason to conduct this research was the need to recognize the differences and conno-

tations associated with bearable and tolerable lexes usage by a group of journalists, women

and men; in terms of used intensification of adjectives, register, type of discourse and senten-

ce classification (1st, 3rd person). We have chosen 60 random examples of each token derived

from newspapers (30 examples) and magazines (30 examples); of English-language from

2003-2015, for both groups. The assumption is that some of the surveyed categories will

reach a P-value of 0.05 or lower, to confirm the significance of variables occurrence.

Method

The sociolinguistic research tries to find reasons and ways of speaking and writing of the

individuals. Broader sight of this branch of study concerns influences of geographical origin,

attitudinal and temporal variables, and different social factors.5 It focuses on, not only one,

but many variation changes in written and spoken language. Sociolinguistic investigation, as

defined by Friginal and Hardy,6 has two main variables: (1) linguistic variables – observed

presence of shifts and changes and their distribution in spoken or written language and (2)

societal variables – potential account of combination of influences on linguistic changes and

shifts. Table 1 presents the linguistic and societal variables investigated in Sociolinguistics.

2 Sunderland J., Language and Gender: An advanced resource book, London, Routledge, 2006, s. 55. 3 Ibid. s. 56-57. 4 Holmes J., Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Social Identity Through Workplace Interaction, New York,

Blackwell Publishing, 1995, s. 208. 5 Friginal E., Hardy J., Corpus-Based Socioliguistics: A Guide for Students, New York, Routledge, 2014, s. 12. 6 Ibid.

49 Differences of bearable and tolerable lexemes…

Tabela 1. Linguistic and Societal Variables in Sociolinguistics by Friginal and Hardy7

Linguistic Items Societal Items

Sounds (e.g. phonemes, accents, intonation)

Words (e.g. cuss words, respect markers,

pronoun use)

Grammatical structures (e.g. quotative like,

that deletion, information density markers)

Paralinguistic makers (e.g. laughter, ges-

tures, silence, emoticons)

Discourse/Pragmatic Structures (e.g. polite-

ness and stance, turn-taking and interrup-

tion, requests)

Other linguistic items?

Identity

Power/Relationships/Role

Social Class/Status

Gender

Occupation

Solidarity

Age

Social Networks

Geographical Origin

Personality Factors (e.g. introverts vs. extroverts)

Other societal items?

Quantitative approach of investigating sociolinguistics refers to systematic data collec-

tion and analysis involving the application of mathematical and statistical techniques in fur-

ther describing the nature of linguistic variation within a particular research setting.8 Quanti-

tative studies are mostly influenced by statistical sampling procedures; target population is

represented by the particular sample of data. Specified quantitative research questions clearly

maintain statistical tests; e.g. Pearson’s Chi-square test for significance. Tests of relationship

are also common, it establishes various points of comparison.9 Quantitative research conside-

rations include:

a) Defining the nature of datasets and exploring methods of collecting evidence of lan-

guage variation;

b) Focusing on statistical methodology (how the data been collected and analyzed quanti-

tatively);

c) Tabulating frequencies and conducting statistical analysis.10

Social variation and relationships of linguistic variables can be comprehensively described by

the quantitative approach outcome in research. Inferential techniques of quantitative research

7 Ibid. 8 Ibid. s.13. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid.

50 Sebastian Dunat

establish whether the patterns described by qualitative approach, which may concern the

emerging themes of language, use are statistically accounted for truth.11

Discourse

There are two definitions of Discourse proposed by Mary Bucholtz. Formal definition

derives from discipline division into units (phonology, morphology, syntax) which follows as

such: According to the formal definition, just as morphology is the level of language in which

sounds are combined into words, and syntax is the level in which word are combined into

sentences, so discourse is the linguistic level in which sentences are combined into larger

units.12 And the second functional definition: Discourse, in this view, is language in context:

that is, language as it is put to use in social situations, not the more idealized and abstracted

linguistics forms that are the central concern of much linguistic theory.13

In conclusion discourse analysis concerns situational language use perspectives which

involve methodological approach in universal, theoretical orientation.14

Register

Grammatical structures, as well as, the choice between different words usage depends on

the communicative situation of the speaker. Language used in particular situation is resear-

ched as register. The most common registers are: speech and writing. Their physical variation

in production is obvious. Spoken discourse is swift and interactive, while written language

planned and revised. Different cultures identify many particular register types. Recognizing

register as Biber proposes, concerns finding the names of text categories in a given culture;

