Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 23:2 (2018) ► pp.125–157

Dimensions of variation across Internet registers

 | Catholic University of São Paulo
This paper presents a study that sought to identify the dimensions of variation underlying a corpus of Internet texts, using Biber’s (1988) multi-dimensional (MD) analysis framework. The corpus was compiled following the method proposed by Biber (1993), according to which the size of each register subcorpus should be determined based on the linguistic variation across the texts. The corpus was tagged using the Biber Tagger and the features were counted and submitted to a factor analysis, which suggested three factors. The factors were interpreted as three dimensions of variation: involved, interactive discourse versus informational focus; expression of stance: interactional evidentiality; and expression of stance: interactional affect. The amount of register variation captured by the register distinctions on the dimensions ranged from 8.7% to 57.1%. Dimension 1 corroborate the oral/involved versus literate/informational distinction defined in previous MD studies of non-Internet registers, whereas Dimensions 2 and 3 highlight the important role played by stance in social media.
Keywords: multi-dimensional analysis, Internet registers, register variation, online communication, social media
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Previous research on Internet registers in the multi-dimensional framework
  • 3.Corpus design and collection
  • 4.Statistical analysis
  • 5.Dimensions of register variation
    • 5.1Dimension 1: Involved, interactive discourse versus informational focus
    • 5.2Dimension 2: Expression of stance: Interactional evidentiality
    • 5.3Dimension 3: Expression of stance: Interactional affect
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • References
Published online: 5 October 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15026.ber
References (55)
References
Berber Sardinha, T. (2014). 25 years later: 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. 81–105). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T., Kauffmann, C., & Mayer Acunzo, C. (2014). A Multidimensional Analysis of register variation in Brazilian Portuguese. Corpora, 9(2), 239–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T., & Veirano Pinto, M. (2017). American television and off-screen registers: A corpus-based comparison. Corpora, 12(1), 85–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.) (forthcoming). Multi-dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. London/New York: Bloomsbury. DOI logo
Bertoli-Dutra, P. (2014). Multi-Dimensional analysis of pop songs. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber (pp. 149–175). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Besnier, N. (1988). The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers. Language, 64(4), 707–736. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1984). A Model of Textual Relations within the Written and Spoken Modes (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
(1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1989). A typology of English texts. Linguistics, 27(1), 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: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013a). An interview with Douglas Biber [conducted by Bethany Gray]. Journal of English Linguistics, 41(4), 359–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013b). Twenty-five years of Biber’s Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Introduction to the special issue and an interview with Douglas Biber [conducted by Eric Friginal]. Corpora, 8(2), 137–152. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). A user-based taxonomy of web registers. Paper presented at the Second Asia-Pacific Corpus Linguistics Conference, Hong Kong Polytechnic, Hong Kong.
(forthcoming). Multi-dimensional analysis: A historical synopsis. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. London/New York: Bloomsbury. DOI logo
Biber, D., Connor, U., & Upton, T. A. (2007). Discourse on the Move: Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Egbert, J. (2016). Register variation on the searchable web: A multi-dimensional analysis. Journal of English Linguistics, 44(2), 95–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. & Hared, M. (1994). Linguistic correlates of the transition to literacy in Somali: Language adaptation in six press registers. In D. Biber and E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp. 182–216). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Davies, M., Jones, J. K., & Tracy-Ventura, N. (2006). Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: A multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora, 1(1), 1–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Kurjian, J. (2007). Towards a taxonomy of web registers and text types: A multi-dimensional analysis. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp. 109–132). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree Words. The Hague/Paris: Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claridge, C., & Kytö, M. (2014). I had lost sight of them then for a bit, but I went on pretty fast: Two degree modifiers in the Old Bailey Corpus. In I. Taavitsainen, A. H. Jucker & J. Tuominen (Eds.), Diachronic Corpus Pragmatics (pp. 29–52). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Collot, M. (1991). The Situtational Features and Textual Dimensions of Electronic Language. (Unpublished MA thesis). Concordia University, Montreal, Canada.Google Scholar
Condi de Souza, R. (2014). Dimensions of variation in TIME magazine. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber (pp. 177–196). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in Text – Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse (pp. 56–73). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. (2011). Internet Linguistics: A Student Guide. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2013). O princípio: Entrevista com David Crystal [The beginning: An interview of David Crystal, conducted by Tania Shepherd and Tania G. Saliés]. In T. M. G. Shepherd & T. Salies (Eds.), Linguística da Internet [Internet Linguistics] (pp. 17–36). São Paulo: Contexto.Google Scholar
Curl (2018). Command line tool and library for transferring data with URLs. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed May 2018).
Egbert, J. (2012). Style in nineteenth century fiction: A Multi-Dimensional analysis. Scientific Study of Literature, 2(2), 167–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(forthcoming). Corpus design and representativeness. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-dimensional Analysis: Research Methods and Current Issues. London/New York: Bloomsbury. DOI logo
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, G., & Hunston, S. (1996). Grammar Patterns 1: Verbs. London: HarperCollins, COBUILD.Google Scholar
Friginal, E. (2008). Linguistic variation in the discourse of outsourced call centers. Discourse Studies, 10(6), 715–736. 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). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grieve, J., Biber, D., Friginal, E., & Nekrasova, T. (2010). Variation among blogs: A multi-dimensional analysis. In A. Mehler, S. Sharoff & M. Santini (Eds.), Genres on the Web: Computational Models and Empirical Studies (pp. 303–322). Dordrecht: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1993). Language and the order of nature. In M. A. K. Halliday & J. R. Martin (Eds.), Writing Science: Literacy as Discursive Power (pp. 117–136). London: Falmer.Google Scholar
Hardy, J. A., & Friginal, E. (2012). Filipino and American online communication and linguistic variation. World Englishes, 31(2), 143–161. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C. (Ed.). (1996). Computer-mediated Communication. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herring, S. C., Stein, D., & Virtanen, T. (2013a). Introduction to the pragmatics of computer-mediated communication. In S. C. Herring, D. Stein & T. Virtanen (Eds.), Pragmatics of Computer-mediated Communication (pp. 3–33). Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(Eds.). (2013b). Pragmatics of Computer-mediated Communication. Berlin: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kim, Y. -J. & Biber, D. (1994). A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp. 157–181). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2007). New resources, or just better old ones? The Holy Grail of representativeness. In M. Hundt, N. Nesselhauf & C. Biewer (Eds.), Corpus Linguistics and the Web (pp. 133–150). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and Epistemological Stance: Narrative Retelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Precht, K. (2003). Great vs lovely: Stance differences in American and British English. In P. Leistyna & C. F. Meyer (Eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use (pp. 133–151). Amsterdam: Rodopi. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reppen, R. (2001). Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. In S. Conrad & D. Biber (Eds.), Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp. 187–199). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Staples, S., Egbert, J., Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2015). Register variation: A corpus approach. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), The Handbook of Discourse Analysis Vol. 1 (pp. 505–525). Malden, MA: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Titak, A., & Roberson, A. (2013). Dimensions of web registers: An exploratory multi-dimensional comparison. Corpora, 8(2), 235–260. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tweepy (2018). An easy to use Python library for accessing the Twitter API. Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed May 2018).
Veirano Pinto, M. (2014). Dimensions of variation in North American movies. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber (pp. 109–148). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Xie, S., Tang, J., & Wang, T. (2014). Topic related opinion integration for users of social media. In H. Huang, T. Liu, H. -P. Zhang & J. Tang (Eds.), Social Media Processing: Third National Conference, SMP 2014 (pp. 164–174). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
Cited by (11)

