Methods:

The practice of language construction gives meaning to specific events,

circumstances, things, or people (Wodak and Meyer, 2009). Language use is highly
intertwined with identity construction, as one develops and defines whom they are
based on certain interactions, symbols and value systems that are often shaped by
discourse (Gee, 2005). The construction or use of discourse itself can provide
interesting insight into inequalities, power stratification, or other deeper
connotative meanings within the text. In order to assess and evaluate texts,
discourse analysts employ specific tools that facilitate critical analysis of
discourse.

Specifically, discourse analysts draw from two broad approaches when evaluating
data: Corpus Linguistics and Qualitative Coding (Gill, 2000). The first is
generally considered to be more quantitative, as analysts draw on word frequencies,
collocation table, concordance lines, etc., that often provide interesting insight
into word choice, cotext, context, etc. (Sinclair, 1998). The second approach,
qualitative coding, can be used to draw on patterned themes throughout a corpus to
highlight interesting observations about how language is used. Specific tools such
as grammar, syntax, semantics, backgrounding, etc., are all examples of qualitative
coding (Wodak and Meyer, 2009).

For the analysis of our project, we will employ both corpus linguistics and
qualitative coding methods. In regards to corpus linguistics, we will primarily
focus on a lexical analytical strategy for studying word choice. We will
specifically use word frequencies and context as tools to analyze my corpus. These
tools will reveal interesting insights into meaning construction, especially in
regards to the association words can develop based on the context (Sinclair, 1998).
The second analytical strategy we will use is a qualitative coding method that
evaluates the use of certain grammatical strategies that can be used to legitimize
or de-legitimize certain people, institutions, and processes of ideas. This tool is
highly useful for revealing stratified power relations (Fairclough, 2003).

Our group focused on two contrasting discourse genres: The Wall Street Journal for
our traditional news media outlet and activist blogs including ThisBlogThis!,
Gothamist, Political Machine, Act Now!, Down With Tyranny, Pacific Free Press,
Barefoot and Progressive, and Jobsanger for our non-traditional media outlets. We
selected our articles based on their relevance to The Movement within the date
range of September 1st to October 31st, 2011. We chose our specific media outlets
because they are news sources that appear to have a profound impact on their
demographics view of the legitimacy of The Movement. Comparing the discourse
between our contrasting publications reveals much about the power structure in the
United States and how those ideologies are reproduced through certain texts.