Cover not available
Article published In:
Register Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2023) ► pp.205–239

The role of situation in individual style

A powerful confounding variable or a new dimension? The case of American presidential discourse

ORCID logo | Northern Arizona University
The study adopts a cross-register approach to style, examining style with relation to the situation of use. While register tends to be avoided by style research as a confounding variable, this investigation of the styles of four American presidents in memoirs, official letters, and public addresses illustrates that adding a register dimension leads to a more accurate, nuanced analysis. The study identifies linguistic features associated with register vs. style variation in the corpus and analyzes intraspeaker differences across registers with regard to the following functional categories: information density, oral style, situation-dependent discourse, and narration vs. immediacy. The results indicate that even authors with a well-defined individual style consistently adjust their language to the demands of the situation, with the most noticeable differences lying between strictly regimented literate registers and the more oral, less conventionalized ones.
Keywords: American presidential discourse, corpus linguistics, register variation, style variation
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Trends in style research
    • 1.2Controversy over the role of register
    • 1.3The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Corpus and research design
      • 2.1.1Memoirs
      • 2.1.2Letters
      • 2.1.3Public speeches
    • 2.2Linguistic features and quantitative analysis
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Linguistic features predicted by style vs. register
    • 3.2Cross-register stylistic analysis
      • 3.2.1Information density
      • 3.2.2Oral style
      • 3.2.3Situation-dependent discourse
      • 3.2.4Narration vs. immediacy
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 21 February 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.23005.gra
References (34)
References
Balasubramanian, B. (1982). An objective approach to the linguistic style of press advertisements in English. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 41 1, 11–15.Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2006). University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written languages. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2011). Corpus linguistics and the study of literature: Back to the future? Scientific Study of Literature, 1 (1), 15–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1994). Multi-dimensional analyses of authors’ styles: Some case studies from the eighteenth century. Research in Humanities Computing, 3 1, 3–17.Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1948). A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Language, 24 (1), 3–47. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity. The art of common talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
(2007). Response to special issue of Applied Linguistics devoted to language creativity in everyday contexts. Applied Linguistics, 28 (4), 597–608. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheung, I. (2017). Plain language to minimize cognitive load: A social justice perspective. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 60 (4), 448–457. 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
Cvrček, V., Laubeová, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., & Zasina, A. (2020). Author and register as sources of variation: A corpus-based study using elicited texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 25 (4), 461–488. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J. (2012). Style in nineteenth century fiction. A multidimensional analysis. Scientific Study of Literature, 2 (2), 167–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J., & Biber, D. (2020a). It’s just words, folks. It’s just words. Donald Trump’s distinctive linguistic style. In U. Schneider & M. Eitelmann (Eds.), Linguistic inquiries into Donald Trump’s language from ‘fake news’ to ‘tremendous success’ (pp. 17–40). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2020b). Key feature analysis – A simple, yet powerful method for comparing text varieties. Corpora, 18 (1), 121–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J., & Gracheva, M. (2023). Linguistic variation within registers: Granularity in textual units and situational parameters. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19 (1), 115–143. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Egbert, J., & Shnur, E. (2018). The role of the text in corpus and discourse analysis: missing the trees for the forest. In C. Taylor & A. Marchi (Eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse (pp. 159–173). New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Esser, J. (1993). Quantitative methods in stylistics and definitions of style. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 94 (3/4), 297–312.Google Scholar
Fehrman, C. (2020). Author in chief: The untold story of our presidents and the books they wrote. New York: Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: an inquiry into William Golding’s The Inheritors . In R. Carter & P. Stockwell (Eds.), The language and literature reader (pp. 330–365). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Hardy, D., & Durian, D. (2000). The stylistics of syntactic complements: Grammar and seeing in Flannery O’Connor’s fiction. Style, 34 1, 92–116. [URL]
Hart, R. (1980). Verbal style and the presidency. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1996). The linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jordan, K., Pennebaker, J., & Ehrig, C. (2018). The 2016 U.S. presidential candidates and how people tweeted about them. Sage Open, 8 (3), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kowal, S., O’Connell, D., Forbush, K., Higgins, M., Clarke, L., & D’Anna, K. (1997). Interplay of literacy and orality in inaugural rhetoric. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26 (1), 1–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuosmanen, S. (2015). “With friends and former foes”: The functional roles of international collaborative partners and their relationships with the United States in inaugural addresses of American presidents since 1949. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 28 1. [URL]
Leech, G., & Short, M. (1981). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Moerk, E. (1970). Quantitative analysis of writing styles. Journal of Linguistics, 6 (2), 223–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Slatcher, R., Chung, C., Pennebaker, J., & Stone, L. (2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Journal of Research in Personality, 41 1, 63–75. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scheffler, T., Kern, L.-A., & Seemann, H. (2022). The medium is not the message: Individual level register variation in blogs vs. tweets. Register Studies, 4 (2), 171–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar