Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 24:2 (2019) ► pp.169–201

Variation and change in a specialized register

A comparison of random and sociolinguistic sampling outcomes in Desert Island Discs

| University of Leicester
| University of Leicester
Corpus-based studies of specialized registers typically sample texts using random methods as far as possible, but they disregard social characteristics of the speakers/writers. In contrast, in corpus-based studies of conversation and quantitative sociolinguistic studies, sampling is more typically designed to optimize social representation. To our knowledge, this study is the first to compare linguistic outcomes from random versus sociolinguistic sampling in a specialized register. Our data comes from the biographical radio chat show, Desert Island Discs (DID), at different points in time. We constructed two versions of a DID corpus: a sociolinguistic judgment sample based on guest demographics, and a random sample. We compare grammatical usage between them using an inductive (‘key POS-tags’) method and close manual analysis, uncovering some evidence of significant grammatical differences between the samples and differing patterns of diachronic change. We discuss the implications of our research for corpus design, representativeness and analysis in specialized registers.
Keywords: register, sociolinguistic judgment sampling, random sampling, representativeness, key-POS
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus sampling and representativeness in register-based and sociolinguistic studies
  • 3.Data and methods
    • 3.1 Desert Island Discs: Register characteristics and suitability for the study
    • 3.2Corpus design
      • 3.2.1The Socio sample
        • i.Gender
        • ii.Age
        • iii.Occupation
        • iv.Education
      • 3.2.2The Random sample
    • 3.3Analytical methods
      • 3.3.1Grammatical analysis: Key POS-tag comparisons
      • 3.3.2Frequency measures
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Overview of synchronic and diachronic key POS-tag comparisons
    • 4.2Case study 1: Adverbs
    • 4.3Case study 2: Verb tenses
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 5 August 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.17117.smi
References (52)
References
Aarts, B., Close, J. & Wallis, S. (2013). Choices over time: Methodological issues in investigating current change. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech & S. Wallis (Eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora (pp. 14–45). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderwald, L. (2002). Negation in Non-standard British English: Gaps, Regularizations, Asymmetries. London/New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23 (3), 321–346. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ball, C. N. (1994). Automated text analysis: Cautionary tales. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 9 (4), 295–302. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BBC (2004). BBC Charter Review (Radio 4). Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed April 2019).
Bednarek, M., & Caple, H. (2010). News Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13 (2), 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bell, P., & van Leeuwen, T. (1994). The Media Interview: Confession, Contest, Conversation. Kensington: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993). Representativeness in corpus design. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 8 (4), 243–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1994). An analytical framework for register studies. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.) Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp. 31–56). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
(2006). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 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., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Bowie, J., Wallis, S. & Aarts, B. (2013). The perfect in spoken British English. In B. Aarts, J. Close, G. Leech & S. Wallis (Eds.), The Verb Phrase in English: Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora (pp. 318–52). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brezina, V., & Meyerhoff, M. (2014). Significant or random? A critical review of sociolinguistic generalisations based on large corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 19 (1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burnard, L. (2007) (Ed.). Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML Edition). Retrieved from [URL] (last accessed April 2019).
Butler, S. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Corbett, J., & Stuart-Smith, J. (2012). Standard English in Scotland. In R. Hickey (Ed.) Standards of English: Codified Standards around the World (pp. 72–95). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Denscombe, M. (2014). The Good Research Guide for Small-scale Social Research Projects (5th ed.). Maidenhead: Open University Press.Google Scholar
