Change in Style: A Multi-Dimensional Approach John C. Paolillo SCAN Research Group Meeting October 4, 2002
Electronic Mail As written communication –Typed via keyboard –Composed/edited like other writing As spoken communication –Rapid turn-around (interactive) –Typos are common –Informality is favored
Where does it fit? A new register –Crystal (2001) Netspeak –Ferarra, Brunner and Whitmore (1991) Intermediate in most characteristics –Collot and Belmore (1996) –Yates (1996) A (new) force in language change –Baron (1984, 2001)
Medium and Language Change Written media: –Standardization/homogenization –Complexity and formality Spoken media: –Simplification –Diversification
Investigating Change in Sufficient time depth now exists –First discussion lists in 1970’s Archives are widely available – discussion lists –Usenet newsgroups, etc. Tracking individual usage is possible
The Present Study 11-year corpus of MsgGroup –Arpanet discussion group from –2580 messages (872 in sub-sample) –Many important Internet developers participated Track individuals and group usage –Formal and informal language features –Compare individuals’ trends with overall trends
Our Previous Work Herring, Labarre and Paolillo (2001) –Nine features: 1st, 2nd, 3rd person pronouns, demonstratives, syntactic subordination, contractions, contraction sites, latinate nouns in -ion and -ment –Overall, all features decreased over time (!) –Large individual variance –Some individuals appear to buck main trends
The Multi-Dimensional Model More Features: Biber (1988, 1995) Comprehensive classification of English genres/registers Historical trends observed (Biber and Finegan 1989) –English writing becomes more spoken-like over time
Adverbial Features Amplifiers Emphatics Hedges Because Time Adverbials Discourse Particles Prepositions Pied Piping
Verb Features Private Verbs Public Verbs Suasive Verbs Do Be Necessity Modals Predictive Modals Infinitives The Perfect
Other Features Analytic Negation Synthetic Negation Indefinite Pronouns IT
Factor Comparison Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 1 It, Be, Do Because Prepositions (-) Indefinite Pronouns Discourse Particles Analytic Negation Private Verbs (hedges) Demonstratives Amplifiers Emphatics 1st and 2nd Person Factor 2 Public Verbs (perfect) 3rd Person (Synthetic Neg) Factor 3 Time Adv. (Pied Pipe) N-ion, (N-ment) Factor 4 Infinitive Pred. Mod. Necess. M. Suasive
Biber’s Factors Information vs. involved production Narrative vs. non-narrative concerns Explicit vs. situation-dependent reference Overt expression of persuasion
Interpretation Factor 1: –Elaborated vs. unelaborated Factor 2: –Syntactic and conceptual complexity Factor 3: –Person-reference and certainty
Factor 1 by date
Factor 2 by date
Factor 3 by date
Changes over time Factor 2, syntactic/conceptual complexity –Shows slight overall increase over time –Decreases with the number of messages and length of time one has been on the list Factors 1 (elaborated) and 3 (person ref/certainty) –Decrease with increasing number of messages on the the list –Increase slightly with one’s length of time on the list
Conclusions The factors of co-varying features identified do not seem to match Biber’s factors well There do appear to be correlations between the factors and time (date and experience) –Complexity/formality plays an important role It is still unclear if any of these changes are related to the medium