Cover not available
Article published In:
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
Vol. 25:4 (2020) ► pp.461–488

Author and register as sources of variation

A corpus-based study using elicited texts

ORCID logo | Charles University
ORCID logo | Charles University
ORCID logo | Charles University
ORCID logo | Charles University
ORCID logo | Charles University
ORCID logo | Charles University
This paper investigates the contribution of author/idiolect vs. register/type-of-text – as the most salient factors influencing the final shape of a text – towards explaining the variation observed in Czech texts. Since it is almost impossible to explore the effect of these factors on authentic data, we used elicited letters collected in a fully crossed experimental design (representative sample of 200 authors × four elicitation scenarios serving as a proxy to register variation). The variation encompassed by the elicited texts is analyzed through the lens of a general-purpose multi-dimensional model of Czech. Using triangulation via three established statistical methods and one devised for the purpose of this study, we find that register matters a great deal, explaining 1.5 times as much variation overall as idiolect. This should be taken into account when designing research in sociolinguistics or variation studies in general.
Keywords: variation, idiolect, register, multi-dimensional analysis, Czech
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sources of variation in linguistic research
  • 3.Methods and data
    • 3.1General-purpose model of language variability
    • 3.2CPACT elicited data
  • 4.Results
    • 4.1Effect size
    • 4.2Distances between texts
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 October 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
References (52)
References
Amoroso, L. W. (2018). Analyzing group differences. In A. Phakiti, P. D. Costa, L. Plonsky, & S. Starfield (Eds.), The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology (pp. 501–521). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baayen, H., van Halteren, H., & Tweedie, F. (1996). Outside the cave of shadows: Using syntactic annotation to enhance authorship attribution. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 11(3), 121–132. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R. (2005). Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. (2010). Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Baker, P., & Egbert, J. (2016). Triangulating Methodological Approaches in Corpus Linguistic Research. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., Cameron, R., & Lucas, C. (Eds.). (2013). The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1995). Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2012). Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (Eds.). (1994). Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Čermák, F. (Ed.). (2007). Slovník Karla Čapka [Karel Čapek՚s Dictionary]. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar
Český statistický úřad [Czech Statistical Office]. (2015). Věk a vzdělání populace [Age and education of the population]. [URL]
Conrad, S. (2015). Register variation. In D. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 309–329). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., & Zasina, A. J. (in preparation). Register variability of elicited texts.
(2018a). From extra- to intratextual characteristics: Charting the space of variation in Czech through MDA. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory. Advance online publication. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2018b). Variabilita češtiny: Multidimenzionální analýza [Variability of Czech: A multi-dimensional analysis]. Slovo a slovesnost, 79(4), 293–321.Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., Zasina, A. J., & Benko, V. (2020). Comparing web-crawled and traditional corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 541, 713–745. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eckert, E. (Ed.). (1993). Varieties of Czech: Studies in Czech Sociolinguistics. Rodopi.Google Scholar
Egbert, J., & Baker, P. (2019). Using Corpus Methods to Triangulate Linguistic Analysis. Taylor & Francis. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, E., & Rickford, J. R. (Eds.). (2004). Language in the USA: Themes for the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grant, T. (2007). Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(1), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Grice, J. W. (2001). Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 430–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hinrichs, L., & Szmrecsanyi, B. (2007). Recent changes in the function and frequency of Standard English genitive constructions: A multivariate analysis of tagged corpora. English Language & Linguistics, 11(3), 437–474. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hnátková, M. (2002). Značkování frazémů a idiomů v Českém národním korpusu s pomocí Slovníku české frazeologie a idiomatiky [Tagging phraseological units and idioms in the Czech National Corpus with the aid of the Dictionary of Czech phraseology and idiomatics]. Slovo a slovesnost, 63(2), 117–126.Google Scholar
Iwasaki, S., & Horie, P. I. (2000). Creating speech register in Thai conversation. Language in Society, 29(4), 519–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jelínek, T. (2008). Nové značkování v Českém národním korpusu [New tagging in the Czech National Corpus]. Naše řeč, 91(1), 13–20.Google Scholar
King, B. M., Rosopa, P. J., & Minium, E. W. (2010). Some (almost) assumption-free tests. In Statistical Reasoning in the Behavioral Sciences (6th ed., pp. 381–401). Wiley.Google Scholar
