1932

Abstract

Language users change their written and spoken language according to the situational characteristics and communicative purpose of production—that is, according to the register being produced. Research on registers has focused on register description or patterns of register variation, on detailed analysis of individual linguistic features or an account for the use of a broad range of linguistic features, and on the distinction between written and spoken registers. In this review, we survey register studies according to the register being investigated: spoken, written, electronic/online, literary, or historical. This survey also shows that recent register studies have focused on more specialized written and spoken domains and that the use of corpus linguistics tools and advanced statistical methods such as multidimensional analysis has allowed for broad analyses of the language used in different registers. Finally, we point to areas of register research that need further investigation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644
2020-01-14
2024-04-14
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/6/1/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Adolphs S, Carter R. 2002. Point of view and semantic prosodies in Virginia Woolf's To the Lighthouse. . Poetica 58:77–20
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer K. 2013. Understanding Pragmatic Markers Edinburgh, UK: Edinb. Univ. Press
  3. Al-Surmi M. 2012. Authenticity and TV shows: a multidimensional analysis perspective. TESOL Q 46:4671–94
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Asención-Delaney Y, Collentine J. 2011. A multidimensional analysis of written L2 Spanish. Appl. Linguist. 32:3299–322
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Atkinson D. 1996. The philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: a sociohistorical discourse analysis. Lang. Soc. 25:3333–71
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Barbieri F. 2013. Involvement in university classroom discourse: register variation and interactivity. Appl. Linguist. 36:2151–73
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bazerman C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science Madison, WI: Univ. Wisc. Press
  8. Berber Sardinha T, Kauffmann C, Acunzo C 2014. Dimensions of variation in spoken and written Brazilian Portuguese. Multi-Dimensional Analysis, 25 Years on: A Tribute to Douglas Biber T Berber Sardinha, M Veirano Pinto 35–80 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Besnier N. 1988. The linguistic relationships of spoken and written Nukulaelae registers. Language 64:707–36
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber D. 1986. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: resolving the contradictory findings. Language 62:384–414
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Biber D. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  12. Biber D. 1994. An analytical framework for register studies. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register D Biber, E Finegan 31–56 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber D. 2004. Conversation text types: a multi-dimensional analysis. Le poids des mots: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on the Statistical Analysis of Textual Data15–34 Louvain, Belg.: Presses Univ. Louvain
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Biber D. 2006. University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  15. Biber D. 2012. Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory 8:19–37
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Biber D. 2014. Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. Lang. Contrast 14:17–34
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Biber D. 2019. Text-linguistic approaches to register variation. Regist. Stud. 1:142–75
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Biber D, Barbieri F. 2007. Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers. Engl. Specif. Purp. 26:3263–86
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Biber D, Conrad S. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  20. Biber D, Conrad S, Cortes V 2004. If you look at…: lexical bundles in university teaching and textbooks. Appl. Linguist. 25:3371–405
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Biber D, Conrad S, Reppen R, Byrd P, Helt M 2002. Speaking and writing in the university: a multidimensional comparison. TESOL Q 36:19–48
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Biber D, Davies M, Jones J, Tracy-Ventura N 2006. Spoken and written register variation in Spanish: a multi-dimensional analysis. Corpora 1:7–38
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Biber D, Egbert J. 2016. Register variation on the searchable web: a multi-dimensional analysis. J. Engl. Linguist. 44:295–137
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Biber D, Egbert J. 2018. Register Variation Online Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  25. Biber D, Egbert J, Davies M 2015. Exploring the composition of the searchable web: a corpus-based taxonomy of web registers. Corpora 10:111–45
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Biber D, Egbert J, Gray B, Oppliger R, Szmrecsanyi B 2016. Variationist versus text-linguistic approaches to grammatical change in English: nominal modifiers of head nouns. The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics M Kyto, P Pahta 351–75 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Biber D, Finegan E. 1989. Drift and the evolution of English style: a history of three genres. Language 65:3487–517
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Biber D, Finegan E. 1992. The linguistic evolution of five written and speech-based English genres from the 17th to the 20th centuries. History of Englishes: New Methods and Interpretations in Historical Linguistics M Rissanen, O Ihalainen, T Nevalainen, I Taavitsainen 608–775 New York: Mouton de Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Biber D, Finegan E. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen T Nevalainen, L Kahlas-Tarkka 235–75 Helsinki: Soc. Neophilol.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Biber D, Gray B. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: complexity, elaboration, explicitness. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 9:12–20
