A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech

Liu Yanchun; Hu Fengguo; Zhao Yi; Qiu Le

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14

| Peer-Reviewed

A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech

Liu Yanchun, Hu Fengguo, Zhao Yi, Qiu Le

Published in International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 6, Issue 5)

Received: 8 August 2018 Accepted: 10 September 2018 Published: 12 October 2018

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study compares and analyzes Chinese debate and speech from the perspective of registers, which makes itself significant since it fills the gaps in the field. This paper is based on a self-built corpus and refers in Biber’s Multi-dimension/Multi-feature Approach. The quantitative statistical results show that there are 44 significant differences among the 65 linguistic features of debate and speech registers, and that these feature differences, from the macroscopic view, can be summarized into 8 different dimensions, which, to be specific, are known respectively as Multi-directional Interaction VS Single-directional Communication, Demonstrative VS Narrative, Intense Confrontation VS Deliberate Storytelling, Centralized Focuses VS Dispersing Contents, Precise Expressions VS Diverse Methods of Expressions, Informative VS Affective, Specialized VS Universal, along with Literate Style VS Oral Style. Why there are these linguistic features and dimensional differences between the two registers is also explained. It could be fair to say that this study makes a breakthrough on the basis of Biber’s research which mainly put its focus on linguistic features at the lexical, syntactic perspectives. And that is to advance comparing linguistic features between debate and speech registers to perspectives of phonetics and speeds. Yet it has its deficiency for failing to conduct factor analysis in the process of dimension induction due to the limited volume of text corpus.

Published in	International Journal of Language and Linguistics (Volume 6, Issue 5)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14
Page(s)	163-172
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2018. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Debate, Speech, Multi-dimension, Multi-feature, Comparison

