Does the Name Matter? Ways of Conducting Communication of Public Relations Agencies with the Public on the Basis of Quantitative-Corpus Research on Language

Dariusz Tworzydło; Karina Stasiuk-Krajewska; Przemysław Szuba

doi:10.2478/minib-2024-0001

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Presence of company Facebook profile (n = 202) and LinkedIn profile (n = 203) versus affiliation with the analysed PR agency subject corpus (in %).Source: Own study. PR, public relations.

Lexical structure of K1 and K2—most frequent lexemes (in %)
At this point, it is essential to emphasize that the term “lexeme” is not used here precisely. In most cases, a lexeme is a unit formed by lemmatization (that is, a certain abstract linguistic unit that includes the lexical meaning and all the forms a word can take). However, in some cases, several lexemes were considered to refer to a relatively coherent semantic field that is functional as part of the linguistic construction of social reality. For example: the category of naj- includes adjectives in the highest grade. Since all such forms have a positive meaning in the analyzed corpus, they were included in a common category, assuming that, treated in this way, they constitute a certain coherent unit in the context of the linguistic construction of reality. In addition, lexemes without semantic function (conjunctions, prepositions, or the reflexive pronoun itself) were not included in the chart..Source: Own study. — Lexical structure of K1 and K2—most frequent lexemes (in %) At this point, it is essential to emphasize that the term “lexeme” is not used here precisely. In most cases, a lexeme is a unit formed by lemmatization (that is, a certain abstract linguistic unit that includes the lexical meaning and all the forms a word can take). However, in some cases, several lexemes were considered to refer to a relatively coherent semantic field that is functional as part of the linguistic construction of social reality. For example: the category of naj- includes adjectives in the highest grade. Since all such forms have a positive meaning in the analyzed corpus, they were included in a common category, assuming that, treated in this way, they constitute a certain coherent unit in the context of the linguistic construction of reality. In addition, lexemes without semantic function (conjunctions, prepositions, or the reflexive pronoun itself) were not included in the chart..Source: Own study.

Deviations in the structure of K1 and K2 corpora—comparative analysis

No.	Lexem	Corpus K1		Corpus K2		Difference (%) K1–K2	Interpretation
No.	Lexem	Word count	% of total	Word count	% of total	Difference (%) K1–K2	Interpretation
1	PR	182	0.91	114	0.48	0.43	Lexems that are more common in K1
2	Most-	131	0.82	142	0.50	0.32
3	Job	155	0.83	142	0.54	0.29
4	Client	275	1.39	270	1.12	0.27
5	Result	76	0.43	63	0.21	0.22
6	Possible	57	0.32	26	0.10	0.22
7	PR	137	0.69	112	0.47	0.22
8	Journalism	39	0.23	19	0.06	0.17
9	Effective	96	0.52	88	0.36	0.16
10	Communication	241	1.27	274	1.11	0.16
11	Our	187	0.95	188	0.79	0.16
12	Image	83	0.44	71	0.29	0.15
13	Solve	41	0.22	98	0.37	0.15	Lexems that are more common in K2
14	Advertisement	23	0.16	89	0.37	0.21
15	Marketing	95	0.51	206	0.85	0.34

Structure of K1 and K2 corpora—comparative analysis

Indicators		K1 (agency name targeting the communications/PR area)	K2 (agency name unrelated to communications/PR area)
Participation of the corpus in the unit of analysis		40.2%	59.8%
Average number of words in the text		125	119
Average number of characters in the text		831	806
Titles of texts that were included in the corpus	About us	64%	40%
	Company, About the company, Agency, About the agency	10%	16%
	Who we are	7%	7%
	No title This category included texts that appeared immediately upon entering the Web site, without expanding the menu.	0%	20%
	Company’s own name	3%	0%
	Different title, but analogous function For K1: ‘operating philosophy’, ‘why us’, ’resume’, ‘us’, ‘get to know us’, ‘our strengths’, ‘our mission’, ‘what makes us different’, ‘mission and history’, ‘two words about us’; for K2: ‘what’s important’, ‘us’, ‘our story’, ‘welcome’, ‘this is us’, ‘our team’, ‘Hi!’, ‘from us’, ‘ideas’, ‘get to know us’, ‘why us’, ‘benefits of cooperation’. or different	16%	17%

Does the Name Matter? Ways of Conducting Communication of Public Relations Agencies with the Public on the Basis of Quantitative-Corpus Research on Language

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Deviations in the structure of K1 and K2 corpora—comparative analysis

Structure of K1 and K2 corpora—comparative analysis

Paradigm

My account