Cover not available

Article published In: Register Studies
Vol. 5:2 (2023) ► pp.205–239

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

The role of situation in individual style

A powerful confounding variable or a new dimension? The case of American presidential discourse

ORCiD logo with link | Northern Arizona University
Published online: 21 February 2024
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/rs.23005.gra
Abstract
The study adopts a cross-register approach to style, examining style with relation to the situation of use. While register tends to be avoided by style research as a confounding variable, this investigation of the styles of four American presidents in memoirs, official letters, and public addresses illustrates that adding a register dimension leads to a more accurate, nuanced analysis. The study identifies linguistic features associated with register vs. style variation in the corpus and analyzes intraspeaker differences across registers with regard to the following functional categories: information density, oral style, situation-dependent discourse, and narration vs. immediacy. The results indicate that even authors with a well-defined individual style consistently adjust their language to the demands of the situation, with the most noticeable differences lying between strictly regimented literate registers and the more oral, less conventionalized ones.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Trends in style research
    • 1.2Controversy over the role of register
    • 1.3The present study
  • 2.Method
    • 2.1Corpus and research design
      • 2.1.1Memoirs
      • 2.1.2Letters
      • 2.1.3Public speeches
    • 2.2Linguistic features and quantitative analysis
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Linguistic features predicted by style vs. register
    • 3.2Cross-register stylistic analysis
      • 3.2.1Information density
      • 3.2.2Oral style
      • 3.2.3Situation-dependent discourse
      • 3.2.4Narration vs. immediacy
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
References (34)
References
Balasubramanian, B. (1982). An objective approach to the linguistic style of press advertisements in English. Bulletin of the Deccan College Post-Graduate and Research Institute, 411, 11–15.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1994). Multi-dimensional analyses of authors’ styles: Some case studies from the eighteenth century. Research in Humanities Computing, 31, 3–17.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1948). A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Language, 24(1), 3–47. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Carter, R. (2004). Language and creativity. The art of common talk. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Response to special issue of Applied Linguistics devoted to language creativity in everyday contexts. Applied Linguistics, 28(4), 597–608. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheung, I. (2017). Plain language to minimize cognitive load: A social justice perspective. IEEE Transactions of Professional Communication, 60(4), 448–457. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clarke, I. & Grieve, J. (2019). Stylistic variation on the Donald Trump Twitter account: A linguistic analysis of tweets posted between 2009 and 2018. PLoS ONE, 14(9): e0222062. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cvrček, V., Laubeová, Z., Lukeš, D., Poukarová, P., Řehořková, A., & Zasina, A. (2020). 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
Egbert, J., & Biber, D. (2020a). It’s just words, folks. It’s just words. Donald Trump’s distinctive linguistic style. In U. Schneider & M. Eitelmann (Eds.), Linguistic inquiries into Donald Trump’s language from ‘fake news’ to ‘tremendous success’ (pp. 17–40). New York: Bloomsbury Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020b). Key feature analysis – A simple, yet powerful method for comparing text varieties. Corpora, 18(1), 121–133. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egbert, J., & Gracheva, M. (2023). Linguistic variation within registers: Granularity in textual units and situational parameters. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 115–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Egbert, J., & Shnur, E. (2018). The role of the text in corpus and discourse analysis: missing the trees for the forest. In C. Taylor & A. Marchi (Eds.), Corpus approaches to discourse (pp. 159–173). New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Esser, J. (1993). Quantitative methods in stylistics and definitions of style. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 94(3/4), 297–312.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fehrman, C. (2020). Author in chief: The untold story of our presidents and the books they wrote. New York: Avid Reader Press/Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. (1971). Linguistic function and literary style: an inquiry into William Golding’s The Inheritors. In R. Carter & P. Stockwell (Eds.), The language and literature reader (pp. 330–365). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hardy, D., & Durian, D. (2000). The stylistics of syntactic complements: Grammar and seeing in Flannery O’Connor’s fiction. Style, 341, 92–116. [URL]
Hart, R. (1980). Verbal style and the presidency. Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hoey, M. (2001). Textual interaction: An introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (1996). The linguistic individual: Self-expression in language and linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jordan, K., Pennebaker, J., & Ehrig, C. (2018). The 2016 U.S. presidential candidates and how people tweeted about them. Sage Open, 8(3), 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kowal, S., O’Connell, D., Forbush, K., Higgins, M., Clarke, L., & D’Anna, K. (1997). Interplay of literacy and orality in inaugural rhetoric. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 26(1), 1–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kuosmanen, S. (2015). “With friends and former foes”: The functional roles of international collaborative partners and their relationships with the United States in inaugural addresses of American presidents since 1949. SKY Journal of Linguistics, 281. [URL]
Leech, G., & Short, M. (1981). Style in fiction: A linguistic introduction to English fictional prose. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Moerk, E. (1970). Quantitative analysis of writing styles. Journal of Linguistics, 6(2), 223–230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pinker, S. (2014). The sense of style. London: Penguin Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Slatcher, R., Chung, C., Pennebaker, J., & Stone, L. (2007). Winning words: Individual differences in linguistic style among U.S. presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Journal of Research in Personality, 411, 63–75. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue