AEJMC Archives

AEJMC Archives


View:

Next Message | Previous Message
Next in Topic | Previous in Topic
Next by Same Author | Previous by Same Author
Chronologically | Most Recent First
Proportional Font | Monospaced Font

Options:

Join or Leave AEJMC
Reply | Post New Message
Search Archives


Subject: AEJ 95 EllisB HIS Who was "Shadow"?: Content analysis
From: Elliott Parker <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To:AEJMC Conference Papers <[log in to unmask]>
Date:Fri, 16 Feb 1996 20:04:57 EST
Content-Type:text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
Parts/Attachments

text/plain (3013 lines)


"Who Was 'Shadow'?" The Computer Knows:
Using Grammar-Program Statistics in Content Analyses Finally
 
           May Solve This Civil War Riddle
and Other Writing Mysteries
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
By Barbara G. Ellis, Ph.D.
and Steven J. Dick, Ph. D.
Mass Communication Department
P.O. Box 90335
McNeese State University
Lake Charles LA 70609-0335
318-475-5290
FAX 318-475-5291
 
Abstract
 
The object of this study was to use the statistics-documentation portion
 
               of a word-processing program's grammar-check feature as a final,
 
      definitive and objective tool for content analyses performed in
 
     qualitative investigations to irrevocably rule out John H. Linebaugh,
 
           John B. Dumble, or John Reid McClanahan as being the Civil War
special
 
            correspondent who wrote for many newspapers under the pseudonym of
 
        "Shadow".  An enduring and intriguing mystery for journalism historians,
 
            "Shadow's" identity has never been discovered although Linebaugh was
a
 
            leading candidate for a time.  On the Appeal, Linebaugh was an
editorial
 
            writer and, briefly, the "special" who wrote as "Ashantee;" Dumble
was
 
            an assistant editor and McClanahan, the senior proprietor, senior
editor
 
            and chief editorial writer.
The investigators were two professors from the Mass Communication
 
          Department of Louisiana's McNeese State University, Drs. Barbara G.
 
         Ellis, associate professor, and Steven J. Dick, assistant professor.
 
 
 
 
"Who Was 'Shadow'?" The Computer Knows:
Using Grammar-Program Statistics in Content Analyses Finally
 
           May Solve This Civil War Riddle
and Other Writing Mysteries
 
 
One of the intriguing, unsolved mysteries for some specialists in Civil War
 journalism has been deducing who hid behind the pseudonym of "Shadow" in a
 period when Confederate free-lance war correspondents originally used pen
 
               names to avert harassment, military confinement, or publishers'
 
   proscriptions against "double-dipping".  Their postings, focus,
 
   knowledgeability, and writing styles were well familiar to millions of
 
          readers, much like World War II's Ernie Pyle.  They were circulation
 
        builders to publishers who could afford "stars" like Felix de Fontaine
 
          ("Personne," "Quel Qu'un"), Peter Wellington Alexander ("P.W.A.," "A,"
 
          "Sallust"), Samuel Chester Reid, Jr. ("Sparta," "Ora," "290"), and
 
      "Shadow," whose identity went to the grave with the many publishers who
 
           paid for his incisive commentaries about military affairs,
essentially on
 
            the Western front with the Army of Tennessee and commanders Braxton
Bragg,
 
            Joe Johnston, and John B. Hood. [1]
These forerunners of syndicated columnists had friends and foes--President
 
               Jefferson Davis to Confederate legislators, privates to generals
(of both
 
            armies) such as Braxton Bragg who alternated between cultivating a
private
 
            press agent like publisher John Forsythe of the Mobile Daily
Advertiser and
 Register and locking up lesser lights like soldier-correspondent William
 
            W. Screws. [2]
As journalism historian Frank Luther Mott commented about such enforced
 
              anonymity: "[It] had one effect not contemplated: it made the pen
names of
 
            many war 'specials' nationally famous." [3]
Scholars like J. Cutler Andrews ferreted out the identities of fifty-five
 
               who chose colorful bylines ranging from "Mint Julep,"
"N'Importe," and
 
          "Dixie" to "B," "Grapeshot," and "Se De Kay."  But he and other
 
   investigators were frustrated and confounded about the famed "Shadow". [4]
"Shadow" was well informed, plain spoken, and as ubiquitous as the
 
         Confederate cavalry's Scarlet Pimpernel, General Nathan Bedford
Forrest.
 
            His column appeared first with The Memphis Daily Appeal, in June
1863, then
 the Mobile Register and Advertiser--and probably was well pirated. [5]
Historian Thomas H. Baker was among many who concluded that John H.
 
          Linebaugh was "Shadow." [6]  Linebaugh was the Appeal's bloviating
Poe-like
 
            stringer "Ashantee," who eschewed trenches and fled the field when
the
 
          first shell hit Chattanooga in 1863Dhighly uncharacteristic of
"Shadow" or
 
            others. [7]  Baker may have been influenced by CommercialAppeal
writer George
 
            Sisler who in 1957 penned an undocumented historical journal article
about
 
            Bragg's jailing Linebaugh for treason.  To underpin the article's
thrust
 
            that Linebaugh was a long-time thorn in Bragg's side, he doctored
 
     documentation and credited Linebaugh, a fiftyish civilian, not only with
 
            "Shadow's" work, but that of six other correspondents: "Leigh,"
"Ramrod,"
 
            "Harvey," "Waverly," "Special," all in the army, and "Wanderer." [8]
Andrews's far more credible qualitative investigation of Linebaugh's life
 
               ruled him out as "Shadow," but narrowed suspects to Stephen
Tillinghast
 
           Hammond, Dr. Fielding Travis Powell, Albert Roberts, and, especially,
Henry
 Watterson.  Andrews' surrender note to peers said: ". . . I leave the
 
          resolution of this fascinating and as yet unsolved problem of identity
to
 
            any other historians who may be interested." [9]
The computer, in general, and the document-statistics portion from certain
 
               grammar programs, in particular, now make it possible for
scholars in many
 
            disciplines to provide the final testDdefinitive and objective
quantitative
 content analysisDto extensive qualitative content analyses aimed either at
 solving age-old riddles about authors like "Shadow"  or in characterizing
 
            writing styles.
The inclusion of quantitative measurement by the computer in content
 
           analyses, eliminating subjectivity save for excerpt selections, can
provide
 substantial underpinnings to qualitative efforts; and it is available to
 
            anyone with a word-processing program that includes a grammar check.
In the past year alone, many academicians have seen the potential of
 
           fine-tuned programs such as Que Software's Rightwriter and Lifetree
 
       Software's Correct Grammar, for they quantify words used per sentence,
 
          sentences per paragraph, number of syllables, and at least two Flesch
 
         readability scales.
This particular study utilized the computerized grammar statistics to
 
            underpin an already overwhelming case built on qualitative evidence
to
 
          prove the hypotheses that Linebaugh was not  "Shadow" and, secondly,
that
 
            he did not write any of the other columns Sisler attributed to him.
[10]  The
 
            project was a byproduct of a larger, ongoing study connected to a
book on
 
            the Appeal's wartime travels.  That study's aim was to determine
which
 
          editorials were written by the newspaper's senior partner and
 
 editor-in-chief, John Reid McClanahan, during 1864-65.
Literature Search
The literature concerning quantitative analysis to determine authorship is
 
               remarkably slim when contrasted with the monumental body of work
since the
 
            Eighteenth century, principally conducted in an array of disciplines
from
 
            censorship, psychology and the social sciences to politics,
espionage, and
 
            marketing effectiveness. [11]  Literary analyses of known author's
styles
 
         scrutinized by quantitative methods certainly have been ongoing since
 
         Sherman's 1888 investigation of sentence length in literature [12] and
Markov's
 1913 study of Pushkin's Eugene Onegin [13] and, in the last half of this
 
         century by Miles examination of poetic diction in 1946,[14] Schorer's
1949
 
          study of the works of Jane Austen, Emily Bront        , and George Eliot [15]
and
 
