1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Register Studies
  4. Volume 6, Issue 1
  5. Article
Volume 6, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2542-9477
  • E-ISSN: 2542-9485
PDF
EPUB

Abstract

Abstract

We present a corpus-based method — Variation-Based Distance and Similarity Modeling (VADIS) — that calculates distances between registers as a function of the extent to which the probabilistic conditioning of variation differs across registers. When language users have a choice between different ways of saying similar things (e.g., versus ), what is the extent to which these choices are regulated differently in different registers? In this spirit, we re-analyze pre-existing datasets that cover the genitive, dative, and particle placement alternations in the grammar of English. These datasets cover five broad register categories: spoken informal English, spoken formal English, written informal English, written formal English, and online/web-based English. Analysis shows that (a) the registers under analysis are relatively but not entirely homogeneous in terms of the probabilistic grammars conditioning grammatical choices, and (b) more often than not we see a split between spoken and written registers.

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

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23011.zha
2024-10-11
2025-04-24

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/rs.23011.zha
    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.23011.zha.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23011.zha&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Bartels, B., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (to appear). Correlating linguistic and language-external distances: Future temporal reference in spoken World Englishes. World Englishes.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S.
    (2015) Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1). 10.18637/jss.v067.i01
     https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01 [Google Scholar]
  3. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D., & Egbert, J.
    (2023) What is a register?: Accounting for linguistic and situational variation within — and outside of — textual varieties. Register Studies, 5(1), 1–22. 10.1075/rs.00004.bib
     https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.00004.bib [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., Egbert, J., Keller, D., & Wizner, S.
    (2021) 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]
  6. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bresnan, J., Cueni, A., Nikitina, T., & Baayen, R. H.
    (2007) Predicting the dative alternation. InCognitive foundations of interpretation (pp.69–94). KNAW.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bresnan, J., & Ford, M.
    (2010) Predicting syntax: Processing dative constructions in American and Australian varieties of English. Language, 86(1), 168–213. 10.1353/lan.0.0189
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.0.0189 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, P.
    (1986) Discourse and particle movement in English. Studies in Language, 10(1), 79–95. 10.1075/sl.10.1.05che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.10.1.05che [Google Scholar]
  10. Cysouw, M.
    (2013) Disentangling geography from genealogy. InP. Auer, M. Hilpert, A. Stukenbrock, & B. Szmrecsanyi (Eds.), Space in Language and Linguistics (pp.21–37). Berlin, Boston: DE GRUYTER. 10.1515/9783110312027.21
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110312027.21 [Google Scholar]
  11. Davies, M., & Fuchs, R.
    (2015) Expanding horizons in the study of World Englishes with the 1.9 billion word Global Web-based English Corpus (GloWbE). English World-Wide. A Journal of Varieties of English, 36(1), 1–28. 10.1075/eww.36.1.01dav
     https://doi.org/10.1075/eww.36.1.01dav [Google Scholar]
  12. De Vaus, D. A.
    (2002) Analyzing social science data. London ; Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. 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]
  14. 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]
  15. Engel, A., Grafmiller, J., Rosseel, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2022) Assessing the complexity of lectal competence: The register-specificity of the dative alternation after give. Cognitive Linguistics, 0(0). 10.1515/cog‑2021‑0107
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2021-0107 [Google Scholar]
  16. Engel, A., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2023) Variable grammars are variable across registers: Future temporal reference in English. Language Variation and Change, 1–24. 10.1017/S0954394522000163
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954394522000163 [Google Scholar]
  17. Fraser, B.
    (1976) The verb-particle combination in English. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., & McDaniel, J.
    (1992) SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. InIEEE International Conference on Speech, and Signal Processing, ICASSP-92 (Vol.11, pp.517–520). 10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225858
     https://doi.org/10.1109/ICASSP.1992.225858 [Google Scholar]
  19. 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]
  20. Grafmiller, J., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2018) Mapping out particle placement in Englishes around the world. A study in comparative sociolinguistic analysis.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Grafmiller, J., Szmrecsanyi, B., Röthlisberger, M., & Heller, B.
    (2018) General introduction: A comparative perspective on probabilistic variation in grammar. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 3(1). 10.5334/gjgl.690
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.690 [Google Scholar]
  22. Greenbaum, S.
    (1991) ICE: The International Corpus of English. English Today, 7(4), 3–7. 10.1017/S0266078400005836
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400005836 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gries, Stefan Th.
    (2017) Syntactic alternation research: Taking stock and some suggestions for the future. Belgian Journal of Linguistics, 311, 8–29. 10.1075/bjl.00001.gri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00001.gri [Google Scholar]
  24. Gries, Stefan Thomas
