The Handbook of Discourse Analysis
The Handbook of Discourse Analysis The Handbook of Discourse Analysis
174 John Myhill Sun, Chaofen and Talmy Givón. 1985. On the SOV word order in Mandarin Chinese. Language 61:2. Tannen, Deborah. 1980. A comparative analysis of oral narrative strategies: Athenian Greek and American English. In Chafe 1980a, pp. 51–88. Tannen, Deborah. 1981. Indirectness in discourse: ethnicity as conversational style. Discourse Processes 4:221–38. Thompson, Chad. 1989. Voice and obviation in Navajo. In Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Pacific Linguistics Conference, pp. 466– 88. Eugene: University of Oregon Department of Linguistics. Thompson, Chad. 1994. Passive and inverse constructions. In Givón 1994, pp. 47–64.
Register Variation: A Corpus Approach 175 9 Register Variation: A Corpus Approach DOUGLAS BIBER AND SUSAN CONRAD 0 Introduction Analyses of discourse context can be approached from two perspectives. First, they can focus on the textual environment, considering lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical features in the text. Alternatively, analyses can concentrate on the extratextual communicative situation. Furthermore, such extratextual analyses can differ in terms of their generality. For example, the communicative situation of a given interaction can be described in relation to the specific individuals involved, their precise relationship, their personal motivations for the interaction, etc. A different approach would be to focus on the general parameters defining the communicative situation of a text – for example, the mode, the level of interactiveness, the general purpose, etc. Varieties defined in terms of general situational parameters are known as registers. We use the label register as a cover term for any variety associated with a particular configuration of situational characteristics and purposes. Thus, registers are defined in nonlinguistic terms. However, as illustrated in this chapter, there are usually important linguistic differences among registers as well. There have been numerous studies that describe the situational parameters that are important for studies of discourse. As early as the 1930s, Firth identified crucial components of speech situations, applying principles from Malinowki’s work. More recent and particularly well known is Hymes’s (1974) framework for studying the ethnography of communication. In addition, a number of other anthropologists and sociolinguists have proposed frameworks or identified particularly important characteristics that can be applied to identifying registers (e.g. Basso 1974; Biber 1994; Brown and Fraser 1979; Crystal and Davy 1969; Duranti 1985). Throughout these discussions, the important characteristics that are identified include: the participants, their relationships, and their attitudes toward the communication; the setting, including factors such as the extent to which time and place are shared by the participants, and the level of formality; the channel of communication; the production and processing circumstances (e.g. amount of time available); the purpose of the communication; and the topic or subject matter. A register can be defined by its particular combination of values for each of these characteristics.
- Page 146 and 147: 124 Gregory Ward and Betty J. Birne
- Page 148 and 149: 126 Gregory Ward and Betty J. Birne
- Page 150 and 151: 128 Gregory Ward and Betty J. Birne
- Page 152 and 153: 130 Gregory Ward and Betty J. Birne
- Page 154 and 155: 132 Gregory Ward and Betty J. Birne
- Page 156 and 157: 134 Gregory Ward and Betty J. Birne
- Page 158 and 159: 136 Gregory Ward and Betty J. Birne
- Page 160 and 161: 138 Laurel J. Brinton 7 Historical
- Page 162 and 163: 140 Laurel J. Brinton of particular
- Page 164 and 165: 142 Laurel J. Brinton Shakespeare,
- Page 166 and 167: 144 Laurel J. Brinton argues that i
- Page 168 and 169: 146 Laurel J. Brinton typical of th
- Page 170 and 171: 148 Laurel J. Brinton 1 What is the
- Page 172 and 173: 150 Laurel J. Brinton politeness. 1
- Page 174 and 175: 152 Laurel J. Brinton that this are
- Page 176 and 177: 154 Laurel J. Brinton functions; -s
- Page 178 and 179: 156 Laurel J. Brinton Linguistics,
- Page 180 and 181: 158 Laurel J. Brinton Kastovsky, Di
- Page 182 and 183: 160 Laurel J. Brinton semantic-prag
- Page 184 and 185: 162 John Myhill verb, and direct ob
- Page 186 and 187: 164 John Myhill refer to a supposed
- Page 188 and 189: 166 John Myhill (2) Binasa ng lalak
- Page 190 and 191: 168 John Myhill These data have bee
- Page 192 and 193: 170 John Myhill Sometimes, translat