References

[1]	Ervin-Tripp, Susan. On sociolinguistic rules: alternation and co-occurrence. In John J. Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds.) Directions in Sociolinguistics, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston 1972, pp. 213-250.
[2]	Hymes, Dell. Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 1974.
[3]	Biber, Douglas. A model of textual relations within the written and spoken modes. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California 1984.
[4]	Biber, Douglas. Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multi-feature/multi-dimensional analyses. Linguistic. Vol. 23, No. 2, 1985, pp. 337-360.
[5]	Biber, Douglas. Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language. Vol. 62, No. 2, 1986, pp. 384-414.
[6]	Biber, Douglas. Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1988.
[7]	Biber, Douglas. On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes. Vol. 15, No. 2, 1992, pp. 133-163.
[8]	Biber, Douglas. Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Comparison. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1995.
[9]	Biber, Douglas. Corpus-based analyses of discourse: Dimensions of variation in conversation. In Vijay Bhatia, John Flowerdew & Rodney H. Jones (eds.) Advances in discourse studies, London: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2008 pp.100-114.
[10]	Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad, Randi Reppen, Pat Byrd & Marie Helt. 2002 Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly. Vol. 36, No.1, 2002, pp. 9-48.
[11]	Biber, Douglas, Susan Conrad. Registers, Genre, and Styles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007.
[12]	Lei, Xiuyun, YangHuizhong. Corpus-based Approaches and the MD/MF Model in Stylistic Study of English for Academic Purposed. Contemporary Linguistics. Vol. 3, No.2, 2001, pp. 143-151.
[13]	Wu, Jiangsheng. A Review of Multi-Dimensional Approach to Register Variation. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages. Vol. 24, No.3, 2001, pp. 6-9.
[14]	Wu, Jiangsheng. A academic e-mails stylistic features analysis based on Multi-dimensional approach. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching. Vol. 179, No.2, 2004, pp. 53-57.
[15]	Ma, Guanghui. Contrastive analysis of linguistic features between EFL and ENL essays. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 34, No.5, 2002, pp. 345-349.
[16]	Gui, Shichun. A corpus-based analysis of the register of English linguistics. Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press 2009.
[17]	Wen, Qiufang. A Study on Changes of Register Features in Learner English. Journal of Foreign Languages. Vol. 32, No.4, 2009, pp. 2-10.
[18]	Hu, Xianyao. A corpus-based multi-dimensional analysis of the stylistic features of translated Chinese. Foreign Language Teaching and Research. Vol. 42, No.6, 2010, pp. 451-458.
[19]	Zhang, Wujiang. Average speed of TV commercials and its understanding of audiences. Modern Communication. Vol. 182, No.9, 2011, pp.148-149.
[20]	Hou, Min. Introduction of Some Terms Concerned with Language Resource Construction and Language Monitoring. Terminology Standardization & Information Technology. Vol. 58, No.2, 2010, pp.30-33.
[21]	Liu, Yanchun. A Comparative Study of Broadcasting Programs Stylistics based on Dependency Treebank. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies. Vol. 159, No.1, 2013, pp.89-95.
[22]	Liu, Yanchun. A treebank-based comparative quantitative study: with CCTV programs of Lecture Room and One On One as cases. GUANGXI SHEHUI KEXUE. Vol. 210, No.12, 2012, pp.142-145.
[23]	Liu, Yanchun, Hu Fengguo. A Comparative Study of Stylistics between “Reading News” and “Talking News”. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies.Vol. 147, No.1, 2011, pp.97-104.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Liu Yanchun, Hu Fengguo, Zhao Yi, Qiu Le. (2018). A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 6(5), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Liu Yanchun; Hu Fengguo; Zhao Yi; Qiu Le. A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2018, 6(5), 163-172. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Liu Yanchun, Hu Fengguo, Zhao Yi, Qiu Le. A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech. Int J Lang Linguist. 2018;6(5):163-172. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14,
  author = {Liu Yanchun and Hu Fengguo and Zhao Yi and Qiu Le},
  title = {A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {6},
  number = {5},
  pages = {163-172},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20180605.14},
  abstract = {This study compares and analyzes Chinese debate and speech from the perspective of registers, which makes itself significant since it fills the gaps in the field. This paper is based on a self-built corpus and refers in Biber’s Multi-dimension/Multi-feature Approach. The quantitative statistical results show that there are 44 significant differences among the 65 linguistic features of debate and speech registers, and that these feature differences, from the macroscopic view, can be summarized into 8 different dimensions, which, to be specific, are known respectively as Multi-directional Interaction VS Single-directional Communication, Demonstrative VS Narrative, Intense Confrontation VS Deliberate Storytelling, Centralized Focuses VS Dispersing Contents, Precise Expressions VS Diverse Methods of Expressions, Informative VS Affective, Specialized VS Universal, along with Literate Style VS Oral Style. Why there are these linguistic features and dimensional differences between the two registers is also explained. It could be fair to say that this study makes a breakthrough on the basis of Biber’s research which mainly put its focus on linguistic features at the lexical, syntactic perspectives. And that is to advance comparing linguistic features between debate and speech registers to perspectives of phonetics and speeds. Yet it has its deficiency for failing to conduct factor analysis in the process of dimension induction due to the limited volume of text corpus.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech
AU  - Liu Yanchun
AU  - Hu Fengguo
AU  - Zhao Yi
AU  - Qiu Le
Y1  - 2018/10/12
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 163
EP  - 172
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14
AB  - This study compares and analyzes Chinese debate and speech from the perspective of registers, which makes itself significant since it fills the gaps in the field. This paper is based on a self-built corpus and refers in Biber’s Multi-dimension/Multi-feature Approach. The quantitative statistical results show that there are 44 significant differences among the 65 linguistic features of debate and speech registers, and that these feature differences, from the macroscopic view, can be summarized into 8 different dimensions, which, to be specific, are known respectively as Multi-directional Interaction VS Single-directional Communication, Demonstrative VS Narrative, Intense Confrontation VS Deliberate Storytelling, Centralized Focuses VS Dispersing Contents, Precise Expressions VS Diverse Methods of Expressions, Informative VS Affective, Specialized VS Universal, along with Literate Style VS Oral Style. Why there are these linguistic features and dimensional differences between the two registers is also explained. It could be fair to say that this study makes a breakthrough on the basis of Biber’s research which mainly put its focus on linguistic features at the lexical, syntactic perspectives. And that is to advance comparing linguistic features between debate and speech registers to perspectives of phonetics and speeds. Yet it has its deficiency for failing to conduct factor analysis in the process of dimension induction due to the limited volume of text corpus.
VL  - 6
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Liu Yanchun