Finegan, E., & Biber, D. (2001). Register variation and social dialect variation: The register axiom. In P. Eckert & J. Rickford (Eds.), Style and Sociolinguistic Variation (pp. 235–67). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Garside, R., & Smith, N. (1997). A hybrid grammatical tagger: CLAWS4. In R. Garside, G. Leech, A. McEnery (Eds.), Corpus Annotation: Linguistic Information from Computer Text Corpora (pp. 102–121). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gimenez, J. (2000). Business e-mail communication: some emerging tendencies in register. English for Specific Purposes, 19 (3), 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gray, B. (2015). Linguistic Variation in Research Articles: When Discipline Tells Only Part of the Story. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendy, D. (2007). Life on Air: A History of Radio Four. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Herring, S., & Paolillo, J. C. (2006). Gender and genre variation in weblogs. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10 (4), 493–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoye, L. (1997). Adverbs and Modality in English. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Ito, R., & Tagliamonte, S. A. (2003). Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: Layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language in Society, 32 (2), 257–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, A., & Landert, D. (2015). Historical pragmatics and early speech recordings: Diachronic developments in turn-taking and narrative structure in radio talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics, 79 1, 22–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Leech, G. (2004). Meaning and the English Verb (3rd ed.). London: Longman.Google Scholar
Love, R., Dembry, C., Hardie, A., Brezina, V., & McEnery, T. (2017). The Spoken BNC2014: Designing and building a spoken corpus of everyday conversations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 22 (3), 319–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Macaulay, R. (2005). Talk that Counts: Age, Gender and Social Class Differences in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Magee, S. (2012). Desert Island Discs: 70 Years of Castaways from one of BBC Radio 4’s Best-loved Programmes. London: Bantam.Google Scholar
McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2012). Corpus Linguistics: Method, Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Methods and Interpretation. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montgomery, M. (2007). The Discourse of Broadcast News: A Linguistic Approach. Abingdon: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ndaji, F., Little, J., & Coe, R. (2016). A Comparison of Academic Achievement in Independent and State Schools: Report for the Independent Schools Council. Centre for Evaluation and Monitoring, University of Durham. [URL] (last accessed April 2019).
Nevalainen, T. & Raumolin-Brunberg, H. (Eds.) (2003). Sociolinguistics and Language History: Studies Based on the Corpus of Early English Correspondence. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. (2005). You’ve a daughter yourself? A corpus-based look at question forms in an Irish radio phone-in. In A. Barron & K. Schneider (Eds.), The Pragmatics of Irish English (pp. 339–366). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13 (4), 519–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sankoff, D. (2005). Problems of representativeness. In U. Ammon, N. Dittmar, K. J. Mattheier & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Sociolinguistics: An International Handbook of the Science of Language and Society (2nd ed., Vol. 2 1, pp. 998–1002). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., & Laberge, S. (1978). The linguistic market and the statistical explanation of variability. In D. Sankoff (Ed.), Linguistic Variation: Models and Methods (pp. 239–250). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Sankoff, D., Cedergren, H., Kemp, W., Thibault, P. & Vincent, D. (1989). Montreal French: Language, class and ideology. In R. W. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (Eds.), Language Change and Variation (pp. 107–118). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scannell, P. (1989). Public service broadcasting and modern public life. Media, Culture and Society, 11 (2): 134–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, M. (1997). PC Analysis of key words – and key key words. System, 25 (2), 233–245. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smith, N. & Waters, C. (2018). From broadcast archive to language corpus: Designing and investigating a sociohistorical corpus from Desert Island Discs . ICAME Journal, 42 1, 167–189. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tolson, A. (2006). Media Talk: Spoken Discourse on TV and Radio. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Weiner, E. J. & Labov, W. (1983). Constraints on the agentless passive. Journal of Linguistics, 19 (1), 29–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, M. (2012). Discourse of Twitter and Social Media. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Salameh Jiménez, Shima
2024. Chapter 1. Linguistic change in the 20th century. In Language Change in the 20th Century [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 340], ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo
Sönning, Lukas
2024. Down-sampling from hierarchically structured corpus data. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics DOI logo
Egbert, Jesse & Douglas Biber
2023. Key feature analysis: a simple, yet powerful method for comparing text varieties. Corpora 18:1 ► pp. 121 ff. DOI logo
Smith, Nicholas
2020. Conversationalization and democratization in a radio chat show: a grammar-led investigation. Language Sciences 79 ► pp. 101269 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 september 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.