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Biber D, Gray B. 2013. Being specific about historical change: the influence of sub-register. J. Engl. Linguist. 41:2104–34
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Biber D, Gray B. 2016. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  33. Biber D, Gray B, Poonpon K 2011. Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development. TESOL Q 45:15–35
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Biber D, Gray B, Staples S 2016. Predicting patterns of grammatical complexity across language exam task types and proficiency levels. Appl. Linguist. 37:5639–68
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Biber D, Hared M. 1992. Dimensions of register variation in Somali. Lang. Var. Change 4:41–75
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Biber D, Johansson S, Leech G, Conrad S, Finegan E 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English London: Longman
  37. Brown P, Fraser C. 1979. Speech as a marker of situation. Social Markers in Speech K Scherer, H Giles 33–62 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cao F, Hu G. 2014. Interactive metadiscourse in research articles: a comparative study of paradigmatic and disciplinary influences. J. Pragmat. 66:15–31
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Cao Y, Xiao R. 2013. A multi-dimensional contrastive study of English abstracts by native and non-native writers. Corpora 8:2209–34
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Carter R, McCarthy M. 2017. Spoken grammar: Where are we and where are we going. Appl. Linguist. 38:11–20
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Connor U, Upton T. 2004. Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  42. Conrad S. 1996. Investigating academic texts with corpus-based techniques: an example from biology. Linguist. Educ. 8:3299–326
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Conrad S. 2001. Variation among disciplinary texts: a comparison of textbooks and journal articles in biology and history. Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies S Conrad, D Biber 94–107 Harlow, UK: Pearson Educ.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Conrad S. 2017. A comparison of practitioner and student writing in civil engineering. J. Eng. Educ. 106:2191–217
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Crosthwaite P, Cheung L, Jiang F 2017. Writing with attitude: stance expression in learner and professional dentistry research reports. Engl. Spec. Purp. 46:107–23
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Crystal D. 2001. Language and the Internet Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  47. Csomay E. 2005. Linguistic variation in the lexical episode of university classroom talk. Language in Use: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives on Language Learning A Tyler, M Takada, Y Kim, D Marinova 150–63 Washington, DC: Georget. Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Culpeper J, Kytö M. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues: Spoken Interaction as Writing Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  49. del-Teso-Craviotto M. 2006. Language and sexuality in Spanish and English dating chats. J. Socioling. 10:4460–80
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Egbert J. 2012. Style in nineteenth century fiction: a multi-dimensional analysis. Sci. Study Lit. 2:2167–98
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Egbert J. 2015. Publication type and discipline variation in published academic writing: investigating statistical interaction in corpus data. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 20:11–29
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Egbert J, Biber D. 2018. Do all roads lead to Rome? Modeling register variation with factor analysis and discriminant analysis. Corpus Linguist. Linguist. Theory 14:2233–73
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Egbert J, Biber D, Davies M 2015. Developing a bottom-up, user-based method of web register classification. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66:91817–31
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Fanego T, Rodríguez-Puente P. 2019. Corpus-Based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  55. Ferguson C. 1983. Sports announcer talk: syntactic aspects of register variation. Lang. Soc. 12:2153–72
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Friginal E. 2009. The Language of Outsourced Call Centers: A Corpus-Based Study of Cross-Cultural Interaction Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  57. Friginal E, Pearson P, Di Ferrante L, Pickering L, Bruce C 2013. Linguistic characteristics of AAC discourse in the workplace. Discourse Stud 15:3279–98
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Friginal E, Weigle S. 2014. Exploring multiple profiles of L2 writing using multi-dimensional analysis. J. Second Lang. Writ. 26:80–95
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Fuertes-Olivera P. 2007. A corpus-based view of lexical gender in written business English. Engl. Specif. Purp. 26:219–34
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Gardner S, Nesi H, Biber D 2019. Discipline, level, genre: integrating situational perspectives in a new MD analysis of university student writing. Appl. Linguist. 40:4646–74
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Geisler C. 2002. Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English. Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation R Reppen, S Fitzmaurice, D Biber 249–71 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Grabowski Ł 2015. Keywords and lexical bundles within English pharmaceutical discourse: a corpus-driven description. Engl. Specif. Purp. 38:23–33
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Gray B. 2010. On the use of demonstrative pronouns and determiners as cohesive devices: a focus on sentence-initial this/these in academic prose. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 9:167–83
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Gray B. 2013. Interview with Douglas Biber. J. Engl. Linguist. 41:4359–79
