Cover not available

Article published In: Register Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2023) ► pp.143–170

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Register differences and intra-register variation of elicited texts

ORCiD logo with link | Charles University
ORCiD logo with link | Charles University
ORCiD logo with link | Charles University
ORCiD logo with link | Charles University
ORCiD logo with link | Charles University
ORCiD logo with link | Charles University
Published online: 28 November 2023
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.21011.cvr
Abstract
This study examines functional differences between texts elicited under different scenarios (both between- and intra-register variation). Text elicitation is used (in linguistics and other disciplines) to control for the conditions of production and in the hopes of observing different reactions to scenarios emulating real-life situations. However, it entails a series of questions: How well does the collected data correspond to real-world situations? How to design scenarios to be meaningfully distinct in terms of the language they elicit? In order to examine the linguistic variability of scenarios and to assess their ecological validity, the present study maps Czech elicited texts onto a previously established general-purpose multi-dimensional model of register variability. One of the takeaways is that scenarios mimicking informal situations are particularly conducive to obtaining responses with high intra-register variation, which makes them more likely than formal ones to reflect variability induced by for example different psychological characteristics of participants.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Data
    • 2.1Elicited data
    • 2.2Data for MD model
  • 3.Methods
    • 3.1Deriving and interpreting the MD model
    • 3.2Looking at elicited texts through the MD model
  • 4.Results and discussion
    • 4.1Characteristics of tasks
      • 4.1.1Letter of apology
      • 4.1.2Letter from Vacation
      • 4.1.3Letter of complaint
      • 4.1.4Cover letter
      • 4.1.5Summary: Between-task register differences
    • 4.2Intra-register variability
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Notes
  • References
References (35)
References
Barton, K. C. (2015). Elicitation techniques: Getting people to talk about ideas they don’t usually talk about. Theory & Research in Social Education, 43(2), 179–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berber Sardinha, T., Veirano Pinto, M., Mayer, C., Zuppardi, M. C., & Kauffmann, C. H. (2019). Adding registers to a previous Multi-Dimensional Analysis. In T. Berber Sardinha & M. Veirano Pinto (Eds.), Multi-Dimensional Analysis: Research methods and current issues (pp. 165–186). New York, NY: Bloomsbury. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1995). Dimensions of register variation: A cross-linguistic comparison. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Register as a predictor of linguistic variation. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 8(1), 9–37. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conrad, S. (2015). Register variation. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 309–329). Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Creswell, J. W. (2008). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Pearson.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., & Chlumská, L. (2015). Simplification in translated Czech: A new approach to type-token ratio. Russian Linguistics, 39(3), 309–325. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., & Lukeš, D. (2018). Rozsah registrové variability textů. In D. Kučera, J. M. Havigerová, J. Haviger, V. Cvrček, Z. Komrsková, D. Lukeš, T. Jelínek, T. Urbánek, & J. Franková, Výzkum CPACT: Komputační psycholingvistická analýza českého textu (pp. 153–172). Pedagogická fakulta Jihočeské univerzity v Českých Budějovicích.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., & Zasina, A. J. (2018). Variabilita češtiny: Multidimenzionální analýza. Slovo a slovesnost, 79(4), 293–321.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., Zasina, A. J., & Benko, V. (2020). Comparing web-crawled and traditional corpora. Language Resources and Evaluation, 541, 713–745. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., Laubeová, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., & Zasina, A. J. (2020a). Author and register as sources of variation: A corpus-based study using elicited texts. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 25(4), 461–488. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Registry v češtině. Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., Komrsková, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., & Zasina, A. J. (2021). From extra- to intratextual characteristics: Charting the space of variation in Czech through MDA. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 17(2), 351–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Český statistický úřad /Czech Statistical Office/. (2015). Věk a vzdělání populace. Český statistický úřad. [URL]
Fisher, R. J. (1993). Social desirability bias and the validity of indirect questioning. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(2), 303–315. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Havigerová, J. M., Haviger, J., Kučera, D., & Hoffmannová, P. (2019). Text-based detection of the risk of depression. Frontiers in Psychology, 101, 513. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers’ text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Knapp, M. L., Hart, R. P., & Dennis, H. S. (1974). An exploration of deception as a communication construct. Human Communication Research, 1(1), 15–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kučera, D. (2017). Computational psycholinguistic analysis of Czech text and the CPACT research. 4th International Multidisciplinary Scientific Conference on Social Sciences and Arts SGEM 2017, 21, 77–84.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kučera, D., & Havigerová, J. M. (2017). Představení výzkumu CPACT – Komputační psycholingvistická analýza českého textu [Presentation of CPACT Research – Computational Psycholinguistic Analysis of the Czech Text]. In L. Pitel (Ed.), Sociálne procesy a osobnosť 2016: Zborník príspevkov (pp. 285–293). Ústav experimentálnej psychológie, Centrum spoločenských a psychologických vied SAV.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Newman, M. L., Pennebaker, J. W., Berry, D. S., & Richards, J. M. (2003). Lying words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(5), 665–675. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oakes, M. P. (1998). Statistics for corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pennebaker, J. W., Boyd, R. L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. [URL]
Pennebaker, J. W., & King, L. A. (1999). Linguistic styles: Language use as an individual difference. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(6), 1296–1312. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Plester, B., Wood, C., & Joshi, P. (2009). Exploring the relationship between children’s knowledge of text message abbreviations and school literacy outcomes. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 27(1), 145–161. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2010). Developing noun phrase complexity at school age: A text-embedded cross-linguistic analysis. First Language, 30(1), 3–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seidman, I. (2013). Interviewing as qualitative research: A guide for researchers in education and the social sciences (4th edition). Teachers College Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staples, S., Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2018). Using corpus-based register analysis to explore the authenticity of high-stakes language exams: A register comparison of TOEFL iBT and disciplinary writing tasks. The Modern Language Journal, 102(2), 310–332. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steinar, K., & Brinkmann, S. (2009). InterViews: Learning the craft of qualitative research interviewing. SAGE.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zasina, A. J., & Komrsková, Z. (2019). Koditex – korpus diverzifikovaných textů. Studie z aplikované lingvistiky, 10(1), 127–132. [URL]
Zasina, A. J., Lukeš, D., Komrsková, Z., Poukarová, P., & Řehořková, A. (2018). Koditex: Corpus of diversified texts. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue