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
EPUB
PDF

Abstract

Abstract

Linguistic expressions in social media vary along many axes, including author style, the specific medium and its affordances, and others. In this paper, we argue that different registers must be distinguished within social media and that register should be included as an important factor independent of (social) medium in analyses of variable linguistic phenomena. We introduce a new German cross-media corpus, consisting of blog posts and tweets from the same 44 authors. We define the registers as ‘Informative’, ‘Narrative’, and ‘Persuasive’, based on situational characteristics of the texts. We then correlate the registers with two variable linguistic phenomena: German modal and intensifying particles. In each case, we document considerable inter- and intraindividual variation in the expressions used and their frequency across texts. The statistical analysis shows that the register grouping corresponds more closely to linguistic similarities between texts than the grouping by medium does.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Available under the CC BY-NC 4.0 license.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22009.sch
2022-10-27
2024-12-09

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.22009.sch
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/rs.22009.sch.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22009.sch&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Androutsopoulos, J.
    (2014) Mediatization and sociolinguistic change. Key concepts, research traditions, open issues. InJ. Androutsopoulos (Ed.), Mediatization and sociolinguistic change (pp.3–48). Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110346831.3
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110346831.3 [Google Scholar]
  2. Argamon, S. E.
    (2019) Computational register analysis and synthesis. ArXiv:1901.02543 [Cs], to appear in Register Studies. Retrieved fromarxiv.org/abs/1901.02543. 10.31235/osf.io/t64sy
     https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/t64sy [Google Scholar]
  3. Barbaresi, A.
    (2016) Collection and indexing of tweets with a geographical focus. Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp.24–27). Portorož, Slovenia.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Barbaresi, A., & Würzner, K. M.
    (2014) For a fistful of blogs: Discovery and comparative benchmarking of republishable German content. Proceedings of NLP4CMC Workshop (pp.2–10). Hildesheim: Hildesheim University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. Beißwenger, M.
    (2013) Das Dortmunder Chat-Korpus: ein annotiertes Korpus zur Sprachverwendung und sprachlichen Variation in der deutschsprachigen Chat-Kommunikation. Online-Publikation auf dem Linguistik Server Essen (LINSE). 10.1515/zgl‑2013‑0009
     https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl-2013-0009 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beißwenger, M., Lemnitzer, L., & Müller-Spitzer, C.
    (Eds.) (2022) Forschen in der Linguistik: eine Methodeneinführung für das Germanistik-Studium. Paderborn: Brill / Fink. 10.36198/9783838557113
     https://doi.org/10.36198/9783838557113 [Google Scholar]
  7. BGBl. I
    BGBl. I (2021) Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz). § 60d Text und Data Mining für Zwecke der wissenschaftlichen Forschung.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Biber, D.
    (1993) Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics, 19(2), 219–241.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2005) Register variation: A corpus approach. InD. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (1st ed., pp.175–196). Hoboken: Wiley. 10.1002/9780470753460.ch10
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470753460.ch10 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2019) Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2016) Register variation on the searchable web: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 95–137. 10.1177/0075424216628955
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424216628955 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bildhauer, F., Pankratz, E., & Schäfer, R.
    (2021) Corpus, inference, and models of register distribution. Talk presented at theCCMLMA at DGfS.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Breindl, E.
    (2007) Intensitätspartikeln. InL. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten (pp.397–422). Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Bross, F.
    (2012) German modal particles and the common ground. Helikon. A Multidisciplinary Online Journal, 21, 182–209.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Clarke, I.
    (2022) A Multi-dimensional analysis of English tweets. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics, 1–26. 10.1177/09639470221090369
     https://doi.org/10.1177/09639470221090369 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clarke, I., & Grieve, J.
    (2019) Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLOS ONE, 14(9), e0222062. 10.1371/journal.pone.0222062
     https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222062 [Google Scholar]
  17. Claudi, U.
    (2006) Intensifiers of adjectives in German. Language Typology and Universals, 59(4), 350–369. 10.1524/stuf.2006.59.4.350
     https://doi.org/10.1524/stuf.2006.59.4.350 [Google Scholar]
  18. Degand, L., Cornillie, B., & Pietrandrea, P.
    (Eds.) (2013) Discourse markers and modal particles: categorization and description. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.234
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.234 [Google Scholar]
  19. Diewald, G.
    (2009) Abtönungspartikel. InL. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten (pp.117–141). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Döring, S.
    (2016) Modal Particles, Discourse Structure and Common Ground Management. (Dissertation). Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
  21. Gibson, J. J.
    (2014) The ecological approach to visual perception. New York/ London: Taylor & Francis Group. 10.4324/9781315740218
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315740218 [Google Scholar]
  22. Honeybone, P.
    (2011) Variation and linguistic theory. InW. Maguire & A. McMahon (Eds.), Analysing variation in English (pp.151–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511976360.008
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511976360.008 [Google Scholar]
  23. Ito, R., & Tagliamonte, S.
    (2003) Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society, 32(2), 257–279. 10.1017/S0047404503322055
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404503322055 [Google Scholar]
