=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-3133/paper08
|storemode=property
|title=Contextual Modelling of “Propaganda”, “Information” and “Upplysning” in Swedish Parliamentary Speeches, 1920–2019
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3133/paper08.pdf
|volume=Vol-3133
|authors=Johan Jarlbrink,Fredrik Norén,Robin Saberi
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/dhn/JarlbrinkNS22
}}
==Contextual Modelling of “Propaganda”, “Information” and “Upplysning” in Swedish Parliamentary Speeches, 1920–2019==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-3133/paper08.pdf
Contextual Modelling of “Propaganda”, “Information” and
“Upplysning” in Swedish Parliamentary Speeches, 1920–2019
Johan Jarlbrink 1, Fredrik Norén 1 and Robin Saberi 2
1
Umeå University, Universitetstorget 4, 90187 Umeå, Sweden
2
Uppsala University, Box 256, 751 05 Uppsala, Sweden
Abstract
This paper explores the contexts of the keywords “propaganda”, “information” and
“upplysning” in the Swedish parliamentary debate protocols, from 1920 to 2019. The digitized
protocols have recently been annotated with metadata for speakers’ gender and party
affiliation. Based on perspectives developed within conceptual history, we have traced the
concepts in the parliamentary debates and used computational methods to cluster the contexts
in which they occur. Word windows around the three keywords were compiled into a sub-
corpus, and topic modelling was used to cluster the contexts. The findings show that the
distribution of the topics gets more even over time, partly explained by the spread of the term
“information” in various political areas in the mid-20th century. Furthermore, the only distinct
topic shared between the three keywords relates to campaigns to limit and prevent the
consumption of alcohol, narcotics and tobacco. While a conceptual shift takes place within this
topic, from “upplysning” to “information”, it is also shown that it was possible to discuss and
frame these issues in terms of “propaganda” post-WWII – it even became more common to do
so in the 1950s and 1960s.
Keywords 1
propaganda, information, conceptual history, parliamentary debates, Sweden
1. Introduction
Today, “information” and “propaganda” are perceived as almost contradictory terms. Information is
supposed to bring facts and rational order. If not, it needs to be corrected or be dismissed as
disinformation. Propaganda, in turn, only carries lies and confusion. Scholars who have studied the
history of propaganda often argue that this conceptual distinction started to emerge during WWI.
According to this narrative, the notion became cemented after WWII, partly as a consequence of
Goebbels’ authoritarian propaganda apparatus [1][2]. However, this seemingly obvious and clear
distinction between “propaganda” and “information” should not be taken for granted. In fact, the
narrative of the propaganda concept going bad after 1945 seems empirically incorrect, at least if we
look at the Swedish parliamentary debates. How could it otherwise be that a parliamentarian, as late as
in the 1980s, was able to say this during a debate: “Within the Centre party, there is a strong belief that
young people’s attitudes towards alcohol can be influenced through information and propaganda and
that a very important channel for this influence is the school”.2
Digital Parliamentary Data in Action (DiPaDA 2022) workshop, Uppsala University, Sweden, March 15, 2022.
EMAIL: johan.jarlbrink@umu.se (Johan Jarlbrink); fredrik.noren@umu.se (Fredrik Norén); robin.saberinasseri@statistik.uu.se (Robin
Saberi)
ORCID: 0000-0002-1167-046X (Johan Jarlbrink); 0000-0001-8820-1082 (Fredrik Norén); 0000-0002-4026-9122 (Robin Saberi)
© 2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors.
Use permitted under Creative Commons License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0).
CEUR
Wor
Pr
ks
hop
oceedi
ngs
ht
I
tp:
//
ceur
-
SSN1613-
ws
.or
0073
g
CEUR Workshop Proceedings (CEUR-WS.org)
2
Protocol (Prot.), 1986/87:110. All Swedish quotes are translated by the authors. The bicameral Riksdag protocols (1867–1970) are referred
to as “FK” (första kammaren/first chamber), and “AK” (andra kammaren/second chamber), followed by year and protocol number. After the
unicameral reform in 1970, protocols are only referred to by year and protocol number.
118
The purpose of this paper is to explore the contexts in which “propaganda”, “information” and
“upplysning” (a word more common before the emergence of “information”, and with a similar
meaning: it translates as both “information” and “enlightenment” in English) were used in the Swedish
parliamentary debate protocols over a hundred-year period, from 1920 to 2019. Two research questions
are being examined: Which political areas were “propaganda”, “information” and “upplysning”
associated with? Were there common topics in which all three terms were used? And how did the
distribution of topics and associated concepts change over time?
