Cover not available
Part of
The Corpus Linguistics Discourse: In honour of Wolfgang Teubert
Edited by Anna Čermáková and Michaela Mahlberg
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 87] 2018
► pp. 163–184

The individual and the group from a corpus perspective

| University of Auckland
The connection between the individual and the group has been a recurring issue since the earliest investigations into the nature of language. The contribution made here is to provide some empirical data on individual differences in the production of phrases and constructions. For this purpose, we examine some aspects of the speech of five White House press secretaries. The results show that individual speakers reuse favoured constructions and routines, leading to a clear disparity in the frequency of common lexical and grammatical patterns among the different press secretaries. Investigating the extent of idiolectal variation provides a baseline for assessing corpus results based on aggregate data and for understanding the connection between the individual and the group.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.The individual and the group
    • 2.1Research on individual speech
    • 2.2Individuals and groups in corpus linguistics
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Negation
    • 3.2Present perfect
    • 3.3Correspondence analysis
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 December 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.07bar
References (29)
References
Baayen, H. 2008. Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, P. 2010. Sociolinguistics and Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: EUP.Google Scholar
Barlow, M. 2013. Individual differences and usage-based grammar. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(4): 443–478.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
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Coniam, D. 2004. Concordancing oneself: Constructing individual textual profiles. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 9(2): 271–298.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, W. 2009. Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics [Human Cognitive Processing 24], V. Evans & S. Pourcel (eds), 395–420. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dorian, N. C. 1994. Varieties of variation in a very small place: Social homogeneity, prestige norms, andlinguistic variation. Language 70(4): 631–696.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Elsness, J. 2013. Gender, culture and language: Evidence from language corpora about development of cultural differences between English-speaking countries. In English Corpus Linguistics: Variation in Time, Space and Genre, G. Andersen & B. Kristin (eds), 113–138. Amsterdam: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Fischer, J. L. 1964. Social influences on the choice of a linguistic variant. In Language and Culture in Society: A Reader in Linguistics and Anthropology, D. Hymes & O. Werner (eds), 483–488. New York NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Gauchat, L. 1905. L’unité phonetique dans le patois d’une commune. In Aus Romanischen Sprachen and Literaturen: Festschrift Heinrich Mort, L. P. Betz (ed.), 175–232. Halle: Max Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Goldberg, A. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1971. Studies on Child Language and Aphasia. The Hague: Mouton.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. 1999. Uses of Southern speech by contemporary Texas women. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 505–522.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2000. The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 405–424.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. & Bean, J. 1997. Self-expression and linguistic variation. Language in Society 26(2): 221–246.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Labov, W. 1989. The exact description of the speech community: Short ‘a’ in Philadelphia. In Language Change and Variation, R. Fasold & D. Schiffrin (eds), 1–57. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. M. 1999. Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Vol. 1: Theoretical Prerequisites. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Le Page, R. B. & Tabouret-Keller, A. 1985. Acts of Identity: Creole-based Approaches to Language and Ethnicity.Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Milroy, L. 1987. Language and Social Networks. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Mollin, S. 2009. “I entirely understand” is a Blairism: The methodology of identifying idiolectal collocations. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 367–392.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Patrick, P. L. 2002. The speech community. In Handbook of Language Variation and Change, J. K. Chambers, P. Trudgill & N. Schilling-Estes (eds), 573–598. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Pollard, C. & Sag, I. A. 1994. Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rayson, P. 2008. Wmatrix: a web-based corpus processing environment. Computing Department, Lancaster University. <[URL]> (7 August 2017).
Sapir, E. 1973. Selected Writings of Edward Sapir in Language, Culture, and Personality. Berkeley CA: University of California PressGoogle Scholar
Saussure, F. 1985. The Linguistic Sign. In Semiotics: An Introductory Anthology, R. E. Innis (ed.), 24–46. Bloomington IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Talmy, L. 2000. Toward a Cognitive Semantics, Vol. 1. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Teubert, W. 2010. Meaning, Discourse and Society. Cambridge: CUP.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Statham, Simon & Rocío Montoro
2019. The year’s work in stylistics 2018. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 28:4 ► pp. 354 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 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.