(ex. newspaper articles, biographies, novels).15 He concludes that registers can be defined at

any level of generality without a specific name. Biber defines: Registers are identified by

‘nonlinguistic’ or ‘situational’ characteristics, such as the setting, the audience, interactive-

ness, and extent of planning. Moreover, a register can be defined by a particular combination

of values for any group of these situational characteristics.16

11 Ibid. 12 Bucholtz M., Theories of Discourse as Theories of Gender: Discourse Analysis in Language and Gender Stud-

ies. The handbook of Language and Gender, New York, Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2003, s. 44. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Biber D., Susan C., Randi R., Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge, Cam-

bridge University Press, 1998. 16 Ibid.


Present Study

The aim of this study was to check the differences in the use of bearable and tolerable

lexes by a group of journalists, women and men, in terms of used intensification of adjectives,

register, type of discourse and classification of sentences for first or third persons. The mate-

rial used for the research comes from the COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English)

available online. Sixty random examples, for each of the adjectives, 30 examples categorized

by the corpus as examples selected from newspapers and 30 classified as a magazine (mon-

thly, weekly). The study described the data of the corpus, and classified it in terms of the se-

lected categories:

• Gender

• Intensity

• Person (1st, 3rd)

• Type of discourse

• Register

Quantitative statistical surveys were carried out to confirm the following theses:

• The difference in the quantitative use of the studied lexemes between women and men

will be evident, with a significant advantage of one of the tokens usage by one group.

• Variation in the use of a given token with a classified type of intensification will be

different for either group, a distinct advantage may occur for one of them.

• There will be significant quantitative difference in the distribution of sentences con-

taining the studied lexemes in formal or informal register settlement, with a quantita-

tive predominance of one in either of the studied groups.

• One of the discourse types used with the tested lexemes will have a more frequent use

in one of the groups.

• Distribution of 1st or 3rd person sentences will be greater for one of the studies types.

Moreover, it will be supported by more frequent (quantitative) use in one of the re-

search groups.

52 Sebastian Dunat

Research

Corpus Description

Present research divided the corpus into two sections: examples acquired before 2010 and

after 2010. The Tables 2 to 12 show the distinctions of the two sections in accordance with all

variables used for the purpose of the research article.

Tabela 2. Discourse type and register distinctions before 2010

bearable tolerable Total

impersonal 25 14 39

formal 7 5 12

informal 18 9 27

personal 6 2 8

informal 6 2 8

Total 31 16 47

As visible, the use of bearable lexeme is twice as frequent as the use of tolerable. The se-

cond table shows that the informal style use is more frequent with bearable. The total number

of examples used before 2010 is 47, which is 31 for bearable and 16 for tolerable.

Tabela 3. Discourse type and register distinctions after 2010


impersonal 24 36 60

formal 11 9 20

informal 13 27 40

personal 5 8 13

informal 5 8 13

Total 29 44 73

The 3rd table examines the use of both lexemes after 2010. The total amount of the exam-

ples in this particular time is 73; for tolerable 44, and bearable 29. The impersonal structures

are more frequent for the tolerable lexeme and count 36 examples; while for bearable there is

24. Is it worth to note that in opposite to the table 2, there is a difference in informal style sen-

tences distribution. In table 3, both personal and impersonal informal constructions tend to be

more frequent for tolerable lexeme.


Tabela 4. Sentence style and discourse before 2010


1st person 23 15 38

impersonal 21 13 34

formal 6 5 11

informal 15 8 23

personal 2 2 4

informal 2 2 4

3rd person 8 1 9

impersonal 4 1 5

formal 1 - 1

informal 3 1 4

personal 4 - 4

informal 4 - 4

Total 31 16 47

Table four shows that the distribution of 1st person sentences is significantly more frequ-

ent than 3rd person sentences for both of the lexemes. Another important factor is the differen-

ce in distribution of tolerable 1st and 3rd person sentences, and their total of 15 to 1. What is

more, there are no examples of impersonal formal style and personal constructions for tolera-

ble lexeme in 3rd person. First person impersonal constructions are more frequent for bearable

lexeme.

