Cover not available
Part of
Corpus Approaches to Social Media
Edited by Sofia Rüdiger and Daria Dayter
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 98] 2020
► pp. 63–86

Chapter 3
Talking about women

Elicitation, manual tagging, and semantic tagging in a study of pick-up artists’ referential strategies

| University of Basel
| University of Bayreuth
In this chapter, we examine how pick-up artists (PUAs; a male community preoccupied with interacting with women) talk about women in their online discourse. To this end, we take and test three approaches: (1) introspection and elicitation, (2) manual tagging of a small specialized corpus, and (3) automatic semantic tagging and reverse collocation of a large corpus of PUA computer-mediated communication. Instead of misogynistic derogatory references to women, which are only used infrequently, we find that PUAs rely on common references (often condescending or objectifying) and on PUA-specific vocabulary. In terms of method, manual tagging turned out most comprehensive, but automatic semantic tagging allowed for the processing of a far bigger dataset with minimal loss of total types retrieved.
Keywords: automatic semantic tagging, corpus-based discourse analysis, PUA, references to women, vocabulary
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Discourse of pick-up artists through the linguistic lens
  • 3.Corpus-based research on reference in discourse
  • 4.Data: The online PUA corpora
    • 4.1Large e-PUA corpus
    • 4.2Field reports (FR) corpus
  • 5.Threefold method: Introspection, manual tagging, and automatic methods
    • Introspection and elicitation
    • Manual tagging
    • Automatic annotation
  • 6.PUAs speaking about women
    • 6.1Findings of the introspection and elicitation round
    • 6.2Findings of the manual tagging round
    • 6.3Additional findings of the semantic tagging and reverse collocation analysis
  • 7.Discussion and conclusion
    • 7.1Pick-up artists speaking about women
    • 7.2Summary of the three extraction methods
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 4 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.98.03day
References (54)
References
Anthony, Laurence. 2014. AntConc (3.4.4w) [software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. <[URL]> (23 March 2020).
Archer, Dawn, Wilson, Andrew & Rayson, Paul. 2002. Introduction to the USAS category system. <[URL]> (24 January 2020).
Baker, Paul. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2009. The BE06 corpus of British English and recent language change. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 312–337. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Representations of Islam in British broadsheet and tabloid newspapers 1999–2005. Language and Politics 9(2): 310–338. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014. Using Corpora to Analyze Gender. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Baker, Paul, Gabrielatos, Costas & McEnery, Tony. 2013. Sketching Muslims: A corpus driven analysis of representations around the word ‘Muslim’ in the British press 1998–2009. Applied Linguistics 34(3): 255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berger, Cynthia, Friginal, Eric & Roberts, Jennifer. 2017. Representations of immigrants and refugees in U.S. K-12 school-to-home correspondence: An exploratory corpus-assisted discourse study. Corpora 12(2): 153–179. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla & Upton, Thomas. 2007. Discourse on the Move – Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 28]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, McEnery, Tony & Wattam, Stephen. 2015. Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(2): 139–173. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, Vaclav, Timperley, Matt & McEnery, Tony. 2018. #LancsBox v. 4.x [software]. <[URL]> (23 March 2020).
Burr, Vivien. 1995. An Introduction to Social Constructionism. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collins, Luke. 2011. How can semantic annotation help us to analyse the discourse of climate change in online user comments. Linguistik Online 70(1): n.p. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dayter, Daria & Rüdiger, Sofia. 2016. Reporting from the field: The narrative reconstruction of experience in pick-up artist online communities. Open Linguistics 1(2): 337–351.Google Scholar
. 2019. In other words: ‘The language of attraction’ used by pick-up artists. English Today 35(2): 13–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
De Klerk, Vivian. 1992. How taboo are taboo words for girls? Language in Society 21: 277–289. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, Penelope & McConnell-Ginet, Sally. 1992. Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology 21: 461–490. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Language and Gender. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Flowerdew, Lynne. 2013. Corpus-based discourse analysis. In The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis, James Paul Gee & Michael Handford (eds), 174–187. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gee, James Paul. 1999. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis – Theory and Method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gordon, David Paul. 1983. Hospital slang for patients: Crocks, gomers, gorks, and others. Language in Society 12: 173–185. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grazian, David. 2007. The girl hunt: Urban nightlife and the performance of masculinity as collective identity. Symbolic Interaction 30(2): 221–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall, Stuart (ed.). 1997. Representation – Cultural Representations and Signifying Practices [Culture, Media and Identities 2]. London: Sage in Association with the Open University.Google Scholar