The analysis is based on all chamber protocols of the Swedish Riksdag between 1920 and 2019 –
401 million tokens divided over some 11,000 protocols. Theoretically, the paper builds on ideas
developed within the field of conceptual history, perspectives that have been operationalized using
computational methods in recent years. Methodologically, the paper builds on models developed for
word sense induction. More specifically, we have constructed a sub-corpus of extracted word windows
around the three keyword lemmas, which we have processed using LDA topic modelling. This
methodological approach provides a way to model the contexts around the terms “propaganda”,
“information” and “upplysning”.
The results presented here are based on a corpus still being curated. During 2021, individual
speeches were identified and metadata for individual speakers, party affiliation and gender were added.
Yet, there are still unidentified speakers and speeches in the dataset and some bugs remain to be fixed.
What this paper presents is ongoing work and preliminary results.
2. Previous results
This paper builds on our previous work in which we explored how “propaganda” and “information”
were used in Swedish parliamentary speeches, from the establishment of the bicameral Riksdag in 1867
to 2019 [3]. Through basic statistical measurements – word window co-occurrence, bigram extraction
and keyword extraction – we examined what these concepts referred to in the parliamentary debates.
Our results revealed that the negative notion of “propaganda” was dominant already in the 19th century.
This is a finding in line with what conceptual historians have shown in relation to Germany and the UK
[4][5]. Still, our results pointed to the fact that it was also possible to use the concept of propaganda in
a positive and neutral sense between the 1910s and 1980s. Interestingly, scholars of propaganda history
have often described this particular period as a time when “propaganda” became more or less useless
as a neutral concept in western democracies [6][7][1].
In our previous study we also saw that when the frequencies of “propaganda” decreased in the 1960s
and 1970s, the neutral sense of the concept was partly replaced by “information”. The spread of
“information” in its singular form turned it into a flexible concept that could be used in a variety of
political contexts. This result echoes what other scholars studying the history of “information” have
shown, that the term first spread to various academic disciplines [8] and then into the political sphere,
where it was used to make sense of and handle various problems [9]. Providing “adequate information”
was presented as a solution to all kinds of problems in the “information age”, but information would
also generate problems of its own: an “information divide”, “information overload”, “information
pollution” etc. [10].
In the Swedish parliamentary debates, “information” usually carried positive connotations: nobody
was against “information” per se. Hence, a redescription of “propaganda” as “information” was close
at hand. Following Skinner [11], we argued that “information” seems to have provided a space for
political action that “propaganda” was not able to, partly because of the political radicalization during
the 1960s and the shift towards an ideal of two-way communication during the 1970s. However, the
methods we used in our previous work were not able to capture the political contexts or themes of
“propaganda” and “information” in a systematic way. Hence, in this paper, we turn to another method
to expand the exploration of our conceptual investigation – also including the information-related term
“upplysning”.
119
3. Theoretical perspectives and method
“Propaganda” could be seen as a key (or basic) concept. “Information” may not qualify as such, since
the concept (re)entered politics from communication theory, where it was defined primarily in technical
terms [10]. In the tradition of conceptual history, key concepts are those that are both indispensable and
contested in political discourse. Defining them, restricting, expanding or challenging their meaning and
use, is part of a political struggle. The redefinition of concepts is a way to redefine social reality,
interpret it and frame it, and perhaps legitimize goals and point out the necessity of certain actions
[12][13]. By focusing on parliamentary speeches and examining key concepts of communication – how
and when they are defined and used, and by whom, in which context – we get a better understanding of
the struggles and strategies that have defined communication between the state and the citizens.
While “propaganda” has been a concept to disagree about, used both as a negative label and a
communication strategy to embrace, the use of “information” has to a large degree been characterized
by consensus: few actors were ever against information per se. Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe, the
dictionary of political concepts edited by Reinhart Koselleck and a team of researchers between 1972
and 1997, included an extensive chapter on “propaganda” [4], but “information” was not covered at all.
Still, “information” has been used both as a synonym and as a counter-concept to propaganda” [9], and
this is why “information” is included in our paper, along with its older synonym “upplysning”.
