Corpus based Analysis of 'Research' and 'Study' among Printed Philippine Academic Papers

SEDARIA l Corpus-based Analysis of “Research” and “Study”

of 16

Corpus-based Analysis of “Research” and “Study” among Printed

Philippine Academic Papers

Hezron James F. Sedaria l August 2015 Philippine Normal University, Manila

INTRODUCTION

Linguists usually define synonymy as a word having similar or nearly the same meaning with

another lexical item. Wherein, most language users consult dictionaries to gauge the applicability of a

word to another item. They usually base it on the substitutability of a new word to the original one –

while being careful of not altering the sense and function of the lexical item in the sentence. However,

this poses some challenges since the sensory fit of a word to its synonymous pair is not exactly the same

all the time. In fact, the occurrence of “perfect synonyms” or “absolute synonyms” (Lyons, 1995) is

extremely rare (Taylor 1995). Some even claim that “absolute synonyms” are non-existent (Cruse, 2010).

The extent of how synonymous two words are, can be analyzed across its semantic fields. Some

proposes that the meaning of a word can only be understood by describing its relationship to another

word, which typically highlights their difference (Murcia & Freeman, 2010). Gairns and Redman (1986),

on the other hand, presented a diagram for semantic feature analysis or componential analysis. They

created a grid by listing the features of the word horizontally, and the descriptions belonging to the

same semantic field vertically. After ticking the cells where statements are true, results are drawn to

understand the behavior of the word better. However, this may mislead language users due to the

limited information that the analysis provides, thus, ending with a “fuzzy” definition (Leech, 1981).

Lyons (1995) further discussed the qualities of “perfect synonyms” according to whether (a) “all

meanings [being compared] are identical”; (b) they are “synonymous in all contexts”; and (c) the word

are “semantically equivalent on all dimensions of meaning, descriptive and non-descriptive.” As


of 16

mentioned earlier, “perfect synonyms” are highly marked in the language system which leads to a less

restrictive description of synonymous pairs – the near-synonyms. Cruse (1986) described near-

synonymous words as “lexical items whose senses are identical in respect of ‘central’ semantic traits,

but differ […] in ‘minor’ or ‘peripheral traits’.”

For “research” and “study”, the focus of the paper will be describing the breadth of their

similarities and differences in Philippine academic texts, therefore, classifying the relationship of the two

lexical items at the end. Specifically, the aim of the study is to answer the following questions:

1. What are the similarities and differences between the nouns “research” and “study”?

2. What is the frequency distribution of “research” and “study” as it function in a sentence?

3. How can we visualize and represent the result of the described relationship of “research”

and “study”?

Academic papers were chosen due to the commutability of “research” and “study” in the genre.

More so, researchers choose to (over)use synonyms or, more fittingly, paraphrase (Wallwork, 2013), in

order to avoid plagiarism and to explicitly describe the findings of a study better. In which, may be

acceptable according to the conventions of writing style followed by the community of academicians.

Swales and Feak (2012:14) called this as writing in an “appropriate style”.

The substitution of “research” to “study” and vice versa may also agree with Halliday and

Hasan’s (1976) work, where using synonyms was identified as one of the discourse markers for

cohesion. This is the extension of the analysis which is not covered in the paper which could be a subject

for further research and discussion.


of 16

METHODOLOGY

In order to answer the research questions, the International Corpus of English (ICE) Philippines

(Bautista & Gonzalez, 2009) was used as the corpora of the study. All noun forms of “research” and

“study” were extracted from the corpus through the AntCoc Concordance (Anthony, 2005). The analysis

is limited on printed academic writings from the subjects Humanities, Social Science, Natural Sciences

and Technology with filenames from W2A-001 to W2A-040 (Leitner, 1992) (Nelson, 1996).

After the noun forms had been extracted, a phrase structure role analysis is done to identify

the function of the two words in sentences – whether used as subject or predicate. This is further

extended to their syntactic role as a noun phrase (NP) under the predicate node. Murcia and Freeman’s

(2010) model is used in the analysis.

In order to understand the distribution of meaning of “research” and “study”, WordNet 3.4 is

used as the “sense” resource of the study. The relationship of the words are analyzed and investigated

depending on the frequency of their usage in the given genre. An overlapping meaning is also targeted

to be identified.

Further analysis is needed to recognize the words collocating “research” and “study”. Quirk’s

(1985) model is utilized to analyze each lexical item by its constituent. To sum up the investigation, a

diagram was created to visualize the relationship of the words. This also highlighted the gradience of

concreteness and abstractness of the words.


of 16

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS

Word Classes

AntConc 3.4 sorted out the frequency in ICE Philippines where “research” and “study” are

applied in sentences in the genre of academic texts. In total, there are 84 and 193 instances of

“research” and “study” respectively. It may be significant to mention that “study” is more exhaustively

used in the given genre as compared to “research”. This will be further expounded in sense distribution.