           Parrish and Painter's concordance compilations for the writings of
Matthew
 
            Arnold and William Butler Yeats. [16]
Judging from the conclusions drawn in many of these studies, investigators
 
               appear to have embraced the view that the words reveal the
author, a
 
        perception noted long ago by Lee (and thousands of editors):
 
The real revelation of the writer (as of the artist) comes in a far subtler way
 
                              than by . . .autobiography; and comes despite all
effort to elude it; . . . .For
 
                           what the writer does communicate is his temperament,
his organic personality,
 
                          with its preferences and aversions, its pace and
rhythm and impact and balance,
 
                           its swiftness or languor . . . and this he does
equally whether he be rehearsing
 
                           veraciously his own concerns or inventing someone
else's. [17]
 
Thus, there is Garraty noting president Woodrow Wilson's predilection for
 
               adjectives [18] and, in 1940, Boder's measuring the emotional
instability of
 
            Ralph Waldo Emerson and William James according to a ratio of
adjectives to
 verbs [19]  Both studies, combined with Busemann's system of dividing active
 
            ideas by qualitative ones and the prevalent use of Flesch's
readability
 
           measures, lay the groundwork in modalities helpful to the
determination of
 
            authorship.
One interesting sidelight for journalists to the foregoing is that the
 
             nation's key readability experts were hired by the wire services in
the
 
           1940s as consultants to improve writing standardsDRudolph Flesch and
W. A.
 
            Danielson for the Associated Press and Robert Gunning for United
Press. [20]
Perhaps because prior to the computer, a content analysis was laborious,
 
               tedious, expensive, and subjective, few investigators had the
inclination
 
            or energies to apply it to determination of authorship where far
greater
 
            pitfalls lay in wait than, say, with a study about poor semantics
 
     relationship to crankiness and paranoia [21] , or those on language in
annual
 
            reports, collective-bargaining agreements or insurance policies.
[22]
One significant pitfall in validity of data, listed years ago by Berelson,
 
               was sampling.[23]  Samples can either be too small or, if they
are monumental,
 
            Garraty's caveat about subjectivity can adversely impact a study's
merit as
 it involves decisions as to what excerpts to include, categorization,
 
          accurate coding, weighting of subjects, to say nothing of cultural
writing
 
            styles,[24] authors employing several distinct styles to suit
publishers and
 
            the potential for the subject to employ ghost writers; if teachers
 
      traditionally have been reluctant to charge a pupil with plagiarism even
 
            with a preponderance of damning evidence, what scholar is likely to
venture
 the hypothesis that John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage was ghost
 
        written?
Such inhibiting factors may have had bearing on why only two stellar
 
           investigations on determination of authorship are perennially cited:
 
        Spurgeon's 1935 work on William Shakespeare, and Mosteller and Wallace's
 
            1964 efforts on the Federalist  Papers.  Both were pre-computer age
and
 
           done with the laborious, tedious, expensive, and subjective methods
of
 
          manual computationDplus the potential for selection flaws in sampling.
Nevertheless, Spurgeon's research generally is accorded the stature of
 
             being the singular pioneer qualitative and quantitative content
analysis on
 author determination.  Essentially, her aim was to characterize the oeuvre
 of Shakespeare, but, secondarily, to verify his authorship of certain
 
          works.
She sought to end the four-hundred year old controversy that much credited
 
               to the Bard was written by Francis Bacon, Christopher Marlowe,
Ben Jonson,
 
            George Chapman, Thomas Dekker, or Philip Massinger. [25]
Her measurements involved comparative frequencies and types of imagery. [26]
 
               When Mosteller and Wallace, in 1964, set out to sort out the
portions of
 
            the Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton and James
Madison, it
 
            would appear they faced the same challenges and somewhat similar
 
    methodology.  They had the additional advantage of considerable writing
 
           samples for that study.
Like forensics experts in science or police investigation, the three
 
           researchers buttressed their findings by integrating qualitative with
 
         quantitative research, for they knew their disciplines had legions of
 
         doubters; that their discoveries have been largely ignored would seem
to
 
            attest to that concern [27] perhaps because the researchers
perceived this
 
          additional step would support their venture into what is largely
forensic
 
            work familiar to detectives.  The plethora of readability formulas
 
      available todayDFlesch, Gunning, Cloze, McLaughlin, et al.Dand both the
 
           computer and grammar-check programs would have enhanced validity and
 
        simpified their exhaustive and exhausting efforts. [28]
Computer-aided analyses have been in existence almost from the instant
 
               in the 1950s the Berelsons recognized the value of Univac and had
 
       graduate assistants punch data into IBM cards.  With the advent of
 
        software that performed word counts and applied the Flesch reading test,
 
            Sebeok and Zeps and their computerized examination of four thousand
 
         Cheremis folk stories opened the floodgates to this new research tool.
[29]
 
            By 1962, Stone and Bales, et al. had designed the General Inquirer
 
        system for the social science and psychology fields that, with its
 
        special set of dictionaries, could do counts, retrieve data, and
 
      tabulate words. [30]   Two years later, Sedelow and Sedelow were
presenting
 
            a landmark paper on computational stylistics at an IBM Literary Data
 
          Processing Conference. [31]
Almost simultaneously, software designers were producing programs like
 
               WORDS with functions of sorting, editing, and statistical
analysis,
 
         essentially geared for psychotherapy.  For literary research there was
 
            VIA (Verbally Indexed Associations) which also sorted words, grouped
 
          data by root and could perform frequency counts; among its initial
 
        projects was an analysis of Hamlet. [32]  Then came fine-tuning with
1975
 
           programs like TEXAN which analyzed syllables. [33]
Today, researchers have progressed far beyond word counts and wrestling
 
               with homographs and overcoming ambiguity in project design. [34]
 
  Investigators like Danielson, Lasorsa and Im have been using computers
 
            to pioneer comparative writing styles of books and newspapers to
reveal
 
            the decline of readability; they appear to be the first to utilize
the
 
            grammar-check feature, their analysis based solely on the Flesch
Reading
 
            Ease scores. [35]
To respond to essentially the same tacit criticisms undoubtedly received
 
               by Spurgeon, Mosteller and Wallace, they argued: "Objections to
the use
 
            of mechanistic formulas to evaluate how easy it is to read a piece
of
 
           prose have existed since the introduction of the first equation and
 
         probably will continue to persist, regardless of how sucessfully these
 
            mathematical equations perform.  Since no better methods for
assessing
 
            readability have been offered, we are more willing to accept the
 
      illumination offered by these formulas than to curse the darkness." [36]
 
