1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Volume 25, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 25, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This paper investigates the contribution of author/idiolect vs. register/type-of-text – as the most salient factors influencing the final shape of a text – towards explaining the variation observed in Czech texts. Since it is almost impossible to explore the effect of these factors on authentic data, we used elicited letters collected in a fully crossed experimental design (representative sample of 200 authors × four elicitation scenarios serving as a proxy to register variation). The variation encompassed by the elicited texts is analyzed through the lens of a general-purpose multi-dimensional model of Czech. Using triangulation via three established statistical methods and one devised for the purpose of this study, we find that register matters a great deal, explaining 1.5 times as much variation overall as idiolect. This should be taken into account when designing research in sociolinguistics or variation studies in general.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
2020-10-27
2021-04-11

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Amoroso, L. W.
    (2018) Analyzing group differences. InA. Phakiti, P. D. Costa, L. Plonsky, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology (pp.501–521). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑137‑59900‑1_22
     https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_22 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baayen, H., van Halteren, H., & Tweedie, F.
    (1996) Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 11(3), 121–132. 10.1093/llc/11.3.121
     https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/11.3.121 [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakeman, R.
    (2005) Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. 10.3758/BF03192707
     https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192707 [Google Scholar]
  4. Baker, P.
    (2010) Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Baker, P., & Egbert, J.
    (2016) Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research. Routledge. 10.4324/9781315724812
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315724812 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bayley, R., Cameron, R., & Lucas, C.
    (Eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  8. (1995) Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2012) Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (Eds.) (1994) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Čermák, F.
    (Ed.) (2007) Slovník Karla Čapka [Karel Čapek՚s Dictionary]. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Český statistický úřad [Czech Statistical Office] (2015) Věk a vzdělání populace [Age and education of the population]. https://www.czso.cz
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Conrad, S.
    (2015) Register variation. InD. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp.309–329). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.018
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.018 [Google Scholar]
  15. Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., & Zasina, A. J.
    (in preparation). Register variability of elicited texts.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. (2018a) From extra- to intratextual characteristics: Charting the space of variation in Czech through MDA. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Advance online publication. doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2018‑0020
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0020 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2018b) Variabilita češtiny: Multidimenzionální analýza [Variability of Czech: A multi-dimensional analysis]. Slovo a slovesnost, 79(4), 293–321.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., Zasina, A. J., & Benko, V.
    (2020) Comparing web-crawled and traditional corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 54, 713–745. 10.1007/s10579‑020‑09487‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-020-09487-4 [Google Scholar]
  19. Eckert, E.
    (Ed.) (1993) Varieties of Czech: Studies in Czech Sociolinguistics. Rodopi.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Egbert, J., & Baker, P.
    (2019) Using Corpus Methods to Triangulate Linguistic Analysis. Taylor & Francis. 10.4324/9781315112466
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315112466 [Google Scholar]
  21. Fairclough, N.
    (2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203697078
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203697078 [Google Scholar]
  22. Finegan, E., & Rickford, J. R.
    (Eds.) (2004) Language in the USA: Themes for the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511809880
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809880 [Google Scholar]
  23. Grant, T.
    (2007) Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(1), 1–25. 10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  24. Grice, J. W.
    (2001) Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 430–450. 10.1037/1082‑989X.6.4.430
     https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.6.4.430 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hinrichs, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2007) Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language & Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474. 10.1017/S1360674307002341
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002341 [Google Scholar]
  26. Hnátková, M.
    (2002) Značkování frazémů a idiomů v Českém národním korpusu s pomocí Slovníku české frazeologie a idiomatiky [Tagging phraseological units and idioms in the Czech National Corpus with the aid of the Dictionary of Czech phraseology and idiomatics]. Slovo a slovesnost, 63(2), 117–126.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Iwasaki, S., & Horie, P. I.
    (2000) Creating speech register in Thai conversation. Language in Society, 29(4), 519–554. 10.1017/S0047404500004024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004024 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jelínek, T.
    (2008) Nové značkování v Českém národním korpusu [New tagging in the Czech National Corpus]. Naše řeč, 91(1), 13–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. King, B. M., Rosopa, P. J., & Minium, E. W.
    (2010) Some (almost) assumption-free tests. InStatistical Reasoning in the Behavioral Sciences (6th ed., pp.381–401). Wiley.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Krejci, B., & Hilton, K.
    (2017) There’s three variants: Agreement variation in existential there constructions. Language Variation and Change, 29(2), 187–204. 10.1017/S0954394517000096
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394517000096 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kučera, D.
