1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 26, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 26, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study explores marked affixation as a possible cue for characterization in scripted television dialogue. The data used here is the newly compiled TV Corpus, which encompasses over 265 million words in its North American English context. An initial corpus-based analysis quantifies the innovative use of affixes in word-formation processes across the corpus to allow for comparison with a following character analysis, which investigates how derivational word-formation supports characterization patterns within a specific series, . For this, a list of productive prefixes (e.g. , -) and suffixes (e.g. -, -) is used to elicit relevant contexts. The study thus combines two approaches to word-formation processes in scripted contexts. On a large scale, it shows how derivational neologisms are spread across TV dialogue and on a much smaller scale, it highlights particular instances where these neologisms are used to aid character construction.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00038.rei
2020-12-08
2023-09-30

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00038.rei
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adams, M.
    (2003) Slayer Slang: A Buffy the Vampire Slayer Lexicon. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. (2018) Vignette 13b – Working with scripted data: Variations among scripts, texts, and performances. InC. Mallinson, B. Childs, & G. Van Herk (Eds.), Data Collection in Sociolinguistics: Methods and Applications (pp.230–232). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Androutsopoulos, J.
    (2012) Repertoires, characters and scenes: Sociolinguistic difference in Turkish-German comedy. Multilingua, 31(2–3), 301–326.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. (2014) Beyond ‘media influence’. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 242–249. 10.1111/josl.12072
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12072 [Google Scholar]
  5. Anthony, L.
    (2019) AntConc (Version 3.5.8) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Available fromwww.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Bednarek, M.
    (2010) The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. (2018) Language and Television Series: A Linguistic Approach to TV Dialogue. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108559553
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559553 [Google Scholar]
  8. Beers Fägersten, K.
    (2016) What’s the deal with morphemes? Doing morphology with Seinfeld. InK. Beers Fägersten (Ed.), Watching TV with a Linguist (pp.181–201). Syracuse University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Bubel, C. M.
    (2006) The Linguistic Construction of Character Relations in TV Drama: Doing Friendship in Sex and the City [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Universität des Saarlandes, Saarbrücken.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Bucholtz, M.
    (1999) “Why be normal?” Language and identity practices in a community of nerd girls. Language in Society, 28(2), 203–223. 10.1017/S0047404599002043
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002043 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cheshire, J.
    (2004) Sex and gender in variationist research. InJ. Roberts, J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill, & N. Schilling-Estes (Eds.), The Handbook of Language Variation and Change (p.423–443). Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Coupland, N.
    (2001) Dialect stylization in radio talk. Language in Society, 30(3), 345–375. 10.1017/S0047404501003013
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501003013 [Google Scholar]
  13. Culpeper, J.
    (2001) Language and Characterisation: People in Plays and other Texts. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Dion, N., & Poplack, S.
    (2007, October11–14 2007) Linguistic mythbusting: The role of the media in diffusing change [Paper presentation]. New Ways of Analyzing Variation 36 (NWAV36), Philadelphia, USA. www.sociolinguistics.uottawa.ca/abstracts/Poplack.Dion.2007.NWAV.ab.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Dixon, R. M. W.
    (2014) Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712367.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  16. Dovchin, S., Pennycook, A., & Sultana, S.
    (2017) Popular Culture, Voice and Linguistic Diversity: Young Adults On- and Offline. Palgrave Macmillan.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Eckert, P.
    (2000) Language Variation as Social Practice: The Linguistic Construction of Identity in Belten High. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. (2008) Variation and the indexical field. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 12(4), 453–476. 10.1111/j.1467‑9841.2008.00374.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2008.00374.x [Google Scholar]
  19. (2018) Meaning and Linguistic Variation: The Third Wave in Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316403242
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316403242 [Google Scholar]
  20. Eckert, P., & McConnell-Ginet, S.
    (1992) Think practically and look locally: Language and gender as community-based practice. Annual Review of Anthropology, 21(1), 461–488. 10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.21.100192.002333 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1999) New generalizations and explanations in language and gender research. Language in Society, 28(2), 185–201. 10.1017/S0047404599002031
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599002031 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg, L.
    (2018, July20). ‘Buffy the Vampire Slayer’ Inclusive reboot in the works with Joss Whedon. The Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/buffy-vampire-slayer-reboot-inclusive-take-joss-whedon-works-1128888
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Kirchner, J. S.
    (2006) And in some language that’s English? Slayer slang and artificial computer generation. Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies, 5(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  24. Labov, W.
    (1990) The intersection of sex and social class in the course of linguistic change. Language Variation and Change, 2(2), 205–254. 10.1017/S0954394500000338
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000338 [Google Scholar]
  25. Lehrer, A.
    (1995) Prefixes in English word formation. Folia Linguistica, 29(1–2), 133–148.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Lieber, R.
