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



Benedikt Szmrecsanyi, Professor of Linguistics in the Quantitative Lexicology and Variational Linguistics research group at the Katholieke Universiteit (KU) Leuven, writes this article exploring the connections between register and variationist linguistics. He is involved with various large-scale research projects in areas such as probabilistic grammar, variationist sociolinguistic research, linguistic complexity, and dialectology/dialectometry. Szmrecsanyi’s books include (2013, Cambridge) and (Szmrecsanyi & Wälchli 2014, Mouton de Gruyter). He is currently a principal investigator on a major grant-funded research project titled ‘The register-specificity of probabilistic grammatical knowledge in English and Dutch’, a project aimed at exploring the question of whether register differences lead to differences in the processes of making linguistic choices. In sharp contrast to the status quo in variationist linguistics, where register is often ignored entirely, much of Szmrecsanyi’s variationist research treats register as a variable of primary importance. The findings from these studies have led Benedikt Szmrecsanyi to state that “we need more empirical/variationist work to explore the differences that register makes” (Szmrecsanyi 2017: 696).


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). 1–48. doi:  10.18637/jss.v067.i01
    https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bell, A.
    (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13(2), 145. doi:  10.1017/S004740450001037X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2004) Corpus-based comparisons of registers. InC. Coffin, A. Hewings, & K. O’Halloran (eds.), Applying English grammar: Functional and corpus approaches (pp.40–56). London: Hodder Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. (2012) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Egbert, J., Gray, B., Oppliger, R., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2016) Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: Nominal modifiers of head nouns. InM. Kytö & P. Pahta (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English historical linguistics (pp.351–375). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139600231.022
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600231.022 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Cacoullos, R., & Walker, J. A.
    (2009) The present of the English future: Grammatical variation and collocations in discourse. Language, 85(2), 321–354. 10.1353/lan.0.0110
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0110 [Google Scholar]
  8. Cedergren, H., & Sankoff, D.
    (1974) Variable rules: Performance as a statistical reflection of competence. Language, 50(2), 333. doi:  10.2307/412441
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412441 [Google Scholar]
  9. D’Arcy, A., & Tagliamonte, S. A.
    (2015) Not always variable: Probing the vernacular grammar. Language Variation and Change, 27(3), 255–285. 10.1017/S0954394515000101
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000101 [Google Scholar]
  10. Eckert, P.
    (2000) Linguistic variation as social practice: The linguistic construction of identity in Belten High (Language in Society 27). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2018) Meaning and linguistic variation: The third wave in sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316403242
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316403242 [Google Scholar]
  12. Eckert, P., & Rickford, J. R.
    (2001) Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Grafmiller, J.
    (2014) Variation in English genitives across modality and genres. English Language and Linguistics, 18(3), 471–496. 10.1017/S1360674314000136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000136 [Google Scholar]
  14. Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (in press). Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A case study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis. Language Variation and Change.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Grafmiller, J., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Hinrichs, L.
    (2016) Restricting the restrictive relativizer. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 14(2), 309–355 doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2016‑0015. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cllt.ahead-of-print/cllt-2016-0015/cllt-2016-0015.xml (1March 2018).
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2016-0015 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gries, S. T.
    (2005) Syntactic priming: A corpus-based approach. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 34(4), 365–399. doi:  10.1007/s10936‑005‑6139‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10936-005-6139-3 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2015) The most under-used statistical method in corpus linguistics: Multi-level (and mixed-effects) models. Corpora, 10(1), 95–125. 10.3366/cor.2015.0068
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0068 [Google Scholar]
  18. Grondelaers, S., Speelman, D., & Geeraerts, D.
    (2008) National variation in the use of er “there”. Regional and diachronic constraints on cognitive explanations. InG. Kristiansen, & R. Dirven, Cognitive sociolinguistics: Language variation, cultural models, social systems (pp.153–204). Berlin: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110199154.2.153
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110199154.2.153 [Google Scholar]
  19. Guy, G. R.
    (2005) Letters to language. Language, 81(3), 561–563. doi:  10.1353/lan.2005.0132
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2005.0132 [Google Scholar]
  20. (2013) The cognitive coherence of sociolects: How do speakers handle multiple sociolinguistic variables?Journal of Pragmatics, 52, 63–71. doi:  10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.019
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.019 [Google Scholar]
  21. (2015) Coherence, constraints and quantities. Talk given at NWAV44, Toronto.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Guy, G. R., & Hinskens, F.
