CEMENTO

Before attempting to analyse all the concordances of the query homosexual*, it was necessary to determine whether it would be possible to scrutinise the total number of these concordances. With that in mind, using AntConc 3.4.3m (Anthony 2014), I ran a

search for all the occurrences of homosexual* in the Parliamentary Debates Corpus, which resulted in the retrieval of 272 concordance lines. As this number seemed manageable for in-depth concordance analysis, I saved the lines using the ‘Save Output to Text File’ option in the ‘File’ menu of the corpus analysis tool, taking the search window size of 250 characters, and then exported these lines to Excel files and started scrutinising them in the same way described in section 4.5.3.1, where a group of lines is considered a representation as long as there are at least five lines where that representation is instantiated. This resulted in the identification of a total of twelve representations. In other words, the analysis of the concordances of all occurrences of

homosexual*, rather than only of those that had its collocates, allowed for the identification of three new representations in the parliamentary debates, while the number of concordance lines of some of the previously identified representations increased. Table 4.13 shows these new representations.

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES CORPUS

NEW REPRESENTATIONS

10. Gay people have dignity (6 lines or 2.2%)

11. Both gay and straight people can be paedophiles (7 lines or 2.6%) 12. The Church accepts gay people (10 lines or 3.7%)

Table 4.13. New representations identified when analysing all the concordances of homosexual* in the Parliamentary Debates Corpus. The figures in brackets indicate the

number of concordances instantiating each representation, which are also presented as percentages of the total number of lines scrutinised (i.e. 272 concordances).

As Table 4.13 shows, the new representations bear some resemblance to topics that had also been identified in the analysis of the concordances of the collocates of the church data, more specifically in the representations in the Evangelical Churches Corpus (see Table 4.10), where there are references to sex and childhood which are also suggested by the reference to paedophilia in new representation 11 of the

parliamentary debates. In this way, through the detection of new representations, analysing all the occurrences of homosexual*,rather than only those with its collocates, seemed a methodological approach that was worth keeping in mind. However, before making a final decision about a new approach, I needed to see whether analysing all the concordances of homosexual* in the Catholic Church and Evangelical Churches corpora would also produce a wider range of findings. With that in mind, I retrieved the concordances of homosexual* from each of these data sets. This resulted in the identification of a total of 162 concordances in the Catholic Church Corpus and 304 in the Evangelical Churches one. As with the parliamentary debates, I scrutinised the concordances of homosexual* from each of these data sets, identifying and categorising the representations they instantiated and grouping those instantiating similar ones together. Although the results obtained from this analysis are not comparable to the ones identified through collocational analysis shown in table 4.10, since that preliminary analysis considered only the collocates in the semantic categories shared by both church data sets, the new representations identified in the analysis of all the concordances of homosexual* help to paint a clearer picture of some aspects of the data that in the preliminary analysis appeared less frequently within a few concordances. Also, as it occurred in the parliamentary debates as well, the number of concordances increased considerably in some of the representations previously identified. Table 4.14 shows a comparison of the representations and overarching ones identified in the Catholic Church data set. It is worth noting that through the analysis of all the concordances of homosexual* in the Catholic Church Corpus it was possible to identify three new representations where the Catholic Church is positively represented (see overarching representation IV in Table 4.14), something that had not been identified through collocation analysis and which

coincides with new representation 12 in Table 4.13 of the parliamentary debates. This suggests that analysing the corpus in this way can also contribute to a better

appreciation of the relations between the corpora included in this study.

REPRESENTATIONS IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CORPUS

COLLOCATION ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF ALL CONCORDANCES

I. Same-sex relationships are wrong

1. Legalising gay relationships is a mistake (12 lines or 4.3%)

II. Homosexuality is not an identity

2. Homosexuality consists of tendencies and acts (11 lines or 4%)

3. Gay people need guidance (11 lines or 4%) 49

III. Homosexuality needs to be studied

4. Homosexuality is a complex matter (11 lines or 4%)

I. Same-sex relationships are wrong

1. Legalising same-sex relationships is wrong (21 lines or 13%)

II. Homosexuality is not part of a person’s identity

2. Homosexuality is an inclination (14 lines or 8.6%)

3. Homosexuality is a behaviour (8 lines or 4.9%)

4. Homosexuality is not normal (13 lines or 8%)

III. Homosexuality needs to be studied

5. Homosexuality is a complex matter (11 lines or 6.8%)

IV. The Church cares about gay people

6. The Church respects gay people (17 lines or 10.5%)

7. The Church accepts gay people (11 lines or 6.8%)

8. The Church accompanies gay people (15 lines or 9.3%)

Table 4.14. Comparison of the representations identified in the Catholic Church Corpus when analysing the 281 concordances of the collocates of homosexual* (left column) in shared categories 1-9 in Table 4.9, and when analysing all the 162 concordances of homosexual* (right column). The figures in brackets indicate the number of concordances instantiating each

representation, and their corresponding percentage value when considering the total number of lines scrutinised at each stage.

Regarding the Evangelical Churches Corpus, Table 4.15 shows that there is also an increase in concordance lines, while four new representations were identified following this new approach (representations 3, 10, 12, and 13 in the right column).

49 _{This representation was reconsidered, becoming representation 8 in Table 4.14, which portrays the}

Note that others have been rearranged, namely 7 and 8 in the left column, which are now distributed between 8 and 9 in the right one. It is also worth noting how

representation 12 in Table 4.15 coincides with representation 11 identified in the parliamentary debates, shown in Table 4.13, thus indicating a relationship between these two corpora.

