Register and Register Variation

Register research has been approached from differing theoretical and methodological approaches, resulting in different definitions of the term register. In the text-linguistic approach, which is the primary focus of this bibliography, register refers to text varieties that are defined by their situational characteristics, such as the purpose of writing and the mode of communication, among others. Texts that are similar in their situational characteristics also tend to share similar linguistic profiles, as situational characteristics motivate or require the use of specific linguistic features. Text-linguistic research on register tends to focus on two aspects: attempts to describe a register, or attempts to understand patterns of register variation. This research happens via comparative analyses, specific examinations of single linguistic features or situational parameters, and often via examinations of co-occurrence of linguistic features that are analyzed from a functional perspective. That is, certain lexico-grammatical features co-occur in a given text because they together serve important communicative functions that are motivated by the situational characteristics of the text (e.g., communicative purpose, mode, setting, interactivity). Furthermore, corpus methods are often relied upon in register studies, which allows for large-scale examinations of both general and specialized registers. Thus, the bibliography gives priority to research that uses corpus tools and methods. Finally, while the broadest examinations on register focus on the distinction between written and spoken domains, additional divisions of register studies fall under the categories of written registers, spoken registers, academic registers, historical registers, and electronic/online registers. This bibliography primarily introduces some of the key resources on English registers, a decision that was made to reach a broader audience.

Jan Baudouin de Courtenay

Jan Baudouin de Courtenay, also known in Russian as Иван Александрович Бодуэн-де-Куртенэ (Ivan Aleksandrovič Boduėn-de-Kurtenė), was a Polish linguist. His family name is Baudouin de Courtenay, which can be shortened to Baudouin but is often erroneously indexed under C. Baudouin was a remarkably versatile scholar who taught general, historical-comparative, and Slavic linguistics and contributed to many subfields of the language sciences. Over the course of sixty years, he published a number of monographs and several hundred articles, mostly in Polish and Russian but also in German, French, Czech, and other languages. During his lifetime, he was highly respected internationally; after his death, he fell out of favor in Communist countries for ideological reasons, while he remained largely unknown in the West because of the language barrier and because many of his publications were difficult to find. Since the 1960s, interest in his work has gradually increased, and many of his writings have been republished, translated, and/or made available on the Internet. The literature about him has been growing too. Frequently, Baudouin is described as one of the founding fathers of structuralism or as a forerunner of certain modern theories. He was, however, an independent thinker who does not fit into any mold. This is also true of his political ideas, which he voiced in numerous pamphlets and articles. In particular, he defended the rights of all linguistic groups wherever he lived. Jan Baudouin de Courtenay was born in Radzymin near Warsaw on 13 March (1 March in the Julian calendar) 1845. He studied at the universities of Warsaw, Prague, Jena and Berlin and then obtained his doctorate in Leipzig. Since the Russian authorities did not allow him to teach in Warsaw, he went to Petersburg. In 1875, he defended his Russian doctoral dissertation (comparable to the German Habilitation) and became professor at the University of Kazan’. There, he cooperated closely with a number of colleagues and students, notably Mikołaj Kruszewski (b. 1851–d. 1887). From 1883 to 1893, he taught in Dorpat (Tartu) and subsequently in Krakow, which then had the only Polish-language university. For political reasons, his contract was not renewed, and he had to return to Russia. He was professor at the University of Petersburg from 1900 to 1914, when he was imprisoned and dismissed because he advocated minority rights, and from 1917 until July 1918, when he fled to Warsaw. He continued to work there until his death on 3 November 1929.

Game Theory in Pragmatics

Game theoretic approaches to pragmatics characterize pragmatic inference as a product of interlocutors’ reasoning about their own and others’ possible linguistic choices. These choices are a function of their preferences over communicative outcomes. They are a product of what is communicated and how it is communicated, sometimes also factoring in beliefs about others’ preferences and beliefs. For instance, a speaker may prefer to bring a message across in a polite manner rather than in a more straightforward one, or succinctness may be preferred over long-windedness. At a more fundamental level, a speaker’s goal may be to convey his or her beliefs truthfully, or, the goal may be to deceive one’s audience. Hearers can have other, possibly opposed, preferences. Such subjective preference measures—captured by so-called utility functions—can thereby characterize a wide array of communicative scenarios, ranging from fully cooperative ones to ones with conflicts of interest. They also do away with the need to explicitly formulate conversational principles. Instead, pragmatic inference is directly rooted in interlocutors’ preferences and beliefs. Another cornerstone of game-theoretic approaches to pragmatics is that they often make the degree of mutual reasoning that interlocutors engage in explicit. While the simplest reasoners take only themselves as their reference point, more sophisticated ones iteratively reason about their partner’s choices and reasoning. A final key component common to these approaches is that they take a stance on interlocutors’ rationality: the degree to which they care about matters such as communicative success or manner. While some approaches assume full rationality, with interlocutors always acting according to what best fulfills their preferences, others weaken this assumption to allow for deviations. This makes them particularly suitable to predict and inform empirical data.

