Cover not available
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

 | The Open University
This paper adapts O’Halloran’s (2010) 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.
Keywords: poverty, BTL comments, electronic supplement analysis (ESA), indexicality, discourse
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
Published online: 16 April 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19049.pat
References (29)
References
Baker, P., & Ellece, S. (2011). Key Terms in Discourse Analysis. New York, NY: Continuum.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Z. (2004). Work, Consumerism and the New Poor (2nd edition). Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Cassiman, S. A. (2008). Resisting the neo-liberal poverty discourse: On constructing deadbeat dads and welfare queens. Sociology Compass, 2(5), 1690–1700. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Derrida, J. (1976). Of Grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and Power (2nd edition). London: Longman.Google Scholar
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).
Katz, M. B. (2013). The Undeserving Poor (2nd edition). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Marsh, S. (2012). Bridging the gap: Interdisciplinary insights into the securitization of poverty. Discourse and Society, 23(3), 274–296. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lundström, R. (2013). Framing fraud: Discourse on benefit cheating in Sweden and the UK. European Journal of Communication, 28(6), 630–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKenzie, L. (2015). Getting By: Estates, Class and Culture in Austerity Britain. London: Polity. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
O’Halloran, K. (2010). Critical reading of a text through its electronic supplement. Digital Culture and Education, 2(2), 210–229.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Paterson, L. L., & Gregory, I. N. (2019). Representations of Poverty and Place. Basingstoke: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (1997). PC analysis of key words – and key key words. System, 25(2), 33–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). WordSmith Tools (Version 6) [Computer software]. Stroud: Lexical Analysis Software.Google Scholar
(n.d.). Downloading BNC or ANC word lists. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed November 2019).
Skeggs, B. (1997). Formations of Class and Gender. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. (2013). Searching for similarity using corpus-assisted discourse studies. Corpora, 8(1), 81–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van der Bom, I., Paterson, L. L., Peplow, D., & Grainger, K. (2018). ‘It’s not the fact they claim benefits but their useless, lazy, drug taking lifestyles we despise’: Analysing audience responses to Benefits Street using live tweets. Discourse, Context & Media, 211, 36–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, H., & Skeggs, B. (Eds.). (2011). Reality Television and Class. London: British Film Institute/Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Harkins, Steven & Jairo Lugo-Ocando
2024. The view from ‘My Pitch’: Homeless voices in The Big Issue during the cost-of-living crisis. Discourse & Society DOI logo
Paterson, Laura L
2024. Defining, labelling and evaluating poverty: A corpus-based discourse analysis of category construction in The Times newspaper 1900–2009. Discourse & Society DOI logo
Tarkiainen, Laura, Helena Blomberg & Christian Kroll
2024. Poverty constructions and discursive strategies employed by participants in the Finnish Basic Income Experiment. Discourse & Society DOI logo
CHUA, Shi Min
2022. Compiling and analysing a large corpus of online discussions to explore users’ interactions. Applied Corpus Linguistics 2:2 ► pp. 100017 ff. DOI logo
Strani, Katerina & Anna Szczepaniak-Kozak
2022. Online Hate Speech in the UK and Poland: A Case-Study of Online Reactions to the Killing of Arkadiusz Jóźwik. In Cyberhate in the Context of Migrations, ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Morrison, James
2021. “Scrounger-bashing” as national pastime: the prevalence and ferocity of anti-welfare ideology on niche-interest online forums. Social Semiotics 31:3 ► pp. 383 ff. DOI logo
Chen, Liang-Ching, Kuei-Hu Chang & Hsiang-Yu Chung
2020. A Novel Statistic-Based Corpus Machine Processing Approach to Refine a Big Textual Data: An ESP Case of COVID-19 News Reports. Applied Sciences 10:16 ► pp. 5505 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 november 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.