Saturday, October 18, 2008

Counting Your Words

Erica recently called to my attention this great article in The New York Times about the work of University of Texas psychology professor James W. Pennebaker.  He counts the number and type of words (using a computer program called Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count or LIWC) used by an individual to see what it can tell us.  Pennebaker's approach is unique in that it's a departure from traditional text analysis, which he says, "is really more interested in context, how sentences are put together and what a meaningful phrase," whereas his approach "is simply counting words."  He has used his software to analyze the number of first person pronouns used by Al Qaeda number two Ayman al-Zawahiri to demonstrate a shift in his relationship with Osama bin Laden.

Pennebaker has also used his counting technique to analyze the speeches of the 2008 presidential candidates (the link: http://wordwatchers.wordpress.com).  He posits that the way each candidate uses language can tell us something about how he thinks (and from there we can analyze the difference between the way each approaches problems).  Here's a choice excerpt:

"Whereas McCain tends to be more categorical in his thinking, Obama is more fluid or contextual in the ways he approaches problems.  Categorical thinking involves the use of concrete nouns and their associated articles (a, an, the) and suggests that the person is approaching a problem by breaking it down into its component parts and attempting to put it in meaningful categories.  Fluid or contextual thinking involves a higher rate of verbs and associated parts of speech (such as gerunds and adverbs)."

--Amy

3 comments:

Unknown said...

this has nothing to do with your post, but i think you would enjoy what we're doing these days in my writing seminar. I just read an article called "Referential Ambiguity in the Calculus of Brazilian Racial Identity" by Marvin Harris. While I've got a few problems with the method, the author is trying to tackle a wide range of semanto-cognitive (is that a word? it is now!) [OMGZ harnessing language as i see fit omgz] issues which I think you'd find interesting.

The Fluent Society said...

OMGZ, awesome! (By the way, I love you for responding so quickly.) There's a similar deal with the Hopi language and the understanding of physics. The question is whether the discoveries of modern physics can be better expressed in Hopi than in English, since Hopi can have verbs without subjects. Some argue that we read into nature these fictional acting entities because our verbs have to have substantives in front of them. I'm not sure what to think about it either, but it's definitely an interesting idea.

--Amy

Cakemaster said...

Reading this and Serko's comments make me want to be in college already. Fast forward, junior year!
Doesn't this make you wonder what your textual analysis would say about you? I don't think I'd be ready for that kind of scrutiny, but it's still really interesting.