Linguistic variation within registers: granularity in textual units and situational parameters
-
Jesse Egbert
und
Marianna Gracheva
Abstract
Register studies have focused on accounting for linguistic variation between culturally recognized register categories. This comparative approach to register has consistently demonstrated that culturally recognized register categories can predict language variation at all linguistic levels. Nevertheless, it has also been shown by previous research that even the most well-established register categories have substantial internal linguistic variation. We propose that at least some of this unexplained variance could be the result of how a text is defined, as well as whether and how researchers account for situational variables within registers. We present four case studies that explore the extent to which linguistic variation within registers is influenced by the definition of the textual unit and the situational parameters. We show that the functional correspondence between situation and language use exists even within register categories and discuss the theoretical and methodological implications of these findings for register research.
References
Adams Smith, Diana. 1984. Medical discourse: Aspects of author’s comment. The ESP Journal 3. 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0272-2380(84)90004-0.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1994. An analytical framework for register studies. In Douglas Biber & Edward Finegan (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register, 31–56. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195083644.003.0003Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2006. University language. A corpus-based study of spoken and written languages. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.23Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 8(1). 9–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2019. Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies 1(1). 42–75. https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18007.bib.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Edward Finegan. 1994. Intra-textual variation within medical research articles. In Nelleke Oostdijk & Peter de Haan (eds.), Corpus-based research into language, 201–222. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789004653566_016Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Jesse Egbert. 2018. Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316388228Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Jesse Egbert. in press. What is a register? Accounting for linguistic and situational variation within - and outside of - textual varieties. Register Studies.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Jesse Egbert & Daniel Keller. 2019. Reconceptualizing register in a continuous situational space. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 16(3). 581–616.10.1515/cllt-2018-0086Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Jesse Egbert, Daniel Keller & Stacey Wizner. 2021. Towards a taxonomy of conversational discourse types: An empirical corpus-based analysis. Journal of Pragmatics 171. 20–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.018.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, Randi Reppen, Patricia Byrd & Marie Helt. 2002. Speaking and writing in the university: A multidimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly 36(1). 9–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3588359.Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2019. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108686136Suche in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Suche in Google Scholar
Conrad, Susan. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: An example from biology. Linguistics and Education 8(3). 299–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0898-5898(96)90025-x.Suche in Google Scholar
De Beaugrande, Robert. 1980. Text, discourse, and process. Towards a multidisciplinary science of texts. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.Suche in Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse. 2015. Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing: Investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 20(1). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.1.01egb.Suche in Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse & Erin Schnur. 2018. The role of the text in corpus and discourse analysis: Missing the trees for the forest. In Charlotte Taylor & Anna Marchi (eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse, 159–173. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315179346-8Suche in Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse & Michaela Mahlberg. 2020. Fiction – one register or two? Register Studies 2(1). 72–101. https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.19006.egb.Suche in Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse, Stacey Wizner, Daniel Keller, Biber Douglas, Tony McEnery & Paul Baker. 2021. Identifying and describing functional discourse units in the BNC Spoken 2014. Text & Talk 41(5–6). 715–737. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0053.Suche in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.Suche in Google Scholar
Flammia, Giovanni & Victor Zue. 1995. Empirical evaluation of human performance and agreement in parsing discourse constituents in spoken dialogue. In Paper presented at the 4th European Conference on Speech Communication and Technology, Universitat Politecnica de Catalunya, 18–21 September.10.21437/Eurospeech.1995-479Suche in Google Scholar
Gray, Bethany. 2015. Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.71Suche in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A.K. & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Suche in Google Scholar
Hearst, Marti. 1993. TextTiling: A quantitative approach to discourse segmentation. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley. Technical Report 93/24, Sequoia 2000 Technical Report.Suche in Google Scholar
Heslot, Jeanne. 1982. Tense and other indexical markers in the typology of scientific texts in English. In J. Hoedt, L. Lundquist, H. Picht & J. Qvistgaard (eds.), Pragmatics and LSP, 83–103. Copenhagen: LSP Centre, School of Economics.Suche in Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael. 2001. Textual interaction. An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar
Isard, Amy & Jean Carletta. 1995. Replicability of transaction and action coding in the map task corpus. In Paper presented at AAAI spring symposium series: empirical methods in discourse interpretation and generation, Stanford University, 27–29 March.Suche in Google Scholar
Passonneau, Rebecca & Diane Litman. 1997. Discourse segmentation by human and automated means. Computational Linguistics 23(1). 103–139.Suche in Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 1996. Text and corpus analysis: Computer-assisted studies of language and culture. Oxford: Blackwell.Suche in Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Suche in Google Scholar
Walker, Marilyn & Steve Whittaker. 1990. Mixed initiative in dialogue: An investigation into discourse segmentation. In Paper presented at the 28th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, University of Pittsburgh, 6–9 June.10.3115/981823.981833Suche in Google Scholar
West, Gregory. 1980. That-nominal constructions in traditional rhetorical divisions of scientific research papers. TESOL Quarterly 14. 483–489. https://doi.org/10.2307/3586236.Suche in Google Scholar
Whittaker, Steve & Phil Stenton. 1988. Cues and control in expert-client dialogues. In Paper presented at the 26th annual meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, State University of New York at Buffalo, 7–10 June.10.3115/982023.982038Suche in Google Scholar
© 2022 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Register variation and corpus linguistics: empirical findings and emerging theories. Special issue introduction of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory in honor of Douglas Biber
- Register in corpus linguistics: the role and legacy of Douglas Biber
- Clausal and phrasal coordination in recent American English
- Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis
- A variationist perspective on the comparative complexity of four registers at the intersection of mode and formality
- Linguistic variation within registers: granularity in textual units and situational parameters
Artikel in diesem Heft
- Frontmatter
- Register variation and corpus linguistics: empirical findings and emerging theories. Special issue introduction of Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory in honor of Douglas Biber
- Register in corpus linguistics: the role and legacy of Douglas Biber
- Clausal and phrasal coordination in recent American English
- Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis
- A variationist perspective on the comparative complexity of four registers at the intersection of mode and formality
- Linguistic variation within registers: granularity in textual units and situational parameters