In the last decade, several efforts have been made to utilize digital text databases and computational
methods to continue – and perhaps challenge – what Koselleck started. These efforts also include
research based on parliamentary records [14][15][16]. The computational approaches are usually based
on the analysis of different word co-occurrence measures, and the idea that you “shall know a word by
the company it keeps” [17]. Peter de Bolla and his team at the Cambridge Concept Lab have examined
different word co-occurrence metrics in order to capture the way “concepts are constructed through
‘constellations’ or ‘bundles’ of individual words” [18]. Michael Gavin et al. have proposed an
alternative method based on vector semantics, but it is founded on similar principles: “concepts are
clusters of terms that co-occur throughout a corpus” [19]. The model makes it possible to distinguish
between different clusters, indicating different contexts of use.
Our own method is based on similar principles, but we have used topic modelling to cluster the
words co-occurring with our target words. This approach is borrowed from research on word sense
induction, where words co-occurring within a window around a target word are clustered in order to
identify different senses of ambiguous words [20][21]. However, reviewing the results of this research,
“sense” does not seem to be the most appropriate word to characterize what is captured. Often, it seems
that many of the clusters identified present the same word sense. What the models do capture, however,
is the different contexts – that is themes, or topics – where the target word is used, and that is precisely
what we have aimed for in this paper using the LDA model, implemented in Mallet [22][23]. For this
paper, we have experimented with context windows of 5, 10 and 20 words, and produced models with
5, 10, 20 and 50 topics. After a manual assessment, a context window of 20 words was considered to
capture a meaningful semantic structure around the three keywords. A context window of 50 words was
considered too wide and thus risked losing more specific themes of our three keywords (more attention
towards exploring optimal context window sizes for sub-corpus topic modelling would, however, be
desirable). Moreover, based on a manual interpretation of distinct top words for each topic, as well as
an examination of the documents with high scores for individual topics, a model of 20 topics was
chosen. For the purpose of this paper and our research questions, we found that this model captured a
satisfying number of distinct themes and provided an overview of the political areas associated with
“information”, “propaganda” and “upplysning” (the 50-topic model generated too many overlapping
topics that were too alike). Still, as Appendix 1 shows, some of the 20 topics were also of a general kind
and thus more difficult to give a distinct label.
In previous research within computational conceptual history, context is usually defined as word
context: “The context may be a short window of words around the target word or defined by a
grammatical relation discovered by automatic syntactic parsing of the text” [18]. This word context is
important, but what is missing is often the social and political context, the different genres and authors,
etc. Our own research is based on a single source, the proceedings of the Swedish parliament, but we
120
have used metadata that has recently been made available to examine and contextualize how topics are
distributed based on gender and political parties.
4. Sources and corpus data
Before we move on to the analysis, some details are needed about the chamber protocols as a source
and as a corpus. The chamber protocol series (Kammarens protokoll) consists of the minutes from the
parliament and contains both speeches and various notes on activities in the chambers, such as votes
and reports of attendance. The speeches have an inherent polemical character, and speakers’ expressions
are sometimes provocative and rhetorical, which in turn affects the nature of the semantic content, for
example in terms of the adjectives used and the phrasing of questions. Moreover, the political language
also reflects the parliamentary procedures. These procedures and the speech-genre itself generate high
frequencies of certain phrases and words: “Mr speaker”, “question”, “committee” etc. The yearly cycle
of the parliament also produces repetitive activities and elements – hearings of ministers, budget
debates, the closing of the parliament during summer – all following their own particular rules and
formalities. The recorded speeches, furthermore, follow certain conventions, for example how speakers
are introduced, and how a speech starts (by addressing the speaker of the parliament). One needs to be
aware of these aspects since they have an influence on the computational results derived from the corpus
as a whole.
The Swedish parliamentary records have been digitized by the Swedish Riksdag Library, and
represent a vast and rich source to study parliamentary culture, dating back to the diets of the 16th
century (available for free at riksdagstryck.kb.se and data.riksdagen.se). For this paper, we have used
all the protocols from 1920 to 2019, 11,195 protocols of varying length, and 401 million tokens in total.
During the digitization process, the quality of the optical character recognition was controlled through
random samples of the material. No additional cleaning has been conducted during the work on this
paper. However, within the research project Welfare State Analytics (westac.se), in which all three
authors are involved, we have been working together in a team of humanities scholars and statisticians
to identify speeches and speakers, and annotate metadata for name, party affiliation, gender and
geographical representation. A first version of this annotated corpus, stretching from 1920 to 2019, was
recently presented at the 2021 conference on Digital History in Sweden [24]. Obstacles with the
metadata still exist and will be dealt with continuously within the project. For example, while writing
this paper, it was discovered that the metadata for party affiliation was missing for speakers representing
the Left Party pre-1966.