- Page 194 and 195: 172 John Myhill text-count methodol
- Page 198 and 199: 176 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 200 and 201: 178 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 202 and 203: 180 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 204 and 205: 182 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 206 and 207: 184 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 208 and 209: 186 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 210 and 211: 188 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 212 and 213: 190 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 214 and 215: 192 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 216 and 217: 194 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 218 and 219: 196 Douglas Biber and Susan Conrad
- Page 221 and 222: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 1
- Page 223 and 224: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 225 and 226: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 227 and 228: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 229 and 230: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 231 and 232: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 233 and 234: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 235 and 236: Nine Ways of Looking at Apologies 2
- Page 237 and 238: Interactional Sociolinguistics 215
- Page 239 and 240: Interactional Sociolinguistics 217
- Page 241 and 242: Interactional Sociolinguistics 219
- Page 243 and 244: Interactional Sociolinguistics 221
- Page 245 and 246: Interactional Sociolinguistics 223
Register Variation: A Corpus Approach 175<br />
9 Register Variation:<br />
A Corpus Approach<br />
DOUGLAS BIBER AND SUSAN CONRAD<br />
0 Introduction<br />
Analyses <strong>of</strong> discourse context can be approached from two perspectives. First, they<br />
can focus on the textual environment, considering lexical, grammatical, and rhetorical<br />
features in the text. Alternatively, analyses can concentrate on the extratextual<br />
communicative situation. Furthermore, such extratextual analyses can differ in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> their generality. For example, the communicative situation <strong>of</strong> a given interaction<br />
can be described in relation to the specific individuals involved, their precise relationship,<br />
their personal motivations for the interaction, etc. A different approach would<br />
be to focus on the general parameters defining the communicative situation <strong>of</strong> a text<br />
– for example, the mode, the level <strong>of</strong> interactiveness, the general purpose, etc.<br />
Varieties defined in terms <strong>of</strong> general situational parameters are known as registers.<br />
We use the label register as a cover term for any variety associated with a particular<br />
configuration <strong>of</strong> situational characteristics and purposes. Thus, registers are defined<br />
in nonlinguistic terms. However, as illustrated in this chapter, there are usually important<br />
linguistic differences among registers as well.<br />
<strong>The</strong>re have been numerous studies that describe the situational parameters that<br />
are important for studies <strong>of</strong> discourse. As early as the 1930s, Firth identified crucial<br />
components <strong>of</strong> speech situations, applying principles from Malinowki’s work. More<br />
recent and particularly well known is Hymes’s (1974) framework for studying the<br />
ethnography <strong>of</strong> communication. In addition, a number <strong>of</strong> other anthropologists and<br />
sociolinguists have proposed frameworks or identified particularly important characteristics<br />
that can be applied to identifying registers (e.g. Basso 1974; Biber 1994; Brown<br />
and Fraser 1979; Crystal and Davy 1969; Duranti 1985). Throughout these discussions,<br />
the important characteristics that are identified include: the participants, their<br />
relationships, and their attitudes toward the communication; the setting, including<br />
factors such as the extent to which time and place are shared by the participants, and<br />
the level <strong>of</strong> formality; the channel <strong>of</strong> communication; the production and processing<br />
circumstances (e.g. amount <strong>of</strong> time available); the purpose <strong>of</strong> the communication; and<br />
the topic or subject matter. A register can be defined by its particular combination <strong>of</strong><br />
values for each <strong>of</strong> these characteristics.