Article published in:
Corpus approaches to telecinematic language
Edited by Monika Bednarek, Valentin Werner and Marcia Veirano Pinto
[International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 26:1] 2021
► pp. 127–160

A linguistic typology of American television

| São Paulo Catholic University
| São Paulo Federal University
This paper presents the first entirely linguistic typology of contemporary American television, derived from a multi-dimensional (MD) analysis of the USTV corpus. The USTV corpus comprises 930 texts from 191 different TV programs, classified into 31 different registers (including nine telecinematic ones: drama series, miniseries, movies, sitcoms, soap operas, general animation, children’s animation, short-feature animation, and children’s and teens’ shows). The linguistic typology we present in this study is based on the linguistic characteristics present in the individual programs, with no a priori textual categorizations. A cluster analysis grouped the individual programs into clusters that shared similar dimensional profiles. The resulting typology comprises nine different text types – namely Presentation of information, Opinion and discussion, Analysis and debate, Description, Interactive recount, Engaging demonstration, Playful discourse, Simplified interaction, and Simulated conversation. The paper discusses and illustrates each text type and considers how telecinematic discourse relates to each of them.
Keywords: multi-dimensional analysis, American television programs, text typology, telecinematic discourse
Published online: 12 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00039.ber
References

References

Al-Surmi, M.
(2012) Authenticity and TV shows: A multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Quarterly, 46(4), 671–694.Google Scholar
Altman, R.
(2009) Film/Genre. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bednarek, M.
(2010) The Language of Fictional Television: Drama and Identity. Continuum.Google Scholar
(2014) ‘Who are you and why are you following us?’ Wh-questions and communicative context in television dialogue. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Discourse in Context (pp. 49–70). Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
(2018) Language and Television Series: A Linguistic Approach to TV Dialogue. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T.
(2014) Comparing Internet and pre-Internet registers. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber (pp. 81–107). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) Text types in Brazilian Portuguese: A multidimensional perspective. Corpora, 12(3), 483–515. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2020) Lexicogrammar. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics (pp. 701–705). Wiley.Google Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T., & Veirano Pinto, M.
(Eds.) (2014) Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2017) American television and off-screen registers: A corpus-based comparison. Corpora, 12(1), 85–114. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019a) Dimensions of variation across American television registers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(1), 1–30. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2019b) Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. Bloomsbury. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bertelsen, B. [brandon-bertelsen]
(2013, December 9). Psuedo F describes the ratio of between cluster variance to within-cluster variance. If Psuedo F is decreasing, that means either [Comment on the online forum post Validity Index Pseudo F for K-Means Clustering]. StackExchange. https://​stats​.stackexchange​.com​/q​/79104
Biber, D.
(1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1989) A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27, 3–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1993) Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2009) Multidimensional approaches. In A. Lüdeling & M. Kytö (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics: An International Handbook (pp. 822–854). Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cantos Gómez, P.
(2019) Multivariate statistics commonly used in Multi-Dimensional Analysis. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 97–124). Bloomsbury. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Creeber, G.
(2012) Introduction: Genre theory. In G. Creeber (Ed.), The Television Genre Book (pp. 1–3). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
de Beaugrande, R. A., & Dressler, W. U.
(1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. Longman. Google Scholar
Egbert, J., & Staples, S.
(2019) Doing Multi-Dimensional Analysis in SPSS, SAS, and R. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 125–144). London: Bloomsbury Academic. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. E., Becknell, J. C., & Clokey, J. D.
(1971) Television program types. Journal of Marketing Research, 8, 204–211. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fonseca de Araújo, R.
(2017) A Linguagem dos Reality TV Shows Norte-Americanos: Análise e Classificação [The Language of North American Reality TV Shows: Analysis and Classification] [Master thesis, São Paulo Catholic University]. PUC-SP at Biblioteca Digital. https://​sapientia​.pucsp​.br​/handle​/handle​/19961
Forchini, P.
(2012) Movie Language Revisited: Evidence from Multi-Dimensional Analysis and Corpora. Lang. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Friginal, E., & Hardy, J. A.
(2014) Conducting Multi-Dimensional analysis using SPSS. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber (pp. 298–316). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2019) From factors to dimensions: Interpreting linguistic co-occurrence patterns. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues (pp. 145–164). London: Bloomsbury Academic. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaminsky, S. M., & Mahan, J. H.
(1986) American Television Genres. Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Kozloff, S.
(1992) Narrative theory and television. In R. C. Allen (Ed.), Channels of Discourse, Reassembled: Television and Contemporary Criticism (pp. 52–76). Routledge.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E.
(1983) The Grammar of Discourse. Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Marshall, J., & Werndly, A.
(2002) The Language of Television. Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mittel, J.
(2004) Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Neale, S.
(2012) Introduction: Studying genre. In G. Creeber (Ed.), The Television Genre Book (2nd ed., pp. 3–5). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Piazza, R., Bednarek, M., & Rossi, F.
(2011a) Introduction. In R. Piazza, M. Bednarek, & F. Rossi (Eds.), Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Films and Television Series (pp. 1–20). John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (2011b) Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Films and Television Series. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quaglio, P.
(2009) Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rao, V. R.
(1975) Taxonomy of television programs based on viewing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 12, 355–358. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Rose, B. G.
(1985) TV Genres: A Handbook and Reference Guide. Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
SAS Institute Inc.
(2015) SAS University Edition. [Computer software]. SAS Institute Inc. https://​www​.sas​.com​/en​_us​/software​/university​-edition​.html
Stewart, M.
(2014) Introduction: Film and TV melodrama: An overview. In M. Stewart (Ed.), Melodrama in Contemporary Film and Television (pp. 1–21). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Tamborini, R., Mastro, D., Chory-Assad, R. M., & Huang, H. R.
(2000) The color of crime and the court: A content analysis of minority representation on television. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 77(3), 639–653. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Turner, G.
(2012) Introduction: The uses and limitations of genre. In G. Creeber (Ed.), The Television Genre Book (pp. 6–7). Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Veirano Pinto, M.
(2018) Variation in movies and television programs: The impact of corpus sampling. In V. Werner (Ed.), The Language of Pop Culture (pp. 139–161). Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
in press). Discourse of American broadcast news. In E. Friginal & J. Hardy Eds. Routledge Handbook of Corpus Approaches to Discourse Analysis Routledge
Wasko, J.
(2010) Introduction. In J. Wasko (Ed.), A Companion to Television (pp. 1–13). Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Zago, R.
(2016) From Originals to Remakes: Colloquiality in English Film Dialogue over Time. Bonanno.Google Scholar