And tonight, shocking revelations about TV news broadcasts

References

1. Arbaoui, B., De Swert, K. & van der Brug, W.
   (2020) Sensationalism in news coverage: A comparative study in 14 television systems. Communication Research, 47(2), 299–320. 10.1177/0093650216663364
   https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650216663364 [Google Scholar]
2. Bednarek, M., & Caple, H.
   (2012) News discourse. London: Continuum.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Biber, D.
   (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
4. Biber, D.
   (1992) On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 151, 133–163. 10.1080/01638539209544806
   https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544806 [Google Scholar]
5. Biber, D.
   (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]
6. Biber, D.
   (2009) Are there linguistic consequences of literacy? Comparing the potentials of language use in speech and writing. InDavid R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of literacy, (pp.75–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609664.006
   https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609664.006 [Google Scholar]
7. Biber, D.
   (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]
8. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
   (2019) Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
   https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
9. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
   (1989) Drift and the evolution of English style: A history of three genres. Language, 651, 487–517. 10.2307/415220
   https://doi.org/10.2307/415220 [Google Scholar]
10. Biber, D., & Finegan, E.
    (2001) Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. InS. Conrad and D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional studies, (pp.66–83). London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Biber, D., & Gray, B.
    (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]
12. Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S. & Egbert, J.
    (2022) The Register-Functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, applications. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
13. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (2021) Grammar of spoken and written English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.232
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.232 [Google Scholar]
14. Biber, D., & Vásquez, C.
    (2008) Writing and speaking. InC. Bazerman (Eds.), Handbook of research on writing (pp.535–548). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Biber, D., Larsson, T. & Hancock, G. R.
    (2024) Dimensions of text complexity in the spoken and written modes: A comparison of theory-based models. Journal of English Linguistics, 521. 10.1177/00754242231222296
    https://doi.org/10.1177/00754242231222296 [Google Scholar]
16. Biber, D., Wizner, S. & Reppen, R.
    (Forthcoming). The President wide awake at 3:14 AM tweeting about CNN: Informational non-canonical reduced structures in TV news broadcasts. InS. Leuckert and T. Pham Eds. Non-Canonical English syntax: concepts, methods, and approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
17. Bruthiaux, P.
    (1996) The discourse of classified advertising: Exploring the nature of linguistic simplicity. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195100327.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195100327.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
18. Egbert, J., & Biber, D.
    (2023) Key feature analysis — A simple, yet powerful method for comparing text varieties. Corpora, 18(1), 121–133. 10.3366/cor.2023.0275
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2023.0275 [Google Scholar]
19. Fairclough, N.
    (1992) Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity.
    [Google Scholar]
20. Ferguson, C. A.
    (1982) Simplified registers and linguistic theory. InL. Obler & L. Menn, eds., Exceptional language and linguistics. New York: Academic Press, 49–66.
    [Google Scholar]
21. Ferguson, C. A.
    (1983) Sports announcer talk: Syntactic aspects of register variation. Language in Society121, 153–72. 10.1017/S0047404500009787
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500009787 [Google Scholar]
22. Glogger, I.
    (2019) Soft spot for soft news? Influences of journalistic role conceptions on hard and soft news coverage. Journalism Studies, 201, 2293–2311. 10.1080/1461670X.2019.1588149
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1588149 [Google Scholar]
23. Grabe, M. E., Zhou, S. & Barnett, B.
    (2001) Explicating sensationalism in television news: content and the bells and whistles of form. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 451, 635–655. 10.1207/s15506878jobem4504_6
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4504_6 [Google Scholar]
24. Hutchby, I.
    (2003) Conversation analysis and the study of broadcast talk. InR. Sanders & K. Fitch (Eds.), Handbook of language and social interaction, (pp.437–460). Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Janda, R.
    (1985) Note-taking English as a simplified register. Discourse Processes81, 437–54. 10.1080/01638538509544626
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544626 [Google Scholar]
26. Kleemans, M., & Vettehen, P. H.
    (2009) Sensationalism in television news: A review. InR. P. Konig, P. W. M. Nelissen, & F. J. M. Huysmans (Eds.), Meaningful media: Communication research on the social construction of reality (pp.226–243). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Tandem Felix.
    [Google Scholar]
27. Larsson, T., Biber, D., & Hancock, G. R.
    (in press). On the role of cumulative knowledge building and specific hypotheses: The case of grammatical complexity. Corpora, 19(3). 10.3366/cor.2024.0314
    https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2024.0314 [Google Scholar]
28. Leech, G., Hundt, M., Mair, C., & Smith, N.
    (2009) Change in contemporary English: A grammatical study. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511642210
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511642210 [Google Scholar]
29. Montgomery, M.
    (2007) The discourse of broadcast news. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203006634
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203006634 [Google Scholar]
30. Otto, L., Glogger, I. & Boukes, M.
    (2017) The softening of journalistic political communication: A comprehensive framework model of sensationalism, soft news, infotainment, and tabloidization. Communication Theory, 271, 136–155. 10.1111/comt.12102
    https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12102 [Google Scholar]
31. Postman, N. & Powers, S.
    (2008) How to watch TV news. New York: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
32. Rosendale, J. A. & Longcore, A.
    (2015) On hard versus soft news: A content analysis of reporting by three nationally-televised evening news programs. Open Journal of Social Sciences, 31, 57–61. 10.4236/jss.2015.311008
    https://doi.org/10.4236/jss.2015.311008 [Google Scholar]
33. Uribe, R., & Gunter, B.
    (2007) Are ‘sensational’ news stories more likely to trigger viewers’ emotion than non-sensational news stories?European Journal of Communication, 22(2), 207–228. 10.1177/0267323107076770
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323107076770 [Google Scholar]