Volume 26, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper presents an annotation approach to examine uncertainty in British and German newspaper articles on the coronavirus pandemic. We develop a tagset in an interdisciplinary team from corpus linguistics and sociology. After working out a gold standard on a pilot corpus, we apply the annotation to the entire corpus drawing on an “annotation-by-query” approach in , based on uncertainty constructions that have been extracted from the gold standard data. The annotated data are then evaluated and sociologically contextualised. On this basis, we study the development of uncertainty markers in the period under study and compare media discourses in Germany and the UK. Our findings reflect the different courses of the pandemic in Germany and the UK as well as the different political responses, media traditions and cultural concerns: While markers of fear are more important in British discourse, we see a steadily increasing level of disagreement in German discourse. Other forms of uncertainty such as ‘possibility’ or ‘probability’ are similarly frequent in both discourses.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Adams, J.
    (2016) Risk and culture. InA. Burgess, A. Alemanno, & J. O. Zinn (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Risk Studies (pp.83–93). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bednarek, M.
    (2006) Evaluation in Media Discourse: Analysis of a Newspaper Corpus. Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (1989) Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text & Talk, 9(1), 93–124. doi:  10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93 [Google Scholar]
  4. Boholm, M.
    (2012) The semantic distinction between “risk” and “danger”: A linguistic analysis. Risk Analysis, 32(2), 281–293. doi:  10.1111/j.1539‑6924.2011.01668.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01668.x [Google Scholar]
  5. Boogaart, R., & Fortuin, E.
    (2016) Modality and mood in cognitive linguistics and construction grammars. InJ. Nuyts & J. Van der Auwera (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Modality and Mood (pp.514–533). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Collins, L., & Nerlich, B.
    (2016) Uncertainty discourses in the context of climate change: A corpus-assisted analysis of UK national newspaper articles. Communications – the European Journal of Communication Research, 41(3), 291–313. doi:  10.1515/commun‑2016‑0009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/commun-2016-0009 [Google Scholar]
  7. Covello, V. T.
    (2009) Strategies for overcoming challenges to effective risk communication. InR. L. Heath & H. D. O’Hair (Eds.), Handbook of Risk and Crisis Communication (pp.143–167). Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. DF (Deutschlandfunk)
    DF (Deutschlandfunk) (2020, February27). “Große Unsicherheit, die wir alle teilen.” Marlis Prinzing im Gespräch mit Sebastian Wellendorf. [“Great uncertainty that we all share.” Marlis Prinzing in conversation with Sebastian Wellendorf]. https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/medien-und-coronavirus-grosse-unsicherheit-die-wir-alle.2907.de.html?dram:article_id=471231
  9. Eckart de Castilho, R., Bartsch, S., & Gurevych, I.
    (2012) CSNIPER – Annotation-by-query for non-canonical constructions in large corpora. InM. Zhang (Ed.), Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.85–90). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/P12-3015
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Evert, S., & The CWB Development Team
    (2020) The IMS Corpus Workbench (CWB): CQP Query Language Tutorial. CWB Version. cwb.sourceforge.net/files/CQP_Tutorial.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fischhoff, B.
    (1998) Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. InR. Löfstedt & L. Frewer (Eds.), The Earthscan Reader in Risk and Modern Society (pp.133–148). Earthscan.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Francis, G., Hunston, S., & Manning, E.
    (1998) Collins Cobuild Grammar Patterns 2: Nouns and Adjectives. HarperCollins.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gesser-Edelsburg, A., & Shir-Raz, Y.
    (2018) Communicating risk for issues that involve ‘uncertainty bias’: What can the Israeli case of water fluoridation teach us?Journal of Risk Research, 21(4), 395–416. doi:  10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1215343 [Google Scholar]
  14. Greve, W., & Wentura, D.
    (1997) Wissenschaftliche Beobachtung: Eine Einführung [Scientific Observation: An Introduction]. PVU/Beltz.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Gross, M.