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Gray B. 2015. Linguistic Variation in Research Articles Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  66. Gries S. 2006. Exploring variability within and between corpora: some methodological considerations. Corpora 1:2109–51
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Gries S, Newman J, Shaoul C 2011. N-grams and the clustering of registers. Empir. Lang. Res. J. 5:1
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Gustafsson M. 1975. Some syntactic properties of English law language PhD Thesis, Univ Turku, Finland:
  69. Halliday M. 1978. Language as a Social Semiotic London: Edward Arnold
  70. Halliday M. 1988. On the language of physical science. Registers of Written English: Situational Factors and Linguistic Features M Ghadessy 162–78 London: Pinter
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Hardy D, Durian D. 2000. The stylistics of syntactic complements: grammar and seeing in Flannery O'Connor's fiction. Style 34:192–116
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Hardy J, Friginal E. 2012. Filipino and American online communication and linguistic variation. World Engl 31:2143–61
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Hardy J, Römer U. 2013. Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: a multi-dimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 8:2183–207
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Herring S, Paolillo J. 2006. Gender and genre variation in weblogs. J. Socioling. 10:4439–59
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Herring S, Scheidt L, Wright E, Bonus S 2005. Weblogs as a bridging genre. Inf. Technol. People 18:2142–71
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Huddleston R, Hudson R, Winter E, Henrici A 1968. Sentence and clause in scientific English. Report of the O.S.T.I. programme in the linguistic properties of scientific English Rep., Commun. Res. Cent., Univ. Coll London:
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hyland K. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text Interdiscip. J. Study Discourse 18:3349–82
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Hyland K, Tse P. 2005. Hooking the reader: a corpus study of evaluative that in abstracts. Engl. Specif. Purp. 24:2123–39
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Hymes D. 1974. Ways of speaking. Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking R Bauman, J Sherzer 433–51 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Jang S. 1998. Dimensions of spoken and written Taiwanese: a corpus-based register study PhD Diss., Univ Hawaii, Manoa:
  81. Kim Y, Biber D. 1994. A corpus-based analysis of register variation in Korean. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register D Biber, E Finegan 157–81 New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Koester A. 2006. Investigating Workplace Discourse London: Routledge
  83. Kytö M. 2019. Register in historical linguistics. Regist. Stud. 1:1136–67
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Lam P. 2009. The effect of text type on the use of so as a discourse particle. Discourse Stud 11:3353–72
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Leech G, Leech G, Short M 2007. Style in Fiction: A Linguistic Introduction to English Fictional Prose Harlow, UK: Pearson Educ.
  86. Lenk U. 1998. Discourse markers and global coherence in conversation. J. Pragmat. 30:2245–57
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Mahlberg M. 2013. Corpus Stylistics and Dickens's Fiction London: Routledge
  88. Mahlberg M, Conklin K, Bisson M 2014. Reading Dickens's characters: employing psycholinguistic methods to investigate the cognitive reality of patterns in texts. Lang. Lit. 23:4369–88
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Małinowski B. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. The Meaning of Meaning: A Study of the Influence of Language upon Thought and of the Science of Symbolism C Ogden, I Richards 296–336 London: Kegan Paul Trench Trubner
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Matthiessen C. 2019. Register in systemic functional linguistics. Regist. Stud. 1:110–41
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Mauranen A. 2003. But here's a flawed argument: socialisation into and through metadiscourse. Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use P Leistyna, C Meyer 19–34 New York: Rodopi
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Nesi H. 2001. A corpus-based analysis of academic lectures across disciplines. Language Across Boundaries J Cotterill, A Ife 201–18 London: Continuum
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Nesi H, Basturkmen H. 2006. Lexical bundles and discourse signaling in academic lectures. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 11:3283–304
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Parkinson J, Musgrave J. 2014. Development of noun phrase complexity in the writing of English for Academic Purposes students. J. Engl. Acad. Purp. 14:48–59
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Parodi G. 2007. Variation across registers in Spanish. Working with Spanish Corpora G Parodi 11–53 London: Continuum
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Poos D, Simpson R. 2002. Cross-disciplinary comparisons of hedging. Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation R Reppen, S Fitzsmaurice, D Biber 3–21 Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Purvis T. 2008. A linguistic and discursive analysis of register variation in Dagbani PhD Diss., Indiana Univ Bloomington:
  98. Quaglio P. 2009. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends Versus Natural Conversation Amsterdam: John Benjamins
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Quaglio P, Biber D. 2006. The grammar of conversation. The Handbook of English Linguistics B Aarts, A McMahon 692–723 Oxford, UK: Blackwell
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Reid T. 1956. Linguistics, structuralism and philology. Archiv. Linguist. 8:228–37
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Reppen R. 2001. Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies S Conrad, D Biber 187–99 Harlow, UK: Pearson Educ.
