Cover not available
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
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data and methodology
  • 3.Analysis
    • 3.1Text type 1: Presentation of information
    • 3.2Text type 2: Opinion and discussion
    • 3.3Text type 3: Analysis and debate
    • 3.4Text type 4: Description
    • 3.5Text type 5: Interactive recount
    • 3.6Text type 6: Engaging demonstration
    • 3.7Text type 7: Playful discourse
    • 3.8Text type 8: Simplified interaction
    • 3.9Text type 9: Simulated conversation
  • 4.Discussion
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.00039.ber
References (46)
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). Text types in Brazilian Portuguese: A multidimensional perspective. Corpora, 12(3), 483–515. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017). American television and off-screen registers: A corpus-based comparison. Corpora, 12(1), 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019a). Dimensions of variation across American television registers. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 24(1), 1–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2019b). Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. Bloomsbury. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 271, 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8(4), 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank, R. E., Becknell, J. C., & Clokey, J. D. (1971). Television program types. Journal of Marketing Research, 81, 204–211. DOI logoGoogle 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 @ Biblioteca Digital. [URL]
Forchini, P. (2012). Movie Language Revisited: Evidence from Multi-Dimensional Analysis and Corpora. Lang. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mittel, J. (2004). Genre and Television: From Cop Shows to Cartoons in American Culture. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2011b). Telecinematic Discourse: Approaches to the Language of Films and Television Series. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quaglio, P. (2009). Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rao, V. R. (1975). Taxonomy of television programs based on viewing behavior. Journal of Marketing Research, 121, 355–358. DOI logoGoogle 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. [URL]
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Akbary, Mary & Scott Jarvis
2023. Lexical diversity as a predictor of genre in TV shows. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 38:3 ► pp. 921 ff. DOI logo
Chang, Chingching
2023. The Multiple Mechanisms by Which Watching Dramas Can Repair or Enhance Moods. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media 67:1 ► pp. 21 ff. DOI logo
Sun, Ya & Qiong Wang
2023. Mapping the Field of Register Studies: A Bibliometric Analysis. Sage Open 13:4 DOI logo
Berber Sardinha, Tony
2022. A text typology of social media. Register Studies 4:2 ► pp. 138 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.