Dementia and Language

Neurodegenerative diseases progress over three distinct stages: (1) the preclinical stage, at which individuals can be placed on a continuum ranging from completely asymptomatic to a very subtle decline; (2) mild cognitive impairment (MCI), which is the symptomatic predementia stage of dementia, characterized by impairment in memory or other domains of cognition; and (3) dementia itself. Dementia is a common condition that mainly occurs in older people. It is characterized by a significant decline of cognitive functioning severe enough to impact activities of daily living and social functioning. The loss of cognitive functioning in dementia may affect long-term and short-term memory, attention, visual perception, executive functions, motor planning and execution, problem-solving, and language. Dementia can be caused by a wide range of pathological entities, among which Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common. Other dementia types include vascular dementia (VaD), dementia in atypical parkinsonian syndromes such as dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB) and corticobasal degeneration (CBD), and frontotemporal dementia (FTD). While these are commonly associated with an impairment of episodic memory, the major forms of dementia are also characterized by deficits of language affecting comprehension and production abilities of words and sentences. Clinical linguistic profiles usually associated with common forms of dementia have been described, some more detailed than others. Neurolinguistic studies also went further than the mere description of symptoms and identified the functional localization of impaired and preserved processing components of the linguistic processing system in dementias. The initial evaluation is the first significant step toward the clinical management of dementia and is based on consensual diagnostic criteria. In some dementia syndromes, such as primary progressive aphasia (PPA), the characterization of language deficits is of major importance for the differential diagnosis of dementia. This article focuses on bibliographic resources related to language and communication disorders in mild cognitive disorders as well as in the most frequent primary progressive syndromes of dementia.

Second-Language Reading

The field of second-language reading holds important connections to both reading and literacy scholarship focused on first language and to the field of second language acquisition. Each must be considered in researching second-language reading because reading in a second language is both a language process and a literacy process. Second-language reading distinguishes itself from bilingual reading in that it focuses on readers who are already literate in a first language while bilingual often refers to a simultaneous acquisition. As a language process, second-language reading interfaces with languages that realize themselves in an array of alphabets as well as character systems that may or may not be identical or even like a first language. The phonology attached to each of these systems is also critical and whether a second-language reader needs a relatively accurate sound system to reach automaticity in word recognition and syntactic processing is paramount. A section of the field concerns itself with these differences in processing, reminding researchers of micro-level, text-based features that must be acknowledged in understanding the second-language reading process. As a literacy process, second-language reading involves how a reader uses knowledge from first-language literacy to understand and interpret second language. The nature of conventions such as size and type of print as well as how texts are physically configured with directional devices such as subheadings are cultural practices that can be misinterpreted and misused. Literacy processes also include understandings of how readers develop interpretations of what they read. Often referred to as strategic processes, these processes, such as suspending interpretation until the later stages of a passage or a belief in understanding every word in a passage or a willingness to skip certain words, are learned processes from first-language literacy. The key research questions about strategies is whether there are strategies unique to reading in a second language and how readers do or do not impose these strategies on the second-language processes. Another level of literacy processing centers on world knowledge. Indeed, world knowledge is often acquired through reading, but also through non-print modalities. The second-language reader carries this knowledge into the second-language text and includes it in the interpretive arsenal achieving successful and unsuccessful results. The most important feature of recognizing language, literacy, and knowledge processes in second-language reading is that they do not function independently of one another or in a sequential fashion. They operate simultaneously during reading, interacting with and buttressing each other. Known as interactive, compensatory processing, a central question is whether and how second-language readers learn or can be taught to use these processes; how these can be measured as part of the comprehension process; and how proficiency in comprehension evolves over time.