           However, they did not underpin their quantitative research with
 
     qualitative analysis, as did Spurgeon; nor did they use this new method
 
            of measurement to determine authorship.  Yet the ability to do the
 
        tedious investigative work of Spurgeon now is available to any scholar
 
            with a laptop computer and software containing a grammar-check
feature;
 
            or to use more than one to underpin quantitative findings, as was
done
 
            in this project.
Methods
Data from this period are incomplete and fragmented.  The ongoing war and
 
               the passing years have destroyed most of the best evidence.
There will be
 
            no overwhelming piece of evidence in this study to identify
"Shadow."  A
 
            mixture of methods was necessary, and this study used three.  First,
 
        primary sources identified the location and activities of the major
 
       suspects in this decades-old puzzle.  Second, writing styles were
analyzed
 
            qualitatively.  Finally, computer analyses of known writing samples
helped
 
            quantitatively to identify differences in writing styles.  No method
alone
 
            was enough to identify "Shadow" positively.  Andrews' challenge
still
 
         stands.  But the investigators sought to positively rule out Linebaugh
 
          quantitatively as Andrews once did qualitatively.
The qualitative methods to refute Sisler's assumptions about Linebaugh's
 
               work utilized prior to the application of quantitative
measurements of
 
          Linebaugh, "Shadow," "Leigh," "Waverly," and "Wanderer," basically
involved
 several modalities beyond what the literature furnished about Linebaugh's
 
            life.
Initially, there was an examination of his filings as "Ashantee" and those
 
               attributed to him from Bragg's Florida campaigns of 1861 and
General John
 
            B. Hood's surrender of Atlanta to General William T. Sherman in
September
 
            1864.  This content analysis focused on story type (feature or
hard-news),
 
            assignment posting, topics, viewpoint, analogies and examples,
diction,
 
           sentence length, dateline, and method of transmission (the penurious
 
        McClanahan permitted only the privileged to use the telegraph).
Research also entailed a comparison of Sisler's presentation of Linebaugh's
 purported excerpts to the original stories in The Memphis Daily Appeal and
 a literature search to determine Bragg's relationships with individual
 
              reporters in terms of harassment, litigation, incarceration, or
 
   cultivation.
This sizable body of evidence strongly indicated Linebaugh wrote only the
 
               "Ashantee" articles and that significant and intentional errors
permeated
 
            Sisler's 1957 work, an article subsequently used perhaps by many
scholars
 
            for conclusions about The Memphis Daily Appeal's 1862-65 hegira
around the
 
            South as it fled Grant and Sherman's armies; for nearly four
decades, it
 
            may have significantly contributed to many of the myths surrounding
that
 
            famous "run".
Andrews's most compelling argument in his qualitative efforts to rule out
 
               Linebaugh as being "Shadow" is contained in an entire chapter of
his
 
        definitive reportorial study The South Reports the Civil War.  He noted
 
           that "Shadow's" column in the Mobile Register on May 28, 1864
identified
 
            himself as "the captain of a company of Confederate pikemen at
Nashville
 
            after the fall of Fort Donelson in February 1862."  This ruled out
 
      McClanahan and Dumble, both well over conscription age and definitely tied
 
            to the Appeal's production as it moved from Memphis to Grenada,
 
   Mississippi, to Jackson, then to Atlanta and, finally, to Montgomery.[37]
 
         Linebaugh was fifty-one in the following year[38] when Bragg had him
imprisoned
 for treason, and when released, he raged: "_as a citizen I was not subject
 to military arrest_" [39]
Andrews also pointed out that Linebaugh drowned October 26, 1864 in the
 
              Alabama River, yet: "Exactly one month and a day after Linebaugh's
death
 
            the Mobile Register published another letter from "Shadow" that was
dated
 
            at Florence, Alabama on November 23, 1864."  What Andrews failed to
do was
 
            a content analyses of the writing of both men, where the style,
 
   vocabularies, subject and attitudes are totally dissimilar.  Linebaugh, a
 
            defrocked Episcopal priest, [40]was a pretentious showoff, fond of
studding his
 filings with foreign expressions ("voltigeur," "lucus anon luccende"[41]),
 
           arcane historical allusions, and preachments; he repelled the
Appeal's
 
          thousands of Army readers he was supposed to be attracting with this
 
        typical sentence:
 
That this occultation was to be expected, as the necessary prelude, nay,
 
                        presage of our independence was the prophesy of the
thoughtful and it is
 
                     only those who knew not what revolution meant, or supposed
it was a
 
                transition from one dream of criminal or inglorious repose to
another,
 
                   those who knew nothing of freedom in its aspects of dignity,
and were
 
                  willing to take servitude, even the degraded servitude of
superimposed
 
                   Yankee domination if it were gilded with wealth, or attended
by an
 
               emasculate or traitorous enjoyment of delegated prosperity, in
preference
 
                     to the noble enjoyment of mental, moral, and political
independenceDthe
 
                    independence of a free-born heart, mind and willDwho are
cast down; so much
 cast down as to be now willing to make terms of peace upon condition of
 
                     preserving a mess of miserable potage.  [42]
 
By contrast, "Shadow" never used foreign expression, elevated diction,
 
             religious, historical, or literary allusions.  His readers had no
 
     difficulty with:
 
The hills surrounding this war-like village are being fortified, of course.
  Perhaps the purpose is to keep the men employed, more than for any other
 
                        design.  Chattanooga is already defensible enough,
naturally.  Besides
 
                   there is not much ! kellhoo! that it will ever be attacked.
No point on
 
                     the border is safer from raids.  Its surroundings are
admirably adapted for
 successful defense.  The river in its bend from the base of Lookout
 
                 mountain, almost encircles it, leaving but a short space of
perhaps half a
 
                     mile or more from one bend to the other, which might be
traced with a line
 
                     of earthworks, which would render it a complete fortress.
The hills of
 
                    Chattanooga, ascending from the river, are higher than those
of Vicksburg,
 
                     and command the opposite bank for miles back to the base of
the Cumberland
 
                     range.  [43]
 
Computer Analysis
The goal of this stage was to quantitatively identify difference in
 
            writing styles.  To eliminate bias, the analysis was performed by a
 
         separate researcher D one who had not read the original works.  The
 
         computer could quickly and blindly perform standard readability
 
     analysis.
Although, primary evidence and previous literature pointed to Linebaugh,
 
               the tests performed on the data also included Dumble and
McClanahan as a
 
            test of the method.  Known writing samples of each person were
collected
 
            and entered into computer text files.[44]   Samples were defined as
whole
 
           articles known to be written by each subject (headlines omitted).  To
 
           meet the requirements of readability tests, samples less than 100
words
 
            were dropped.  Two other samples were dropped because poor copies
made
 
            it impossible to determine intended punctuation.
 