Cited by 11 other publications

Wu, Yang & Hui Ren
2024. A multi-dimensional analysis of corporate blogs. Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics 60:2 ► pp. 227 ff. DOI logo
Li, Haipeng, Jonathan Dunn & Andrea Nini
2023. Register variation remains stable across 60 languages. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 19:3 ► pp. 397 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
Clarke, Isobelle
2022. A Multi-Dimensional Analysis of English tweets. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 31:2 ► pp. 124 ff. DOI logo
Diao, Hong
2022. Homogenized literary co-translation: A Hero Born and A Bond Undone. Across Languages and Cultures 23:1 ► pp. 92 ff. DOI logo
Li, Haipeng & Jonathan Dunn
2022. Corpus similarity measures remain robust across diverse languages. Lingua 275 ► pp. 103377 ff. DOI logo
Wang, Yaqin & Haitao Liu
2022. Creativity complicates tweets: a quantitative lens on syntactic characteristics of twitter. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 37:1 ► pp. 264 ff. DOI logo
Ehret, Katharina & Maite Taboada
2021. Characterising Online News Comments: A Multi-Dimensional Cruise Through Online Registers. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 4 DOI logo
Laippala, Veronika, Jesse Egbert, Douglas Biber & Aki-Juhani Kyröläinen
2021. Exploring the role of lexis and grammar for the stable identification of register in an unrestricted corpus of web documents. Language Resources and Evaluation 55:3 ► pp. 757 ff. DOI logo
Bowker, Lynne
2019. Register Variation Online. DouglasBiber and JesseEgbert. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 2018. $110.00. 252 pp. (hardcover). (ISBN 9781107122161). Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 70:11 ► pp. 1293 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 18 november 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.