Krejci, B., & Hilton, K. (2017). There’s three variants: Agreement variation in existential there constructions. Language Variation and Change, 29(2), 187–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kučera, D. (2017). Computational psycholinguistic analysis of Czech text and the CPACT research. In ISC SGEM 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017: Science & Society Conference Proceedings, (pp. 77–84). ISC SGEM. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kučera, D., & Havigerová, J. M. (2015). Computational psycholinguistic analysis and its application in psychological assessment of college students. Journal of Pedagogy, 6(1), 61–72. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. (1966). The Social Stratification of English in New York City. Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Louwerse, M. M. (2004). Semantic variation in idiolect and sociolect: Corpus linguistic evidence from literary texts. Computers and the Humanities, 38(2), 207–221. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McMenamin, G. R. (2002). Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. CRC Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L., & Gordon, M. (2003). Sociolinguistics: Models and Methods. Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C. D., & Schielzeth, H. (2017). The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 14(134). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Olsson, J. (2008). Forensic Linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.Google Scholar
Page, N. (2011). The Language of Jane Austen. Routledge.Google Scholar
Petkevič, V. (2014). Problémy automatické morfologické disambiguace češtiny [Problems of automatic morphological disambiguation of Czech]. Naše řeč, 97(4–5), 194–207.Google Scholar
Rickford, J. R., & McNair-Knox, F. (1994). Addressee- and topic-influenced style shift: A quantitative sociolinguistic study. In D. Biber & E. Finegan (Eds.), Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register (pp. 235–276). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Riordan, B. (2007). There’s two ways to say it: Modeling nonprestige there’s . Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 3(2), 233–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Spoustová, D., Hajič, J., Votrubec, J., Krbec, P., & Květoň, P. (2007). The best of two worlds: Cooperation of statistical and rule-based taggers for Czech. In J. Piskorski & T. Hristo (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Balto-Slavonic Natural Language Processing (pp. 67–74). Association for Computational Linguistics. [URL]
Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2018). Using corpus-based register analysis to explore the authenticity of high-stakes language exams: A register comparison of TOEFL iBT and disciplinary writing tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 310–332. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Straková, J., Straka, M., & Hajič, J. (2013). A new state-of-the-art Czech named entity recognizer. In I. Habernal, & V. Matoušek (Eds.), Text, Speech, and Dialogue (pp. 68–75). Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2014). Open-source tools for morphology, lemmatization, POS tagging and named entity recognition. In K. Bontcheva & J. Zhu (Eds.), Proceedings of 52nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: System Demonstrations (pp. 13–18). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B. (2005). Language users as creatures of habit: A corpus-based analysis of persistence in spoken English. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 1(1), 113–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szmrecsanyi, B., & Hinrichs, L. (2008). Probabilistic determinants of genitive variation in spoken and written English: A multivariate comparison across time, space, and genres. In T. Nevalainen, I. Taavitsainen, P. Pahta, & M. Korhonen (Eds.), The Dynamics of Linguistic Variation: Corpus Evidence on English Past and Present (pp. 291–309). John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. (1998). Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change, 10(2), 153–191. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tambouratzis, G., Markantonatou, S., Hairetakis, N., Vassiliou, M., Tambouratzis, D., & Carayannis, G. (2000). Discriminating the registers and styles in the Modern Greek language. In A. Kilgarriff & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.), Proceedings of the Workshop on Comparing Corpora – Volume 9 (pp. 35–42). Association for Computational Linguistics. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trudgill, P. (2004). Dialects (2nd ed.). Routledge.Google Scholar
Zasina, A. J., Lukeš, D., Komrsková, Z., Poukarová, P., & Řehořková, A. (2018). Koditex: Korpus diverzifikovaných textů [Koditex: Corpus of diversified texts] (version 1). Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. [URL]
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Cvrček, Václav, Zuzana Laubeová, David Lukeš, Petra Poukarová, Anna Řehořková & Adrian Jan Zasina
2023. Register differences and intra-register variation of elicited texts. Register Studies 5:2 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo
Gracheva, Marianna
2023. The role of situation in individual style. Register Studies 5:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo
Pyykönen, Maria
2023. Epistemic stance in written L2 English: The role of task type, L2 proficiency, and authorial style. Applied Corpus Linguistics 3:1 ► pp. 100040 ff. DOI logo
Kučera, Dalibor, Jiří Haviger & Jana M. Havigerová
2022. Personality and Word Use: Study on Czech Language and the Big Five. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 51:5 ► pp. 1165 ff. DOI logo
Kučera, Dalibor & Matthias R. Mehl
2022. Beyond English: Considering Language and Culture in Psychological Text Analysis. Frontiers in Psychology 13 DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 august 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.