Style and Stance #8: Coding My Control Data Set

Warning: To those who want no more than a casual look at sociolinguistics, move on from this post.  Explore lighter posts like this one about design -- it's even colorful!  In the post you are currently reading, I am starting to dive into the coding of my two data sets, the submission guidelines for a traditional print journal and for a digital academic journal. Come back another day for my findings written in a more blog friendly (and maybe digitally academic) way!


On Dr. Anderson's recommendation, I have chosen to focus on one of my indexical fields, syntax, versus tackling design too.  I have started categories for design and really enjoyed coding some of that field.  But as I said to Dr. Anderson, I do not want to bite off more than I should in this first foray into sociolinguistic study.

My goal is first to define how style encodes an epistemic stance in academic writing. Then, using this control set, I want to study whether academic writing done in the digital environment aligns or dis-aligns with this epistemic stance. My initial findings in my first coding indicate that digital academic writing has a predominately affective stance while still showing aspects of the academic epistemic stance.

What I have done to start with is create my categories and determine control set examples. The categories are on a continuum with Epistemic I and Affective I representing the extremes of each end of the spectrum.

Category	Definition	Example Sentences All examples taken from the academic data set: “Guidelines for Editors and Authors,” Computers and Composition: An International Journal.
Epistemic I: Self-Authority	Sentences with “clear assertions of a viewpoint that follow a linear argument and state facts without qualifiers” (Francis et al 320).	·        “Guest editors of special issues need the Guest Editor’s Manual …, which provides general information necessary to create an issue.” ·        “Since manuscripts are submitted for blind review, all identifying information must be removed from the body of the paper.”
Epistemic II: Alternate Authority	Sentences that “acknowledge alternatives and other view points and possibility” (Francis et al 320).	·        “Only if you tell us what you need to know can we make these manuals living, useful document.” ·        “Supplementary files offer additional possibilities to publish supporting applications, movies, animation sequences, high-resolution images, background datasets, sound clips, and more.”
Affective II: Qualification	“Sentences that are qualified” (Francis et al 320).	·        “It welcomes articles, reviews, and letters to the editor that may be of interest to the readers …” (also Connection) ·        “Manuscripts are accepted for review with the understanding that the same work has not been and will not be published nor is presently submitted elsewhere, that all persons listed as Authors have given their approval for the submission of the paper, and that any person cited as a source of personal communication has approved such citation.”
Affective I: Connection	Sentences that evoke personal connection, emotion, and/or sharing.	·        “It welcomes articles, reviews, and letters to the editor that may be of interest to the readers …” (also Qualification) ·        “We welcome any suggestions for changes and advice on how we can clarify or extend our commentary to assist you in accomplishing your editing tasks.”

In my initial coding of the traditional print guidelines, I have the following breakdown.

Category	# of Occurrences
Epistemic I: Self-Authority	33
Epistemic II: Alternate Authority	9
Affective II: Qualification	1
Affective I: Connection	2

  

For the digital guidelines, here is what I have coded so far:

Category	# of Occurrences
Epistemic I: Self-Authority	6
Epistemic II: Alternate Authority	7
Affective II: Qualification	3
Affective I: Connection	5

Some things I need to bear in mind as I compare these are:

• the number of total occurrences is much greater for the print guidelines because they are twice as long. I need to calculate a comparable ratio of number of cocurrences versus number oif total occurrences.
• the print guidelines are not fully epistemic and the digital guidelines are not fully affective -- thinking about the qualities of each stance that each type of writing chooses to include is important to my final conclusions

That's all for tonight. I am feeling like I have taken a few steps towards becoming a sociolinguist and also in proving my theory that something is changing in digital academic writing.

Works Cited

Francis, Becky, et al. "An Analysis of Undergraduate Writing Styles in the Context of Gender and Achievement." Studies in Higher Education 26.3 (2001): 313-26. Web.

"Submission Guidelines." Computers and Compostion Online. Computers and Composition, n.d. Web. 24 Sept. 2012.

 

Witte, Alison. "Guidelines for Editors and Authors." Computers and Composition: An International Journal. Computers and Composition, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2012.

Yield Sign