The table below presents the distribution of “research” and “study” according to word classes.

Noun forms consist the majority of the observed word classes for both lexical items with its variants (63

instances or 75.00% for ‘research’ and 129 instances or 66.84% for ‘study’). Due to the dominance, noun

forms are chosen to be the focus of the study. In which “research” and “study” are operationally defined

as either a process (sentence 1a) or a product (sentences 1b, 1c and 1d) of a scientific investigation.

Table 1: Instances of 'research' and 'study' across different word classes

Research'

Research(es) % Research(ing) % Researcher(s) % TOTAL %

Noun Form 60 71.43 0.00 0.00 3 3.57 63 75.00

Verb Form 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.00

Adjective Form 21 25.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 21 25.00

TOTAL 81 96.43 0 0 3 3.57 84 100.00

Study'

Studie (s/d) % Study(ing) Study % TOTAL %

Noun Form 40 70.17 0 0.00 89 66.92 129 66.84

Verb Form 13 22.18 3 100.00 12 9.02 28 14.51

Adjective Form 4 7.02 0 0.00 32 24.06 36 18.65

TOTAL 57 30.00 3 1.55 133 70.00 193 100.00

1 (a) In linguistic anthropological research, it is commonly assumed that…

(b) This research is an initial attempt to provide an avenue for a sector whose voice…

(c) As can be learnt from Anderson's (1991) brilliant study, the birth of the modern nation did…

(d) …of everyday conversations laced with personal narratives formed the corpus of the study.


of 16

In sentences 1b and 1d, the noun form is signaled by the determiners before them. “This” and

“the” are the most common. On the other hand, pre-modifiers “anthropological” and “brilliant” require

noun reference in sentences 1a and 1c. This will be further described in the constituent and collocation

analysis in the latter portion of the study.

Based on Table 1, “research” is also observed to appear as noun-modifier or adjective (21

instances or 25.00%), while “study” are both seen to function as verb and adjective (28 or 14.51% as

verb and 36 or 18.65% as adjective). The second-highest word class occurrence for the analyzed words is

adjectives.

2 (a) Metro Manila was the research site of the communicative events and situations.

(b) …intellectual explosion of research efforts linking the medical and social sciences…

(c) …in the perceived proficiency in Filipino and in English across the two study conditions…

(d) They were instructed to read each study problem and to try to learn the material as…

As attributive adjectives, both “research” and “study” appear to be prenominal in position in

almost all sentences in the corpus. Neither inflectional nor derivational morphemes are used to mark

them as adjectives. Both words used as modifiers appear in base forms.

“Research” and “study” describe the different portions of the paper – as seen in the nouns

they modify. By substituting one to the other, meaning is most unlikely to change. However, it may be

inferred that “research” modifies a subject closer to tangibility than “study”. As seen in sentences 2a

and 2c, “site” can be easier quantified than “conditions”. Though a deeper analysis can be made to

identify how far are the semantic differences of the nouns they modify since “efforts”, “conditions” and

“problem” are all non-concrete in nature.


of 16

More so, “study”, in the verb forms –ies, -ied, and –ing, are used to define a process of

accomplishing or acquiring something. This did not occur in the case of “research”.

Phrase Structure

In order to better understand the behavior of the two words, a phrase structure role analysis

(Murcia & Freeman, 2010) is applied in describing them. Since “research” and “study” are analyzed as

nouns, investigation is extended to the level of noun phrases (NP) roles. In table 2, it can be observed

that “research” and “study” are almost the same in distribution in terms of function – either subject or

predicate. Among the 133 occurrences of “study”, 82 or 61.65% is presented as subject, while

“research” has a frequency of 27 or 55.10% out of 49 instances. Sentences 3a and 3b gives sample on

how “research” and “study” function as subjects. The first is modified by an adjective while the second is

preceded by a determiner.