    (2014) Methodological issues in studying derivation. InR. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (pp.84–94). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Lieber, R., & Štekauer, P.
    (2014) Introduction: The scope of the handbook. InR. Lieber & P. Štekauer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Derivational Morphology (pp.3–9). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Mandala, S.
    (2007) Solidarity and the Scoobies: An analysis of the -y suffix in the television series Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Language and Literature, 16(1), 53–73. 10.1177/0963947007072845
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947007072845 [Google Scholar]
  29. Masson, C.
    (2006) “Is that just a comforting way of not answering the question?” Willow, questions, and affective response in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies, 5(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  30. McKee, R.
    (2016) Dialogue: The Art of Verbal Action for Page, Stage, Screen. Twelve.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mendlesohn, F.
    (2002) Surpassing the love of vampires: Or why (and how) a queer reading of the Buffy/ Willow relationship is denied. InD. Lavery & R. Wilcox, (Eds.), Fighting the Forces: What’s at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer (pp.45–60). Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Milroy, L.
    (1980) Social network and language maintenance. InB. Mayor & A. K. Pugh (Eds.), Language, Communication and Education (pp.70–81). Open University.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Mittell, J.
    (2015) Complex TV: The Poetics of Contemporary Television Storytelling. New York University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Percillier, M.
    (2016) Cunning linguistics: The semantics of word play in South Park. InK. Beers Fägersten (Ed.), Watching TV with a Linguist (pp.139–160). Syracuse University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Piazza, R., Bednarek, M., & Rossi, F.
    (Eds.) (2011) Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Films and Television Series. John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.211
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.211 [Google Scholar]
  36. Quaglio, P.
    (2009) Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.36
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.36 [Google Scholar]
  37. Queen, R.
    (2015) Vox Popular: The Surprising Life of Language in the Media. Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. R Core Team
    R Core Team (2019) R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.2). [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Reichelt, S., & Durham, M.
    (2017) Adjective intensification as a means of characterization: Portraying in-group membership and Britishness in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Journal of English Linguistics, 45(1), 60–87. 10.1177/0075424216669747
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216669747 [Google Scholar]
  40. Reichelt, S.
    (2018) The Sociolinguistic Construction of Character Diversity in Fictional Television Series [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Cardiff University.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Richardson, K.
    (2010) Television Dramatic Dialogue: A Sociolinguistic Study. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374056.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374056.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  42. Ruddell, C.
    (2006) “I am the Law” “I am the Magics”: Speech, power and the split identity of Willow in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Slayage: The Online International Journal of Buffy Studies, 5(4).
     [Google Scholar]
  43. Sams, J.
    (2016) Word formation in HIMYM. InK. Beers Fägersten (Ed.), Watching TV with a Linguist (pp.161–180). Syracuse University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Sayers, D.
    (2014) The mediated innovation model: A framework for researching media influence in language change. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 185–212. 10.1111/josl.12069
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12069 [Google Scholar]
  45. Štekauer, P., Valera, S., & Kőrtvélyessy, L.
    (2012) Word-formation in the World’s Languages: A Typological Survey. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511895005
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511895005 [Google Scholar]
  46. Stuart-Smith, J., Pryce, G., Timmins, C., & Gunter, B.
    (2013) Television can also be a factor in language change: Evidence from an urban dialect. Language, 89(3), 501–536. 10.1353/lan.2013.0041
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0041 [Google Scholar]
  47. Tagliamonte, S. A., & Roberts, C.
    (2005) So weird; so cool; so innovative: The use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280–300. 10.1215/00031283‑80‑3‑280
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-80-3-280 [Google Scholar]
  48. Tagliamonte, S. A.
    (2014) Situating media influence in sociolinguistic context. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 18(2), 223–232. 10.1111/josl.12074
     https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12074 [Google Scholar]
  49. Trudgill, P.
    (1974) Linguistic change and diffusion: Description and explanation in sociolinguistic dialect geography. Language in Society, 3(2), 215–246. 10.1017/S0047404500004358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004358 [Google Scholar]
  50. VanDerWerff, E. T., & Framke, C.
    (2017, March10). How Buffy the Vampire Slayer transformed TV as we know it. Vox. https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/3/10/14857542/buffy-the-vampire-slayer-explained-tv-influence
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Wilcox, R., & Lavery, D.
    (Eds.) (2002) Fighting the Forces: What’s at Stake in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Rowman & Littlefield.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Wilcox, R.
    (2005) Why Buffy Matters: The Art of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Bloomsbury. 10.5040/9780755604296
     https://doi.org/10.5040/9780755604296 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00038.rei
Loading
Innovation on screen
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26, 95 (2021); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00038.rei
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00038.rei
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.00038.rei
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): affixation; characterization; non-codified language; social networks; suffixation

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error