Cover not available
Article published In:
Register and social media
Edited by Isobelle Clarke and Jack Grieve
[Register Studies 4:2] 2022
► pp. 171–201

The medium is not the message

Individual level register variation in blogs vs. tweets

ORCID logo | Ruhr-Universität Bochum
ORCID logo | Philipps-Universität Marburg
ORCID logo | Ruhr-Universität Bochum
Linguistic expressions in social media vary along many axes, including author style, the specific medium and its affordances, and others. In this paper, we argue that different registers must be distinguished within social media and that register should be included as an important factor independent of (social) medium in analyses of variable linguistic phenomena. We introduce a new German cross-media corpus, consisting of blog posts and tweets from the same 44 authors. We define the registers as ‘Informative’, ‘Narrative’, and ‘Persuasive’, based on situational characteristics of the texts. We then correlate the registers with two variable linguistic phenomena: German modal and intensifying particles. In each case, we document considerable inter- and intraindividual variation in the expressions used and their frequency across texts. The statistical analysis shows that the register grouping corresponds more closely to linguistic similarities between texts than the grouping by medium does.
Keywords: register, social media, modal particles, intensifiers, German, corpus linguistics
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Register and social media
    • 2.1Defining register
      • 2.1.1Describing the felicity conditions of register variation
    • 2.2Register variation across media
    • 2.3Developing registers for personal narratives on social media
    • 2.4Exemplary linguistic markers for register variation: German modal particles and intensifiers
      • 2.4.1Modal particles
      • 2.4.2Intensifiers
  • 3.A multi-register corpus of individual variation in social media
    • 3.1Data collection
    • 3.2Preprocessing
    • 3.3Register annotation
  • 4.Case studies
    • 4.1Case study 1: Modal particles
    • 4.2Case study 2: Intensifiers
  • 5.Analysis: Linguistic influence of medium and register
  • 6.Discussion and conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 27 October 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.22009.sch
References (49)
References
Androutsopoulos, J. (2014). Mediatization and sociolinguistic change. Key concepts, research traditions, open issues. In J. Androutsopoulos (Ed.), Mediatization and sociolinguistic change (pp. 3–48). Berlin/ Boston: De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Argamon, S. E. (2019). Computational register analysis and synthesis. ArXiv:1901.02543 [Cs], to appear in Register Studies. Retrieved from [URL]. DOI logo
Barbaresi, A. (2016). Collection and indexing of tweets with a geographical focus. Tenth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 24–27). Portorož, Slovenia.Google Scholar
Barbaresi, A., & Würzner, K. M. (2014). For a fistful of blogs: Discovery and comparative benchmarking of republishable German content. Proceedings of NLP4CMC Workshop (pp. 2–10). Hildesheim: Hildesheim University Press.Google Scholar
Beißwenger, M. (2013). Das Dortmunder Chat-Korpus: ein annotiertes Korpus zur Sprachverwendung und sprachlichen Variation in der deutschsprachigen Chat-Kommunikation. Online-Publikation auf dem Linguistik Server Essen (LINSE). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beißwenger, M., Lemnitzer, L., & Müller-Spitzer, C. (Eds.). (2022). Forschen in der Linguistik: eine Methodeneinführung für das Germanistik-Studium. Paderborn: Brill / Fink. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
BGBl. I (2021). Gesetz über Urheberrecht und verwandte Schutzrechte (Urheberrechtsgesetz). § 60d Text und Data Mining für Zwecke der wissenschaftlichen Forschung.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1993). Using register-diversified corpora for general language studies. Computational Linguistics, 19 (2), 219–241.Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2005). Register variation: A corpus approach. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (1st ed., pp. 175–196). Hoboken: Wiley. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2019). Register, genre, and style (2nd ed.). 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
Bildhauer, F., Pankratz, E., & Schäfer, R. (2021). Corpus, inference, and models of register distribution. Talk presented at the CCMLMA at DGfS.
Breindl, E. (2007). Intensitätspartikeln. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten (pp. 397–422). Berlin/ New York: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Bross, F. (2012). German modal particles and the common ground. Helikon. A Multidisciplinary Online Journal, 2 1, 182–209.Google Scholar
Clarke, I. (2022). A Multi-dimensional analysis of English tweets. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics, 1–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clarke, I., & Grieve, J. (2019). Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLOS ONE, 14 (9), e0222062. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Claudi, U. (2006). Intensifiers of adjectives in German. Language Typology and Universals, 59 (4), 350–369. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, L., Cornillie, B., & Pietrandrea, P. (Eds.). (2013). Discourse markers and modal particles: categorization and description. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, G. (2009). Abtönungspartikel. In L. Hoffmann (Ed.), Handbuch der deutschen Wortarten (pp. 117–141). Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Döring, S. (2016). Modal Particles, Discourse Structure and Common Ground Management. (Dissertation). Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Gibson, J. J. (2014). The ecological approach to visual perception. New York/ London: Taylor & Francis Group. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Honeybone, P. (2011). Variation and linguistic theory. In W. Maguire & A. McMahon (Eds.), Analysing variation in English (pp. 151–177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ito, R., & Tagliamonte, S. (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
