University Language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers

By Douglas Biber. 2006

937 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/9d59fdd2bc1ed7795b3fdcfb84b6e57e0f3ad72e

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Different topics, different discourse: Relationships among writing topic, measures of syntactic complexity, and judgments of writing quality (2015, background): “…McNamara, Weston, & McLain Sullivan, 2011; Hunt, 1965; Lu, 2011; Ravid & Berman, 2010) and discourse analysis of texts in different genres (e.g., Biber, 2006; Biber, Gray, & Poonpon, 2011; Ravid & Berman, 2010), phrasal complexity (particularly noun phrase complexity) has been considered an…”
Stance in spoken and written university registers (2006, unknown): “In contrast, likelihood verbs C that -clauses are more common in student-centered registers (like study groups—see Biber, 2006, Chapter 5).”
‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing (2015, background): “…a way to categorize the possible stances that writers take up in their texts, conveying their attitudes towards the information to follow in the complement ‘how certain they are about its veracity, how they obtained access to the information, and what perspective they are taking’ (Biber, 2006: 87).”
Linguistic variation in the discourse of outsourced call centers (2008, methodology): “MD data come from Factor Analysis (FA) which considers the sequential, partial, and observed correlations of a wide-range of variables (see Biber, 1988, 1995, 2006; Biber and Conrad, 2001, for an extensive discussion of MD analytical procedures).”
Language Socialization into Academic Discourse Communities (2010, background): “As much research has demonstrated (e.g., Biber, 2006), oral and written academic discourse are quite distinct and so too are the ways in which students are socialized into target practices, genres, registers, and speech events.”
Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness (2010, methodology): “Multi-dimensional studies of register variation have repeatedly documented this pattern (e.g., Biber, 1988, pp. 104e108; Biber, 1992; Biber, 2006, Chap.”
The Routledge Handbook of English for Academic Purposes (2016, background): “, Biber, 2006; Biber and Gray, 2010; Hyland, 2004, 2006; Nesi and Gardner, 2012; Paltridge, 2006; Swales, 1990, 2004) and to EAP material and task design (e.g., Bunting, Diniz, and Reppen, 2013; Feak and Swales, 2014; McCarthy and O’Dell, 2008; Reppen, 2010; Swales and Feak, 2012; Timmis, 2013; Trib”
As can be seen: Lexical bundles and disciplinary variation (2008, methodology): “Yet while studies point to the considerable variation of bundles in different genres (e.g. Biber, 2006; Biber, Conrad, & Cortes, 2004; Hyland, forthcoming; Scott & Tribble, 2006), how far they differ by discipline remains uncertain.”
Discourse Characteristics of Writing and Speaking Task Types on the "TOEFL iBT"® Test: A Lexico-Grammatical Analysis. "TOEFL iBT"® Research Report. TOEFL iBT-19. Research Report. RR-13-04. (2013, methodology): “Within the context of the TOEFL iBT, MD analysis has been applied to the description of spoken and written registers in American universities; see Biber, 2006, Chapter 7.)”
Lexical bundles in university spoken and written registers (2007, background): “…registers has found that mode differences are by far the most important in accounting for linguistic variation: spoken university registers are consistently different from written university registers in the use of a wide range of lexical and grammatical features (see, e.g., Biber, 2006, chap.”