1887
Volume 5, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Empirical studies of register variation have established the existence of functional correspondence between situation/context and language use. However, previous conceptualizations of register cannot adequately account for empirical findings which have revealed (i) situational and linguistic variation among texts within registers and (ii) texts that do not belong to a register. We propose an alternative conceptualization in which registers are culturally-recognized categories, as opposed to scientifically-defined categories. This allows us to describe registers for their typical characteristics as well as the variation among texts within register categories. It also allows us to account for the functional correspondence of texts that exist outside of register categories.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.00004.bib
2023-03-07
2024-04-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Barbieri, F., & Wizner, S.
    (2019) Appendix A: Annotations of major register and genre studies. InD. Biber & S. Conrad (Eds.), Register, genre, and style [2nd edition] (pp.318–349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  3. (1994) An analytical framework for register studies. InD. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp.31–56). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (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]
  5. (2014) Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Languages in Contrast, 14(1), 7–34. 10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.14.1.02bib [Google Scholar]
  6. (2019) Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Register Studies, 11, 42–75. 10.1075/rs.18007.bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18007.bib [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style (2nd edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Davies, M.
    (2015) Exploring the Composition of the Searchable Web: A Corpus-based Taxonomy of Web Registers. Corpora10(1), 11–45. 10.3366/cor.2015.0065
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0065 [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2018) Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Keller, D.
    (2020) Reconceptualizing register in a continuous situational space. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 16(3), 581–616. 10.1515/cllt‑2018‑0086
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2018-0086 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., Egbert, J., Keller, D., & Wizner, S.
    (2021a) Towards a taxonomy of conversational discourse types: An empirical corpus-based analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 1711, 20–35. 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.018
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.09.018 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., J. Egbert, D. Keller, & S. Wizner
    (2021b) Extending text-linguistic studies of register variation to a continuous situational space: Case studies from the web and natural conversation. InE. Seoane & D. Biber (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to register variation (pp.19–49). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.103.02bib
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.103.02bib [Google Scholar]
  13. Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
    (2016) Do all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 233–273. 10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0016
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0016 [Google Scholar]
  14. Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Davies, M.
    (2015) Developing a bottom-up, user-based method of web register classification. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(9): 1817–1831. 10.1002/asi.23308
    https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23308 [Google Scholar]
  15. Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2022) Designing and evaluating language corpora: A practical framework for corpus representativeness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316584880
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316584880 [Google Scholar]
  16. Egbert, J., Wizner, S., Keller, D., Biber, D., McEnery, T., & Baker, P.
    (2021) Identifying and describing functional discourse units in the BNC Spoken 2014. Text & Talk, 41(5–6), 715–737. 10.1515/text‑2020‑0053
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0053 [Google Scholar]
  17. Egbert, J., & Schnur, E.
    (2018) The role of the text in corpus and discourse analysis: missing the trees for the forest. InC. Taylor & A. Marchi (Eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse (pp.159–173). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315179346‑8
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315179346-8 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ferguson, C.
    (1981) “Foreign talk” as the name of a simplified register. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 281, 9–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gray, B., & Egbert, J.
    (2019) Register and register variation. Register Studies, 1(1), 1–9. 10.1075/rs.00001.edi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.00001.edi [Google Scholar]
  20. Gray, B.
    (2015) Linguistic variation in research articles: When discipline tells only part of the story. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.71
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.71 [Google Scholar]
  21. Goulart, L., Gray, B., Staples, S., Black, A., Shelton, A., Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Wizner, S.
    (2020) Linguistic perspectives on register. Annual Review of Linguistics, 61, 435–455. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011718‑012644
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goulart, L., Biber, D., & Reppen, R.
    (2022) In this essay, I will…: Examining variation of communicative purpose in university writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 591. 10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101159
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101159 [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1968) The users and uses of language. InJ. F. Fishman (Ed.), Readings in the sociology of language (pp.139–169). The Hague: Mouton. 10.1515/9783110805376.139
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805376.139 [Google Scholar]
  24. (1988) On the language of physical science. InM. Ghadessy (Ed.), Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic features (pp.162–178). London: Frances Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. (1985) Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Victoria: Deakin University.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Martin, J. R.
    (2002) Meaning beyond the clause: SFL perspectives. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 221, 52–74. 10.1017/S026719050200003X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S026719050200003X [Google Scholar]
  28. Matthiessen, C. M.
    (2019) Register in systemic functional linguistics. Register Studies, 1(1), 10–41. 10.1075/rs.18010.mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.18010.mat [Google Scholar]
  29. Nesi, H., & Gardner, S.
    (2012) Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781009030199
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009030199 [Google Scholar]
  30. Reid, T. B.
    (1956) Linguistics, structuralism and philology. Archivum Linguisticum, 81, 28–37.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rs.00004.bib
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.00004.bib
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Editorial
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