Corpus linguistics is commonly thought of as a quantitative method, but qualitative decisions are equally important. In this article, we describe the importance of qualitative decision-making when using corpora to carry out business communication research. Through the use of two comparative case studies, we highlight how two important qualitative decisions—language-domain operationalization and corpus balance—can affect the findings of the research. We conclude with three recommendations for business communication scholars who use corpus data in their research.
AertsW.BeibeiY. (2017). Rhetorical impression management in the letter to shareholders and institutional setting. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 30(2), 404–432. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1916
BakerP. (2023). Using corpora in discourse analysis. Bloomsbury.
4.
BatchelorJ.SmithJ. (in press). Communicating science to the public: A comparison of lexicogrammatical features in student-produced and popular science writing. In WilliamsM.MelonçonL. (Eds.), Liminality: The work of resilience in technical communication. WAC Clearinghouse.
5.
BeerA. (2017). From business letters to email and mobile communication. In MautnerG.RainerF. (Eds.), Handbook of business communication: Linguistic approaches (pp. 153–173). Walter de Gruyter Inc.
6.
BestgenY. (2014). Inadequacy of the chi-squared test to examine vocabulary differences between corpora. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29(2), 164–70. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt020
BiberD.EgbertJ. (2018). Register variation online. Cambridge University Press.
11.
BiberD.GrayB. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776
12.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FinneganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written english. Longman.
13.
BrezinaV. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
14.
CarradiniS.SwartsJ. (2023). Text at scale: Corpus analysis in technical communication. WAC Clearninghouse.
15.
CatenaccioP. (2008). Press releases as a hybrid genre: Addressing the informative/promotional conundrum. Pragmatics, 18(1), 9–31. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.1.02cat
16.
ChengW.HoJ. (2017). A corpus study of bank financial analyst reports: Semantic fields and metaphors. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(3), 258–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488415572790
17.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
18.
ConradS. M. (1996). Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education, 8(3), 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0898-5898(96)90025-X
19.
ConradS. (2018). The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(1), 38–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917729864
20.
DesagulierG. (2017). Corpus linguistics and statistics with R: Introduction to quantitative methods in linguistics. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64572-8
21.
DiesnerJ.FrantzT. L.CarleyK. M. (2005). Communication networks from the Enron Email Corpus “It’s always about the people. Enron is no different.”Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory, 11(3), 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-005-5377-0
22.
DragstedB. (2014). A case study of letters to shareholders in annual reports before, during and after the financial crisis. LSP Journal - Language for Special Purposes, Professional Communication, Knowledge Management and Cognition, 5(2), Article 2. https://rauli.cbs.dk/index.php/lspcog/article/view/4701
23.
EgbertJ.BiberD. (2020). It’s just words, folks. It’s just words. Donald Trump’s distinctive linguistic style. In SchneiderU.EitelmannM. (Eds.), Linguistic inquiries into Donald Trump’s language: From ‘fake news’ to ‘tremendous success. (pp. 17–40).’ Bloomsbury Academic. https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350115545
24.
EgbertJ.BiberD. (2023). Key feature analysis: A simple, yet powerful method for comparing text varieties. Corpora, 18(1), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2023.0275
25.
EgbertJ.BiberD.GrayB. (2022). Designing and evaluating language corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584880
26.
EgbertJ.LarssonT.BiberD. (2020). Doing linguistics with a corpus: Methodological considerations for the everyday user (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888790
FriginalE.BiberD. (2016). Multi-dimensional analysis. In BakerP.EgbertJ. (Eds.), Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus linguistic research (pp. 73–89). Routledge.
GillingsM.LearmonthM.MautnerG. (2024). Taking the road less travelled: How corpus-assisted discourse studies can enrich qualitative explorations of large textual datasets. British Journal of Management, 35(4), 1667–1679. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12816
31.
GillingsM.MautnerG.BakerP. (2023). Corpus-assisted discourse studies. Cambridge University Press.
ItchuaqiyaqC. U.RanadeN.WaltonR. (2021). Theory-to-query: Developing a corpus-analysis method using computer programming and human analysis. Technical Communication, 68(3), 7–28.
34.
KilgarriffA. (2009, July). Simple Maths for keywords [Conference session]. Corpus Linguistics Conference, Liverpool.
35.
KoesterA. (2022). Building small specialised corpora. In O’KeeffeA.McCarthyM. J. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 48–61). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367076399
36.
LamC. (2014). Where did we come from and where are we going? Examining authorship characteristics in technical communication research. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 57(4), 266–285. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2014.2363892
37.
LeeS. T.BasnyatI. (2013). From press release to news: Mapping the framing of the 2009 H1N1 A influenza pandemic. Health Communication, 28(2), 119–132. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2012.658550
38.
LeeW. W. L. (2020). Impression management through hedging and boosting: A cross-cultural investigation of the messages of U.S. and Chinese corporate leaders. Lingua, 242, Article 102872. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102872
39.
LutzkyU. (2024). “Doesn’t really answer my question. . .”: Exploring customer service interactions on Twitter. International Journal of Business Communication, 61(1), 92–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884231200247
40.
MaatH. P. (2007). How promotional language in press releases is dealt with by journalists: Genre mixing or genre conflict?Journal of Business Communication, 44(1), 59–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943606295780
41.
MarsdenE. (2020). Methodological transparency and its consequences for the quality and scope of research. In McKinleyJ.RoseH. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of research methods in applied linguistics (pp. 15–28). Routledge.
42.
McEneryT.HardieA. (2013). The history of corpus linguistics. In AllanK. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics (pp. 727–745). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199585847.013.0034
43.
McEneryT.XiaoR.TonoY. (2006). Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. Routledge.
44.
NaidooJ.DulekR. E. (2022). Artificial intelligence in business communication: A snapshot. International Journal of Business Communication, 59(1), 126–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488418819139
45.
NiniA. (2019). The Multi-Dimensional Analysis Tagger. In Berber SardinhaT.Veirano PintoM. (Eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp. 67–94). Bloomsbury.
46.
Palmer-SilveiraJ. C.Ruiz-GarridoM. F. (2014). Examining U.S. and Spanish annual reports: Crisis communication. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly, 77(4), 409–425. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490614543176
PetersonK.HohenseeM.XiaF. (2011). Email formality in the workplace: A case study on the Enron corpus. Proceedings of the Workshop on Language in Social Media, 86–95.
49.
PooleR. (2016). Good times, bad times: A keyword analysis of letters to shareholders of two Fortune 500 banking institutions. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 55–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525449
50.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/
51.
RutherfordB. A. (2005). Genre analysis of corporate annual report narratives: A corpus linguistics-based approach. Journal of Business Communication, 42(4), 349–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0021943605279244
52.
SchmiedJ. (1993). Qualitative and quantitative research approaches to English relative constructions. In SouterC.AtwellE. (Eds.), Corpus-based computational linguistics (Vol. 9), pp. 85–96. BRILL. https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004653542
SmeuninxN.De ClerckB.AertsW. (2020). Measuring the readability of sustainability reports: A corpus-based analysis through standard formulae and NLP. International Journal of Business Communication, 57(1), 52–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416675456
ThomasJ. (1997). Discourse in the marketplace: The making of meaning in annual reports. The Journal of Business Communication (1973), 34(1), 47–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369703400103
ZhangS.GosseltJ. F.de JongM. D. T. (2020). How large information technology companies use Twitter: Arrangement of corporate accounts and characteristics of tweets. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(4), 364–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920932191