Anaphora Resolution in Second Language Acquisition

An area of second language acquisition (SLA) that has received much attention over the past decades is how adult second language (L2) learners acquire and process anaphors like overt and null pronouns. Anaphors are a pervasive phenomenon in language. SLA researchers have focused on Anaphora Resolution (AR), i.e., the mechanisms that allow speakers to determine how anaphors refer to their antecedents. Consider the English sentence David greeted Hugo while he was opening the door. The anaphor (the obligatory overt pronominal subject he) could potentially refer to either antecedent (the subject David or the object Hugo). In null-subject languages (e.g., Spanish, Italian, Greek, Arabic, Japanese, etc.), the situation is more complex, since both an overt (él ‘he’ in Spanish) and a null (Ø) pronominal subject can syntactically alternate and either can potentially refer to either antecedent: David saludó a Hugo mientras él/Ø abría la puerta. Adult L2 learners have an additional difficulty when resolving the anaphor since the way AR works in their mother tongue (L1) could influence their L2 acquisition. AR is a very frequent phenomenon whose investigation can shed light on fundamental questions in the discipline of SLA and Bilingualism: Acquisition and processing issues (How do adult learners acquire and process AR in their L2?); cross-linguistic influence (How does the anaphoric setup from their L1 influence their L2 acquisition? Does the learners’ L1 have a facilitative effect on their L2 in cases where the L1=L2 in terms of AR?); L2 development (How does AR develop in an L2 across proficiency levels?); ultimate attainment (Can near-native learners eventually master the subtleties of AR in their L2 in a native-like fashion?); the multiple factors that constrain AR (Which are the multiple (psycho)linguistic and discursive factors that determine learners’ anaphoric choice?); research methods (Which research methods (naturalistic versus experimental) can best reflect learners’ competence and performance of AR?); linguistic theory (Which are the SLA models that can best account for the observed AR facts in an L2?). In this article we will refer to key studies that address these topics. Given the topics covered in this bibliographical article (AR in adult SLA), the reader is referred to other related Oxford Bibliographies articles: anaphora and pronouns (see Anaphora, and Pronouns) as well as chapters covering aspects of SLA and bilingualism (Psycholinguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition and Bilingualism, and Bilingualism and Multilingualism).

Second Language Pragmatics

The field of second language (L2) pragmatics surveys a range of research issues on how L2 learners learn to use a target language in context-appropriate manners. In the late 1970s, the field of interlanguage pragmatics emerged from cross-cultural pragmatic research. The field has now moved beyond comparisons of different pragmatic norms or simply describing language use. With nearly four decades of research, second language pragmatics has now become an independent field. Informed by different theories, the scope and definitions of L2 pragmatic competence have been expanded. An accumulative body of research illuminates underlying mechanisms and processes of L2 pragmatic development and what L2 pragmatic competence entails. In part, the increasing interest in interlanguage pragmatics reflects the notion that language competence entails the ability to use language in context, in addition to grammar. L2 pragmatics is also situated in a larger domain of language teaching, reflecting a call for more context-specific and more dynamic views of L2 communicative competence. In addition to formal aspects of language (e.g., grammar), L2 communicative competence entails the ability to engage in social interaction and perform speech acts in a contextually appropriate way. This article focuses on providing selective references, since the entire literature cannot be encapsulated in an article-length format. This article is organized around six topics: (1) Theoretical Approaches, (2) Analytical Objects of L2 Pragmatics, (3) Data Elicitation Methods, (4) Instructed L2 Pragmatics, (5) Assessing L2 Pragmatics, and (6) L2 Pragmatics in Diverse Social Interaction.

Language Policy and Planning

Language policy and planning (hereafter LPLP) is a relatively new multi- and interdisciplinary field, but by no means a new phenomenon. The term ‘language planning’ (preceded by the term ‘language engineering’) emerged in the late 1950s and then developed as part of and in tandem with sociolinguistics and the sociology of language in the 1960s and 1970s. LPLP was initially preoccupied with language problems of developing nations emerging from the breakup of European colonial empires after World War II (see Foundational Works). Multilingualism in newly independent states posed problems to which planners believed they had solutions in the form of deliberate interventions into language, typically imposed top-down by governments and government-authorized agencies and institutions. Although regulation of languages—their status, functions, and linguistic form on a national level—still forms a central part of LPLP (see Areal Studies), its scope has increasingly widened. Scholars recognized that similar problems and issues applied not just to developing nations and were not confined to the nation state, or other macro-level polity, but were also relevant at the supranational as well as meso- and micro-level of individuals, families, multinational corporations, and other organizations. The 1980s and 1990s witnessed a more critical turn. LPLP underwent a series of paradigmatic shifts as the association of language planning with westernized notions of modernization, progress, and democratization was regarded as simplistic and overoptimistic. After having developed one or more ‘official’ languages, some emerging nations realized that their plan not only did not solve political and social problems but instead created new ones. The idea that language could be planned and imposed top-down became increasingly unworkable and ethically questionable. Even in totalitarian regimes LPLP has been less than fully effective or successful. Researchers began to scrutinize some of the hidden or covert agendas and unintended consequences of LPLP, particularly the ways in which top-down LPLP serves the interest of elite groups and marginalizes others. With the collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War, a resurgence of interest in LPLP has occurred amidst a new world order characterized by reemergence of small nations and minority and regional languages, along with development of supranational political frameworks, like the European Union, and the increasing influence of corporations and limitations in the autonomy of nation states. In the 21st century LPLP has been increasingly concerned with internationalization and globalization, especially the role of English as a world language, language endangerment, and migration. A perennial challenge is how to make connections between macro- and micro- levels.

