Article Review

               The article “’Curvy, hunky, kinky’: Using corpora as tools for critical analysis” written by Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Rosamund Moon focuses on the use of premodifers in two different types of newspapers in Great Britain. The research question revolved around the way that the use of certain words shaped the judgments

               The question being asked by researched Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard and Rosamun Moon is whether or not differences in the use of modifiers changes the judgments and conceptions shaped by those texts. To find these answers, they counted the number of times certain modifiers appeared in broadsheet newspapers and tabloid newspapers in Great Britain. Broadsheets follow the traditional news patterns and report on issues relevant to politics, the environment, and current issues. Tabloids concentrate more on celebrity gossip, scandals, and pop culture. The researchers then compiled the counts into the article “’Curvy, hunky, kinky’: Using corpora as tools for critical analysis.”

               Caldas-Coulthard and Moon focused primarily on the modifiers that had a naturally sexual connotation and words that had developed sexual connotations because of their use. In their research they found that words like kinky, curvy, and hunky are used to shape and create sexual norms. For example, the word curvy is used in two different contexts: to refer to women and to refer to material objects of desire, like cars. The authors believe that this suggests that women are treated lexically as commodities. They note that this seems to be far more common in tabloid data than broadsheet data. However, broadsheet data seems to have the opposite problem. In the broadsheet data, commodities are equated with humans, especially women (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p. 104).

               Another word that they focus on is the word hunky—which Caldas-Coulthard and Moon believe is the male equivalent of “curvy.” The word hunky is often paired with other modifiers—especially occupations. Some of these occupations include: pop stars, actors, doctors, dancers, firefighters, and mechanics (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p.105). However, the important distinction the author makes is that when hunky is used as a modifier, it is less likely that a name will be included, leaving men more generalized than women. Examples include “hunky Aussie Olympic swimmer,” “hunky boyfriend,” “hunky chap,” and “hunky Hollywood heart-throb (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p.106).

               The final word that the authors focus on is the word kinky. Although often used to refer to clothing, the word is almost always used to imply a level of sexuality. An interesting distinction with this word is the way that it modifies man and woman. It is most commonly associated with men. However, when the word kinky is used to refer to a woman it more often refers to her actions or her clothing, rather than to the woman herself. Caldas-Coulthard and Moon found that “40 percent of occurrences were in relation to activities, especially in the collocations kinky sex and kinky games” (2010, p. 107). In tabloids, the use of kinky as an adjective was more likely to refer to a man than a woman. Instead, women were often featured as “kinky” in photos; they were participants, but not instigators (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon, 2010, p. 107).

               The authors apply this same reasoning to other words in a second study that is also featured in the article. These words are man, woman, girl, and boy. They look for the frequency with which the words are used and in what contexts. It was found that girl is used significantly more than woman, even when referring to adults. Boy is also used more often than man, but only three-quarters as often as girl. In most situations when woman is used instead of girl, it is because the subject is either married or has a family. When man is used instead of boy, it is often because the subject is referred to in a professional role. This illustrates the importance of understanding the word choice of the texts that we consume (Caldas-Coulthard and Moon 2010, p. 110).  

               The authors here propose a critical lens for interpreting our choices in news sources. They explain that there is a difference in word choice for tabloids and broadsheets. This is evidenced by picking up a magazine. For example, if you pick up a Cosmopolitan there are numerous articles on how to satisfy your man. But in the section that explains the moves that men wish their partners would use, almost every man used the word “girl” to refer to his partner. In my mind, this shows what women are supposed to be in terms of sexuality. Women are supposed to be the innocent, but experienced and naughty virgin. Women are supposed to be shy and a sex kitten at the same time, which is essentially a contradiction. The reason for it is that the man is supposed to be the sexually experienced one in the heterosexual relationship. In order to maintain that relationship, women have to appear less sexually experienced than they might be to make sure the man can still take control.

               I agree with the general premise of the article—the idea that the language that we choose to use can create and reinforce social norms and stereotypes. My problem with this specific article, however, is the lack of information about causation. The authors explore a lot of interesting data that explains the discrepancies of word usage between genders. However, Caldas-Coulthard and Moon neglect to provide statistical, or non-statistical, analysis regarding how their findings prove that these lexical choices cause a shift in understanding. In terms of relevance, I think the concepts involved remain very contemporary and prudent. It is my personal belief that the degree to which the study of mass communication and linguistics interact needs to be further explored. Although this specific article concentrated on tabloids and broadsheets in Great Britain, it would not surprise me if researchers found similar patterns in the United States. The heuristic value of this concept is enormous. There is a large understanding that has yet to be developed, at least in my view, of the choice of words in media sources. Caldas-Coulthard and Moon specifically mention words like hunky, kinky, and curvy, but there are many other sexualized modifiers that could be explored.  In general, I agree with this article but I wish that Caldas-Coulthard and Moon would have taken their research one step further to prove causation.