5. The topics of “information”, “propaganda” and “upplysning”
In the 20-topic model, we find a handful of generic topics somewhat difficult to label, but also several
topics related to specific issues and contexts (see Appendix 1). Among the generic ones are topics
referring to names and titles (topic 3, 12), to the rhetoric and formalities of the proceedings (6, 10), and
to various committees and different branches of government (1, 5). Yet, the most prominent topic is
related to consumers (16). Other dominant topics capture party-political propaganda and election
campaigns (8), issues concerning media and freedom of speech (11), and foreign relations (17).
Examining the distribution of topics over time, we see that the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s were
dominated by few and mostly generic topics (Figure 1). Topic 1 is the most significant, primarily
referring to the inner workings of the parliament and government. The most distinct words within the
topic are “majt”, “majts”, and “kungl”, which are words partly used within the context of His Majesty
the King and the function of royal decision making in the Council of State pre-1974. The second and
third largest topics are topic 3 (names and titles) and topic 10 (debate rhetoric). The general character
of these topics, and the fact that none of them refer explicitly to actions and activities outside of the
parliamentary sphere, is consistent with findings in our previous research. In the 1920s, 1930s and
121
1940s, for example, “information” was primarily used in reference to information that members of
parliament (MP) needed in order to make decisions – not external information to educate citizens [3].
The fourth topic identified here is more specific, however: media and freedom of speech (11) – an
important issue during WWII.
Figure 1. Topic distribution in the 1930s based on the 20-topic model.
Beginning in the mid-20th century, the key concepts are used in relation to a wider field of topics
(Figure 2). In the 1950s and 1960s, they were frequently used within the topic of election campaigns
and party-political propaganda (8), foreign policy (17), and the labor market (7). Consumer issues (16)
became important in the 1970s, along with alcohol, narcotics and tobacco (13). Economy (19) became
a significant topic in the 1980s. The last few decades have seen a further increase in the consumer topic
(16) – explained perhaps by privatizations within many sectors, and the need to inform consumers about
available options (Figure 3).
Figure 2. Topic distribution in the 1960s based on the 20-topic model.
Figure 3. Topic distribution in the 2000s based on the 20-topic model.
122
6. Keyword-specific topics
Of the three keywords, “information” occurs in most topics for the whole sub-corpus of all word
windows. Out of 20 topics, 14 are connected to this keyword with a value of at least 0.01. For
“upplysning” the same ratio is 9/20 topics, and for “propaganda” only 4/20 topics (Tables 1 and 2).
While “information” is present in most topics, it is often with a low and even rate compared to the other
keywords. This might be an indication that “information” became a general discursive element – but
not always the most prominent one – within a greater variety of political areas, whereas “propaganda”
and “upplysning” were connected to fewer issues but with stronger ties. Yet, what is also shown is that
the topics that became prominent in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s – such as labour market (7), alcohol,
narcotics and tobacco (13), consumers (16) and foreign policy (17) (see Figure 2) – are those dominated
by the keyword “information”. This attachment of “information” to an increasing number of political
issues in Sweden confirms what previous research has shown: increased use of “information” as a
discursive element within a growing number of political areas [25]. Furthermore, in the 20-topic model,
six topics are only connected to “information” and not to “propaganda” and “upplysning”. Of these,
three topics connote more distinct political areas: consumers (16), foreign relations (17), and school
and pupils (18).
Fewer topics are connected to “propaganda”, but those that are tend to have a higher score. Here we
find, for example, one topic relating to threatening propaganda (2), and one relating to party-political
propaganda and election campaigns (8). The different topic distribution of “propaganda”, compared to
that of “information”, indicates that the contexts in which “propaganda” is found were both more limited
and more specifically connected to this keyword. Moving on to “upplysning”, the top three topics
connected to the term connote a more generic content: various branches of government (1), names and
titles (3), and descriptions and generic phrases (4).