    (2003) Multifactorial analysis in corpus linguistics: A study of particle placement. New York: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Heller, B.
    (2018) Stability and Fluidity in Syntactic Variation World-Wide: The Genitive Alternation Across Varieties of English (PhD dissertation). KU Leuven, Leuven.
  26. Heller, D.-B., Szmrecsanyi, B., Mukherjee, J., & Grafmiller, J.
    (2018) Stability and Fluidity in Syntactic Variation World-Wide: The Genitive Alternation Across Varieties of English (PhD Thesis).
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Hinrichs, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2007) Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language and Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474. 10.1017/S1360674307002341
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674307002341 [Google Scholar]
  28. Hothorn, T., Hornik, K., & Zeileis, A.
    (2006) Unbiased Recursive Partitioning: A Conditional Inference Framework. Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, 15(3), 651–674. 10.1198/106186006X133933
     https://doi.org/10.1198/106186006X133933 [Google Scholar]
  29. Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W.
    (1985) Sprache der Nähe — Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch361, 15–43. 10.1515/9783110244922.15
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110244922.15 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2012) Language of Immediacy — Language of Distance: Orality and Literacy from the Perspective of Language Theory and Linguistic History. InC. Lange, B. Weber, & G. Wolf (Eds.), Communicative spaces: Papers in honour of Ursula Schaefer (pp.441–473). Frankfurt, M: Lang. 10.15496/publikation‑20415
     https://doi.org/10.15496/publikation-20415 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M.
    (1978) Multidimensional Scaling. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi: Sage Publications. 10.4135/9781412985130
     https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985130 [Google Scholar]
  32. La Peruta, R.
    (2022) Using VADIS to weigh competing epicentral influence. World Englishes, 41(3), 400–413. 10.1111/weng.12585
     https://doi.org/10.1111/weng.12585 [Google Scholar]
  33. Levshina, N.
    (2015) How to do linguistics with R: Data exploration and statistical analysis. Amsterdam ; Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/z.195
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.195 [Google Scholar]
  34. Li, Y., Szmrecsanyi, B., & Zhang, W.
    (2024) Across time, space, and genres: Measuring probabilistic grammar distances between varieties of Mandarin. Linguistics Vanguard. 10.1515/lingvan‑2022‑0134
     https://doi.org/10.1515/lingvan-2022-0134 [Google Scholar]
  35. Nerbonne, J., Heeringa, W., & Kleiweg, P.
    (1999) Edit Distance and Dialect Proximity. InD. Sankoff & J. B. Kruskal (Eds.), Time Warps, String Edits and Macromolecules: The Theory and Practice of Sequence Comparison. Stanford: CSLI Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Rosenbach, A.
    (2008) Animacy and grammatical variation — Findings from English genitive variation. Lingua, 118(2), 151–171. 10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2007.02.002 [Google Scholar]
  37. (2014) English genitive variation — the state of the art. English Language and Linguistics, 18(2), 215–262. 10.1017/S1360674314000021
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S1360674314000021 [Google Scholar]
  38. Röthlisberger, M.
    (2018) Regional variation in probabilistic grammars: A multifactorial study of the English dative alternation (PhD dissertation, KU Leuven). KU Leuven, Leuven. Retrieved fromhttps://lirias.kuleuven.be/handle/123456789/602938
  39. Röthlisberger, M., Szmrecsanyi, B., Hundt, M., & Grafmiller, J.
    (2018) Regional variation in probabilistic grammars: A multifactorial study of the English dative alternation (PhD Thesis).
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Szmrecsanyi, B.
    (2022) Measuring distance-based coherence. InK. V. Beaman & G. R. Guy (Eds.), The Coherence of Linguistic Communities Orderly Heterogeneity and Social Meaning (1st ed., pp.127–142). New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9781003134558‑10
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003134558-10 [Google Scholar]
  41. Szmrecsanyi, B. & Engel, A.
    (2022) A variationist perspective on the comparative complexity of four registers at the intersection of mode and formality. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 79–113. 10.1515/cllt‑2022‑0031
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2022-0031 [Google Scholar]
  42. Szmrecsanyi, B., & Grafmiller, J.
    (2023) Comparative variation analysis: Grammatical alternations in world Englishes. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108863742
     https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108863742 [Google Scholar]
  43. Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., Bresnan, J., Rosenbach, A., Tagliamonte, S., & Todd, S.
    (2017) Spoken syntax in a comparative perspective: The dative and genitive alternation in varieties of English. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 2(1). 10.5334/gjgl.310
     https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.310 [Google Scholar]
  44. Szmrecsanyi, B., Grafmiller, J., & Rosseel, L.
    (2019) Variation-Based Distance and Similarity Modeling: A Case Study in World Englishes. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence, 21, 23. 10.3389/frai.2019.00023
     https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2019.00023 [Google Scholar]
  45. Tagliamonte, S.
    (2012) Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Zwicky, A. M.
    (1987) Suppressing the Zs. Journal of Linguistics, 231, 133–148. 10.1017/S0022226700011063
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700011063 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23011.zha
Loading
Variation-Based Distance and Similarity Modeling
Register Studies 6, 31 (2024); https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.23011.zha
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23011.zha
/content/journals/10.1075/rs.23011.zha
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dative; distance; genitive; particle placement; register; variation

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