REPRESENTATIONS IN THE EVANGELICAL CHURCHES CORPUS

COLLOCATION ANALYSIS ANALYSIS OF ALL CONCORDANCES

I. Gay people are mentally ill

1. Homosexuality is a consequence of childhood sexual abuse (8 lines or 1.5%) 2. Gay people are prone to psychological

disorders (6 lines or 1.1%)

II. Homosexuality is a deviation

3. Homosexuality is unnatural (14 lines or 2.7%)

III. Homosexuality is not an identity

4. Homosexuality is transitory (7 lines or 1.3%)

IV. Gay people are immoral

5. Homosexuality is a sin (8 lines or 1.5%) 6. Gay people are promiscuous (10 lines or

1.9%)

V.Gay people have power

7. Gay people are engaged in political and religious lobbying (14 lines or 2.7%) 8. Gay people’s rights are being granted (9

lines or 1.7%)

VI. Gay people are dangerous

9. Gay people/homosexuality influence(s) children (9 lines or 1.7%)

I. Gay people are mentally ill

1. Homosexuality is a consequence of childhood sexual abuse (17 lines or 5.6%)

2. Gay people are prone to psychological disorders (6 lines or 2%)

3. Gay people live unhealthy lives (10 lines or 3.3%)

II. Homosexuality is not normal

4. Homosexuality is unnatural (31 lines or 10.2%)

III. Homosexuality is not part of a person’s identity

5. Homosexuality is transitory (13 lines or 4.3%)

IV. Gay people are immoral

6. Homosexuality is a sin (26 lines or 8.6%)

7. Gay people are promiscuous (20 lines or 6.6%)

V. Gay people have power

8. Gay people are being legally recognised (6 lines or 2%)

9. Gay people are modifying religion (21 lines or 6.9%)

10. Gay people are a powerful minority (9 lines or 3%)

VI. Gay people are dangerous

11. Gay people influence children (16 lines or 5.3%)

12. Gay people are paedophiles (11 lines or 3.6%)

VII. Gay marriage is wrong

13. Gay marriage laws are being rejected (10 lines or 3.3%)

Table 4.15. Comparison of the representations identified in an exploratory analysis of the Evangelical Churches Corpus when analysing the 527 concordances of the collocates of homosexual* (left column) in shared categories 1-9 (see Appendix I), and when analysing all

the 304 concordances of homosexual* (right column). The figures in brackets indicate the number of concordances instantiating each representation, and their corresponding percentage

Based on these findings, I made the decision to analyse all the concordances of my search term, as this contributed to broaden the spectrum of findings not only through the features that could be identified within them, but also by shedding a new light regarding what representations and overarching ones occur more frequently in the corpora. Additionally, analysing all the concordances of the search term is expected to facilitate the identification of the relationships between the three corpora, since less frequently occurring patterns that did not make it into representations in the

preliminary analysis are now part of the primary picture. Consequently, I moved from my initial intention to look only at the collocates of homosexual*, which had a

quantitative quality, to a mainly qualitative approach, where corpus tools are used as a way of accessing the corpora in a quicker and easier manner. As previously

mentioned, in the final analysis I included the concordances retrieved by other search terms as well, namely lesbian*, gay*, fleto*, cola*, maric*, lela*, camion*, lésbic*

and the phrase mismo sexo (samesex). The search terms fleto*, cola*, and maric* are intended to retrieve concordances where the words fleto(s), cola(s) and maricón(es)

are used. These words are derogatory terms used to characterise or refer to gay men who are considered to behave in a feminine manner. The exact meaning of fleto or from where it originated is not known, while cola is believed to be an anagram of the word loca (f. crazy), a word that is used to characterise or refer to females. On the other hand, in Chilean Spanish the word maricón is not only derogatory but also a curse word that derives from the word marica. According to the RAE dictionary50_,

marica originates from the female proper name María. However, the word maricón

has extended its use in Chilean Spanish, where it also refers to (or insults) people who behave in a mean and harmful manner. On the other hand, search terms lela*,

camion* and lésbic* refer to gay women and are intended to retrieve concordances where the words lela(s), camiona(s) or lésbica/o are used. The origin of the word lela

is not known, but it appears to be a colloquial shorter variant of the word lesbiana

(lesbian) thus not being necessarily derogatory. On the other hand, the word camiona

(f. truck) derives from the noun camión (truck), where the suffix -a transforms it into a feminine word that refers to women who are considered to behave in a manly manner or have a masculine appearance, thus having a derogatory purpose. Finally, the adjective lésbica/o is a variant of the adjective lesbiana. As opposed to the rest of the words described, lésbica/o is equivalent to adjectives gay and homosexual, thus not being derogatory.

I decided to include these search terms because they constitute different ways of referring to gay people and, although some of them are rather informal, I did not want to be predisposed as to what nomination or predication strategies could have been used in the data. Terms such as homosexual*, lesbian*, lésbic*, and mismosexo can be used in formal or rather neutral contexts, as they are not necessarily evaluative; while others, such as gay*, are more informal. On the other hands, search terms fleto*,

cola*, maric*, lela*, and camion* can be regarded as offensive, although they are sometimes used to self-identify as well, in an attempt to reclaim and reappropriate their meaning. Because of this, the search terms considered in the study were expected to retrieve concordances with slightly different meanings, suggesting different

attitudes, and ensuring different stances were considered, if present. Additionally, including as many references to gay people as possible would allow for the identification of a variety of representations around them, thus resulting in more comprehensive and representative findings.

4.5.4. Stages of Analysis