Harrison, Simon, Todd, Zazie & Lawton, Rebecca. 2008. Talk about terrorism and the media: Communicating with the conduit metaphor. Communication, Culture and Critique 1(4): 378–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hartung, Matthias, Klinger, Roman, Schmidtke, Franziska & Vogel, Lars. 2017. Identifying right-wing extremism in German Twitter profiles: A classification approach. In Natural Language Processing and Information Systems – 22nd International Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems, Flavius Frasincar, Ashwin Ittoo, Le Minh Nguyen & Elisabeth Métais (eds), 320–325. Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Philipp, Adrian, Christoph, Kalashnikova, Olena, Schäfer, Fabian & Evert, Stefan. 2018. A transnational analysis of news and tweets about nuclear phase-out in the aftermath of the Fukushima incident. In Proceedings of the LREC 2018 “Workshop on Computational Impact Detection from Text Data”, 08 May 2018, Miyazaki, Japan, Andreas Witt, Jana Diesner & Georg Rehm (eds), 8–16.Google Scholar
Heinrich, Philipp & Schäfer, Fabian. 2018. Extending corpus-based discourse analysis for exploring Japanese social media. In Proceedings of 4th Asia Pacific Corpus Linguistics Conference (APCLC2018), Yukio Tono & Hitoshi Isahara (eds), 135–140.Google Scholar
Herring, Susan C. 2004. Computer-mediated discourse analysis: An approach to researching online behavior. In Designing for Virtual Communities in the Service of Learning, Sasha A. Barab, Rob Kling & James H. Gray (eds), 338–376. New York NY: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifukor, Presley. 2010. “Elections” or “selections”? Blogging and twittering the Nigerian 2007 general elections. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 30(6): 398–414. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
KhosraviNik, Majid. 2010. The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers. Journal of Language and Politics 9(1): 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Kyung H. 2014. Examining US news media discourses about North Korea: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 25(2): 221–244. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Koteyko, Nelya, Nerlich, Brigitte, Crawford, Paul & Wright, Nick. 2008. “Not rocket science” or “no silver bullet”? Media and government discourses about MRSA and cleanliness. Applied Linguistics 29(2): 223–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and woman’s place. Language in Society 2(1): 45–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lave, Jean & Wenger, Étienne. 1991. Situated Learning – Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leuckert, Sven. 2020. Rethinking community in linguistics: Language and community in the Digital Age. In Rethinking Community through Transdisciplinary Research, Bettina Jansen (ed.), 111–125. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Love, Robbie & Baker, Paul. 2015. The hate that dare not speak its name? Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict 3(1): 57–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lutzky, Ursula & Lawson, Robert. 2019. Gender politics and discourses of #mansplaining, #manspreading, and #manterruption on Twitter. Social Media + Society. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McArthur, Tom. 1981. Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
McGlashan, Mark. 2020. Collective identity and discourse practice in the followership of the Football Lads Alliance on Twitter. Discourse & Society 31(3): 307–328. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Potts, Amanda. 2015. Filtering the flood: Semantic tagging as a method of identifying salient discourse topics in a large corpus of Hurricane Katrina reportage. In Corpora and Discourse Studies – Integrating Discourse and Corpora, Paul Baker & Tony McEnery (eds), 285–304. London: Palgrave MacMillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prentice, Sheryl. 2010. Using automated semantic tagging in critical discourse analysis: A case study on Scottish independence from a Scottish nationalist perspective. Discourse and Society 21(4): 405–437. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, Paul, Archer, Dawn, Piao, Scott & McEnery, Tony. 2004. The UCREL semantic analysis system. In Proceedings of the Beyond Named Entity Recognition Semantic Labelling for NLP Tasks Workshop, Lisbon, Portugal, 2004, 7–12.Google Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rüdiger, Sofia & Dayter, Daria. 2017. The ethics of researching unlikeable subjects. Applied Linguistics Review 8(2–3): 251–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2020. Manbragging online: Self-praise on pick-up artists’ forums. Journal of Pragmatics 161: 16–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shulman, Stuart. 2011. DiscoverText: Software training to unlock the power of text. dg.o ’11: Proceedings of the 12th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference: Digital Government Innovation in Challenging Times, June 2011, 373. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sigley, Robert & Holmes, Janet. 2002. Looking at girls in corpora of English. Journal of English Linguistics 30(2): 138–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stommel, Wyke. 2008. Conversation analysis and Community of Practice as approaches to studying online community. Language@Internet 5: n.p. <[URL]> (1 November 2019).
Taboada, Maite. 2016. Sentiment analysis: An overview from linguistics. Annual Review of Linguistics 2: 325–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte. 2014. Investigating the representation of migrants in the UK and Italian press: A cross-linguistic corpus-assisted discourse analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 19(3): 368–400. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taylor, Charlotte & Marchi, Anna (eds). 2018. Corpus Approaches to Discourse – A Critical Review. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
TextSTAT. 2020. Simple Text Analysis Tool. <[URL]> (22 February 2020).
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. The representation of social actors. In Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard & Malcolm Coulthard (eds), 32–70. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weatherall, Ann. 1998. Women and men in language: An analysis of seminaturalistic person descriptions. Human Communication Research 25(2): 275–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Lawson, Robert
2023. Language and Mediated Masculinities, DOI logo

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