Keep as Monaco 9
Correct Grammar Readability Analysis
Document: Sample Results
 
Paragraphs:     7
Sentences:      49      (7.0 per paragraph)
Words:  1093    (22.3 per sentence)
Letters:        4908    (4.4 per word)
Syllables per 100 words:        148
 
Passive sentences:      13      (26 % passive)
Long sentences: 0       (0 % long)
 
Misspelled words:       0       (100 % correct)
Sentences fixed:        0       (100 % correct)
Sentences hard to read: 0       (100 % correct)
 
Flesch Reading Ease score:      58.7    (Fairly Easy)
Grade level required:   10      (85 % of U.S. adults)
Flesch-Kincaid grade level:     10.6
Gunning Fog Index:      13.6
 
The program Correct Grammar for the Macintosh (version 3.0.1, _ 1992,
 
              Writing Tools Group) was used for the analysis.  The program was
set to
 
            analyze readability only and to produce a results file for each
sample
 
            (see example above**).  A macro program was used to copy data from
the
 
            results files into a Microsoft Excel Spreadsheet.[45]
The next step was to pick measurements.  Three readability scores were
 
               chosen: Flesch Reading Ease; Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level; and
Gunning-Fog
 
            Index.  These scores measured readability in different slightly
 
     different ways.[46]  In addition, four other measures were found to be an
 
           important difference from a preliminary qualitative analysis:
 
    Letters-per-word; Words-per-sentence; Sentences-per-paragraph, and the
 
            Percent of Passive sentences.
A simple t-test (two-tailed, assuming unequal variances) was performed
 
               in Excel on each measure to determine likelihood that the writing
 
       samples came from different authors.  In each case, the null hypotheses
 
            was "The writing samples came from the same author."
There are important limitations to the quantitative analysis.
First, it was impossible to get writing samples from everyone in the
 
             Confederacy's press corps*. So it is always possible that someone
else
 
            could have been "Shadow."  The most that this study could do was to
show
 
            that certain authors had distinctly different writing styles from
 
       "Shadow."
Second, known writing samples and documentation of authorship have been
 
               lost over the years.  We acknowledge that the number of samples
for this
 
            study is too small to be completely reliable.  At best, these
numbers
 
           only give an indication of who had a roughly similar writing style.
 
          More samples could have been created by taking multiple samples of 100
 
            words, from each known article.  This option was rejected because it
 
          would have given too much weight to longer articles.
Third, the readability formulas are using mid-1900 standards to judge
 
              mid-1800 writing.  Some of the tests depend on the counting
syllables
 
           that may have been different or unrecognizable in writing of this
 
       period.  Test results will be useful to the point that they give
 
      relative difficulty and show consistent differences across measures.
Finally, there may be other reasons why "Shadow's" writing is different
 
               from the subjects.  The author could have intended "Shadow's"
works for
 
            a different audience and intentionally wrote differently.
"Shadow's"
 
           stories may have been produced for a different purpose (e.g., hard
news
 
            versus commentaries) and accidentally been written differently.  Or
the
 
            author may have tried to hide the source of "Shadow's" work by
altering
 
            the style.
Results
Appendix A has the complete results.  This section will only summarize
 
               findings.  The three readability measures yielded consistent
results.
 
            Each measure identified "Shadow" as an easier read than Dumble,
 
     Linebaugh, or McClanahan.  In all cases but one, the t-test found the
 
           difference significant at the 0.01 level of reliability.
 
Table 1
Readability Test Results
 
 
Flesch Reading
Ease Scale
Flesch-Kincaid
Grade Level
Gunning-Fog
Grade Level
 
"Shadow"
53.2
 
11.2
 
13.2
 
 
McClanahan
51.1
 
12.7
*
15.6
*
 
Dumble
48.7
*
12.9
*
15.7
*
 
Linebaugh
43.0
*
14.5
*
16.9
*
*Indicates significantly different from "Shadow" at a 0.01 level of reliability
 
Despite the reading ease scores, the data suggest that "Shadow" used
 
             longer words than the subjects.  McClanahan used the shortest words
(4.5
 
            letters/word) on the average with a difference that was significant
at
 
            the 0.01 level.  Dumble's words were only slightly longer (4.6
 
    letters/word) and still significantly different (0.02 level).  It was
 
           not possible to show a significant difference between Linebaugh's and
 
           "Shadow's" word length (4.7 and 4.8 characters per word,
respectively).
 
Figure 1
Average Letters per Word[47]
 
  [--- Pict  Graphic Goes Here  ---]
 
 
 
 
Figure 2
Average Words per Sentence
 
  [--- Pict  Graphic Goes Here  ---]
 
 
 
 "Shadow" may have used longer words, but had fewer of them per sentence
 
               (see Figure 2).  "Shadow's" sentences were significantly shorter
than
 
           the subjects (all at the 0.01 level).  While "Shadow's" work averaged
 
           only 21.9 words per sentence, Linebaugh composed at a rate of 29.4
words
 
            per sentence.  The sentences of McClanahan and Dumble were also
longer
 
            with a somewhat more compact 26.8 and 26.1 words per sentence,
 
    respectively.
Again, "Shadow" shows significantly (all at the 0.01 level) more economy
 
               in sentences per paragraph.  "Shadow's" 3.7 sentences per
paragraph were
 
            downright Spartan compared to Dumble's 18.0.  McClanahan and
Linebaugh
 
            used nearly double the number of sentences per paragraph (6.8 and
6.3
 
           respectively) as "Shadow."
 
Figure 3
Average Sentences per Paragraph
 
  [--- Pict  Graphic Goes Here  ---]
 
 
 
 Unlike other measures, no significant differences were found in the use
 
               of passive voice.  Percent Passive ranged from 31.6% for
McClanahan to
 
            39.6% for Dumble.  "Shadow" (35.6%) and Linebaugh (34.9) were nearly
 
          identical.  Wide variation in the use of passive voice made this
measure
 
            less discriminating D particularly considering the small sample
size.
 
Figure 4
Average Percent Passive Sentences
 
  [--- Pict  Graphic Goes Here  ---]
 
 
 
Discussion
The quantitative analysis is cold and unfeeling compared to the emotion
 
               of the authors' words.  In this study, quantitative analysis
disclosed
 
            some significant difference that may have been missed otherwise.
 
       Clearly, "Shadow's" writing style differed from Linebaugh, once
 
     considered to be a prime suspect.  The differences are just as clear
 
          with Dumble and McClanahan.  From these data, it is time to broaden
the
 
            search for "Shadow."
In general, the quantitative data suggests that "Shadow" wrote simply.
 
               The suggested grade level for "Shadow's" work was lower than the
 
      subjects.  "Shadow" used shorter sentences and shorter paragraphs.
 