54 Sebastian Dunat

Tabela 5. Sentence style and discourse after 2010


1st person 19 34 53

impersonal 17 29 46

formal 8 7 15

informal 9 22 31

personal 2 5 7

informal 2 5 7

3rd person 10 10 20

impersonal 7 7 14

Formal 3 2 5

informal 4 5 9

Personal 3 3 6

informal 3 3 6

Total 29 44 73

Next, 5th table, compared to the previous one has some examples of personal style 3rd per-

son constructions, as well as, impersonal formal 3rd person sentences. Respectively 3 and 2

examples which occurred after 2010. The 3rd person sentences distribution for tolerable and

bearable is the same with 10 examples each. Further comparison shows the change in 1st per-

son impersonal constructions distribution, in the favor of tolerable; before 2010 the frequen-

cies were in bearable favor. Furthermore, the impersonal informal 1st person sentences for

tolerable lexeme hit 22 examples, which makes it the most frequent example in table 5.


Tabela 6. Intensification of lexemes in the discourse before 2010

Lexeme bearable tolerable

Intensification 0 + 0 - +

1st person 14 9 11 1 3

Impersonal 13 8 9 1 3

Formal 5 1 3 2

Informal 8 7 6 1 1

Personal 1 1 2 - -

Informal 1 1 2 - -

3rd person 2 6 - - 1

Impersonal 1 3 - - 1

Formal - 1 - - -

Informal 1 2 - - 1

Personal 1 3 - - -

Informal 1 3 - - -

Total 16 15 11 1 4

Firstly, in table 6, it is visible that for both lexemes, in 1st person sentences, the zero in-

tensification is most frequent; respectively 14 for bearable, and 11 for tolerable. Secondly,

there are no examples of tolerable use in 3rd person because their use concerns hedging ex-

pressions; discussed further in the next section of the article. Thirdly, intensification does not

seem to be significant for bearable usage while its distribution covers 16 examples of zero

intensification and 15 examples of the use with intensifiers (+).

56 Sebastian Dunat

Tabela 7. Intensification of lexemes in the discourse after 2010

Lexeme bearable tolerable

Intensification 0 - + easily 0 - + ++ barely quite relatively

1st person 7 1 10 1 21 1 7 1 2 1 1

impersonal 6 1 9 1 18 1 5 1 2 1 1

formal 2 - 6 - 5 - 1 - 1 - -

informal 4 1 3 1 13 1 4 1 1 1 1

personal 1 - 1 - 3 - 2 - - - -

informal 1 - 1 - 3 - 2 - - - -

3rd person 8 - 2 - 6 1 2 - 1 - -

impersonal 5 - 2 - 3 1 2 - 1 - -

formal 2 - 1 - 1 - - - 1 - -

informal 3 - 1 - 2 1 2 - - - -

personal 3 - - - 3 - - - - - -

informal 3 - - - 3 - - - - - -

Total 15 1 12 1 27 2 9 1 3 1 1

Table 7 illustrates that the zero intensification for tolerable lexeme is the most frequent

after 2010. In correspondence to bearable usage there are no significant differences in compa-

rison to the use before 2010; except one minor example of ‘–‘ intensification shown in the

table above. There is probable increase in tolerable usage that concerns zero intensification 27

examples, 18 of which are impersonal 1st person sentences; and only six, 3rd person senten-

ces in total. Minor changes occur in the distribution of ‘++’ and ‘–‘ categories for tolerable

lexeme, which were not visible before 2010. Moreover, the use of adverbs is visible in this

part of the corpus; their use is more frequent with the tolerable lexeme - 4 instances in total.


Collocates and Clusters

Tabela 8. Collocations connected with the researched lexemes

Rank

Bearable tolerable

Freq.

Freq.

left

Freq.

right Statistic Collocate Freq.