    (2007) The unknown in process: Dynamic connections of ignorance, non-knowledge and related concepts. Current Sociology, 55(5), 742–59. 10.1177/0011392107079928
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107079928 [Google Scholar]
  16. Hacquard, V., & Wellwood, A.
    (2012) Embedding epistemic modals in English: A corpus-based study. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5(4), 1–29. 10.3765/sp.5.4
    https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.4 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hamilton, C., Adolphs, S., & Nerlich, B.
    (2007) The meanings of ‘risk’: A view from corpus linguistics. Discourse & Society, 18(2), 163–181. doi:  10.1177/0957926507073374
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926507073374 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hardie, A.
    (2012) CQPweb – Combining power, flexibility and usability in a corpus analysis tool. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(3), 380–409. doi:  10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17.3.04har [Google Scholar]
  19. Hosinner, M.
    (2020, March11). Alles nur Panikmache der bösen Medien? [All just scaremongering by the evil media?] Heidenheimer Zeitung. https://www.hz.de/meinort/heidenheim/coronavirus-alles-nur-panikmache-der-boesen-medien_-44473050.html
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Hunston, S.
    (2011) Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Hunston, S., & Francis, G.
    (1999) Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.4
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.4 [Google Scholar]
  22. Hunter, D. J.
    (2020) Covid-19 and the stiff upper lip – the pandemic response in the United Kingdom. New England Journal of Medicine, 382(16), e31. doi:  10.1056/NEJMp2005755
    https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2005755 [Google Scholar]
  23. Jaspal, R., & Nerlich, B.
    (2020) Social representations, identity threat, and coping amid COVID-19. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(S1), S249–S251. doi:  10.1037/tra0000773
    https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000773 [Google Scholar]
  24. Johnson, C. R., Petruck, M. R. L., Baker, C. F., Ellsworth, M., Ruppenhofer, J., & Fillmore, C. F.
    (2003) FrameNet: Theory and Practice. Version 1.1. https://nats-www.informatik.uni-hamburg.de/pub/CDG/FrameNet/book.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Juanchich, M., Gourdon-Kanhukamwe, A., & Sirota, M.
    (2017) “I am uncertain” vs “It is uncertain”: How linguistic markers of the uncertainty source affect uncertainty communication. Judgment and Decision Making, 12(5), 445–465.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.
    (1982) Variants of uncertainty. Cognition, 11(2), 143–157. doi:  10.1016/0010‑0277(82)90023‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(82)90023-3 [Google Scholar]
  27. Klie, J.-C., Eckart de Castilho, R., & Gurevych, I.
    (2020) From zero to hero: Human-in-the-loop entity linking in low resource domains. InD. Jurafsky, J. Chai, N. Schluter, & J. Tetreault (Eds.), Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.6982–6993). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/2020.acl-main.624.pdf. 10.18653/v1/2020.acl‑main.624
    https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/2020.acl-main.624 [Google Scholar]
  28. Knight, F. H.
    (1921) Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Kratzer, A.
    (1981) The notional category of modality. InH.-J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, Worlds, and Contexts (pp.38–74). De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110842524‑004
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110842524-004 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1991) Modality. InA. von Stechow & D. Wunderlich (Eds.), Semantics: An International Handbook of Contemporary Research (pp.639–650). Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lagnado, D. A., & Sloman, S. A.
    (2004) Inside and outside probability judgment. InD. J. Koehler & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell Handbook of Judgment and Decision Making (pp.155–176). Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470752937.ch8
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752937.ch8 [Google Scholar]
  32. Luhmann, N.
    (1993) Risk: A Sociological Theory. De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lupton, D.
    (2013) Risk and emotion: Towards an alternative theoretical perspective. Health, Risk & Society, 15(8), 634–47. 10.1080/13698575.2013.848847
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2013.848847 [Google Scholar]
  34. McEnery, T., & Kifle, N. A.
    (2002) Epistemic modality in argumentative essays of second-language writers. InJ. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp.182–215). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Müller, M., & Stegmeier, J.
    (2019) Investigating risk, uncertainty and normativity within the framework of Digital Discourse Analysis: The example of future technologies in climate change discourse. InA. Olofsson & J. O. Zinn (Eds.), Researching Risk and Uncertainty – Methodologies, Methods and Research Strategies (pp.309–335). Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑95852‑1_13
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-95852-1_13 [Google Scholar]
  36. Nuyts, J.
    (2001) Epistemic Modality, Language, and Conceptualization: A Cognitive-Pragmatic Perspective. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  37. Palmer, F. R.