Table 2: Distribution of Noun Phrase Roles of 'Research' and 'Study'

Noun Phrase Roles

study' (%) research' (%)

SUBJ (subject) 82 (61.65) 27 (55.10)

PRED (predicate) 51 (38.35) 22 (44.90)

TOTAL 133 (100.00) 49 (100.00)

Roles of NP's in Predicate

Object of the Prep 39 (76.47) 16 (72.73)

Direct Objects 11 (21.57) 6 (27.27)

Indirect Object 0 (00.00) 0 (00.00)

Subj Noun pred 1 (1.96) 0 (0.00)

Obj Noun pred 0 (00.00) 0 (00.00)

TOTAL 51 (100.00) 22 (100.00)

3 (a) Archeological research in Bohol has revealed the widespread practice of wooden coffin…

(b) The study was laid out in a 5 x 4 x 3 factor-factorial completely randomized design.


of 16

The percentage of NP as subject is not far from those used as predicates. Therefore, the

predicate roles is further inspected using Murcia and Freeman’s (2010) description. They identified the

roles of NP’s as predicates: (1) direct objects (2) indirect objects (3) object of the prepositions (4) subject

noun predicate and (5) object noun predicate. Table 2 presented that “research’s” and “study’s” most

dominant role as NP predicate is object of the preposition (76.47% for “research” and 72.73% for

“study”). This is followed by direct objects (21.57% for “research” and 27.27% for “study”).

4 (a) …this transdisciplinary approach, particularly in health social science research.

(b) Its major recommendation is to promote Essential National Health Research.

(c) …it is this scenario that is explored in depth in this study

(d) He will then pursue with great interest a study of the classics of the past…

As seen in the samples above, 4a and 4c shows NP functioning as object of the prepositions.

They are both preceded by the preposition “in” which signals a conceptual enclosure or space. The said

space may also refer to outputs of something, in the case of “research” and “study”, a thinking method.

For sentences 4b and 4d, both NP’s are used as direct objects for verbs “promote” and “pursue”.

Based on the observed instances, it can be inferred that there is no significant difference on the

roles of NP’s between “research” and “study”. They almost have equal distribution for NP syntactic roles

in predicates. Again, commutability might not be a problem for “research” and “study” if the premise

will be solely based on NP roles.


of 16

Sense Distribution

From the previous discussions, word class distribution and NP roles do not satisfy the goal of

substantiating the differences of “research” and “study”. Therefore further comparison of the two

words on sense distribution is required. This portion of the analysis highlights their defined meaning

prescribed by a credible reference. WordNet 3.4 is selected as the online lexical resource to qualify how

semantically related the words are. However, it must be noted that the investigation on sense

distribution is done deductively, therefore the matching of meanings is limited to what senses WordNet

provided. Below are the noun senses for “research” and “study” respectively.

(1) Research

(i) research -- (systematic investigation to establish facts)

(ii) Inquiry, enquiry, research -- (a search for knowledge ;)

(2) Study

(i) survey, study -- (a detailed critical inspection) the act of examining something

closely (as for mistakes)

(ii) study, work -- (applying the mind to learning a subject e.g. language study)

(iii) report, study, written report -- (a written document describing the findings of

some individual or group;

(iv) study -- (a state of deep mental absorption; "she is in a deep study")

(v) study -- (a room used for reading and writing and studying;)

(vi) discipline, subject, subject area, subject field, field, field of study, study, bailiwick,

branch of knowledge -- (a branch of knowledge)

(vii) sketch, study -- (preliminary drawing for later elaboration;)

(viii) cogitation, study -- (attentive consideration and meditation;)


of 16

(ix) study -- (someone who memorizes quickly and easily (as the lines for a part in a

play); "he is a quick study")

(x) study -- (a composition intended to develop one aspect of the performer's

technique; "a study in spiccato bowing")

As mentioned earlier, “study” has a broader sense distribution than “research”. This may count

as one of the quantifiable differences of the two. “Study” is more flexibly used in various contexts,

while, “research” is only applied to higher order of thinking and to a more formal process of arriving to a

conclusion. Looking at the hypernyms of “research”, both of its given sense is part of an activity which is

rooted from abstraction, wherein, a course of work or act is executed to describe the abstract concept –

somehow concretizing the observation. Though the two senses of “research” are still different because

“research” (i) is concerned on the expansion of knowledge while “research” (ii) refers to answering a

problem with a single correct solution.

By observation, there is no overlapping superficial sense between “study” and “research”

based on the given definition of WordNet. The closest might be “research” (i) and “study” (i). Though

“study” is more particularly defined with the goal of identifying and naming mistakes which is not always

the case for the definition given in “research” (i).