    (2016) Linguistic coherence: Systems, repertoires and speech communities. Lingua, 172–173, 1–9. doi:  10.1016/j.lingua.2016.01.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2016.01.001 [Google Scholar]
  23. Heller, B.
    (2017) Stability and fluidity in syntactic variation world-wide: The genitive alternation across varieties of English. Unpublished PhD dissertation, KU Leuven. 10.1177/0075424216685405
  24. Heylen, K.
    (2005) Zur Abfolge (pro)nominaler Satzglieder im Deutschen. Eine korpusbasierte Analyse der relativen Abfolge von nominalem Subjekt und pronominalem Objekt im Mittelfeld. Unpublished PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
  25. Hinrichs, L., Smith, N., & Waibel, B.
    (2010) Manual of information for the part-of-speech tagged, post-edited “Brown” corpora. ICAME Journal, 34, 189–231.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hinrichs, L., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Bohmann, A.
    (2015) Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language, 91(4), 806–836. doi:  10.1353/lan.2015.0062
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0062 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A.
    (2006) Unbiased recursive partitioning: A conditional inference framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. doi:  10.1198/106186006X133933
    https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  28. Labov, W.
    (1966) The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. (1969) Contraction, deletion, and inherent variability of the English copula. Language, 45, 715–762. 10.2307/412333
    https://doi.org/10.2307/412333 [Google Scholar]
  30. (1972) Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2010) Principles of linguistic change. Vol. 3: Cognitive and cultural factors (Language in Society 39). Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444327496
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327496 [Google Scholar]
  32. Levshina, N.
    (2011) Doe wat je niet laten kan [Do what you cannot let]: A usage-based analysis of Dutch causative constructions. Unpublished PhD dissertation, KU Leuven.
  33. Lohmann, A.
    (2011) Help vs help to: A multifactorial, mixed-effects account of infinitive marker omission. English Language and Linguistics, 15(3), 499–521. doi:  10.1017/S1360674311000141
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000141 [Google Scholar]
  34. Nerbonne, J.
    (2009) Data-driven dialectology. Language and Linguistics Compass, 3(1), 175–198. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2008.00114.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00114.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Pijpops, D., & Van de Velde, F.
    (2014) A multivariate analysis of the partitive genitive in Dutch. Bringing quantitative data into a theoretical discussion. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 10, 1–30. doi:  10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0027. https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/cllt.ahead-of-print/cllt-2013-0027/cllt-2013-0027.xml (14February 2018).
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0027 [Google Scholar]
  36. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M.
    (2000) Mixed-effects models in S and S-{PLUS}. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑1‑4419‑0318‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0318-1 [Google Scholar]
  37. Rickford, J. R., & Eckert, P.
    (2001) Introduction: John R. Rickford and Penelope Eckert. InP. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (pp.1–18). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:  10.1017/CBO9780511613258.001. ebooks.cambridge.org/ref/id/CBO9780511613258A010 (31December 2017).
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511613258.001 [Google Scholar]
  38. Rickford, J. R., & McNair-Knox, F.
    (1994) Addressee-and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. InD. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Perspectives on register: Situating register variation within sociolinguistics (pp.235–276). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rohdenburg, G.
