Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory

Founded by Gries, Stefan Th. / Stefanowitsch, Anatol

Ed. by Wulff, Stefanie

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 0.960
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.052

CiteScore 2018: 0.84

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.388
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.245

See all formats and pricing
More options …

Register as a predictor of linguistic variation

Douglas Biber,
Published Online: 2012-04-04 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002


Over the last two decades, corpus analysis has been used as the basis for several important reference grammars and dictionaries of English. While these reference works have made major contributions to our understanding of English lexis and grammar, most of them share a major limitation: the failure to consider register differences. Instead, most reference works describe lexico-grammatical patterns as if they applied generally to English.

The main goal of the present paper is to challenge this practice and the underlying assumption that the patterns of lexical-grammatical use in English can be described in general/global terms. Specifically, I argue that descriptions of the average patterns of use in a general corpus do not accurately describe any register. Rather, the patterns of use in speech are dramatically different from the patterns in writing (especially academic writing), and so minimally an adequate description must recognize the two major poles in this continuum (i.e., conversation versus informational written prose).

The paper begins by comparing two general corpus approaches to the study of language use: variationist and text-linguistic. Although both approaches can be used to investigate the use of words, grammatical features, and registers, the two approaches differ in their bases: the first gives primacy to each linguistic token, while the second gives primacy to each text. This difference has important consequences for the overall research design, the kinds of variables that can be measured, the statistical techniques that can be applied, and the particular research questions that can be asked. As a result, the importance of register has been more apparent in text-linguistic studies than in studies of linguistic variation.

The bulk of the paper, then, argues for the importance of register at all linguistic levels: lexical, grammatical, and lexico-grammatical. Analyses comparing conversation and academic writing are discussed for each level, showing how a general ‘average’ description includes some characteristics that are not applicable to one or the other register, while also omitting other important patterns of use found in particular registers.

Keywords:: register differences; linguistic variation; conversation; academic writing; research designs

About the article

Published Online: 2012-04-04

Published in Print: 2012-05-25

Citation Information: Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, Volume 8, Issue 1, Pages 9–37, ISSN (Online) 1613-7035, ISSN (Print) 1613-7027, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2012-0002.

Export Citation

©[2012] by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

Sandra C. Deshors and Mark Waltermire
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2019, Volume 24, Number 1, Page 67
Merja Kytö
Register Studies, 2019, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 136
Susan Conrad
Register Studies, 2019, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 168
Douglas Biber
Register Studies, 2019, Volume 1, Number 1, Page 42
Renkui Hou, Chu-Ren Huang, Kathleen Ahrens, and Yat-Mei Sophia Lee
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 2019
Renata Enghels and María Elena Azofra Sierra
Spanish in Context, 2018, Volume 15, Number 3, Page 465
Sandra C. Deshors and Paula Rautionaho
English World-Wide, 2018, Volume 39, Number 3, Page 309
Lirong Xu and Lianzhen He
Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2018, Page 1
Haidee Kruger and Gert De Sutter
Translation, Cognition & Behavior, 2018, Volume 1, Number 2, Page 251
Andrea Nini
Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 2018
Douglas Biber and Bethany Gray
Journal of English Linguistics, 2013, Volume 41, Number 2, Page 104
Grant M Berry and Mirjam Ernestus
Second Language Research, 2017, Page 026765831773734
Chenyao Bao, Xiaowen Zhang, Yunhua Qu, and Zhiwei Feng
Journal of Quantitative Linguistics, 2017, Page 1
Eniko Csomay
Applied Linguistics, 2013, Volume 34, Number 3, Page 369
Douglas Biber, Randi Reppen, Erin Schnur, and Romy Ghanem
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 2016, Volume 21, Number 4, Page 439
Darinka Verdonik and Mirjam Sepesy Maučec
International Journal of Lexicography, 2016, Page ecw004
World Englishes, 2015, Volume 34, Number 2, Page 211
Elke Teich, Stefania Degaetano-Ortlieb, Peter Fankhauser, Hannah Kermes, and Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski
Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 2016, Volume 67, Number 7, Page 1668
Tony Berber Sardinha, Carlos Kauffmann, and Cristina Mayer Acunzo
Corpora, 2014, Volume 9, Number 2, Page 239

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in