Among the 10 senses of “study”, sense (iii) is the closest to relate to “research” in the genre of

academic texts where “study” is defined as a concrete document created to communicate the results of

a “research”. With this, it is then logical to track the frequency distribution of the senses and draw

inferences on the most dominant meanings.


of 16

Table 3: Sense Distribution of "Research" and "Study"

Research' Study'

Senses WordNet 3.1 Freq. % Senses WordNet 3.1 Freq. %

i Systematic Investigation 48 97.96 i Survey 2 1.50

ii Search for knowledge, inquiry

1 2.04 ii work / learn 3 2.26

iii written report 110 82.71

iv Deep mental absorption 0 0.00

v room used for studying 0 0.00

vi discipline, subject, field 18 13.53

vii Sketch 0 0.00

viii Cogitation 0 0.00

ix

someone who memorizes quickly

0 0.00

x

composition to develop a performer's technique

0 0.00

TOTAL 49 100.00 TOTAL 133 100.00

As seen on Table 3, sense (i) has the highest percentage of frequency for “research” (48

instances or 97.96%). On the other hand, sense (iii) dominated the sense distribution for “study” (110

instances or 82.71%) and sense (vi) interestingly came second (18 instances or 13.53%) given the genre

of the corpora. Examples of these senses are shown below.

5 (a) Research has shown that analogical transfer of this sort is not easy for most

(b) …to use more 'correct forms' than men is upheld in Trudgill 's Norwich study.

(c) In Psychology, or the study of human nature, Asian and Western thinkers have…

In 5a, “research” is used to describe the process and/or the results of an investigation which

could be substituted to “study” in 2. However, notice the possessive word forms used to modify “study”.

This implies the tangibility of the noun as compared to “research” in 5a, – this will be supported in

constituent analysis – while “study” in 5c refers to a certain discipline or subject.


of 16

Arguably, there is a difference on what WordNet prescriptively identified how words

“research” and “study” should be used, as opposed to how they appear in Philippine academic texts. If

strict usage will be applied, “research” for sense (i) must only refer to the process and “study” (iii) is for

the product. But based on the corpora, “research” may also refer to the output document of the

process. However, since the goal of the study is to describe what is existing with the framework of how

they should be correctly used, it is most fitting to claim that neither of them is incorrect; and that there

is an “unstated” but “observed” overlapping sense for “research” and “study”.

Constituent Analysis

To aid the observations found in sense distribution, an extensive analysis was done to identify

the types of constituents surrounding the head nouns “research” and “study”. According to Quirk

(1985), a Noun phrase (NP) can be optionally constituted by (1) determinatives (2) pre-modifiers (3) post

modifiers and (4) complementation. The NP’s in the corpora were analyzed accordingly and the results

are shown in table 4.

Table 4 Constituent Analysis of “Research” and “Study”

Research Frequency (%) Study Frequency (%)

Determinative 10 87

Predeterminers 0 (0.00) 1 (1.15)

Core Determiners 10 (100.00) 83 (95.40)

Postdeterminers 0 (0.00) 3 (3.45)

Premodification 30 41

1 modifier 22 (73.33) 36 (87.80)

2 modifiers

6 (20.00)

5 (12.20)

3 modifiers 2 (6.67) 0 (0.00)

Postmodification 13 26

Prepositional 11 (84.62) 24 (92.31)

Nonfinite 1 (7.69) 0 (0.00)

Relative 1 (7.69) 2 (7.69)

Complementation 0 0


of 16

“Study” has the highest percentage of constituent for determinatives (87 instances). This is

followed by pre-modifiers and post modifiers with 41 and 26 instances respectively. No complements are

seen for NPs of “research” and “study”. As compared to “research” with a different order of constituency, –

Pre-modification (30 instances), Post modification (13 instances) and Determinatives (10 instances) –

“study” can be described as something more specific and definitive. Whereas, “research” requires more

modifications which could help to describe its “abstractness” as a process or concept. A further

presentation of collocates below may clarify the concreteness of “study”.

Table 5: Types of NP constituents of "research" and "study" according to collocations

Research Study

Pre-modification Frequency Pre-modification Frequency

Participatory 13 Present 5

Health 5 English 5

Determiner Determiner

a 14 a 27

the 11 the 73

this 0 this 24

Preposition Preposition

of 10 of 31

in 10 in 15

to 5 to 14

on 5

Determiners a, the, and this are highly present to constitute a noun phrase with “study” as the

head word. “The”, being a stronger article for specificity, is used to refer to a concrete product, while

“this” in its possessive meaning implies the solidity of “study”. Fewer instances of determinatives are

observed in “research”.


of 16

CONCLUSION

The paper analyzed the behavior and characteristics of “research” and “study” based on the

corpora presented by ICE Philippines in the genre of academic texts. There are three questions

presented to be answered (1) similarities and differences of “research” and “study”, (2) their frequency

distribution according to use, and (3) visualizing the relationship of the two words. Though, parts of the

study could still be expanded, such as the prepositions used with them and the kind of nouns the words

modify when they function as adjective, it is substantially complete in presenting the analysis for the

relational definitions of “research” and “study” noun forms for academic texts.

