LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 LLT Journal: A Journal on Language and Language Learning http://e-journal.usd.ac.id/index.php/LLT Sanata Dharma University, Yogyakarta, Indonesia 93 A COMPARATIVE KEYWORDS ANALYSIS IN PET CAFÉ AND REGULAR CAFÉ REVIEWS: A CORPUS STUDY Sri Hariyatmi School of Liberal Arts, KMUTT, Thailand correspondence: sri.hariyatmi@mail.kmutt.ac.th https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i1.4107 received 1 January 2022 ; accepted 4 April 2022 Abstract This paper aims to investigate the most frequently used keywords in pet cafés and regular cafes to identify the linguistic discrepancies between the reviews in the two cafes. Self-created corpora of pet cafés and regular cafés reviews were collected from TripAdvisor and Google Maps and used as the main data to compare the linguistic features in each corpus. The analysis was conducted by using AntConc 3.5.9 for Windows (64-bit) to compare the keywords and concordance lines of notable keywords. A comparison of the keyword analysis indicates that the big discrepancies between the two corpora are the use of second-and third-person pronouns in pet café reviews and the use of first-person pronouns in regular café reviews. The choice of this pronoun suggests that in pet café, the writers adopt customer and product-based reviews, whereas, in regular cafés, the writer tends to focus their reviews on author-based reviews. Another notable finding is the absence of Wi-fi in pet café reviews and the absence of adverbs and prepositions in regular cafés. Despite the difference, the reviews in both cafés are heavily dominated by the use of verbs, nouns, and only a small number of adjectives are found in each corpus. Keywords: corpora, keyword, pet café, regular café, review Introduction Online reviews which can be referred to as electronic word-of-mouth (eWOM) are available for different types of products including airlines, restaurants, and hotels (Zhang, Ye, Law, & Li, 2010). As Park & Han (2007) argue, an online review is a positive or negative statement written by potential or former customers about their feelings or opinion related to their experience of using certain products or services. It benefits potential customers with advice or information about products and their quality from the perspective of customers (Lee, Park & Han, 2007). Restaurants reviews provide the customers with detailed information about food, service, atmosphere, and price as some of the attributes of their dining experience (Jeong and Jang, 2011). Review is written in a personal subjective tone telling the audience about the writers’ experience and opinions after using certain services or products (Ricci & Wiestma, 2006). This study focuses on café reviews especially on comparing the linguistic features of pet cafés and regular cafés. Pet café is first known in Taiwan in 1998 where customers enjoy coffee with cats as a company. Following its establishment mailto:sri.hariyatmi@mail.kmutt.ac.th https://doi.org/10.24071/llt.v25i1.4107 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 94 in Taiwan, diverse animal-themed cafes start to flourish in different countries including Thailand. Unlike in regular cafés, customers of animal-themed cafés can eat, drink, or work and spend some time with cats, dogs, or different types of animals depending on what pets the cafes have (LaBine, 2017). Spending time with animals is argued as one of the healing therapies for people with hectic daily stressful life by engaging and playing with the animals (Robinson, 2019). The presence of animals that has the natural ability to create an “emotional connection with people” (Lin, 2019, p.4) in pet cafés is the most distinctive feature differentiating them from regular cafés. It is therefore inevitable that customers from these two different cafes would use different styles of writing when they write their reviews upon visiting the cafes. Comparing the linguistic features of reviews between these two cafes would give an opportunity to see how the community of pet cafés and regular cafés apply linguistic features and styles in writing their reviews. For the field of language teaching, online reviews provide authentic teaching material to teach English for Specific Purposes, especially for college students. Authentic teaching materials will help the students to reproduce the real use of language performance that can be required beyond the classroom (McGrath, 2002). The materials will greatly benefit the learners as they will help students improve their language production and increase their confidence when they are exposed to real language use in outside classroom communication (Harmer, 1994). This study is, therefore, relies on the following research questions to achieve its goals: 1) What are the most frequently used words in pet café and regular café reviews? 