Faculty of Literature and Law, Communication University of China, Beijing, China
Hu Fengguo

Faculty of Literature and Law, Communication University of China, Beijing, China
Zhao Yi

Academy of Media and Public Affairs, Communication University of China, Beijing, China
Qiu Le

Faculty of Literature and Law, Communication University of China, Beijing, China

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Liu Yanchun, Hu Fengguo, Zhao Yi, Qiu Le. (2018). A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech. International Journal of Language and Linguistics, 6(5), 163-172. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Liu Yanchun; Hu Fengguo; Zhao Yi; Qiu Le. A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech. Int. J. Lang. Linguist. 2018, 6(5), 163-172. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Liu Yanchun, Hu Fengguo, Zhao Yi, Qiu Le. A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech. Int J Lang Linguist. 2018;6(5):163-172. doi: 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14,
  author = {Liu Yanchun and Hu Fengguo and Zhao Yi and Qiu Le},
  title = {A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech},
  journal = {International Journal of Language and Linguistics},
  volume = {6},
  number = {5},
  pages = {163-172},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijll.20180605.14},
  abstract = {This study compares and analyzes Chinese debate and speech from the perspective of registers, which makes itself significant since it fills the gaps in the field. This paper is based on a self-built corpus and refers in Biber’s Multi-dimension/Multi-feature Approach. The quantitative statistical results show that there are 44 significant differences among the 65 linguistic features of debate and speech registers, and that these feature differences, from the macroscopic view, can be summarized into 8 different dimensions, which, to be specific, are known respectively as Multi-directional Interaction VS Single-directional Communication, Demonstrative VS Narrative, Intense Confrontation VS Deliberate Storytelling, Centralized Focuses VS Dispersing Contents, Precise Expressions VS Diverse Methods of Expressions, Informative VS Affective, Specialized VS Universal, along with Literate Style VS Oral Style. Why there are these linguistic features and dimensional differences between the two registers is also explained. It could be fair to say that this study makes a breakthrough on the basis of Biber’s research which mainly put its focus on linguistic features at the lexical, syntactic perspectives. And that is to advance comparing linguistic features between debate and speech registers to perspectives of phonetics and speeds. Yet it has its deficiency for failing to conduct factor analysis in the process of dimension induction due to the limited volume of text corpus.},
 year = {2018}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - A Comparative Study of a Multi-Dimension/Multi-Feature Approach Between Chinese Debate and Speech
AU  - Liu Yanchun
AU  - Hu Fengguo
AU  - Zhao Yi
AU  - Qiu Le
Y1  - 2018/10/12
PY  - 2018
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14
T2  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JF  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
JO  - International Journal of Language and Linguistics
SP  - 163
EP  - 172
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2330-0221
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijll.20180605.14
AB  - This study compares and analyzes Chinese debate and speech from the perspective of registers, which makes itself significant since it fills the gaps in the field. This paper is based on a self-built corpus and refers in Biber’s Multi-dimension/Multi-feature Approach. The quantitative statistical results show that there are 44 significant differences among the 65 linguistic features of debate and speech registers, and that these feature differences, from the macroscopic view, can be summarized into 8 different dimensions, which, to be specific, are known respectively as Multi-directional Interaction VS Single-directional Communication, Demonstrative VS Narrative, Intense Confrontation VS Deliberate Storytelling, Centralized Focuses VS Dispersing Contents, Precise Expressions VS Diverse Methods of Expressions, Informative VS Affective, Specialized VS Universal, along with Literate Style VS Oral Style. Why there are these linguistic features and dimensional differences between the two registers is also explained. It could be fair to say that this study makes a breakthrough on the basis of Biber’s research which mainly put its focus on linguistic features at the lexical, syntactic perspectives. And that is to advance comparing linguistic features between debate and speech registers to perspectives of phonetics and speeds. Yet it has its deficiency for failing to conduct factor analysis in the process of dimension induction due to the limited volume of text corpus.
VL  - 6
IS  - 5
ER  -

Copy | Download