    (2017) Computational psycholinguistic analysis of Czech text and the CPACT research. InISC SGEM4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017: Science & Society Conference Proceedings, (pp.77–84). ISC SGEM. doi:  10.5593/sgemsocial2017/32/S11.010
     https://doi.org/10.5593/sgemsocial2017/32/S11.010 [Google Scholar]
  32. Kučera, D., & Havigerová, J. M.
    (2015) Computational psycholinguistic analysis and its application in psychological assessment of college students. Journal of Pedagogy, 6(1), 61–72. 10.1515/jped‑2015‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jped-2015-0004 [Google Scholar]
  33. Labov, W.
    (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Louwerse, M. M.
    (2004) Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38(2), 207–221. 10.1023/B:CHUM.0000031185.88395.b1
     https://doi.org/10.1023/B:CHUM.0000031185.88395.b1 [Google Scholar]
  35. McMenamin, G. R.
    (2002) Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. CRC Press. 10.1201/9781420041170
     https://doi.org/10.1201/9781420041170 [Google Scholar]
  36. Milroy, L., & Gordon, M.
    (2003) Sociolinguistics: Models and Methods. Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470758359
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470758359 [Google Scholar]
  37. Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D., & Schielzeth, H.
    (2017) The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 14(134). doi:  10.1098/rsif.2017.0213
     https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0213 [Google Scholar]
  38. Olsson, J.
    (2008) Forensic Linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Page, N.
    (2011) The Language of Jane Austen. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Petkevič, V.
    (2014) Problémy automatické morfologické disambiguace češtiny [Problems of automatic morphological disambiguation of Czech]. Naše řeč, 97(4–5), 194–207.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Rickford, J. R., & McNair-Knox, F.
    (1994) Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. InD. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp.235–276). Oxford University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Riordan, B.
    (2007) There’s two ways to say it: Modeling nonprestige there’s. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 233–279. 10.1515/CLLT.2007.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2007.013 [Google Scholar]
  43. Spoustová, D., Hajič, J., Votrubec, J., Krbec, P., & Květoň, P.
    (2007) The best of two worlds: Cooperation of statistical and rule-based taggers for Czech. InJ. Piskorski & T. Hristo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Balto-Slavonic Natural Language Processing (pp.67–74). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://www.aclweb.org/anthology/W07-1709
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R.
    (2018) Using corpus-based register analysis to explore the authenticity of high-stakes language exams: A register comparison of TOEFL iBT and disciplinary writing tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 310–332. 10.1111/modl.12465
     https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12465 [Google Scholar]
  45. Straková, J., Straka, M., & Hajič, J.
    (2013) A new state-of-the-art Czech named entity recognizer. InI. Habernal, & V. Matoušek (Eds.), Text, Speech, and Dialogue (pp.68–75). Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑642‑40585‑3_10
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40585-3_10 [Google Scholar]
  46. (2014) Open-source tools for morphology, lemmatization, POS tagging and named entity recognition. InK. Bontcheva & J. Zhu (Eds.), Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp.13–18). Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:  10.3115/v1/P14‑5003
     https://doi.org/10.3115/v1/P14-5003 [Google Scholar]
  47. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2005) Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  48. Szmrecsanyi, B., & Hinrichs, L.
    (2008) Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. InT. Nevalainen, I. Taavitsainen, P. Pahta, & M. Korhonen (Eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present (pp.291–309). John Benjamins. 10.1075/silv.2.22szm
     https://doi.org/10.1075/silv.2.22szm [Google Scholar]
  49. Tagliamonte, S.
    (1998) Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change, 10(2), 153–191. 10.1017/S0954394500001277
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500001277 [Google Scholar]
  50. Tambouratzis, G., Markantonatou, S., Hairetakis, N., Vassiliou, M., Tambouratzis, D., & Carayannis, G.
    (2000) Discriminating the registers and styles in the Modern Greek language. InA. Kilgarriff & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora – Volume 9 (pp.35–42). Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:  10.3115/1117729.1117735
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1117729.1117735 [Google Scholar]
  51. Trudgill, P.
    (2004) Dialects (2nd ed.). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Zasina, A. J., Lukeš, D., Komrsková, Z., Poukarová, P., & Řehořková, A.
    (2018) Koditex: Korpus diverzifikovaných textů [Koditex: Corpus of diversified texts] (version 1). Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. https://www.korpus.cz
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
Loading
Author and register as sources of variation
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 25, 461 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Czech , idiolect , multi-dimensional analysis , register and variation

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