         "Shadow's" longer word length may have been due to a greater use of
 
         proper nouns (e.g., Rappahannock and gubernatorial) and titles.  The
 
          simpler writing style may suggest a less educated, less able author,
but
 
            the passive voice measure discounts that somewhat.  "Shadow" was
able to
 
            communicate in a crisp writing style, yet not use passive voice any
more
 
            than other authors.
Recommendations for future use of the method
Readability analysis is not definitive.  It is simply one tool out of
 
              many for the historian and should be used as such.  Small sample
size
 
           and the possibility of deception on the original players make it less
 
           reliable than quantitative analysis in other areas of research.
Still,
 
            when properly applied, it can provide previously unavailable
evidence.
 
            With desktop computers and grammar checking programs, it can be
quick
 
           and simple.
The person wishing to do readability analysis may consider the following
 
               suggestions.  First, keep in mind that the computer is best at
doing
 
          redundant repetitive tasks.  A good macro program and a properly
written
 
            macro can save the researcher (or an assistant) hours of
mind-numbing
 
           work.
Second, data produced by the computer should never have to be typed into
 
               the computer.  Re-keying data introduces human error and rounding
 
       errors.  The computer does not misplace a decimal or mind holding
 
       endless fractions that the human operator would quickly round-off.  In
 
            Figure 1 above, the y-axis the graphing program remembered fractions
 
          long forgotten by the researcher and produced a more accurate graph.
Third, choose your programs carefully for ability and inter-operability.
 These days there is no reason why data should not be transferable from
 
               one program to another.  This project was done almost entirely on
 
       Microsoft products (Word, Works, Excel).  Simple transfer of data from
 
            word processing to data analysis save time and trouble.
For this project, a stand-alone grammar checking program was found to be
 
               more useful than those embedded in the word processor.  Even
though
 
         Microsoft Word (version 5.1a) uses Correct Grammar as its grammar
 
       checking subroutine, the separate program Correct Grammar offered more
 
            choices and the ability to output data into text files.
Finally, it is vital to get as many writing samples as possible.  It is
 
               difficult to get reliable statistics from small samples.
Ideally, the
 
            researcher must find a consistently large set of writing samples for
all
 
            subjects.
Conclusion
No one knows for certain yet who "Shadow" was, but the quantitative content
 analyses, coupled with the qualitative research data, strongly suggests
 
               that this "special" correspondent definitely was not Linebaugh.
Further,
 
            the inclusion of McClanahan and Dumble in the quantitative portion
 
      demonstrates how authorship determination can be accomplished by
journalism
 historians.  Andrews posited that Henry Watterson, later the long-time
 
           proprietor and editor of the Louisville Courier-Journal, was the
"most
 
          likely" candidate. [48]  Watterson had been on the staff of the New
York Times
 
            and the Washington Daily States by the time he joined the
Confederate army;
 before the war ended, he had been an editor on the Chattanooga Rebel, and
 
            the Montgomery Daily Mail. [49]  Thus, there are more than
sufficient
 
     samplesDlengthy or briefDof this period of his writings that may be
 
       compared with "Shadow's" contributions to the Appeal and, chiefly, the
 
          Mobile Register and Advertiser. [50]
So identifying "Shadow" is a mystery still as ripe as when a frustrated
 
              Andrews threw down that challenge to the next generation of
academic
 
        sleuths.  Indeed, the computer makes determination of authorship or
 
       authors' characteristics possible for many other disciplines than
 
     journalism history.
Discoveries to age-old riddles today are at the researchers' fingertips and
 can be made in the comfort of their offices or homes, resting as they do
 
               on statistical data furnished by the grammar-check portions of an
array of
 
            word-processing programs.
 
 Endnotes
 
 
Appendix A
 
 
 
 
 
Flesh Reading Ease
 
Avg
Stdv
N
t-test
Shadow
53.2
3.3
9
 
McClanahan
51.1
13.5
65
0.1914
Dumble
48.7
7.0
25
0.0047
Linebaugh
43.0
9.6
20
0.0000
 
 
 
 
Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level
 
Avg
Stdv
N
t-test
Shadow
11.2
0.8
9
 
McClanahan
12.7
3.9
65
0.0018
Dumble
12.9
1.9
25
0.0002
Linebaugh
14.5
2.7
20
0.0000
 
 
 
 
Gunning- Fog Index
 
Avg
Stdv
N
t-test
Shadow
13.2
0.9
9
 
McClanahan
15.6
4.2
65
0.0000
Dumble
15.7
2.1
25
0.0000
Linebaugh
16.9
2.8
20
0.0000
 
 
 
 
 
Letters  per
 
              Word
 
 
Avg
Stdv
N
t-test
Shadow
4.8
0.2
9
 
McClanahan
4.5
0.2
65
0.0019
Dumble
4.6
0.1
25
0.0173
Linebaugh
4.7
0.2
20
0.1831
 
 
 
 
Words per
 
           Sentence.
 
Avg
Stdv
N
t-test
Shadow
21.9
2.4
9
 
McClanahan
26.8
8.8
65
0.0002
Dumble
26.1
4.5
25
0.0005
Linebaugh
29.4
6.1
20
0.0000
 
 
 
 
Sentences. per
 
               Paragraph
 
Avg
Stdv
N
t-test
Shadow
3.7
1.3
9
 
McClanahan
6.8
4.9
65
0.0000
Dumble
18.0
8.4
25
0.0000
Linebaugh
6.3
4.8
20
0.0005
 
 
 
 
% Passive
 
 
 
Avg
Stdv
N
t-test
Shadow
35.6
12.2
9
 
McClanahan
31.6
23.2
65
0.4063
Dumble
39.6
16.1
25
0.4073
Linebaugh
34.9
19.2
20
0.9017
 
 
 [1] Frank L
uther Mott, A
merican Journ
alism: A Hist
ory of Newspa
pers in the U
nited
 
 
 
   States Thr
ough 250 Year
s 1690 to 194
0 (New York:
Macmillan, 19
49), 330, 336
, 338; Jean
 
 
 
 
     Folkerts
 and Dwight L
. Teeter, Voi
ces of a Nati
on: A History
 of the Media
 in the Unite
d
 States, 1
st ed. (New Y
ork: Macmilla
n, 1989), 210
, 213.
[2] J
udith Lee Hal
lock, Braxton
 Bragg and Co
nfederate Def
eat, (Tuscalo
osa, Ala.: Th
e
 
 
            U
niversity of
Alabama Press
, 1991) 2: 89
, 216, 231; J
. Cutler Andr
ews, TheSouth
 Reports
 th
eWar (Princet
on: Princeton
 University P
ress, 1970),
248-51, 236.
 
 
[3] Mott, Am
erican Journa
lism, 338.
[
4] Andrews, S
outh Reports
War , 543-547
.  Their iden
tities were,
respectively,
 Capt.
 
 
 
    Theodoric
 Carter who w
rote for the
Chattanooga D
aily Rebel an
d the Montgom
ery Daily
 
 
 
   Mail; Albe
rt J. Street,
 Savannah Rep
ublican, Memp
his Daily App
eal, Mobile D
aily
 
 
 
          Ad
vertiser and
Register; Joh
n R. Thompson
, Memphis Dai
ly Appeal; Wi
lliam D. Barr
,
 
 
        Memph
is Daily Appe
al; W. B. Gal
breath, Memph
is Daily Appe
al; and Charl
es D. Kirk,
 
 
 
 
     Chattano
oga Daily Reb
el, Memphis D
aily Appeal,
Louisville Da
ily Courier,
Augusta Daily
 
 
 
       Consti
tutionalist.
 
