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

Abstract

Abstract

Douglas Biber, Regents’ Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern Arizona University, authors this article exploring the connections between register and a text-linguistic approach to language variation. He has spent the last 30 years pursuing a research program that explores the inherent link between register and language use, including at the phraseological, grammatical, and lexico-grammatical levels. His seminal book (1988, Cambridge University Press) launched multi-dimensional (MD) analysis, a comprehensive framework and methodology for the large-scale study of register variation. This approach was innovative in taking a text-linguistic approach to characterize language use across situations of use through the quantitative and functional analysis of linguistic co-occurrence patterns and underlying dimensions of language use. MD analysis is now used widely to study register variation over time, in general and specialized registers, in learner language, and across a range of languages. In 1999, the (Biber et al.) became the first comprehensive descriptive reference book to systematically consider register variation in describing the grammatical and lexico-grammatical patterns of use in English. Douglas Biber’s quantitative linguistic research has consistently demonstrated the importance of register as a predictor of language variation. In his own words, “register always matters” (Gray 2013: 360, Interview with Douglas Biber, ).

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18007.bib
2019-04-26
2019-12-08
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Baker, P., & Egbert, J.
    (Eds.) (2016) Triangulating methodological approaches in corpus linguistic research. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315724812
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315724812 [Google Scholar]
  2. Barbieri, F., & Wizner, S.
    (in press). Appendix A: Annotations of major register and genre studies. InD. Biber & S. Conrad. Register, genre, and style, 2nd ed.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bernstein, B.
    (1970) Class, codes, and control, Vol. I: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1986) Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language, 62, 384–414. 10.2307/414678
    https://doi.org/10.2307/414678 [Google Scholar]
  5. (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  6. (1995) Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511519871
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511519871 [Google Scholar]
  7. (2006) University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.23
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.23 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2012) Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8, 9–37. 10.1515/cllt‑2012‑0002
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002 [Google Scholar]
  9. (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]
  10. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2009) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511814358
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511814358 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R.
    (1998) Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511804489
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804489 [Google Scholar]
  12. Biber, D., Conrad, S., Reppen, R., Byrd, P., & Helt, M.
    (2002) Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly36, 9–48. 10.2307/3588359
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3588359 [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2018) Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Davies, M.
    (2015) Exploring the composition of the searchable web: A corpus-based taxonomy of web registers. Corpora, 10(1), 11–45. 10.3366/cor.2015.0065
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0065 [Google Scholar]
  15. 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.), 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]
  16. Biber, D., Egbert, J., & Keller, D.
    (under review). Reconceptualizing register in a continuous situational space. Ms.
  17. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (2011) Grammar emerging in the noun phrase: The influence of written language use. English Language and Linguistics, 15, 223–250. 10.1017/S1360674311000025
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674311000025 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2013) Being specific about historical change: The influence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics, 41, 104–134. 10.1177/0075424212472509
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424212472509 [Google Scholar]
  19. (2016) Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511920776
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511920776 [Google Scholar]
  20. Biber, D., & Gray, B. & K. Poonpon
    (2011) Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development?TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35. 10.5054/tq.2011.244483
    https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483 [Google Scholar]
  21. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Biber, D., & Jones, J. K.
    (2009) Quantitative methods in corpus linguistics. InA. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus linguistics: An international handbook (pp.1286–1304). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Biber, D., & Reppen, R.
    (2002) What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24, 199–208. 10.1017/S0272263102002048
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263102002048 [Google Scholar]
  24. Brown, P., & Fraser, C.
    (1979) Speech as a marker of situation. InK. R. Scherer & H. Giles (Eds.), Social Markers in Speech (pp.33–62). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Brown, G., & Yule, G.
    (1983) Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511805226
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511805226 [Google Scholar]
  26. Carroll, J. B.
    (1960) Vectors of prose style. InT. A. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp.283–292). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Chafe, W. L.
    (1982) Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. InD. Tannen (Ed.) Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy (pp.35–54). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Chafe, W. L., & Danielewicz, J.
    (1986) Properties of spoken and written language. InR. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending oral and written language (pp.82–113). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Conrad, S., & D. Biber
    (Eds.) (2001) Variation in English: Multi-dimensional studies. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. De Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. U.
    (1981) Introduction to text linguistics. London: Longman. 10.4324/9781315835839
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315835839 [Google Scholar]
  31. Eckert, P., & Rickford, J. R.
    (Eds.) (2001) Style and sociolinguistic variation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 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]
  33. Ervin-Tripp, S.
    (1972) On sociolinguistic rules: Alternation and co-occurrence. InJ. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication (pp.213–250). New York: Holt.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Ferguson, C.
    (1959) Diglossia. Word, 15, 325–340. 10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00437956.1959.11659702 [Google Scholar]
  35. Ferguson, C. A.
    (1994) Dialect, registers, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. InBiber, D. & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp.15–30). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Finegan, E., & Biber, D.
    (1994) Register and social dialect variation: An integrated approach. InD. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on register (pp.315–347). New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. (2001) Register variation and social dialect variation: The register axiom. InP. Eckert & J. R. Rickford (Eds.), Style and sociolinguistic variation (pp.235–267). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Gray, B.
    (2013) Interview with Douglas Biber. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(4), 359–379. 10.1177/0075424213502237
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424213502237 [Google Scholar]
  39. (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]
  40. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1988) On the language of physical science. InM. Ghadessy, (Ed.). Registers of written English: Situational factors and linguistic feature (pp.162–178). London: Pinter.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R.
    (1976) Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Hudson, R. A.
    (1980) Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Hymes, D.
    (1972) Editorial introduction to “Language in Society”. Language in Society, 1, 1–14. 10.1017/S0047404500006515
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006515 [Google Scholar]
  44. (1974) Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Irvine, J.
    (1979) Formality and informality in communicative events. InJ. Baugh & J. Sherzer (Eds.) Language in use: Readings in sociolinguistics (pp.211–228). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Longacre, R.
    (1976) An anatomy of speech notions. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Ochs, E.
    (1979) Planned and unplanned discourse. InT. Givón (Ed.) Discourse and syntax (pp.51–80). New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Sharoff, S.
    (2018) Functional text dimensions for annotation of web corpora. Corpora, 31(2), 65–95. 10.3366/cor.2018.0136
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2018.0136 [Google Scholar]
  49. Van Dijk, T. A.
    (1972) Some aspects of text grammars: A study in theoretical linguistics and poetics. The Hague: Mouton.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18007.bib
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.18007.bib
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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