  24. Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W.
    (1985) Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 361, 15–43. 10.1515/9783110244922.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110244922.15 [Google Scholar]
  25. König, E.
    (1997) Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. InF. Debus (Ed.), Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache III: Aspekte der Modalität im deutschen-auch in kontrastiver Sicht. Hildesheim/ New York: G. Olms.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Kratzer, A.
    (1999) Beyond ouch and oops: How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. https://semanticsarchive.net/Archive/WEwNGUyO/
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Labov, W.
    (2010) Principles of linguistic change. 2: Social factors. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. 10.1002/9781444327496
     https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444327496 [Google Scholar]
  28. MacKenzie, L.
    (2019) Perturbing the community grammar: Individual differences and community-level constraints on sociolinguistic variation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4(1). 10.5334/gjgl.622
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.622 [Google Scholar]
  29. McLuhan, M.
    (1964) Understanding media: The extensions of man. Boston: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Os, C. van
    (1989) Aspekte der Intensivierung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Scheffler, T.
    (2014) A German Twitter snapshot. InProceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Presented at theLREC’14 (pp.2284–2289), Reykjavik, Iceland. European Language Resources Association
     [Google Scholar]
  32. (2017) Conversations on Twitter. InD. Fišer & M. Beisswenger (Eds.), Investigating computer-mediated communication: corpus-based approaches to language in the digital world (1st ed.). Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Scheffler, T., Kern, L.-A., & Seemann, H.
    (forthcoming). Individuelle linguistische Variabilität in sozialen Medien. InM. Kupietz & T. Schmidt Ed. Korpora in der germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft – mündlich, schriftlich, multimedial. Tübingen: Narr.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Scheffler, T., Richter, M., & van Hout, R.
    (in review). Tracing and classifying German intensifiers via information theory. Language Sciences.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Scheffler, T., & Stede, M.
    (2016) Realizing argumentative coherence relations in German: A contrastive study of newspaper editorials and Twitter posts. InP. Saint-Dizier & M. Stede (Eds.), Proceedings of the COMMA Workshop ‘Foundations of the Language of Argumentation’ (pp.73–80). https://www.ling.uni-potsdam.de/comma2016/pdf/FLA16-proceedings.pdf
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Schleef, E.
    (2021) Individual differences in intra-speaker variation: t-glottalling in England and Scotland. Linguistics Vanguard, 7(2). 10.1515/lingvan‑2020‑0033. 10.1515/lingvan‑2020‑0033
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2020-0033 [Google Scholar]
  37. Schumann, K.
    (2021) Der Fokusmarker ‚so’: Empirische Perspektiven auf Gebrauch und Verarbeitung eines Ausnahmeelements. Boston: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110731149
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110731149 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2020) Corpus linguistics: a guide to the methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Stenetorp, P., Pyysalo, S., Topić, G., Ohta, T., Ananiadou, S., & Tsujii, J.
    (2012) brat: a Web-based tool for NLP-assisted text annotation. Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp.102–107). Avignon, France: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved fromhttps://aclanthology.org/E12-2021
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Storrer, A.
    (2013) Sprachstil und Sprachvariation in sozialen Netzwerken. InDie Dynamik sozialer und sprachlicher Netzwerke. Konzepte, Methoden und empirische Untersuchungen an Beispielen des WWW (pp.331–366). Wiesbaden: VS Verlaf für Sozialwissenschaften. 10.1007/978‑3‑531‑93336‑8_15
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-531-93336-8_15 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stratton, J. M.
    (2020) Adjective intensifiers in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 32(2), 183–215. 10.1017/S1470542719000163
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542719000163 [Google Scholar]
  42. Tagliamonte, S. A.
    (2016) So sick or so cool? The language of youth on the internet. Language in Society, 45(1), 1–32. 10.1017/S0047404515000780
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404515000780 [Google Scholar]
  43. Tagliamonte, S. A., & Denis, D.
    (2008) Linguistic ruin? Lol! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech, 83(1), 3–34. 10.1215/00031283‑2008‑001
     https://doi.org/10.1215/00031283-2008-001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Thurmair, M.
    (1989) Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783111354569
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111354569 [Google Scholar]
  45. VERBI Software
    VERBI Software (2019) MAXQDA 2020. Berlin: VERBI Software. Retrieved fromhttps://www.maxqda.com/
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Weydt, H.
    (Ed.) (1979) Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110863574
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110863574 [Google Scholar]
  47. Wolfram, W.
    (2006) Variation and language: Overview. InR. Asher (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (pp.333–341). Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B0‑08‑044854‑2/04256‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/04256-5 [Google Scholar]
  48. Zhao, Y., Liu, J., Tang, J., & Zhu, Q.
    (2013) Conceptualizing perceived affordances in social media interaction design. Aslib Proceedings, 65(3), 289–303. 10.1108/00012531311330656
     https://doi.org/10.1108/00012531311330656 [Google Scholar]
  49. Zimmermann, M.
    (2011) Discourse particles. InP. Portner, C. Maienborn, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics (pp.2011–2038). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22009.sch
Loading
The medium is not the message
Register Studies 4, 171 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.22009.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22009.sch
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.22009.sch
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus linguistics; German; intensifiers; modal particles; register; social media

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