1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 4, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 4, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Informed by the framework of register analysis (Biber & Egbert 2018) and narrative analysis (Labov & Waletzky 1967), this paper studies customer reviews of assistive reading devices to identify intra-register variation between narratives of one’s own and another’s experience. The lexico-grammatical features differentiating the two experience types include the use of pronouns, references to animate and inanimate entities, patterns of user and product description, stance markers, negation, as well as expectation- and transaction-related lemmas. The study reveals that the distribution of these features is determined by the narrative ownership and the associated distinctions in expectations. Furthermore, the difference in narrative ownership results in variation with respect to the experience narrative composition.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22004.ves
2022-10-06
2024-10-08

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.22004.ves
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anderson, E. T., & Simester, D. I.
    (2014) Reviews without a purchase: Low ratings, loyal customers, and deception. Journal of Marketing Research, 51(3), 249–269. 10.1509/jmr.13.0209
     https://doi.org/10.1509/jmr.13.0209 [Google Scholar]
  2. Baker, P., Brookes, G., & Evans, C.
    (2019) The language of patient feedback: A corpus linguistic study of online health communication. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780429259265
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429259265 [Google Scholar]
  3. Besnier, N.
    (1988) The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers. Language, 64(4), 707–736. 10.2307/414565
     https://doi.org/10.2307/414565 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2018) Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316388228
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316388228 [Google Scholar]
  7. Braid, D.
    (1996) Personal narrative and experiential meaning. The Journal of American Folklore, 109(431), 5–30. 10.2307/541716
     https://doi.org/10.2307/541716 [Google Scholar]
  8. Brezina, V.
    (2018) Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316410899
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899 [Google Scholar]
  9. (2020) Classical monofactorial (parametric and non-parametric) tests. InM. Paquot & S. Th. Gries (Eds.), A practical handbook of corpus linguistics (pp.474–504). Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑46216‑1_20
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-46216-1_20 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brookes, G., McEnery, T., McGlashan, M., Smith, G., & Wilkinson, M.
    (2022) Narrative evaluation in patient feedback: A study of online comments about UK healthcare services. Narrative Inquiry, 32(1), 9–35. 10.1075/ni.20098.bro
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.20098.bro [Google Scholar]
  11. Bruner, J.
    (1991) The narrative construction of reality. Critical Inquiry, 18(1), 1–21. 10.1086/448619
     https://doi.org/10.1086/448619 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cobb, T., & Boulton, A.
    (2015) Classroom applications of corpus analysis. InD. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp.478–497). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139764377.027
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139764377.027 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen, J.
    (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. De Fina, A.
    (2021) Doing narrative analysis from a narratives-as-practices perspective. Narrative Inquiry, 31(1), 49–71. 10.1075/ni.20067.def
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.20067.def [Google Scholar]
  15. De Fina, A., & Georgakopoulou, A.
    (2008) Analyzing narratives as practices. Qualitative Research, 8(3), 379–387. 10.1177/1468794106093634
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106093634 [Google Scholar]
  16. Gray, B., & Biber, D.
    (2012) Current conceptions of stance. InK. Hyland & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.15–33). London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137030825_2
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_2 [Google Scholar]
  17. Hooley, G., Piercy, N., Nicoulaud, B., & Rudd, J.
    (2017) Marketing strategy and competitive positioning (6th ed.). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Jurafsky, D., Chahuneau, V., Routledge, B. R., & Smith, N. A.
    (2014) Narrative framing of consumer sentiment in online restaurant reviews. First Monday, 19(4). 10.5210/fm.v19i4.4944
     https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v19i4.4944 [Google Scholar]
  19. Labov, W.
    (1997) Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 7(1–4), 395–415. 10.1075/jnlh.7.49som
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jnlh.7.49som [Google Scholar]
  20. (2006) Narrative pre-construction. Narrative Inquiry, 16(1), 37–45. 10.1075/ni.16.1.07lab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.16.1.07lab [Google Scholar]
  21. Labov, W., & Waletzky, J.
    (1967) Narrative analysis. InJ. Helm (Ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts (pp.12–44). Seattle/London: University of Washington Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Lemon, K. N., & Verhoef, P. C.
    (2016) Understanding customer experience throughout the customer journey. Journal of Marketing, 80(6), 69–96. 10.1509/jm.15.0420
     https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.15.0420 [Google Scholar]
  23. Leung, K. K., Silvius, J. L., Pimlott, N., Burd Dalziel, W., & Drummond, N.
    (2009) Why health expectations and hopes are different: The development of a conceptual model. Health Expectations, 12(4), 347–360. 10.1111/j.1369‑7625.2009.00570.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00570.x [Google Scholar]
  24. Lui, M., & Baldwin, T.
    (2012) Langid.py: An off-the-shelf language identification tool. Proceedings of the ACL 2012 system demonstrations (pp.25–30). Jeju Island: Association for Computational Linguistics.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. McDonald, M., & Dunbar, I.
    (2004) Market segmentation: How to do it, how to profit from it. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. McKinney, W.