Freq.

left

Freq.

right Statistic

Colloca-

te

1 41 17 24 3.50045 the 30 12 18 3.04979 the

2 29 28 1 4.90036 more 21 14 7 3.79528 a

3 16 8 8 3.40296 A 15 7 8 3.34592 to

4 13 9 4 3.13947 To 14 6 8 3.30224 of

5 13 13 0 5.05094 make 14 12 2 3.84973 more

6 12 4 8 2.80422 and 13 6 7 2.91969 and

7 10 8 2 2.81682 Of 12 6 6 4.11832 it

8 10 4 6 3.47978 In 11 9 2 3.77598 is

9 9 6 3 3.70329 It 9 1 8 4.45331 but

10 9 5 4 3.48647 Is 8 4 4 4.42089 was

The ten most frequent collocate list as shown by table 8 correspond mainly to preposi-

tions used alongside with the lexemes. The determiners are also visible, and hit the first three

rank positions for both lexemes. There is a slightly more frequent usage of ‘more’ intensifier

with the bearable lexeme. Both of the lexemes tend to be used more frequent in affirmative

mood; 10th and 8th position for ‘is’ verb. For ‘was’ 11th and 10th position. It is worth to note

that preposition ‘of’ is more frequent with bearable on the left side, and with tolerable on the

right side.

58 Sebastian Dunat

Tabela 9. Tolerable and Bearable 2-3R and 2-3L clusters

Rank

tolerable

Freq. Range Cluster Right Freq. Range Cluster Left

1 12 1 more tolerable 3 1 tolerable than

2 6 1 a tolerable 3 1 tolerable. but

3 5 1 is tolerable 2 1 tolerable and

4 3 1 barely tolerable 2 1 tolerable for

5 3 1 be tolerable 2 1 tolerable in

Rank

bearable

Freq. Range Cluster Right Freq. Range Cluster Left

1 27 1 more bearable 3 1 bearable for

2 3 1 bit more bearable 3 1 bearable when

3 3 1 much more bearable 2 1 bearable by

4 2 1 become bearable 2 1 bearable. we

5 2 1 grief more bearable 1 1 bearable - and

As table 9 illustrates, it is highly probable that bearable lexeme makes 3 word clusters

more frequently than tolerable which occurs in two word clusters more often. The table hi-

ghlights the importance of intensification, mentioned above, with both lexemes, by the use of

‘more’ intensifier: 27 examples of bearable and only 12 with tolerable lexeme. The tolerable

clusters tend to use verbs, adverbs and determiners, while bearable mostly adverbs.

Significance Tests

Quantitative results used in Pearson Chi-square test for significance are presented below:

Tabela 10. Bearable and Tolerable instances of usage

Lexeme Female Male Unknown Group Total

Bearable 23 27 8 2 60

Tolerable 13 37 4 6 60

As illustrated by table 10 uses of both lexemes are more frequent in men written texts; 27

and 37 examples, for bearable and tolerable respectively. While women tend to use bearable

more frequently than the opposite group; 23 bearable uses against 13 tolerable in female texts

samples. Significance test for Gender equals X-squared = 3.5156, df = 1, p-value = 0.06079.


Tabela 11. Square test results for newspapers and magazines

Lexeme Category Chi-square test

Discourse personal impersonal X-squared = 0.055659, df = 1, p-value =

0.8135 bearable 12 48

tolerable 10 50

Intensification minus more plus

X-squared = 5.9877, df = 2, p-value = 0.05009 bearable 1 30 27

tolerable 3 38 14

Intensification 2 zero Plus X-squared = 4.0119, df = 1, p-value =

0.04518 bearable 30 27

tolerable 38 14

Person 1st person 3rd person

X-squared = 1.2801, df = 1, p-value = 0.2579 bearable 42 17

tolerable 49 11

Register formal informal

X-squared = 0.64538, df = 1, p-value = 0.4218 bearable 20 40

tolerable 15 45

The Chi-square test for significance supports the results of all classifications. The tests

results are presented by the 11th table. The Pearson Chi- square test for significance can delu-

de for any amount of data below 5, that is why the researcher corrected the 2nd sample of

intensification. The result of the test give p-value of 0.04518, which proves the significance of

the researched sample. All other groups did not meet the requirement of p-value equal or be-

low 0,05.