    (1986) Mood and Modality. Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pidgeon, N., Hood, C., Jones, D., Turner, B., & Gibson, R.
    (1992) Risk perception. InThe Royal Society Study Group (Ed.), Risk: Analysis, Perception and Management (pp.89–134). The Royal Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Quandt, T., Boberg, S., Schatto Eckrodt, T., & Frischlich, L.
    (2020) Pandemic News: Facebook pages of mainstream news media and the coronavirus crisis – a computational content analysis. Münster Online Research (MOR), Working Paper 2 (2020) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.13290.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Renn, O.
    (2008) Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. Earthscan. 10.1007/978‑1‑4020‑6799‑0
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6799-0 [Google Scholar]
  41. Sandman, P., & Lanard, J.
    (2011) Explaining and proclaiming uncertainty: Risk communication lessons from Germany’s deadly E. coli outbreak. Risk=Hazard+Outrage: The Peter M. Sandman Risk Communication Website. www.psandman.com/col/GermanEcoli.htm
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Scally, G., Jacobson, B., & Abbasi, K.
    (2020) The UK’s public health response to covid-19. BMJ, 369, m1932. doi:  10.1136/bmj.m1932
    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1932 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tagesschau
    Tagesschau (2020, March20). Wirtschaft versus Gesundheit [Economy versus health]. Tagesschau.de. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/diskussion-massnahmen-corona-101.html
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Tang, C., & Rundblad, G.
    (2017) When safe means ‘dangerous’: A corpus investigation of risk communication in the media. Applied Linguistics, 38(5), 666–687. doi:  10.1093/applin/amv058
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv058 [Google Scholar]
  45. Teruel, M., Cardellino, C., Cardellino, F., Alonso Alemany, L., & Villata, S.
    (2018) Increasing argument annotation reproducibility by using inter-annotator agreement to improve guidelines. InN. Calzolari, N. Calzolari, K. Choukri, C. Cieri, T. Declerck, S. Goggi, K. Hasida, H. Isahara, B. Maegaard, J. Mariani, H. Mazo, A. Moreno, J. Odijk, S. Piperidis, & T. Tokunaga (Eds.), Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC) (pp.4061–4064). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/L18-1640.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Teigen, K. H.
    (1988) The language of uncertainty. Acta Psychologica, 68(1–3), 27–38. 10.1016/0001‑6918(88)90043‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(88)90043-1 [Google Scholar]
  47. Thompson, G., & Hunston, S.
    (1999) Evaluation: An introduction. InS. Hunston & E. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp.1–26). Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. WHO (World Health Organization)
    WHO (World Health Organization) (2017) Communication risk in public health emergencies. A WHO guideline for emergency risk communication (ERC) policy and practice. World Health Organization. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/259807
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Zinn, J. O.
    (2009) A comparison of sociological theorizing on risk and uncertainty. InJ. O. Zinn (Ed.), Social Theories of Risk and Uncertainty (pp.168–210). Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. (2016) ‘In-between’ and other reasonable ways to deal with risk and uncertainty. Health, Risk & Society, 18(7–8), 348–66. doi:  10.1080/13698575.2016.1269879
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2016.1269879 [Google Scholar]
  51. (2020a) ‘A monstrous threat’: How a state of exception turns into a ‘new normal’. Journal of Risk Research, 23(7–8), 1083–1091. doi:  10.1080/13669877.2020.1758194
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1758194 [Google Scholar]
  52. (2020b) The UK ‘at Risk’: A Corpus Approach to Historical Social Change 1785–2009. Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑20238‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20238-5 [Google Scholar]
  53. Zinn, J. O., & McDonald, D.
    (2018) Risk in The New York Times (1987–2014): A Corpus-Based Exploration of Sociological Theories. Palgrave. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑64158‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64158-4 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): annotation; Covid-19 discourse; interdisciplinarity; uncertainty
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error