    (2010) Data Structures for Statistical Computing in Python. InS. van der Walt & J. Millman (Eds.), Proceedings of the 9th Python in Science Conference (pp.56–61). 10.25080/Majora‑92bf1922‑00a
     https://doi.org/10.25080/Majora-92bf1922-00a [Google Scholar]
  27. Montani, I., Honnibal, M., Honnibal, H., Van Landeghem, S., Boyd, A., Peters, H., Samsonov, M., Geovedi, J., O’Leary McCann, P., Regan, J., Orosz, G., Altinok, D., Lind Kristiansen, S., Roman Fiedler, L., Howard, G., Phatthiyaphaibun, W., Tamura, Y., Bozek, S., Amery, M., Böing, B., Kumar Tippa, P., Vogelsang, L. U. Ramanan Balakrishnan, Mazaev, V., Dubbin, G., Fukumaru, J., & Henry, W.
    (2019) explosion/spaCy: v2.1.7: Improved evaluation, better language factories and bug fixes (Version v2.1.7). Zenodo.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Montgomery, G. H., David, D., DiLorenzo, T., & Erblicha, J.
    (2003) Is hoping the same as expecting? Discrimination between hopes and response expectancies for nonvolitional outcomes. Personality and Individual Differences, 35(2), 399–409. 10.1016/S0191‑8869(02)00202‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(02)00202-7 [Google Scholar]
  29. Mushin, I.
    (2011) Remembering another’s experience: Epistemological stance and evaluation in narrative retelling. InH. Pishwa (Ed.), Language and memory: Aspects of knowledge representation (pp.387–408). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Ni, J., Li, J., & McAuley, J.
    (2019) Justifying recommendations using distantly-labeled reviews and fine-grained aspects. Proceedings of the 2019 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and the 9th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (EMNLP-IJCNLP), 188–197. Hong Kong: Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.18653/v1/D19‑1018
     https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/D19-1018 [Google Scholar]
  31. Patterson, W.
    (2013) Narratives of events: Labovian narrative analysis and its limitations. InDoing narrative research (2nd ed., pp.27–46). London: SAGE Publications. 10.4135/9781526402271.n2
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781526402271.n2 [Google Scholar]
  32. Prugsamatz, S., Pentecost, R., & Ofstad, L.
    (2006) The influence of explicit and implicit service promises on Chinese students’ expectations of overseas universities. Asia Pacific Journal of Marketing and Logistics, 181, 129–145. 10.1108/13555850610658273
     https://doi.org/10.1108/13555850610658273 [Google Scholar]
  33. Rusticus, S. A., & Lovato, C. Y.
    (2014) Impact of sample size and variability on the power and type I error rates of equivalence tests: A simulation study. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 191. 10.7275/4s9m‑4e81
     https://doi.org/10.7275/4s9m-4e81 [Google Scholar]
  34. Schoenmueller, V., Netzer, O., & Stahl, F.
    (2020) The polarity of online reviews: Prevalence, drivers and implications. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(5), 853–877. 10.1177/0022243720941832
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720941832 [Google Scholar]
  35. The Pandas development team
    The Pandas development team (2020) Pandas-dev/pandas: pandas (Version 1.4.2). Zenodo. Retrieved fromCitetononCRdoi:10.5281/zenodo.3509134
     https://doi.org/Cite to nonCR doi: 10.5281/zenodo.3509134 [Google Scholar]
  36. Vallat, R.
    (2018) Pingouin: Statistics in Python. Journal of Open Source Software, 3(31), 1026. 10.21105/joss.01026
     https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.01026 [Google Scholar]
  37. Van De Mieroop, D.
    (2021) The Narrative Dimensions Model and an exploration of various narrative genres. Narrative Inquiry, 31(1), 4–27. 10.1075/ni.19069.van
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.19069.van [Google Scholar]
  38. Vásquez, C.
    (2012) Narrativity and involvement in online consumer reviews: The case of TripAdvisor. Narrative Inquiry, 221, 105–121. 10.1075/ni.22.1.07vas
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ni.22.1.07vas [Google Scholar]
  39. (2014a) The discourse of online consumer reviews. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. (2014b) ‘Usually not one to complain but…’: Constructing identities in user-generated online reviews. InP. Seargeant & C. Tagg (Eds.), The language of social media: Identity and community on the Internet (pp.65–90). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK. 10.1057/9781137029317_4
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137029317_4 [Google Scholar]
  41. Voorhees, C. M., Fombelle, P. W., Gregoire, Y., Bone, S., Gustafsson, A., Sousa, R., & Walkowiak, T.
    (2017) Service encounters, experiences and the customer journey: Defining the field and a call to expand our lens. Journal of Business Research, 791, 269–280. 10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.014
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2017.04.014 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22004.ves
Loading
Linguistic variation in customer reviews
Register Studies 4, 288 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.22004.ves
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22004.ves
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22004.ves
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): customer review; narrative composition; online registers; register analysis; service experience narrative; sub-register comparison

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