Gender tagging

The results in the tables below show the quantitative usage of bearable and tolerable

lexemes by both sexes along with the Pearson’s significance text results.

60 Sebastian Dunat

Tabela 12. Gendered quantitative use of both researched lexemes and significance results

Bearable

Speaker Category Chi-square test

Discourse impersonal personal

X-squared = 0.22344, df = 1, p-value = 0.6364 female 20 3

male 21 6

Intensification zero plus


male 17 9


X-squared = 9.0495e-31, df = 1, p-value = 1 female 16 7

male 19 7

Register formal Informal


male 8 19

Tolerable

Speaker Category Chi-square test

Discourse impersonal personal


male 30 7

Intensification zero plus


male 23 9



male 32 5

Register formal informal


male 7 30

It is visible that register category for tolerable lexeme can be the basis for further research

in this field. The significance with p-value of 0.1192 is the second lowest, right after the in-

stances of usage in table 10 with p-value equal to 0.06079. All other categories do not stand as

significant, although further research in this field can prove different.


Discussion

Answers to the assumed research questions can be concluded as such:

• Quantitative differences in the use of the tested tokens occur; with slightly significant

advantage of tolerable lexeme use by men.

• Significant amount of tolerable lexeme use by men is confirmed for the classified type

of intensification (0 and +).

• Visible quantitative differences occur in tolerable lexeme use, in the informal register,

by men.

• The distribution of 1st and 3rd person sentences does not show significant quantitative

differences for the whole research groups, but the use of tolerable lexeme by men in

1st person sentences, shows a vast increase in their number; in relation to the fre-

quency of women uses.

All of the surveys assumed that the Chi-square test will be significant below or equal to

the margin of 0,05. Only one of the categorized samples fulfilled this assumption. The intensi-

fication sample concerning bearable and tolerable use with the intensifier ‘very’ and the sim-

ple form of lexemes. The above mentioned category result p-value of 0.04518. Moreover, the

use of tolerable lexeme by men is more frequent, the p-value equals 0.06079; this could be the

basis for further research. It can be concluded that the tolerable lexeme is used more frequen-

tly in its simple form; and the bearable lexeme with the intensifier ‘very’. Thirdly, large num-

ber of men use tolerable lexeme more frequently than women.

The figures below show the correspondence between the research classifications:

Równanie 1. Research classifications multi correspondence analysis with gender – female use

62 Sebastian Dunat

As illustrated by the 1st graph the lexemes use by women corresponds to the following ele-

ments of classification: Intensification, personal discourse type usage, 3rd person sentences

distribution, and formal register.

Równanie 2. Research classifications multi correspondence analysis with gender – male use

Men, as show by the second graph, tend to use both lexemes: without intensification

(simple form), impersonal discourse, 1st person sentences, and informal register. Nevertheless,

only few of the samples proved significant by the Pearson Chi-square test. Those mentioned

above are assumed significant by the survey.

All other samples do not show the reliable significance in Pearson Chi-square tests, in ac-

cordance to the assumed research range; and cannot be taken as significant. Some of the sam-

ples do not have the right amount of examples that can be used in the Pearson Chi-square test

conduction; data below 5 may prove incorrect in surveys. The categories that do not stand to

fulfill requirement are: type of discourse for bearable and gender tag, tolerable with intensifi-

cation and gender tag, type of discourse for tolerable and gender tag, 3rd person sentences for

tolerable with gender tag. Those samples can serve as the basis for further research in the

field.

Conclusions

The differences of bearable and tolerable lexemes usage, in women and men written lan-

guage of American magazines and newspapers, which occurred in this research article can be

concluded by the correlation made in R program, visualized below:


Rysunek 1. Correlation of variables in usage of bearable and tolerable lexemes by men and wo-

men in American newspapers and magazines.