 
[5] Andrews,
 South Report
s War, 248-51
;  The Memphi
s Daily Appea
l, 6, 12, 13,
 17, 20,
 
 
 
      25, 27,
 30 June 1863
;  1, 3, 4, 1
4, 15, 16 Jul
y 1863.
[6]
 Thomas H. Ba
ker, "Refugee
 Newspaper: T
he Memphis Da
ily Appeal, 1
862-1865," Jo
urnal
 
 
 
   of Souther
n History,29,
 335 (Novembe
r 1966).
[7]
 The Memphis
Daily Appeal,
 18, 20 July
1863;  3l Aug
. 1863;  5, 7
,8, 12, 16,17
, 22,
 
 
 
   September
1863;  ibid.,
6, 12, 13, 17
, 20, 25, 27,
 30 June 1863
; 1, 3, 4, 14
, 15, 16
 
 
 
 
  July 1863.
 
[8] George
Sisler, "The
Arrest of a M
emphis Daily
Appeal War Co
rrespondent o
n Charges
 
 
 
 
       of Tre
ason," West T
ennessee Hist
orical Societ
y Papers ,11,
 76-92 (1957)
.
[9] Andrew
s, South Repo
rts War, 543-
47; "Leigh" w
as a gunner w
ith Col. John
 W. A.
 
 
 
 
    Sanford's
 battery comm
anded by Brig
.-Gen. James
R. Chalmers;
"Ramrod" was
a
 
 
      soldi
er-correspond
ent covering
Northeast Mis
sissippi (The
 Memphis Dail
y Appeal, 14,
 16
 
 
          Oct
ober 1862); "
Harvey" was i
nfantry Capta
in J. Harvey
Mathes, (Bake
r, The Memphi
s
 
 
        Comme
rcial Appeal:
 The History
of a Southern
 Newspaper  [
Baton Rouge:
Louisiana Sta
te
 
 
         Univ
ersity Press,
 1971),199; "
Waverly" was
in the cavalr
y (The Memphi
s Daily Appea
l,
 
 
         May-
June 1864, pa
ssim); and "S
pecial," was
with Gen. Wil
liam B. Bate'
s division (T
he
 
 
         Memp
his Daily App
eal, 16, 18 J
une 1864).
[
10] Some of t
he qualitativ
e research wa
s based on An
drews's curso
ry primary da
ta about
 Li
nebaugh's lif
e and that wr
iter's  commu
nications wit
h Confederate
 Vice Preside
nt
 
 
 
Alexander H.
Stephens, and
 items concer
ning his wher
eabouts and d
eath that app
eared in
 
 
 
  the Appeal.
  However, th
e major effor
t of this pro
ject's chief
investigator
centered on
 
 a minute qua
litative cont
ent analyses
of Linebaugh'
s "Ashantee"
columns, the
knowledge
 o
f Appeal mana
gement and ed
itorial polic
ies, and the
familiarity w
ith assignmen
t
 
 
        beats
, content, sc
ope and writi
ng styles of
the newspaper
's dozens of
war
 
 
    cor
respondents.
 
 
        For instanc
e, Sisler cla
imed that Lin
ebaugh began
to cover Brag
g for the App
eal in the
 
1861 Florida
campaign, beg
inning with t
he raid again
st Santa Rosa
 Island, then
 the
 
 
 
  Kentucky ca
mpaign, and,
finally, the
Confederate a
rmy's retreat
 from Dalton
to Atlanta.
 
  None of tha
t data are tr
ue.
        Sisler
stated that L
inebaugh sent
 exclusive di
spatches from
 Florida to t
he Appeal wit
h
 the datel
ine of  Oct.
8, 1861.  The
 newspaper ha
d no correspo
ndents' filin
gs on this
 
 
 
        engag
ement, but di
d reprint dis
patches  from
 the Mobile A
dvertiser and
 Register as
well
 as tho
se from the
Press Associa
tion, the New
 Orleans Delt
a, the Richmo
nd Dispatch.
 
        The Kent
ucky, Middle
and East Tenn
essee hard-ne
ws dispatches
 from Tupelo
to Knoxville
 
 
 
          and
 Nashville in
 1862 were re
prints from t
he Mobile Adv
ertiser and R
egister.
 
 
 
   Feature-st
ory treatment
 of that camp
aign, exclusi
ve to the App
eal,  was pro
vided by
 
 
 
 
  "Leigh" who
se style gene
rally was boy
ishly simple
and personal,
 a departure
from the
 
 
 
  detached, e
litist rococo
 of "Ashantee
".
        "Leigh,"
 not Linebaug
h, covered Br
agg's epic 71
5-mile march
from Tupelo,
Miss. to the
 
 
 
          bat
tle at Munfor
dville, Ky.,
but Sisler cr
edited his Oc
t. 16, 1863 d
ispatch to
 
 
 
    Linebaugh
.  He did the
 same thing w
ith "Leigh's"
 and "Ramrod'
s" columns ab
out the
 
 
 
 Perryville b
attle.  Sisle
r also attrib
uted to Lineb
augh one of "
Shadow's" fil
es on
 
 
            B
ragg's comman
d appointment
 of both the
armies of Ken
tucky and Mis
sissippi (The
 Memphis
 Da
ily Appeal, 1
5 July 1863).
 
        One of "
Leigh's" best
 eyewitness a
ccounts was t
he battle of
Murfreesboro
(which Sisler
 
 said Lineb
augh wrote);
 at one point
 this Mississ
ippian's abil
ity to fire h
is cannon
 
 
 
 
       was im
peded because
 he was splat
tered with th
e brains of a
 fellow artil
lerist (The
 
 
 
 
     Memphis
Daily Appeal,
 22 January 1
863) hardly i
n keeping wit
h Linebaugh's
 aversion to
 
 
 
      battlef
ields .
 As
 "Leigh" bega
n to indicate
 disillusionm
ent with Brag
g, Sisler als
o added that
column
 to L
inebaugh's st
ring; he did
the same with
 two addition
al filings by
 both "Leigh"
 and
 "Shado
w" on Bragg's
 inertia in r
e-attacking R
osecrans at M
urfreesboro (
The Memphis
 
 
 
 
         Dail
y Appeal, 12
June 1863).
 