Keyword T0 T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
information 0.227 0.009 0.0 0.003 0.009 0.088 0.088 0.077 0.0 0.072
propaganda 0.0 0.0 0.519 0.0 0.036 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.405 0.0
upplysning 0.0 0.357 0.046 0.24 0.173 0.0 0.0 0.011 0.0 0.007
Keyword T10 T11 T12 T13 T14 T15 T16 T17 T18 T19
information 0.057 0.069 0.055 0.023 0.057 0.054 0.044 0.034 0.032 0.0
propaganda 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.034 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.006
upplysning 0.039 0.001 0.015 0.067 0.005 0.005 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.034
Tables 1–2. The relative distribution of each keyword lemma in the 20-topic model.
7. Alcohol, narcotics and tobacco – the shared theme of “information”,
“propaganda” and “upplysning”
In both the 20-topic model and the 50-topic model, very few topics are shared between the three
keywords. In the 50-topic model, three topics are connected to “information”, “propaganda” and
“upplysning”: two generic topics capturing parliamentarian names and terms related to economy, and
one more distinct topic about drugs and alcohol. The latter topic also has its equivalence in the 20
model: topic 13, labelled “alcohol, narcotics, tobacco”. (The 20-topic model also contains another
shared topic, number 4, however it is a less meaningful one labelled “generic”.) In the 20-topic model,
123
the topic related to alcohol, narcotics and tobacco becomes gradually more significant up until the
1990s. During the last decades it is slightly less prominent (Figure 4).
In our previous study on the history of “propaganda” and “information” in Swedish parliamentary
debates, we found that “propaganda” was used primarily in a negative way. However, between the
1910s and the 1980s, it was also possible to use the concept in a number of other contexts – mainly
related to uncontroversial issues such as traffic safety, promotion of healthy food, and campaigns to
restrict or prevent the use of alcohol, drugs and alcohol [3]. The latter issue resembles topic 13. The
graph in Figure 5 shows the absolute distribution of the three keyword lemma of “information”,
“propaganda” and “upplysning” within topic 13. As the topic becomes more prominent (Figure 4), a
conceptual shift seems to occur. During the 1950s and the 1960s, “upplysning” dominated the topic.
Then, from the 1970s onwards, “information” takes over as the most significant keyword (Figure 5).
“Propaganda” is not as present in the topic as “information” and “upplysning”. Still, the graph indicates
that it was indeed possible to discuss issues concerning alcohol, narcotics and tobacco in terms of
“propaganda” in post-war Sweden – it even became more common to do so in the 1950s and 1960s.
“Propaganda” was part of the solution, as indicated by the documents where topic 13 scores highly:
“increased information and uncompromising propaganda against narcotics”.3
Topic 13: alcohol, narcotics, tobacco
0,07
0,06
0,05
0,04
0,03
0,02
0,01
0
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Figure 4. The distribution of topic 13 (labelled “alcohol, narcotics, tobacco”) over time.
Topic 13: alcohol, narcotics, tobacco
500
400
300
200
100
0
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Information Propaganda Upplysning
Figure 5. The absolute lemma distribution counts for “information”, “propaganda” and “upplysning”
within topic 13.
The issues where it was possible to suggest “propaganda” as a legitimate solution seem to have one
thing in common: they were non-controversial and characterized by political consensus. Eat more fruit,
wear a seatbelt, save fuel, learn how to swim – these are examples of such issues debated in parliament
in post-war Sweden [3]. Issues related to the restriction and prevention of alcohol, narcotics and tobacco
3
Prot. AK 1969:9.
124
were non-controversial in a similar way. Edman [26] has argued that few issues were as depoliticized
as those concerning alcohol and narcotics. MPs from left to right agreed on both the problems and the
solutions. Suggesting “propaganda” against drug use and excessive drinking in such a context would
not cause any conflicts – everyone agreed that it was for the common good.
Using the metadata for gender and party, it is possible to make other observations regarding the
distribution of topic 13. Figure 6, for example, shows how much female and male parliamentarians
talked about the issue. The bar chart for women represents the percentage of all speeches by female
parliamentarians that are allocated to topic 13. Hence, during the 1970s, six percent of all female
speeches are allocated to this topic. The remaining 94 percent belong to the remaining 19 topics in the
model. This approach takes the unequal representation of men and women into account.
The normalized numbers used in Figure 6 make it possible to compare, across different time periods,
how much of the female and male speeches are allocated to a certain topic. Hence, this is a way to
explore gender-coded topics. If we examine the gender distribution of topic 13, the graph indicates that
female parliamentarians spend slightly more time talking about alcohol, narcotics and tobacco using
the selected keywords, especially from the 1950s to the 1970s. Then, after the 1970s, the distribution
becomes more even. Moving on to the distribution of topic 13 for each party per decade (Figure 7),
differences are less distinct, although overall a higher percentage of speeches from the Social Democrats
(S) and the Centre Party (C) are allocated to this topic compared to the other parties over time.