In conclusion, there are strong correlations between the ‘intensification..(-)’ and news so-

urce (0.997), as well as tolerable lexeme (0.994); zero intensification with all four categories,

0.98, 0.99, 0.93, and 0.96 respectively. Strong correlation between impersonal discourse type

and magazines source (0,999) is visible. On the other hand, personal discourse correlates with

tolerable lexeme (0.987). Formal register use correlation is significant for bearable (0.994),

while informal correlates to tolerable lexeme (0.987). First and third person structures bear

only slight differences between the four categories, the strongest is the correlation between

Magazines source and 1st person sentences use. Hedging expressions (hedging..) seem to in-

fluence the tolerable lexeme, as mentioned above (0.998). In 2005 there is a visible correla-

tion between newspapers (0.921) and tolerable use (0.967). On the other hand, in 2011 it shi-

64 Sebastian Dunat

fts all the way round and magazines correspond (0,919), as well as, the bearable usage

(0.969). Bearable lexeme usage corresponds to magazine usage (0.970), while the tolerable

lexeme tends to influence the newspapers more (0.989).

Bibliography

BIBER D., SUSAN C., RANDI R., Corpus Linguistics: Investigating language structure and

use, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1998.

BUCHOLTZ M., Theories of Discourse as Theories of Gender: Discourse Analysis in Lan-

guage and Gender Studies. The handbook of Language and Gender, New York, Blackwell

Publishing Ltd., 2003.

Corpus of Contemporary American English. N.p., n.d. Dostęp. 20.06.2017, 15.07.2017.

Dostępne online <https://corpus.byu.edu/coca/>

FRIGINAL E., HARDY J., Corpus-Based Socioliguistics: A Guide for Students, New York,

Routledge, 2014.

HOLMES J., Gendered Talk at Work: Constructing Social Identity Through Workplace Inter-

action, New York, Blackwell Publishing, 1995.

HOLMES J., Women, Languge and Identity, in: Journal of Sociolinguistics, 1997, nr 1/2,

s. 195-196. Dostępne online <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9481.

00012/pdf>

SUNDERLAND J., Language and Gender: An advanced resource book, London, Routledge,

2006.

The R Foundation for Statistical Computing. R x64 version 3.4.1., 30 Jun. 2017. Freeware

software. Dostępne online < http://cran.r-project.org/>

LAURENCE A., TagAnt x64, version 1.2.0., 15 Sep. 2015. Freeware software.

Dostępne online < http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/tagant>

LAURENCE A., ProtAnt x64 version 0.1., 21 Mar. 2017. Freeware software.

Dostępne online < http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/protant>

LAURENCE A., AntConc 3.5.7., 30 Sept. 2018. Freeware software. Dostępne online

<http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.html>


Różnice w użytku leksemów bearable oraz tolerable w języku pisanym kobiet i mężczyzn. Badanie kor-

pusowe amerykańskich gazet i magazynów na podstawie korpusu COCA (Corpus of Contemporary

American English)

Istnieje wiele znamienitych prac ilościowych jak i jakościowych na tematy związane z gender. Badania po-

święcone temu tematowi w dużym stopniu wiążą się z wpływem feminizmu oraz teorii feministycznych w pra-

wie wszystkich naukach humanistycznych i społecznych (Holmes, 1997). W wielu pracach tego typu językoz-

nawstwo korpusowe stanowi cenny sposób tworzenia i analizowania dużych ilości danych oraz zapewnienia

odpowiedzi na stawiane pytania. Może dostarczać informacji na temat użytku konkretnych słów, a także zmian

zachodzących pod wpływem czasu (Sunderland, 2006). W kontekście badanego w tym artykule materiału jest

ono narzędziem dającym wiele możliwości.

Powodem przeprowadzenia niniejszego badania była chęć poznania różnic i konotacji związanych z użytkiem

leksemów bearable oraz tolerable przez kobiety i mężczyzn w amerykańskich gazetach i magazynach. Badanie

przeprowadzone zostały na podstawie korpusu COCA (Corpus of Contemporary American English).

Do badania wybrano losowo po 60 przykładów dla każdego z przymiotników, 30 przykładów sklasyfikowanych

przez korpus jako przykłady z gazet oraz 30 sklasyfikowanych jako magazyn (miesięcznik, tygodnik). Badanie

składało się z opisania danych zawartych w korpusie oraz przeprowadzenia ilościowych badań statystycznych

z użyciem programu R dla sprawdzenia poziomu istotności przedstawianych hipotez.

differences of bearable and tolerable lexemes usage in ... · akademia techniczno-humanistyczna w...

Documents