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

| Charles University
| Charles University
| Charles University
| Charles University
| Charles University
| 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
Published online: 27 October 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.19020.cvr
References

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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R.
(2005) Recommended effect size statistics for repeated measures designs. Behavior Research Methods, 37(3), 379–384. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bayley, R., Cameron, R., & Lucas, C.
(Eds.) (2013) The Oxford Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D.
(1988) Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(1995) Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-Linguistic Comparison. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(2012) Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
(2009) Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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]. https://​www​.czso​.cz
Conrad, S.
(2015) Register variation. In D. Biber, & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 309–329). Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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, 54, 713–745. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, N.
(2003) Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finegan, E., & Rickford, J. R.
(Eds.) (2004) Language in the USA: Themes for the 21st Century. Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grant, T.
(2007) Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(1), 1–25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Grice, J. W.
(2001) Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychological Methods, 6(4), 430–450. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kučera, D.
(2017) Computational psycholinguistic analysis of Czech text and the CPACT research. In 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017: Science & Society Conference Proceedings, (pp. 77–84). ISC SGEM. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McMenamin, G. R.
(2002) Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics. CRC Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Milroy, L., & Gordon, M.
(2003) Sociolinguistics: Models and Methods. Blackwell. CrossrefGoogle 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). CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. https://​www​.aclweb​.org​/anthology​/W07​-1709
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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S.
(1998)  Was/were variation across the generations: View from the city of York. Language Variation and Change, 10(2), 153–191. CrossrefGoogle 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. CrossrefGoogle 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. https://​www​.korpus​.cz