Topic 13: alcohol, narcotics, tobacco
0,08
0,07
0,06
0,05
0,04
0,03
0,02
0,01
0
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Men Women Topic 13
Figure 6. The distribution of topic 13 for men and for women.
Topic 13: alcohol, narcotics, tobacco
0,07
0,06
0,05
0,04
0,03
0,02
0,01
0
1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
S M L C MP KD NYD SD
Figure 7. The distribution of topic 13 for Social Democratic Party (S), Moderate Party (M), Liberals (L),
Centre Party (C), Green Party (MP), Christian Democrats (KD), New Democracy (NYD), and Sweden
Democrats (SD). The graph excludes the Left Party due to shortcomings in the metadata annotations.
125
8. Concluding discussion
In this paper we have examined the contexts of “information”, “propaganda” and “upplysning”, based
on all speech protocols in the Swedish parliament from 1920 to 2019. A sub-corpus was generated by
extracting a context window of 20 words for all occurrences of the three keywords. Topic modelling
was then used to explore the themes in the sub-corpus, and a 20-topic model was chosen for the analysis.
The corpus is still being curated and some bugs remain, so the results presented here are preliminary.
One finding is that the topic distribution gets more even over time. This result is related to the
increased usage of “information” from the 1960s and onwards. More political issues were talked about
in terms of “information” and the keyword starts to dominate a growing number of topics. In contrast,
the context of “propaganda” was more limited and the use of the keyword decreased over time.
Few topics are shared between “information”, “propaganda” and “upplysning”. In fact, only one
distinct topic is shared in the 20-topic model. This topic relates to the political area of alcohol, narcotics
and tobacco. One reason why this particular issue is shared between the three keywords, and why it is
possible to use the term “propaganda” in this context, might be that campaigns to limit and prevent the
use of alcohol, narcotics and tobacco constituted a non-controversial political area, at least before the
1970s. This observation, in turn, is strengthened by results in previous research on the history of
“propaganda” and “information” in the Swedish parliament [3], as well as research on the political
consensus surrounding narcotics and alcohol [26].
Furthermore, this is the first paper that makes use of annotated metadata for gender and party
affiliations in the corpus of Swedish parliamentary speeches over a longer period of time, from 1920 to
2019. While the metadata is not yet perfect, the analysis shows that these categories are potential tools
for investigations of differences between female and male parliamentarians, as well as differences
between parties. Hence, besides the empirical findings, this paper gives a hint about the possibilities of
large-scale conceptual history using the curated parliamentary corpus, enabling researchers to
contextualize the use of certain concepts through metadata categories.
References
[1] K. Moloney, Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy, Abingdon: Routledge,
2006.
[2] L. Larsson, Upplysning och propaganda: Utvecklingen av svensk PR och information, Lund:
Studentlitteratur, 2005.
[3] J. Jarlbrink, F. Norén, Forthcoming. When Propaganda Became Legitimate – and Replaced by
Information: A Digital Reading of the Swedish Parliamentary Records, 1867–2019. Submitted to
Scandinavian Journal of History, February 2022.
[4] W. Schieder, C. Dipper, Propaganda, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, R. Koselleck (Eds.),
Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe: Historisches Lexikon zur politisch-sozialen Sprache in
Deutschland, vol. 5, 69–112. Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 1984.
[5] P. J. Meller, The Development of Modern Propaganda in Britain, 1854–1902, PhD diss., Durham
University, 2010.
[6] R. Jackall, Introduction, in: R. Jackall (Eds.), Propaganda, 1–9. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan,
1995.
[7] T. Clark, Art and Propaganda in the Twentieth Century: The Political Image in the Age of Mass
Culture. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1997.
[8] R. Dahling, Shannons’s Information Theory: The Spread of an Idea, in: W. Schramm (Eds.),
Studies of Innovation and of Communication to the Public, 117–140. Stanford: Stanford
University, 1962.
[9] B. Maartens, From Propaganda to “information”: Reforming Government Communications in
Britain, Contemporary British History, 30(4) 2016: 542–562.
[10] J. Gleick, The Information: A History, a Theory, a Flood, New York: Pantheon Books, 2011.