    (1996) Cognitive complexity and increased grammatical explicitness in English. Cognitive Linguistics, 7, 149–182. 10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.1996.7.2.149 [Google Scholar]
  40. Rosemeyer, M., & Enrique-Arias, A.
    (2016) A match made in heaven: Using parallel corpora and multinomial logistic regression to analyze the expression of possession in Old Spanish. Language Variation and Change, 28(3), 307–334. doi:  10.1017/S0954394516000120
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394516000120 [Google Scholar]
  41. Röthlisberger, M., Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2017) Cognitive indigenization effects in the English dative alternation. Cognitive Linguistics, 28(4), 673–710. doi:  10.1515/cog‑2016‑0051
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0051 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sankoff, D.
    (1988) Sociolinguistics and syntactic variation. InF. J. Newmeyer (Ed.), Linguistics: The Cambridge survey (pp.140–161). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620577.009
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620577.009 [Google Scholar]
  43. Scherre, M., & Naro, A.
    (1991) Marking in discourse: “Birds of a feather.” Language Variation and Change, 3, 23–32. 10.1017/S0954394500000430
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394500000430 [Google Scholar]
  44. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A., Kneib, T., Augustin, T. & Zeileis, A.
    (2008) Conditional variable importance for random forests. BMC Bioinformatics, 9(1), 307. doi:  10.1186/1471‑2105‑9‑307
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-9-307 [Google Scholar]
  45. Strobl, C., Boulesteix, A., Zeileis, A., & Hothorn, T.
    (2007) Bias in random forest variable importance measures: Illustrations, sources and a solution. BMC Bioinformatics, 8(1), 25. doi:  10.1186/1471‑2105‑8‑25
    https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-8-25 [Google Scholar]
  46. Strunk, W., & White, E. B.
    (1999) The elements of style, 4th ed.Longman.
    [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. doi:  10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.1.113 [Google Scholar]
  48. (2006) Morphosyntactic persistence in spoken English: A corpus study at the intersection of variationist sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, and discourse analysis. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197808
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197808 [Google Scholar]
  49. (2013) Grammatical variation in British English dialects: A study in corpus-based dialectometry. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511763380
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511763380 [Google Scholar]
  50. (2017) Variationist sociolinguistics and corpus-based variationist linguistics: Overlap and cross-pollination potential. Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue Canadienne de Linguistique, 62(4), 1–17. doi:  10.1017/cnj.2017.34
    https://doi.org/10.1017/cnj.2017.34 [Google Scholar]
  51. Szmrecsanyi, B., Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Franco, K.
    (2016) Toward more accountability: Modeling ternary genitive variation in Late Modern English. Language Variation and Change, 28(1), 1–29. doi:  10.1017/S0954394515000198
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394515000198 [Google Scholar]
  52. Szmrecsanyi, B., & Wälchli, B.
    (Eds.) (2014) Aggregating dialectology, typology, and register analysis: Linguistic variation in text and speech. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110317558
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110317558 [Google Scholar]
  53. Tagliamonte, S.
    (2012) Variationist sociolinguistics change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell. public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=819316 (29August 2013).
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Tagliamonte, S., Smith, J., & Lawrence, H.
    (2005) No taming the vernacular! Insights from the relatives in northern Britain. Language Variation and Change, 17(1), 75–112. 10.1017/S0954394505050040
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394505050040 [Google Scholar]
  55. Tagliamonte, S. A., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2012) Models, forests, and trees of York English: Was/were variation as a case study for statistical practice. Language Variation and Change, 24(2), 135–178. doi:  10.1017/S0954394512000129
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394512000129 [Google Scholar]
  56. Weiner, J., & Labov, W.
    (1983) Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19, 29–58. 10.1017/S0022226700007441
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700007441 [Google Scholar]
  57. Wolk, C., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2013) Dative and genitive variability in Late Modern English: Exploring cross-constructional variation and change. Diachronica, 30(3), 382–419. 10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.30.3.04wol [Google Scholar]
  58. Zuur, A. F., Ieno, E. N., Walker, N. J., Saveliev, A. A., & Smith, G.
    (2009) Mixed effects models and extensions in ecology with R. New York: Springer. 10.1007/978‑0‑387‑87458‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-87458-6 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; probabilistic grammar; variationist sociolinguistics
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