        Linebaugh'
s debut in th
e Appeal was
June 27, 1863
 following th
e June 15 ann
ouncement
 
 
 
 
       that t
he newspaper
had hired "an
 intelligent
reporter" to
cover "the fr
ont" of the A
rmy
 of Tenn
essee, especi
ally from hea
dquarters; "S
hadow's" firs
t column appe
ared on June
 
 
 
      6, 1863
); for McClan
ahan to use t
wo pseudonyms
 for one writ
er seems as u
nlikely as hi
s
 
 
        using
 two correspo
ndents for th
e same beat,
given his pub
lishing coura
ge and common
 
 
 
       sense.
  What was mo
re likely was
 that "Shadow
"  became tro
ublesome to M
cClanahan, wa
s
 
 
        dissa
tisfied with
the Appeal or
 received a m
ore attractiv
e offer from
Mobile publis
her
 
 
          Joh
n Forsythe.
Or that he to
ok the assign
ment temporar
ily when the
Appeal first
 
 
 
      settled
 in Atlanta w
ith the under
standing that
 McClanahan w
ould find a r
eplacement at
 
 
 
       summer
's end.  Curi
ously, Sisler
 never mentio
ned Linebaugh
's pseudonym
of "Ashantee"
;
 
 
        inste
ad, he identi
fied him as "
Shadow".  But
 both bylines
 appear in th
e issues of J
une
 
 
          27,
 June 30, and
 July 16 with
 "Shadow's" r
eadable, sold
iery style pr
oviding a dis
tinct
 
 
            c
ontrast from
Linebaugh's a
ttempts to re
plicate that
of Addison an
d Steele.  It
 was
 
 
           en
tirely possib
le, of course
, for a publi
sher to prote
ct an outspok
en correspond
ent by
 
 
 
phasing in a
new pseudonym
 as he phases
 out another;
 "Shadow's" l
ast dispatch
to the
 
 
 
Appeal was Ju
ly 16, 1863.
 The appearan
ce of three s
tories by "As
hantee" from
 
 
 
      Charles
ton and Augus
ta at the ver
y time an App
eal editorial
ist said he w
as visiting a
n
 
 
        ailin
g daughter in
 North Alabam
a does hint o
f that kind o
f deliberate
legerdemain b
y
 
 
        manag
ement in tryi
ng to conceal
 that Linebau
gh had desert
ed his post f
ollowing his
 
 
 
      first t
aste of war.
 Moreover, co
nsidering "Sh
adow's" popul
arity and "As
hantee's" lac
k
 
 
        of it
, it would ha
ve made littl
e business se
nse to the as
tute McClanah
an to phase o
ut
 
 
         the
"Shadow"  byl
ine for "Asha
ntee".
        "Sha
dow"  continu
ed to file fo
r the Mobile
Advertiser an
d Register af
ter Linebaugh
's
 
 
 
resignation f
rom the Appea
l in February
 1864.  Lineb
augh's death
by drowning o
n July
 
 
 
26, 1864 (And
rews, South R
eports War, 5
44) makes Sis
ler's claim o
f Atlanta cov
erage
 
 
            p
roblematic.
 
        Further, qua
litative cont
ent analysis
showed Lineba
ugh's exhibit
ionistic tend
encies: a
 p
enchant for f
oreign expres
sions, histor
ical allusion
s, complex vo
cabulary, and
 
 
 
           wo
rdiness demon
strated in ne
cklaces of pr
epositional p
hrases.  Such
 a writing st
yle was
 so
singular that
 it was appar
ent who was w
riting some o
f the Appeal'
s editorials
 
 
 
      during
the winter of
 1863-64.  By
 contrast, "S
hadow's" work
 is devoid of
 any of these
 
 
 
       patter
ns; he presen
ted facts and
 events in th
e unadorned s
tyle of hard
news and was
 
 
 
      equally
 as direct in
 drawing conc
lusions from
such data.
 
 
In terms of
journalistic
skills, for a
ll of his lit
erary pretens
ions, Linebau
gh's leads
 
too often sta
rted with "th
e news from .
 . ." (The Me
mphis Daily A
ppeal, 31 Aug
ust,
 
 
 
  1863; 1, 3,
 5 September
1863) while "
Shadow"  almo
st unfailingl
y used the "f
ive-W"
 
 
 
lead(The Memp
his Daily App
eal, 12 June,
 17 July 1863
).  Unlike "S
hadow's" tota
l focus
 
 
 
 on the front
 and obvious
knowledge of
military tact
ics and topog
raphy, Lineba
ugh's
 
 
            t
opics until h
is employment
 seemed threa
tened (when h
e used troop-
movement info
rmation
 
 
 
 provided by
a high-rankin
g friend) gen
erally were o
n theoretical
 strategies,
Greek
 
 
            m
ythology, Wel
lington minut
ia, or religi
ous admonitio
ns (The Memph
is Daily Appe
al, 5
 
 
            S
eptember; 17
July 1863).
Linebaugh als
o lacked news
 sense as whe
n he failed t
o report
 hi
s interview w
ith the Jacks
onian era's D
uff Green, on
e-time editor
 of the Unite
d
 
 
        State
s Telegraph (
22 August; 7
September 186
3) or bolted
under fire fr
om a major sc
oop
 
 
          in
the initial b
ombardment of
 Chattanooga
(The Memphis
Daily Appeal,
 21 August 18
63).
 
 
            "
Shadow"  also
 lacked Lineb
augh's ascerb
ic meanness,
demonstrated
when the latt
er
 
 
         beli
ttled a Georg
ia gubernator
ial candidate
 (5 September
 1863).
[11]
 Krippendorff
 dates conten
t analysis fr
om the Swedis
h state churc
h analyzing t
he
 
 
 
Songs of Zion
 for heresy i
n the 18th ce
ntury (Klaus
Krippendorff,
 Content Anal
ysis: An
 
 
 
  Introductio
n to Its Meth
odology (Beve
rly Hills: Sa
ge Publicatio
ns, 1980), 13
.
[12] L. A.
 Sherman,"Som
e Observation
s Upon the Se
ntence-Length
 in English P
rose,"
 
 
 
 
    Universit
y Studies of
the Universit
y of Nebraska
, Vol. 1, No.
 2, (1888), 1
19-130.
[13]
 Krippendorff
, Content Ana
lysis, 13.
[
14] Josephine
 Miles, The V
ocabulary of
Poetry (Los A
ngeles: Unive
rsity of Cali
fornia
 
 
 
    Press, 19
46), 112.
[1
5] M.  Schore
r, "Fiction a
nd the 'Matri
x of Analogy'
," Kenyon Rev
iew, 11, 539-
60.
[16] S.
M. Parrish, e
d., A Concord
ance to the P
oems of Matth
ew Arnold (It
haca, N.Y.:
 
 
 
 
         Corn
ell Universit
y Press, 1959
), 216; S. M.
 Parrish and
J. A. Painter
, A Concordan
ce to
 the P
oems of W. B.
 Yeats (Ithac
a, N.Y.: Corn
ell Univerity
 Press, 1963)
, 155.
[17]
Vernon Lee, T
he Handling o
f Words and O
ther Studies
in Literary P
sychology
 
 
 
       (Londo
n: J. Lane, 1
923), 155.
[
18] Ithiel de
 Sola Pool, e
d., Trends in
 Content Anal
ysis (Urbana,
 Ill.: Univer
sity of
 
 
 
     Illinois
 Press, 1959)
, 215.
[19]
D. P. Boder,
"The Adjectiv
e-Verb Quotie
nt: A Contrib
ution to the
Psychology of
 
 
 
           La
nguage," Psyc
hological Rec
ord, 3, 310-3
43.
[20] Wer
ner J. Severi
n and James W
. Tankard, Jr
., Communicat
ion Theories:
 Origins,
 
 
 
       Method
s, and uses i
n the Mass Me
dia, 3d Ed. (
New York: Lon
gman, 1988),
118.
[21] Po
ol, Trends in
 Content Anal
ysis, 177.
[
22] Severin a
nd Tankard, 1
20-24.
[23]
Bernard Berel
son, Content
Analysis in C
ommunication
Research (Gle
ncoe, Ill.: T
he
 
 
 
Free Press, 1
952), 175.
 