2) What are the styles of review writing in pet cafés and regular cafés? Literature Review Online Café reviews Online reviews studies are mostly conducted on hotels (Cennie & Goethals, 2020; Vazquez, 2011), amazon users’ reviews (Skalicky, 2013; Altun, 2019), restaurants (Sharif et al., 2019); and responses to online complaints on TripAdvisor (Napolitano, 2018). Studies conducted on cafes are mostly done by investigating the customers’ satisfaction with the cafes’ service quality (Chien & Chi 2019) or the impact of online reviews on millennials’ decision to visit cafes (Tariyal et al., 2020). Previous studies on online cafés review using corpus study are still relatively small. Among the few is the study on how positive online reviews affect the customer decision (Chen & Xie, 2008) and a corpus study on appraisal of café’s positive reviews (Techacharoenrungrueang, 2019) that investigates the use of intensifiers in café reviews. In his study, he used a self-constructed corpus to analyze the linguistics remark of positive review through the use of very and so. Unlike few previous studies conducted on cafes review, this study is distinctive as it compares the linguistic features of online reviews in pet cafés and regular cafés. By doing so, the linguistic features used within the two community reviews should be obtained and identified to explore the aboutness between these two cafes. Keyword Analysis in Corpus Study Corpus-based- study or investigation of the text collection of naturally occurring language (Bybee, 2006). Therefore, the Corpus study will reveal the LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 95 actual use of language use in its real context and explore the users; actual use of language (Lagunoff, 1997). The data used for corpus study can be written or spoken (Weisser, 2016) and this data collection is intended to be analyzed linguistically. One of the most widely used methods in corpus study is keyword analysis. The keyword is one of the means to start analyzing discourse and one of the most popular research methods used in linguistics. Keyword is the most recurring word within a text indicating “their importance in reflecting the aboutness of the text” (Schott & Tribble, 2006, p. 73). The investigation of keywords will lead us to understand the classification of their particular “functional categories that suggest these keywords’ distinctive features (e.g., the form of information or their role in discourse organization”) (Gozdz- Roszkowski, 2011, p. 35). Audience Appeal Audience appeal is meant to identify the ways the review writers considered the readers of their review. As argued by Skalicky (2013) there are three categories of audience appeal which he defined as author-based reviews, reader-based reviews, and product-based reviews The difference between these three relies on the use of pronouns. In authors- based review, the writer uses a high number of first-person pronouns, I, me, my and focus on the author. Audience-based review is characterized by the dominant use of second-person pronouns, you, your, you’re. Product-based review is a review centering on the product and using demonstrative pronouns (i.e., this product, it) or the product’s real naming in the writing. Method Data The data from this study consist of online reviews from six pet cafés and regular cafés in Thailand which were collected from the customers’ online reviews on TripAdvisor and Google Maps. The corpus data involved the first 10 longest reviews of 1-5 stars reviews in six pet cafés and regular cafés in Thailand. As this study focuses on linguistic comparison, the data collected is expected to be equal in number (Hyland, 2010). However, the length of online café reviews can be varied as there is no standard of writing in this genre. Consequently, the data collection in this study targeted to collect a rough equal word for each corpus. At the end of data collection, there are 32465 words in the pet café review and 31168 words in the regular café to be used for the current study. Prior to uploading the corpora on AntConc software, some symbols and emoticons were discarded, and the files were saved in .txt so that the data was compatible with the software used in the study. Data Analysis The analysis for this study adopted Laurence Anthony’s toolkit for corpus linguistic analysis AntConc (Anthony, 2019). The self-created corpora of pet café and regular café reviews that were saved in a.txt file format were uploaded on AntConc to generate the list of keywords from both corpora. The keyword list for each corpus was generated by comparing the pet café review to the regular café review and vice versa. A list of keywords for both corpora was determined by AntConc, and it listed the words that frequently appear in one corpus compared to the other one. Based on the result of keyword analysis, significant items could be selected for further investigation. The current study opted to use concordance analysis of the pronouns used in the two corpora in the study. Using concordance analysis will LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 96 show how the pronouns in the two corpora are used within their context. Thus, the pronouns in both corpora can be examined in the context in which they appear. The second reason is that investigating how the writers use pronouns in their review will show what strategy/style they use in writing their review. Finding and Discussion Keyword Analysis The quantitative data is investigated by using AntConc (Anthony, 2014). The result provided a list of keywords from both pets and regular café reviews. The comparison of 42 keyword lists of regular and pet café reviews is presented in table 1. As shown in the table, the words that appear more in one corpus but rarely in the other corpus will have high keyness. On the other hand, a word that rarely appears in one corpus compared to the other will have low keyness. The comparison of the two keywords list is presented in Table 1. Table 1. The list of keywords of pets café review vs regular café review Regular Cafe Pet Cafe Rank Freq Keyness Keyword Freq Keyness Keywords 1 270 218.47 coffee 399 450.59 cats 2 87 137.22 breakfast 347 379.6 dogs 3 73 123.35 bagel 180 202.76 cat 4 68 114.9 bagels 116 113.66 dog 5 124 87.21 service 200 102.58 them 6 42 70.94 view 525 87.9 you 7 37 54.37 club 57 64.12 play 8 34 49.46 sandwich 426 58.01 are 9 446 46.27 was 1006 48.3 to 10 196 41.69 good 42 47.24 huskies 11 35 41.49 cheese 248 42.13 café 12 58 38.68 ordered 411 36.32 they 13 44 38.65 cream 196 35.07 do 14 90 36.49 great 31 34.86 pet 15 543 32.12 I 256 33.99 there 16 26 31.74 wi 41 29.27 kids 17 103 30.59 me 35 27.17 allowed 18 18 30.39 sandwiches 96 26.89 people 19 25 30.2 milk 30 26.59 session 20 17 28.7 avocado 44 25.62 room 21 21 28.45 excellent 22 24.74 animal 22 43 28.4 asked 28 24.47 animals 23 26 27.99 fi 28 24.47 rules 24 26 27.99 served 27 23.42 playing 25 16 27.02 breads 38 23.06 buy 26 16 27.02 eggs 20 22.49 kitties 27 16 27.02 pancakes 20 22.49 visitors 28 174 25.54 food 275 21.55 were 29 15 25.33 bacon 63 21.46 cute 30 24 25.06 latte 81 21.38 around 31 23 23.61 western 19 21.36 entrance 32 47 22.9 delicious 19 21.36 husky 33 46 21.86 tea 24 20.28 enter 34 29 21.37 English 18 20.24 entry 35 16 20.53 style 18 20.24 interact LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 97 36 12 20.26 butter 18 20.24 photo 37 12 20.26 egg 60 19.32 love 38 48 19.86 ice 17 19.11 adorable 39 24 19.48 iced 17 19.11 children 40 27 18.88 quality 77 18.84 many 41 30 18.64 taste 30 18.69 lovers 42 166 18.49 my 47 18.67 each Table 1 shows notable discrepancies between two corpora regarding the word’s usage adopted in the reviews. As expected, cats and dogs are the most frequent word that makes up the top four on the keyword list in pets cafe. One possible explanation could be that cats and dogs are the main reason that attracts customers to go to pet cafés. For regular cafés, coffee, as expected is the highest keyness in the list of regular café reviews. These two most popular pets and coffee could be one of the main interesting attractions/ reasons for the customers to come to the café and write their reviews afterward. The most striking finding based on the two keywords comparison is Wi-Fi that only hinted at regular cafés and rules that are only found in pet café reviews. These two keyword findings might suggest that Wi-fi is a dominant feature that attracts customers to come to regular cafes. The availability of Wi-Fi is one of the main attractions for customers to visit a café (Jalil et al., 2015) and it is also a factor to attract more customers (Jaw et al., 2010). The keywords analysis finding is therefore in line with these two findings. Whereas, in pet cafés, the customers might deal more with rules related to how to interact with the cats and dogs. This reason might be the cause why rules appear in pet cafés. Another aspect that shows a big difference between the two corpora is the use of pronouns like I, my, and me in regular café reviews and you, they, and them that appear in pet café. As presented on the keyword comparison list, the review in regular café only uses first-person pronouns, I, me, and my whilst the reviewers in pet café mostly use second- and third-person pronouns, you, they, and them. This finding is worth discussing further to investigate how the writers use these pronouns to write their reviews. Table 2. Classification of keywords in regular and pet cafe Regular Cafe Pets’ cafe Parts of speech Keywords Keywords Nouns coffee, breakfast, bagel, bagels, service, view, club, sandwich, cheese, cream, sandwiches, milk, avocado, bread, eggs, pancakes, bacon, latte, Western, tea, English, style, butter, butter, egg, ice, quality, taste, food, wi-fi cats, dogs, cat, dog, huskies, café, pet, room, session, animal, animals, rules, kitties, visitors, entrance, husky, entry, photo, children, kids, lovers, people, Pronoun I, me, my them, you, they, each Verbs ordered, served, asked, taste, was playing, do, pet, allowed, play, buy, enter, interact, are, were Adjective iced, good, excellent, great, delicious cute, adorable Adverb - there, around, each preposition - to, around The verbs in each corpus also appeared distinctively. In regular cafés, the most common verbs are mostly used for regular transactional purposes such as LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 98 ordered, served, and asked. These three verbs are used between customers and service providers in their transactions. The customer’s order or ask and the service providers serve them with something the customer’s order or ask. In a cat café, the frequent keywords such as allowed, buy, do, enter, interact, playing, and play, are mostly related to the interaction between the customers and the pets. Despite the differences, there is one point of similarity in the keywords list is that the list is heavily dominated by nouns and followed by verbs. Based on the classification of keywords in table 2, it can be seen that most keywords are nouns and verbs. In a regular café, most of the nouns are related to the food sold in there such as bagels, bread, sandwiches, pancakes, and of course coffee. Service is a notable noun that appeared in regular cafés and is probably related to what the customers are expected from visiting the cafes. On the other hand, the most common nouns in pet cafés are the nouns related to pets. Dogs, cats, husky, pets, animals, kitties, make up the highest keyness followed by nouns related to pet café customers such as kids, children, and visitors. The second aspect of similarity is the low degree of adjectives found in both cafés. Only two adjectives: cute and adorable appeared as the most common adjectives used in pet’s café reviews whereas good, delicious, great, and excellent are the usual adjectives in regular cafés. The following table will show the categorization of the keywords listed in regular and pet cafés based on their function in part of speech. The last point to note is that unlike in pet cafés, adverbs and prepositions are not found in regular cafés. One important point is that some words are fit into two or more different categories, therefore the classification of keywords in the two cafes is not absolute. Concordance Analysis of notable verbs Audience appeal in Pets Cafe As discussed previously in the keywords analysis section, pet café and regular café reviews use different types of pronouns. This section will investigate how the pronouns used in pet cafés and regular cafés in their context. As mentioned earlier, the pronouns used in the pet café reviews are you, they, and them. Meanwhile, the pronouns used in regular café reviews are I, me, and my. This finding implied that the reviews are written in the pet café and regular cafés adopt different strategies in appealing to their readers. The concordance analysis of the commonly used pronoun in the two cafés is presented to see how the reviewers used the pronouns in each context. LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 99 Figure 1. Sample concordance lines for you Figure 1 reveals that the reviews in pet’s café use the second person pronoun you as the writers’ approach to addressing their readers. It looks like the writers in the café review treat their readers as someone they know personally, as their peers, or as someone that the writers know well, therefore they want to share their experiences intimately. As the concordance lines show, the writer incorporated specific features to show that the review is written for the benefit of the readers. The most common features used to frame what benefit the readers might get are shown in lines 1, 23-28. Here the writers use conditional if to show the readers what they should not miss from the café. The purpose of the review written in conditional if, is probably the writers’ attempt to persuade the readers not to miss the good times that the writers have experienced. For example: 1). …. if you a cat lover you will enjoy it, this is 25)…. if you are a coffee person, you