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Römer U, O'Donnell M. 2011. From student hard drive to web corpus (part 1): the design, compilation and genre classification of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora 6:2159–77
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Rühlemann C. 2008. A register approach to teaching conversation: farewell to standard English. Appl. Linguist. 29:4672–93
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Salager-Meyer F. 2014. Origin and development of English for medical purposes. Part 1: research on written medical discourse. J. Med. Writ. 23:149–51
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Santini M. 2008. Zero, single, or multi? Genre of web pages through the users’ perspective. Inf. Process. Manag. 44:702–37
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Santini M. 2010. Cross-testing a genre classification model for the web. Genres on the Web A Mehler, S Sharoff, M Santini 149–66 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Santini M, Power R, Evans R 2006. Implementing a characterization of genre for automatic genre identification of web pages. Proceedings of the COLIG/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions699–706 Sydney: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Semino E. 2001. Stylistics and linguistic variation in poetry. J. Engl. Linguist. 30:128–50
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Semino E, Short M. 2004. Corpus Stylistics: Speech, Writing and Thought Presentation in a Corpus of English Writing London: Routledge
  110. Sharoff S. 2010. In the garden and in the jungle. Genres on the Web A Mehler, S Sharoff, M Santini 149–66 Dordrecht, Neth.: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Short M. 1996. Exploring the Language of Poems, Plays and Prose London: Longman
  112. Simpson-Vlach R, Ellis N. 2010. An academic formulas list: new methods in phraseology research. Appl. Linguist. 31:4487–512
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Staples S. 2015. The Discourse of Nurse-Patient Interactions: Contrasting the Communicative Styles of US and International Nurses Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  114. Staples S, Egbert J, Biber D, Gray B 2016. Academic writing development at the university level: phrasal and clausal complexity across level of study, discipline, and genre. Writ. Commun. 33:2149–83
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Staples S, Laflair G, Egbert J 2017. Comparing language use in oral proficiency interviews to target domains: conversational, academic, and professional discourse. J. Mod. Lang. 101:1194–213
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Staples S, Reppen R. 2016. Understanding first-year L2 writing: a lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language ratings. J. Second Lang. Writ. 32:17–35
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Szmrecsanyi B. 2019. Register in variationist linguistics. Regist. Stud. 1:176–99
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Taavitsainen I. 1997. Genre conventions: personal affect in fiction and non-fiction in early modern English. English in Transition: Corpus-Based Studies in Linguistic Variation and Genre Styles M Rissanen, M Kyto, K Heikkonen 185–266 Berlin: Mouton de Gruyer
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Taavitsainen I, Pahta P. 2010. Early Modern English Medical Texts Amsterdam: John Benjamins
  120. Taavitsainen I, Pahta P. 2011. Medical Writing in Early Modern English Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  121. Thompson P, Sealey A. 2007. Through children's eyes? Corpus evidence of the features of children's literature. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 12:11–23
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Thurlow C. 2003. Generation txt? The sociolinguistics of people's text-messaging. Discourse Anal. Online 1:13
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Titak A, Roberson A. 2013. Dimensions of web registers: an exploratory multidimensional comparison. Corpora 8:2239–71
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Tottie G. 2014. On the use of uh and um in American English. Funct. Lang. 21:16–29
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Xiao R. 2009. Multidimensional analysis and the study of world Englishes. World Engl 28:4421–50
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Wells R. 1960. Nominal and verbal style. Style in Language T Sebeok 213–20 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011718-012644
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error