Chapter published in:
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.
Published online: 06 December 2018
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.87.07bar
References

References

Baayen, H.
2008 Analyzing Linguistic Data: A Practical Introduction to Statistics Using R. Cambridge: CUP.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dorian, N. C.
1994 Varieties of variation in a very small place: Social homogeneity, prestige norms, andlinguistic variation. Language 70(4): 631–696.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B.
1999 Uses of Southern speech by contemporary Texas women. Journal of Sociolinguistics 3: 505–522.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2000 The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 405–424.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. & Bean, J.
1997 Self-expression and linguistic variation. Language in Society 26(2): 221–246.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lamb, S. M.
1999 Pathways of the Brain: The Neurocognitive Basis of Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossrefGoogle 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.CrossrefGoogle 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. http://​ucrel​.lancs​.ac​.uk​/wmatrix/ (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.CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 05 march 2021. 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.