cannot go wrong here 26). … If you are a dog lover or miss your pooch while The second possible explanation of using you by the writers is that they consider that the issues they encountered when visiting the café are important for the readers who might want to go to the café. By using you, the writers try to make the readers imagining that the things in the café based on the writers’ experience. For example: 11). …from the owner if the dog pee or scratches you accidentally. They clean the playing area every 12). unless you get lucky, they will be near you. After half an hour into the session would be the best time to 18). by the bucket load!! The cats shy away from you and obviously do not like being touched... They do not want to come near you. 19). the staff is nice and would take photos of you and the dogs, you even got to have a 22). most of the dogs will walk away as you approach them or be completely indifferent to your presence. The above sample from concordance lines depicted the reader’s experience when they visit a pet café. In writing their review, the writer uses the second-person LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 100 pronoun you to describe the activities that the readers might do in the café. It also provides the readers with a grand idea about what might happen to them and the pets when they visit the café. By using you, the writer involves the readers in their experience and explicitly recognizes them as prospective visitors to the pet café. Having discussed the reader’s-based review that is characterized using the second pronoun you¸ it can be concluded that the reviewers recognize the readers of their reviews and involve them in the reviews themselves. Other high common pronouns found in café reviews are the third person pronoun they its object pronoun them. The context of these pronouns in their use is shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2. Sample concordance lines for they Figure 3. Sample concordance lines for them From Figures 2 and 3 we can see that the reviews used a product-based review by using they and them. They and them are employed to describe the product or to place the product at the center of the review. For example: 1). the otherworldly cakes. You go for the cats, and they actually act like real cats that just think of LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 101 4). amazing!!! Super cute puppies take care of you!! They all look energetic and nice puppy!! This place is 7). more! The staff are friendly and chatty, they all play and pet the cats and make you 11). sit and consume food or drink on a table they allow their dogs to use as a toilet. Several Samples from the concordance lines for them: 1).too strict to enjoy. Very disappointing. We contacted them a few days before we should arrive because our 3) the fur pal. Just mingle with the dogs, pat them a little bit and have fun. Hoomans there are 28). good reason! There are many dogs here, most of them are huskies. However, there are also a couple of As the samples from the concordance lines show us, the writers use they and them to talk about the product of the café which are the cats or the café itself. The samples taken from concordance lines reveal that the reviews center around the café and the café product. The writers tried to show what the café looks like and how the products (cats or dogs) are ‘sold’ in the café. One feature that distinguishes the finding of the product-based review in this paper compared to the previous finding of the product-based review is the use of they and them referring to people and pets (cats and dogs). In previous research conducted by Skalicky (2013), the product- based review used demonstrative pronouns such as this product, it, or it’s to frame the product as the primary focus of the review. It is noticeable that this paper discovers different results regarding the pronouns used in the product-based review where the writer used they and them which refer to the cats or dogs as the ‘product’ in the pet cafes. Audience appeal in Regular Café The analysis of keyword list comparison indicates that regular café reviews adopt different pronouns in writing the review. Unlike pet café reviews which mostly use the second and third-person pronouns, the reviews in regular cafés choose the first-person pronouns in their review. The practice of using the first- person pronoun in regular cafés shows that the writer prefers to center their review around themselves, as shown in the following figures. Figures 4, 5, and 6 demonstrate how the first-person pronoun I, my, and me are used in the reviews. LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 102 Figure 4. Sample concordance lines for I Figure 5. Sample concordance lines for my LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 103 Figure 6. Sample concordance lines for me In this author-based review, it can be seen from figure 4 above that the writers used I, my, and me to share their experiences by recounting their stories. For example: 2). was pretty much non-existent. Very stretched. I resented paying a 10% service charge when there was no service. 5). fruits, coffee, and tea are offered here too, I already tried different drinks and Bagels and none 14). do not go here. Hygiene is also dirty. I am eating, and I clean it while taking Samples from concordance line for my: 11). service was terrible. I asked for my bill 5 times, finally she pointed me to 15). the space is really aesthetic and comfortable. My boyfriend and I came and ordered + Thai iced coffees 21). I come for a weekend breakfast. Me and my buddy needed a quick breakfast/brunch/lunch at 2.00 Samples of concordance lines for me: 4). want to be understood by you. He gave me a cup of coffee very quickly and gave me 5). owner tracked me down on Facebook and sent me a long, hysterical message calling me uncultured 12). took a very long time to come to me and it was even longer by the time Here, the writer presented their experience by recalling what happened and what they did when they visit the café. The writers focused on themselves and the things they encountered in the café in narrating what happened to them and giving insight to the readers from their perspective. There is no involvement or intention from the writer to target the reader in their review indicated by the use of the first- person pronoun in the review. This might suggest that the community in regular LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 104 café is not interested in involving the readers in their reviews or the review that targets the customers is not popular among regular café reviewers. Conclusion The purpose of the present study is to investigate the linguistic discrepancies in the online reviews of pet cafés and regular cafés. There are three conclusions to summarize based on the finding and discussion: 1. Discrepancy does exist in the keyword list between the two corpora. The keyword analysis shows that in pet cafés the writers tend to use the second- and third-person pronouns, you, they, and them in writing their review, whereas, in regular cafés, the use of the first-person pronoun, I, me, and my dominated the review writing. This finding suggests that in pet cafés, the writers used audience-based reviews by using the pronoun you and product- based reviews by adopting the use of they and them in their reviews. On the other hand, the reviewers in regular cafés tend to use author-based reviews in writing their reviews as can be observed from the dominant use of the first- person pronoun I, me, and my in their writing. 2. The second difference between pet cafés and regular cafés reviews is that although the word wi-fi is quite dominant in regular cafés, it never appears in pet cafés. Pet cafés seemed to focus on the word rules instead of wi-fi. The next point of difference is in the verbs used in pet café that mostly indicates an interaction between the customers and cats or dogs and the verbs appeared in regular cafés that suggest the contact between the customers and the café (café staff/owner). 3. The last thing is that adverbs and prepositions do not appear in the regular café’s keyword list. Despite the differences, similarities are found in the analysis of the keywords list. In both, the keywords list is heavily dominated by nouns and a limited number of adjectives appear in the keyword list. This study is restricted to the analysis of keywords and the concordance of pronouns in pet and regular café reviews. Further studies can use more features of corpus analysis such as collocation and lexical bundles to investigate more of the linguistic features in café reviews. Sentiment analysis or the café’s responses to the negative review are topics that are worth investigating. Lastly, the results of this study may contribute some implications to be applied in pedagogical classroom teaching. First, the actual use of authentic material such as online reviews might provide the students with real use of language in a specific situation, e.g., expressing opinions or recounting stories. Second, by exposing the learners to the real language used in writing opinions or recounting experiences, the learners will actively learn to distinguish linguistic features such as common nouns, adjectives, verbs, and language patterns to be used in their own writing. References Anthony, L. (2020). AntConc (Version 3.5.9) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan: Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software Bybee, J. (2006). From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition. Language, 82(4), 711–733. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2006.0186 LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 105 C. Vásquez (2011). Complaints online: the case of TripAdvisor. Journal of Pragmatics, 43(6), 1707-1717. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.007 Cenni, I., Goethals, P. (2020). Responding to negative hotel reviews: A cross- linguistic perspective on online rapport-management. Discourse, Context & Media, 37, 22-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100430 Chen, Y., & Xie, J. (2008). Online consumer review: Word-of-mouth as a new element of marketing communication mix. Management Science, 54(3), 477- 491. Chien, L., & Chi, S. (2019). Corporate image as a mediator between service quality and customer satisfaction: Di-erenceacross categorized exhibitors. Heliyon, 5, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019. e01307 Diana Kaemingk. (2019). 20 Online review stats to know in 2019. Retrieved from www.qualtrics.com/blog/online-review-stats/ (citing 20 studies) Gozdz -Roszkowski, S. (2011). Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt and Main: Peter Lang Verlag. Harmer, J. (1994). The practice of English language teaching . London, UK: Longman. Helversen, B von, Abramczuk, K., Kope´c, W., Nielek, R. (2018). Influence of consumer reviews on online purchasing decisions in older and younger adults. Decision Support System, (113), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.05.006 Jalil, N. A.A., Fikry, A., & Zainuddin, A. (2016). E-atmospheric effects on youth intention to revisit a cafe. Procedia Economics and Finance, 37, 497-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30157-5 Jaw, J., Leslie, S., Mattock, I., & Shahinfar, M. (2010). Coffee Shops, ECON 2015, Section A01, Pascal Courty, 1-6. Jeong, E., & Jang, S. (2011). Restaurant experiences triggering positive electronic word-ofmouth (eWOM) motivations. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 329- 336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.00 Kerkhof, P., & van Noort, G. (2010). Third-party internet seals: reviewing the effects on online consumer trust. In Encyclopedia of e-business development and management in the global economy (pp. 701-708). IGI Global. LaBine, Paula. (2017, November 20). What is a Cat Café? https://www.theneighborscat.com/blog/2017/11/20/what-is-a-cat-cafe Li, Xinxin, Hitt, Lorin, Zhang, John. (2011). Product reviews and competition in markets for repeat purchase products. J. Manag. Inf. Syst, 27(4), 9–42. Lin, Li. (2019). Analysis on the Design of Pet-themed Cafes. Journal of World Architecture, 3(3), 1-4. McGrath, I. (2002). Materials evaluation and design for language teaching. Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh University Press. Park, D. H., Lee, J., & Han, I. (2007). The effect of online consumer reviews on consumer purchasing intention: The moderating role of involvement. International journal of electronic commerce, 11(4), 125-148. Ricci, F. & Wietsma, R. T. A. (2006). Product reviews in travel decision-making. Information and Communication Technologies in Tourism 2006. Robinson AS. (2019). Finding healing through animal companionship in Japanese animal cafés. Medical Humanities, 45,190-198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100430 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.%20e01307 http://www.qualtrics.com/blog/online-review-stats/ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2018.05.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(16)30157-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2010.08.00 https://www.theneighborscat.com/blog/2017/11/20/what-is-a-cat-cafe LLT Journal, e-ISSN 2579-9533, p-ISSN 1410-7201, Vol. 25, No. 1, June 2019, pp. 93-106 106 Skalicky, S. (2013). Was this analysis helpful? A genre analysis of the Amazon.com discourse community and its “most helpful” product reviews. Discourse, Context and Media, 84-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2013.04.001 Scott, M. & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual Patterns: Keywords and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Tariyal, A., Singh, S., & Bisht, S. (2020). IMPACT OF E-REVIEWS ON MILLENNIAL'S CAFÉ VISIT DECISION MAKING WITH REFERENCE TO DEHRADUN REGION. Academy of Marketing Studies, 24(2), 1-13. Techacharoenrungrueang, S. (2019). Positive appraisals through English intensifiers in café reviews: A corpus-based study. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics, 23(2), 37-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2013.04.001