With regards to their similarity and frequency distribution, the following are observed (1) both

words has the highest percentage for noun as word class, though adjectives and verbs appear as

minority word classes present by function. (2) By syntactic role, both of them has an almost equal

distribution of noun and predicate use. However, “research” and “study” are both more utilized as

subject than predicates. (3) The two words’ most frequent noun phrase roles as predicate are object of

the prepositions followed by direct objects.

Therefore, it could be concluded that the nature of “research” and “study” is relevantly the

same if the analysis will stop at identifying their the word classes and phrase structure roles.

In terms of differences, (1) there are no directly stated overlapping senses for “research” and

“study”. Their most frequent sense is the former as a process and the latter as the product. They both

belong in the same umbrella of an investigative or thinking activity. (2) Also, by definition, there is a

higher sense distribution for “study” than “research”. In a way, “research” is limited for specific

instances only, such as the academics, while “study” may be more applicable to different levels and

types of discourse. (3) Constituency-wise, “study” is found to require determinatives more as compared

to “research”, in which consequently use more modifiers than “study”.


of 16

To satisfy question three, a diagram is created to visualize the relationship of “research” and

“study”.

Figure 1: Visualizing senses of “Research” and “study”

As mentioned earlier, “research” and “study” are part of a bigger concept of activity. They are

divided according to process (which appears 26.37% of the total number of corpora) and product down

to a written report (which constitutes 60.44% of the corpora). A gradient analysis is also presented in

terms of concreteness or tangibility and abstractness of the senses. “Study” is deemed to be more

concrete and specific due to its extensive use of determinatives. While “research” more frequently

appears with modifiers, which is also a marker for nouns, determinatives are stronger indicators for the

solidity and ownership of nouns due to its definitive nature. Therefore, “research” leans more toward

abstractness. Aside from that, WordNet’s definitions proposes a materialistic characteristic for “study”

than “research”. “Study” is described as a physical document that concretize the “abstract” observation

of “research”.


of 16

The broken lines represent the perceived usage of “research” as it express the concept of its

results. This is the observed overlapping sense of “research” and “study”. It is not presented in any

WordNet sense relationship of the two words. Only usage in the corpora exposed the behavior. It can be

seen in the sentences presented as follow:

6 (a) This was the topic of Camagay in her research on books by historians such as the…

(b) This research is an initial attempt to provide an avenue for a sector whose voices…

In both samples above, “research” appears to act the same as “study” in its (iii) sense. They both

mean the same concept as the result of a scientific process. In these instances in the academic text

environment, “research” and “study” satisfy the qualities for perfect synonyms, but only for the given

conditions. The investigation is inflexible at this point unless other genre will be covered and considered.

Furthermore, since the study is focused on the sentential level of the genre, a further analysis

on cohesive devices may help explain the occurrence, which needs to be taken in the discourse level.

This could be reserved for future expansion of the analysis.


of 16

REFERENCES

Anthony, L. (2005). AntConc: Design and Development of a Freeware Corpus Analysis Toolkit for the

Technical Writing Classroom. in the Proceedings of the International Professional

Communication Conference, (IPCC), 129-737.

Celce-Murcia, M. & Larsen-Freeman, D. (2010). The Grammar Book: An ESL/EFL Teacher’s Course (2nd

ed.). Singapore: Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.

Cruse, A. (2010). Meaning in language. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Cruse, D.A. (1986). Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gairns, R., & Redman, S. (1986). Working with Words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Leech, G. (1981). Semantics (2nd ed.). Harmandsworth, England: Penguin.

Leitner, G. (1992). International Corpus of English: Corpus design - problems and suggested solutions. In:

Gerhard Leitner (ed.) New directions in English language corpora: methodology, results, software

developments. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. pp.33-64.

Lyons, J. (1995). Linguistic Semantics: An Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Nelson, Gerald (1996b) The Design of the Corpus. In: Greenbaum (1996), pp.27-35.

Quirk R., et.al. (1985) A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. New York: Longman Inc.

Swales, M. & Feak, C. (2011). Academic Writing for Graduate Students: Essential Skills and Tasks (3rd

ed.). Michigan: Michigan Press.

Taylor, J.R. (1995). Linguistic Categorization: Prototypes in Linguistic Theory. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

Wallwork, A. (2013), English for Academic Research: Writing Exercises, New York: Springer Science + Business Media.

Corpus based Analysis of 'Research' and 'Study' among Printed Philippine Academic Papers

Documents

Transcript of Corpus based Analysis of 'Research' and 'Study' among Printed Philippine Academic Papers