PLoS ONE· 2015Q1
Characterizing the Google Books Corpus: Strong Limits to Inferences of Socio-Cultural and Linguistic Evolution
- 450citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2015year
Short summary
The Google Books corpus is a poor proxy for cultural popularity due to its library-like structure and increasing inclusion of scientific texts, which skew word frequency trends.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Google Books corpus is a library, not a true reflection of word popularity, as single authors can heavily influence trends.
- Inclusion of scientific texts, especially in the 1900s, introduces academic phrases and citation patterns not common in general language.
- Information theoretic methods reveal these biases by comparing English data sets across decades (1800-2000).
- Only the English Fiction data set from the second corpus version shows minimal impact from professional texts.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
It is tempting to treat frequency trends from the Google Books data sets as indicators of the "true" popularity of various words and phrases. Doing so allows us to draw quantitatively strong conclusions about the evolution of cultural perception of a given topic, such as time or gender. However, the Google Books corpus suffers from a number of limitations which make it an obscure mask of cultural popularity. A primary issue is that the corpus is in effect a library, containing one of each book. A single, prolific author is thereby able to noticeably insert new phrases into the Google Books lexicon, whether the author is widely read or not. With this understood, the Google Books corpus remains an important data set to be considered more lexicon-like than text-like. Here, we show that a distinct problematic feature arises from the inclusion of scientific texts, which have become an increasingly substantive portion of the corpus throughout the 1900 s. The result is a surge of phrases typical to academic articles but less common in general, such as references to time in the form of citations. We use information theoretic methods to highlight these dynamics by examining and comparing major contributions via a divergence measure of English data sets between decades in the period 1800-2000. We find that only the English Fiction data set from the second version of the corpus is not heavily affected by professional texts. Overall, our findings call into question the vast majority of existing claims drawn from the Google Books corpus, and point to the need to fully characterize the dynamics of the corpus before using these data sets to draw broad conclusions about cultural and linguistic evolution.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. PLoS ONE, 2015 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Cultural Studies
Cultural StudiesSocial Sciences