Koch, P., & Oesterreicher, W. (1985). Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch, 36 1, 15–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, E. (1997). Zur Bedeutung von Modalpartikeln im Deutschen: Ein Neuansatz im Rahmen der Relevanztheorie. In F. Debus (Ed.), Studien zu Deutsch als Fremdsprache III: Aspekte der Modalität im deutschen-auch in kontrastiver Sicht. Hildesheim/ New York: G. Olms.Google Scholar
Kratzer, A. (1999). Beyond ouch and oops: How descriptive and expressive meaning interact. [URL]
Labov, W. (2010). Principles of linguistic change. 2: Social factors. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacKenzie, L. (2019). Perturbing the community grammar: Individual differences and community-level constraints on sociolinguistic variation. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics, 4 (1). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding media: The extensions of man. Boston: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Os, C. van. (1989). Aspekte der Intensivierung im Deutschen. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
Scheffler, T. (2014). A German Twitter snapshot. In Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Presented at the LREC’14 (pp. 2284–2289), Reykjavik, Iceland. European Language Resources Association
(2017). Conversations on Twitter. In D. Fišer & M. Beisswenger (Eds.), Investigating computer-mediated communication: corpus-based approaches to language in the digital world (1st ed.). Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar
Scheffler, T., Kern, L.-A., & Seemann, H. (forthcoming). Individuelle linguistische Variabilität in sozialen Medien. In M. Kupietz & T. Schmidt (Ed.), Korpora in der germanistischen Sprachwissenschaft – mündlich, schriftlich, multimedial. Tübingen: Narr.
Scheffler, T., Richter, M., & van Hout, R. (in review). Tracing and classifying German intensifiers via information theory. Language Sciences.
Scheffler, T., & Stede, M. (2016). Realizing argumentative coherence relations in German: A contrastive study of newspaper editorials and Twitter posts. In P. Saint-Dizier & M. Stede (Eds.), Proceedings of the COMMA Workshop ‘Foundations of the Language of Argumentation’ (pp. 73–80). [URL]
Schleef, E. (2021). Individual differences in intra-speaker variation: t-glottalling in England and Scotland. Linguistics Vanguard, 7 (2). DOI logo. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schumann, K. (2021). Der Fokusmarker ‚so’: Empirische Perspektiven auf Gebrauch und Verarbeitung eines Ausnahmeelements. Boston: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stefanowitsch, A. (2020). Corpus linguistics: a guide to the methodology. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Stenetorp, P., Pyysalo, S., Topić, G., Ohta, T., Ananiadou, S., & Tsujii, J. (2012). brat: a Web-based tool for NLP-assisted text annotation. Proceedings of the Demonstrations at the 13th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (pp. 102–107). Avignon, France: Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved from [URL]
Storrer, A. (2013). Sprachstil und Sprachvariation in sozialen Netzwerken. In Die Dynamik sozialer und sprachlicher Netzwerke. Konzepte, Methoden und empirische Untersuchungen an Beispielen des WWW (pp. 331–366). Wiesbaden: VS Verlaf für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stratton, J. M. (2020). Adjective intensifiers in German. Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 32 (2), 183–215. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A. (2016). So sick or so cool? The language of youth on the internet. Language in Society, 45 (1), 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tagliamonte, S. A., & Denis, D. (2008). Linguistic ruin? Lol! Instant messaging and teen language. American Speech, 83 (1), 3–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thurmair, M. (1989). Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: M. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
VERBI Software. (2019). MAXQDA 2020. Berlin: VERBI Software. Retrieved from [URL]
Weydt, H. (Ed.). (1979). Die Partikeln der deutschen Sprache. Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, W. (2006). Variation and language: Overview. In R. Asher (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics (pp. 333–341). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zhao, Y., Liu, J., Tang, J., & Zhu, Q. (2013). Conceptualizing perceived affordances in social media interaction design. Aslib Proceedings, 65 (3), 289–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zimmermann, M. (2011). Discourse particles. In P. Portner, C. Maienborn, & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Semantics (pp. 2011–2038). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Tao, Xuelian & Vahid Aryadoust
2024. A Multidimensional Analysis of a High-Stakes English Listening Test: A Corpus-Based Approach. Education Sciences 14:2 ► pp. 137 ff. DOI logo
Gracheva, Marianna
2023. The role of situation in individual style. Register Studies 5:2 ► pp. 205 ff. DOI logo

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