[11] Q. Skinner, Visions of Politics: Regarding Method, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2002.
126
[12] J. Ifversen, About Key Concepts and How to Study Them, Contributions to the History of
Concepts, 6 (1) 2011: 65–88.
[13] B. Stråth, Ideology and Conceptual History, in: M. Freeden, L. T. Sargent, M. Stears (Eds.), The
Oxford Handbook of Political Ideologies, 17–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.
[14] N. Foxlee, Pivots and Levers: Political Rhetoric around Capitalism in Britain from the 1970s to
the Present, Contributions to the History of Concepts, 13(1) 2018: 75–99.
[15] P. Ihalainen, A. Sahal, Evolving Conceptualisations of Internationalism in the UK Parliament:
Collocation Analyses from the League to Brexit, in: M. Fridlund, M. Oiva, P. Paju (Eds.), Digital
Histories: Emergent Approaches within the New Digital History, 199–219. Helsinki: Helsinki
University Press, 2020.
[16] J. Kurunmäki, J. Marjanen, How Ideology Became Isms: A History of a Conceptual Coupling, in:
H. Haara, K. Stapelbroek M. Immanen (Eds.), Passions, Politics and the Limits of Society (volume
1 in the series Helsinki Yearbook of Intellectual History), 291–318, De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2020.
[17] J. R. Firth, A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory 1930–1955, in: Philological Society (Eds.), Studies in
Linguistic Analysis, 1–32. Oxford: Blackwell, 1957.
[18] P. de Bolla, E. Jones, P. Nulty, G. Recchia, J. Regan, Distributional Concept Analysis: A
Computational Model for History of Concepts, Contributions to the History of Concepts, 14(1)
2019: 66–92.
[19] M. Gavin, C. Jennings, L. Kersey, B. Pasanek, Spaces of Meaning: Conceptual History, Vector
Semantics, and Close Reading, in: M. Gold, L. Klein (Eds.), Debates in the Digital Humanities
2019, 243–267. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2019.
[20] S. Brody, M. Lapata, Bayesian Word Sense Induction, in: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of
the European Chapter of the ACL, Athens, Greece, 30 March – 3 April 2009: 103–111.
[21] J. H. Lau, P. Cook, D. McCarthy, D. Newman, T. Baldwin, Word Sense Induction for Novel Sense
Detection, in: Proceedings of the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for
Computational Linguistics, Avignon, France, 23–27 April 2012: 591–601.
[22] D. Blei, A. Ng, M. Jordan, Latent Dirichlet Allocation, The Journal of Machine Learning Research,
3(1) 2003: 993–1022.
[23] A. K. McCallum, MALLET: A Machine Learning for Language Toolkit, http://mallet.
cs.umass.edu, 2002.
[24] Westac. 2021. Swedish Parliamentary Proceedings – Riksdagens Protokoll 1920–2021 v0.3.0,
https://github.com/welfare-state-analytics/riksdagen-corpus (accessed 16 February 2022).
[25] Norén, F., Information som lösning, information som problem: En digital läsning av tusentals
statliga utredningar, Nordicom Information, 38(3) 2016: 9–26.
[26] J. Edman, The Ideological Drug Problem, Drugs and Alcohol Today, 13(1) 2013: 9–19.
Appendix 1: The 20-topic model with manually interpreted
labels
No Weight Label Top distinct words
0 0.03 descriptions strange, similar, fantastic
1 0.086 branches of government royal, majesty, obtained
2 0.051 threatening propaganda antireligious, religious, revolutionary
3 0.098 names & titles excellency, vice, first
4 0,03 generic possible, expertise, valuable
5 0.037 branches of government national, regional, municipality
127
6 0.046 debate formalities plead, reject, present
7 0.065 labour market labour market, employee, unions
8 0.044 election campaigns and party-political propaganda party political, election campaign, baiting
9 0.02 generic years, spread, enough
10 0.055 generic any, definitions, regulations
11 0.067 media & freedom of speech media, freedom of speech, public
12 0.032 names & titles mrs, göran, pettersson
13 0.036 alcohol, narcotics, tobacco harm, narcotics, tobacco
14 0.014 private integrity integrity, damage, secrecy act
15 0.044 generic told, secretary, hearing
16 0.122 consumer policy consumers, producers, buyer
17 0.059 foreign policy Un’s, nordic, united
18 0.023 schools & pupils parents, grades, pupils
19 0.04 economy crowns, million, budget
128