The Dutch translation of the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) 2007 dictionary

Abstract

The words we use in everyday language reveal our thoughts, feelings, personality, and motivations. Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) is a software program to analyse text by counting words in 66 psychologically meaningful categories that are catalogued in a dictionary of words. This article presents the Dutch translation of the dictionary that is part of the LIWC 2007 version. It describes and explains the LIWC instrument and it compares the Dutch and English dictionaries on a corpus of parallel texts. The Dutch and English dictionaries were shown to give similar results in both languages, except for a small number of word categories. Correlations between word counts in the two languages were high to very high, while effect sizes of the differences between word counts were low to medium. The LIWC 2007 categories can now be used to analyse Dutch language texts.

“LIWC auf Deutsch”: The Development, Psychometrics, and Introduction of DE- LIWC2015

“…Similar to other LIWC dictionary translators (Boot, Zijlstra, & Geenen, 2017), we aimed for high (r > .50) correlations between corresponding German and English categories, which we obtained for 66 (~87%) out of the 76 reported correlations for the DE-LIWC2015 dictionary categories. High correlations between German and English word categories can be thought to reflect a general equivalence between the two dictionaries, implying that the way the DE-LIWC2015 represents the according category is comparable to the English LIWC2015 dictionary.…”

“…Apart from German, the LIWC dictionaries have been translated into several other languages, including the following: Spanish (Ramírez-Esparza, Pennebaker, García, & Suriá Martínez, 2007) French (Piolat, Booth, Chung, Davids, & Pennebaker, 2011) Italian (Agosti & Rellini, 2007) Dutch (Boot et al, 2017;Van Wissen & Boot, 2017) Serbian (Bjekić, Lazarević, Živanović, & Knežević, 2014) Russian (Kailer & Chung, 2011) Malay (Ahmad, Lutfi, Kushan, Khairuddin, Zolkeplay, Rahmat, & Mishan, 2017) Chinese (e.g. Huang et al, 2012) To our knowledge, most of these translations have relied on the LIWC2001 or 2007 version so far, with the exception of the Dutch and Chinese dictionaries for which both a LIWC2007 and LIWC2015 version exist.…”

Public perception of COVID-19’s global health crisis on Twitter until 14 weeks after the outbreak

“…syntactic priming/persistence), stylistics, sociolinguistics, forensic linguistics (e.g. authorship attribution), culturomics, and gender studies among other branches of English and non-English interdisciplinary studies ( Boot et al 2017 ). There is a growing number of corpus linguists who use object‐oriented programming languages to do their data processing.…”

The first direct replication on using verbal credibility assessment for the detection of deceptive intentions

“…For the current experiment, we used the categories “time” (e.g., “once” and “since”) and “space” (e.g., “above” and “outside”) each of which is standardized by the word count per statement and question type. We used the Dutch translation of the 2007 LIWC version (Boot, Zijlstra, & Geenen, 2017). …”