Default Semantics

Default Semantics (DS) is a theory of discourse that represents the main meaning intended by the speaker and recovered by the addressee, using truth-conditional, formal, but pragmatics-rich representations. It was originally developed at the University of Cambridge by K. M. Jaszczolt in the late 1990s and has since been applied to a variety of constructions, phenomena, and languages. The category of primary meaning, as it is understood in DS and represented in its semantic qua conceptual representations, cuts across the explicit/implicit divide. Semantic representations are not limited by the constraints imposed by the logical form of the sentence; they allow for its modifications but also, unlike in other post-Gricean theories, they allow for it to be overridden when the main informational content is conveyed through sources other than the linguistic expression itself. DS identifies five sources of information, all operating on an equal footing: word meaning and sentence structure (WS); situation of discourse (SD); properties of human inferential system (IS); stereotypes and presumptions about society and culture (SC); and world knowledge (WK). Since all of the sources can contribute to the truth-conditional representation, the traditional syntactic constraint that ties the representation to the logical form of the uttered sentence could be abandoned, resulting in modeling a cognitively plausible, main message as intended by a Model Speaker and recovered by a Model Addressee. As a result, DS-theoretic representations can pertain either to (i) the logical form of the sentence; (ii) the logical form with saturated indexical expressions; (iii) the logical form that is freely modified; as well as (iv) representations that do not make use of the logical form of the sentence. The identified sources of information are mapped onto four types of processes that interact in producing the representation (called merger representation, or Σ): processing of word meaning and sentence structure (WS); conscious pragmatic inference (CPI); cognitive defaults (CD, capturing strong informativeness, or strong intentionality of the underlying mental states, for example referential rather attributive reading of definite descriptions); and social, cultural, and world knowledge defaults (SCWD, capturing the relevant sociocultural conventions and encyclopedic knowledge). “Defaults” are understood there as automatic interpretations, “shortcuts through conscious inference” for the speaker and for the context, and as such are by definition not cancellable and are immune to controversies engendered by the “noncism”-“defaultism” debates in post-Gricean pragmatics. DS subscribes to the methodological and ontological assumption of compositionality of meaning on the level of such cognitive representations (Σs).

William Dwight Whitney

The American Sanskritist and linguist William Dwight Whitney (b. 1827–d. 1894) was his country’s most important professional language scholar and linguistic theorist of the 19th century. Whitney grew up in Northampton, Massachusetts, attended Williams College in that state, and for nearly three years did advanced study of “Oriental” languages in Germany at the universities of Berlin and Tübingen. In 1854 he began a long career at Yale College in Connecticut, teaching Sanskrit Language and Literature as well as modern languages, chiefly French and German. Whitney was a pillar of the American Oriental Society (established 1842), and a founder and the first president of the American Philological Association (established 1869). His research specialty was Indology: he was an expert in Sanskrit grammar. The focus of the present article, however, will be Whitney’s general linguistic thought, beginning with an overview of his ideas about language as a whole and about language prescriptivism. Then follows a description of the 18th-century sources of Whitney’s views, as well as of Whitney’s long debate with Friedrich Max Müller, who embodied all of the worst tendencies (as Whitney regarded them) of romanticist language theory. Responding to such tendencies made up a large portion of Whitney’s own theoretical output. Our discussion then considers Whitney’s legacy in three areas: (1) his influence on and critique of Neogrammarian doctrine, (2) the inspiration (both positive and negative) Whitney gave to Ferdinand de Saussure, and (3) the impetus he gave to aspects of 20th–21st-century sociolinguistic investigation, particularly by calling attention to the phenomenon of lexical diffusion. Whitney’s career as a language theorist began in 1864, with a lecture series on “The Principles of Linguistic Science” presented at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, DC, and, in an expanded version, at Boston’s Lowell Institute. These lectures became the basis of his book Language and the Study of Language (1867), a number of short pieces gathered and republished in Volume 1 of his Oriental and Linguistic Studies (1873), and his book The Life and Growth of Language (1875). All of these writings expressed Whitney’s quintessentially Anglo-American Common-Sense realist language philosophy. His 1867 and 1875 books were translated into the major European languages, the latter work being more successful in terms of the international attention it received and its impact, particularly on the German Neogrammarians, but also due to its long use as a linguistics textbook at institutions in the United States.