[24] Pool, Tr
ends in Conte
nt Analysis,
187.
[25] Ca
roline F. E.
Spurgeon, Sha
kespeare's Im
agery and Wha
t it Tells Us
 (Boston:
 
 
 
       Beacon
 Press, 1985)
, Appendices
II-IV.
[26]
Spurgeon, Sha
kespeare'sIma
gery, passim.
 
[27] Berels
on, Content A
nalysis, 22.
 
 
[28] G. Wayn
e Shamo, "Pre
dicting Sylla
ble Count By
Computer, " J
ournalism Qua
rterly,
 
 
 
     52, 344-
46 (Summer 19
75).
[29] T.
 A. Sebeok an
d V. J. Zeps,
 "An Analysis
 of Structure
d  Content Wi
th Applicatio
n
 
 
            o
f Electronic
Computer Rese
arch in Psych
olinguistics,
" Language an
d Speech, 1,
181-93.
[30]
 P. J. Stone,
 R. F. Bales,
 J. Z. Namenw
irth, and D.
M. Ogilvie, "
The General
 
 
 
 
         Inqu
irer: A Compu
ter System fo
r Content Ana
lysis and Ret
rieval Based
on the Senten
ce as
 a Uni
t of Informat
ion," Behavio
ral Science,
7, 484-94.
[
31] Sally Y.
Sedelow, W. A
. Sedelow, Jr
., and T. Rug
gles, "Some P
arameters for
 
 
 
           Co
mputational S
tylistics: Co
mputer Aids t
o the Use of
Traditional C
ategories in
 
 
 
      Stylist
ic Analysis.
 In Proceedin
gs of the IBM
 Literary Dat
 aProcessing
Conference (
 
 
 
 
     Yorktown
 Heights, N.
Y. : IBM, 196
4), 211-29.
 
[32] Ole R. H
olsti, Conten
t Analysis fo
r the Social
Sciences and
Humanities (R
eading,
 
 
 
     Mass. :
Addison-Wesle
y Publishing
Company), 154
-55.
[33] Sh
amo, "Predict
ing Syllable
Count By Comp
uter," 344.
 
[34] Holsti,
Content Analy
sis, 191.
[3
5] Wayne A. D
anielson, Dom
inic L. Lasor
sa and Dae S.
 Im, "Journal
ists and Nove
lists:
 
 
 
    A Study o
f Diverging S
tyles," Journ
alism Quarter
ly, 69, 436-4
45 (Summer 19
92).
[36] Da
nielson, Laso
rsa, and Im,
"Journalists
and Novelists
," 442.
[37]
 Andrews, Sou
th Reports Wa
r, 544.  When
 Dumble petit
ioned to get
his 1862-1865
 back
 wages
, he testifie
d he had been
 on the Appea
l from June 8
, 1862 to Apr
il 15, 1865
 
 
 
 
         (Pet
ition of John
 B. Dumble, M
cKnight v. Di
ll, Shelby Co
unty Chancery
 Court, Tenne
ssee,
 Jan.
26, 1869, 619
-20).
[38] 1
850 Louisiana
 Census, East
 Baton Rouge
Parish, p. 17
7.
[39] The
Memphis Daily
 Appeal,  5 N
ovember, 1863
.
[40] Journ
al of Proceed
ings of the T
hirty-Fourth
Annual Conven
tion of the P
rotestant
 
 
 
 
       Episco
pal Church in
 the Diocese
of Georgia, M
ay 8, 1856, 1
9; One Hundre
d Years of Li
fe:
 Emmanue
l Church (Ath
ens, Ga.: Emm
anuel Church,
 November 194
3), 11-12.
[
41] The Memph
is Daily Appe
al, 25 July 1
863; 1 Septem
ber 1863.
[4
2] Ibid., 31
August 1863.
 Linebaugh ha
d only been s
tringing for
five days bef
ore he
 
 
 
    remarked
obviously to
criticism "My
 Letters may
have seemed t
oo discursive
 for the
 
 
 
  general tas
te, but_ " an
d then launch
ed into a typ
ically length
y sentence th
at was 102
 
 
 
    words lon
g (The Memphi
s Daily Appea
l, 20 July,18
63)
[43] Ibi
d., 17 July 1
863.
[44] Or
iginally, the
 samples were
 entered into
 one large fi
le.  A simple
 macro progra
m
 
 
            (
AutoMac III)
was used to s
plit the file
 into individ
ual sample fi
les.  A macro
 program
 au
tomates repet
itive tasks a
nd keystrokes
 which can be
 performed by
 any programs
.  In
 
 
            t
his case, the
 macro copied
 the sample,
pasted to a n
ew document,
saved and clo
sed the
 
 
 
 new document
 under a new
name.
[45]
 At this stag
e, macro prog
ram deleted u
nnecessary in
formation and
 placed tabs
 
 
 
          bet
ween data poi
nt.   The mac
ro program op
erated within
 Microsoft Wo
rd, version 4
.0.
 
 
           Mo
st spreadshee
t and databas
e programs ca
n import data
 when data po
int are separ
ated by
 tab
s, and record
s are separat
ed by carriag
e returns.
[
46] The Flesc
h Reading Eas
e Score is ba
sed on the nu
mber of words
 in each sent
ence,
 
 
 
   and the av
erage number
of syllables
per word.  Th
e Flesch-Kinc
aid system at
tempts to
 
 
 
 
   represent
readability a
s a school gr
ade level. Th
e Flesch-Kinc
aid formula h
as become a
 
 
 
 
     standard
 required by
the U.S. Gove
rnment and th
e military (D
OD MIL-M-3878
4B).  The
 
 
 
   Gunning Fo
g index consi
ders sentence
 length but e
mphsizes word
 length.  Bak
er, Robert
 
 
 
    and Dave
Johnson, Corr
ect Grammar f
or the Macint
osh (San Fran
cisco: Lifetr
ee Software
 
 
 
 
     Inc.) Do
cumentation ,
46-47.
[47
] Note: All f
igures were p
roduced by Mi
crosoft Excel
 prior to dat
a rounding.
The
 
 
 
 unusual Y-ax
is notations
are the resul
t of rounding
 errors but m
ore accuratel
y reflect
 
 
 
 
   relationsh
ips.
[48]
Andrews, Sout
h Reports War
, 547.
[49]
Folkerts and
Teeter, Voice
s of Nation,
245-46; Andre
ws, South Rep
orts War,
 
 
 
       544-54
7.
[50] Ibid
., 545.

Back to: Top of Message | Previous Page | Main AEJMC Page

Permalink



LIST.MSU.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager