Abstract
The present contribution starts from the general observations (i) that the study of text varieties has commonly emphasized the mode (speech vs. writing) as an essential variable and (ii) that linguistic analyses increasingly consider performed language (i.e., fictional scripted material as represented in telecinematic language and lyrics, for instance) as an object worth studying in its own right. It is recognized (i) that assessing performed language in terms of the traditional spoken-written dichotomy fails due to a number of inherent properties of relevant text varieties and their circumstances of production and reception, and (ii) that schemes applied within conventional (bottom-up) register perspectives may not be fully adequate for a text-linguistic approach toward performed language either. Koch and Oesterreicher’s communicative model (KOM), which takes account of contextual factors as well as of specific linguistic strategies and establishes a continuum between the language of distance and the language of immediacy, as well as three attempts at modifying KOM are introduced. It is argued that both KOM (as a top-down model) and its modifications have weaknesses when dealing with performed text varieties. An enhanced communicative model, including the dimensions synchronicity and authenticity, is sketched out, which could serve both as a starting point and complement for empirical investigations of textual variation whenever performed language is included.
Acknowledgments
The present paper has benefitted from the input of several people. I am grateful to Manfred Krug, Daniela Landert, Joe Trotta, and Sonja Zeman, who were willing to share their time and expertise, and volunteered to extensively comment on earlier versions of the manuscript. The Linguistics reviewers and Volker Gast provided highly constructive criticism and drew my attention to several weak points that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. Nicholas Peterson and Donald Watson proofread the final manuscript. None of the aforementioned is to be held accountable for any remaining flaws.
References
Abbott, Marilyn. 2002. Using music to promote L2 learning among adult learners. TESOL Journal 11(1). 10–17.Search in Google Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos & Mathilde Hennig. 2006a. Überlegungen zur Theorie und Praxis des Nähe- und Distanzsprechens. In Vilmos Ágel & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Zugänge zur Grammatik der gesprochenen Sprache, 179–216. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110936063.179Search in Google Scholar
Ágel, Vilmos & Mathilde Hennig. 2006b. Praxis des Nähe- und Distanzsprechens. In Vilmos Ágel & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Grammatik aus Nähe und Distanz: Theorie und Praxis am Beispiel von Nähetexten 1650–2000, 33–74. Tübingen: Niemeyer.10.1515/9783110944709.33Search in Google Scholar
Albert, Georg. 2013. Innovative Schriftlichkeit in digitalen Texten: Syntaktische Variation und stilistische Differenzierung in Chat und Forum. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1524/9783050063676Search in Google Scholar
Alvarez-Pereyre, Michael. 2011. Using films as linguistic specimen: Theoretical and practical issues. In Roberta Piazza, Monika Bednarek & Fabio Rossi (eds.), Telecinematic discourse: Approaches to the language of films and television series, 47–68. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.211.05alvSearch in Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2007. Neue Medien – neue Schriftlichkeit? Mitteilungen des Deutschen Germanistenverbandes 1(7). 72–97.Search in Google Scholar
Androutsopoulos, Jannis. 2016. Theorizing media, mediation and mediatization. In Nikolas Coupland (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates, 282–302. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107449787.014Search in Google Scholar
Auer, Peter. 2000. On line-Syntax – Oder: Was es bedeuten könnte, die Zeitlichkeit der mündlichen Sprache ernst zu nehmen. Sprache und Literatur in Wissenschaft und Unterricht 85. 43–56. https://doi.org/10.30965/25890859-031-01-90000005.Search in Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard. 2011. Commentary: Foundations in performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(5). 707–720. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00510.x.Search in Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2018. Language and television series: A linguistic approach to TV dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108559553Search in Google Scholar
Bednarek, Monika. 2019. Creating dialogue for TV: Screenwriters talk television. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429029394Search in Google Scholar
Bell, Allan & Andy Gibson. 2011. Staging language: An introduction to the sociolinguistics of performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(5). 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00517.x.Search in Google Scholar
Bertin, Jaques. 2005 [1967]. Sémiologie graphique: Les diagrammes – les réseaux – les cartes. Paris: Editions de l’EHESS.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511621024Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1989. A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27(1). 3–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.1989.27.1.3.Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Susan Conrad. 2019. Register, genre, and style. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108686136Search in Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Jesse Egbert. 2018. Register variation online. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316388228Search in Google Scholar
Bublitz, Wolfgang. 2017. Oral features in fiction. In Miriam A. Locher & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Pragmatics of fiction, 253–263. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110431094-008Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace. 1982. Integration and involvement in speaking, writing, and oral literature. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 35–53. Norwood: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Chafe, Wallace & Deborah Tannen. 1987. The relation between written and spoken language. American Review of Anthropology 16. 383–407. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.16.100187.002123.Search in Google Scholar
Chotia, Jean. 1979. Forging a language: A study of plays of Eugene O’Neill. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2009. The mediated performance of vernaculars. Journal of English Linguistics 37(3). 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424209341188.Search in Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2011. Voice, place and genre in popular song performance. Journal of Sociolinguistics 15(5). 573–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9841.2011.00514.x.Search in Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2016. Five Ms for sociolinguistic change. In Nikolas Coupland (ed.), Sociolinguistics: Theoretical debates, 433–454. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107449787.021Search in Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Merja Kytö. 2010. Early modern dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Derewianka, Beverly. 2014. Supporting students in the move from spoken to written language. In Ahmar Mahboob & Leslie Barratt (eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts: Language variation and education, 165–181. Dordrecht: Springer.10.1007/978-94-017-8869-4_10Search in Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1998. Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Dose, Stefanie. 2013. Flipping the script: A Corpus of American Television Series (CATS) for corpus-based language learning and teaching. In Magnus Huber & Joybrato Mukherjee (eds.), Corpus linguistics and variation in English: Focus on non-native Englishes. Helsinki: VARIENG. http://www.helsinki.fi/varieng/series/volumes/13/dose/ (accessed 26 June 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Durant, Alan & Marina Lambrou. 2009. Language and media. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2003. Medienkommunikation im Kontinuum von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: Theoretische und empirische Probleme. Zeitschrift für Angewandte Linguistik 38. 37–56.Search in Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2006. Äußerungsformen im Kontinuum von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit: Sprachwissenschaftliche und sprachdidaktische Aspekte. In Eva Neuland (ed.), Variation im heutigen Deutsch: Perspektiven für den Sprachunterricht, 375–388. Frankfurt: Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2007. Private, nicht-öffentliche und öffentliche Kommunikation im Internet. Neue Beiträge zur Germanistik 6(4). 22–41.Search in Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2016. Nähe, Distanz und neue Medien. In Helmuth Feilke & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Zur Karriere von Nähe und Distanz: Rezeption und Diskussion des Koch-Oesterreicher-Modells, 357–385. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110464061-013Search in Google Scholar
Dürscheid, Christa. 2021. Koch/Oesterreicher und die (neuen) Medien. In Teresa Gruber, Klaus Grübl & Thomas Scharinger (eds.), Was bleibt von kommunikativer Nähe und Distanz? Mediale und konzeptionelle Aspekte von Diskurstraditionen und sprachlichem Wandel. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Dynel, Marta. 2011. Stranger than fiction? A few methodological notes on research in film discourse. Brno Studies in English 37(1). 41–61. https://doi.org/10.5817/bse2011-1-3.Search in Google Scholar
Eberhard, David M., Gary F. Simons & Charles D. Fennig (eds.). 2019. Ethnologue: Languages of the world. Dallas: SIL International. http://www.ethnologue.com (accessed 25 March 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Eckstein, Lars. 2010. Reading song lyrics. Amsterdam: Rodopi.10.1163/9789042030367Search in Google Scholar
Esser, Jürgen. 2006. Presentation in language: Rethinking speech and writing. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Media discourse. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Fehrmann, Gisela & Erika Linz. 2009. Eine Medientheorie ohne Medien? Zur Unterscheidung von konzeptioneller und medialer Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. In Elisabeth Birk & Jan Georg Schneider (eds.), Philosophie der Schrift, 123–144. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Search in Google Scholar
Feilke, Helmuth. 2010. Schriftliches Argumentieren zwischen Nähe und Distanz – am Beispiel wissenschaftlichen Schreibens. In Vilmos Ágel & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Nähe und Distanz im Kontext variationslinguistischer Forschung, 209–231. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220872.207Search in Google Scholar
Fiehler, Reinhard. 2000. Gesprochene Sprache – gibt’s die? Jahrbuch der ungarischen Germanistik 2000. 93–104.Search in Google Scholar
Finnegan, Ruth. 1988. Literacy and orality: Studies in the technology of communication. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Fischer-Lichte, Erika. 1991. Der dramatische Dialog: Theater zwischen Schriftlichkeit und Mündlichkeit. In Wolfgang Raible (ed.), Symbolische Formen – Medien – Identität, 25–54. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Fritz, Thomas A. 2010. Nähe und Distanz im Text. In Vilmos Ágel & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Nähe und Distanz im Kontext variationslinguistischer Forschung, 233–246. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110220872.233Search in Google Scholar
Goetsch, Paul. 1985. Fingierte Mündlichkeit in der Erzählkunst entwickelter Schriftkulturen. Poetica 17. 202–218.Search in Google Scholar
Goetsch, Paul. 2003. The oral and the written in nineteenth-century British fiction. Frankfurt: Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1979. Footing. Semiotica 25(1/2). 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1979.25.1-2.1.Search in Google Scholar
Griffee, Dale. 1992. Songs in action. New York: Prentice-Hall.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1989. Spoken and written language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Harris, Roy. 2009. Speech and writing. In David R. Olson & Nancy Torrance (eds.), The Cambridge handbook of literacy, 46–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609664.004Search in Google Scholar
Healey, Christopher G. 2017. Perception in visualization. https://www.csc2.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/PP/ (accessed 8 April 2019).Search in Google Scholar
Healey, Christopher G. & James T. Enns. 2012. Attention and visual memory in visualization and computer graphics. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 18(7). 1170–1188. https://doi.org/10.1109/tvcg.2011.127.Search in Google Scholar
Holly, Werner. 1996. Mündlichkeit im Fernsehen. In Bernd Ulrich Biere & Rudolf Hoberg (eds.), Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Fernsehen, 29–40. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Horton, Donald. 1957. The dialogue of courtship in popular songs. American Journal of Sociology 62(6). 569–578. https://doi.org/10.1086/222105.Search in Google Scholar
Hueth, Alan C. 2019. Scriptwriting for film, television, and new media. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429461361Search in Google Scholar
Hughes, Rebecca. 1996. English in speech and writing. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Hughes, Rebecca & Beatrice Szczepek Reed. 2017. Teaching and researching speaking. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315692395Search in Google Scholar
Imo, Wolfgang. 2013. Sprache in Interaktion: Analysemethoden und Untersuchungsfelder. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110306323Search in Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. 2000. English historical pragmatics: Problems of data and methodology. In Gabriella Di Martino & Maria Lima (eds.), English diachronic pragmatics, 17–55. Naples: CUEN.Search in Google Scholar
Jucker, Andeas H. 2018. Data in pragmatic research. In Andreas H. Jucker, Klaus P. Schneider & Wolfram Bublitz (eds.), Methods in pragmatics, 3–36. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110424928-001Search in Google Scholar
Jucker, Andeas H. & Miriam A. Locher. 2017. Introducing pragmatics of fiction: Approaches, trends and developments. In Miriam A. Locher & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Pragmatics of fiction, 1–22. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110431094-001Search in Google Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H. & Irma Taavitsainen. 2013. English historical pragmatics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.10.1515/9780748644704Search in Google Scholar
Kehrein, Roland & Hanna Fischer. 2016. Nähe, Distanz und Regionalsprache. In Helmuth Feilke & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Zur Karriere von Nähe und Distanz: Rezeption und Diskussion des Koch-Oesterreicher-Modells, 213–257. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110464061-009Search in Google Scholar
Knopp, Matthias. 2016. Zur empirischen Spezifizierung des Nähe-Distanz-Kontinuums. In Helmuth Feilke & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Zur Karriere von Nähe und Distanz: Rezeption und Diskussion des Koch-Oesterreicher-Modells, 387–416. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110464061-014Search in Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 1985. Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im Spannungsfeld von Sprachtheorie und Sprachgeschichte. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 36. 15–43.10.1515/9783112418307-002Search in Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2007. Schriftlichkeit und kommunikative Distanz. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 35. 346–375. https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl.2007.024.Search in Google Scholar
Koch, Peter & Wulf Oesterreicher. 2012. Language of immediacy – Language of distance: Orality and literacy from the perspective of language theory and linguistic history. In Claudia Lange, Beatrix Weber & Göran Wolf (eds.), Communicative spaces: Variation, contact, and change, 441–473. Frankfurt: Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Kreyer, Rolf & Joybrato Mukherjee. 2007. The style of pop song lyrics: A corpus-linguistic pilot study. Anglia 125(1). 31–58. https://doi.org/10.1515/angl.2007.31.Search in Google Scholar
Krug, Manfred. 2000. Emerging English modals: A corpus-based study of grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110820980Search in Google Scholar
Landert, Daniela. 2014. Personalization in mass media communication: British online news between public and private. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.240Search in Google Scholar
Landert, Daniela & Andreas H. Jucker. 2011. Private and public in mass media communication: From letters to the editor to online commentaries. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 1422–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.016.Search in Google Scholar
Langlotz, Andreas. 2017. Language and emotion in fiction. In Miriam A. Locher & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Pragmatics of fiction, 515–552. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110431094-017Search in Google Scholar
Leech, Geoffrey N. 2000. Grammars of spoken English: New outcomes of corpus-oriented research. Language Learning 50(4). 675–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00143.Search in Google Scholar
Leuckert, Sven. 2019. Topicalization in Asian Englishes: Forms, functions, and frequencies of a fronting construction. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781351000437Search in Google Scholar
Li, Xiangming & Manny Brand. 2009. Effectiveness of music on vocabulary acquisition, language usage, and meaning for mainland Chinese ESL Learners. Contributions to Music Education 36(1). 73–84.Search in Google Scholar
Lillis, Theresa M. 2014. The sociolinguistics of writing. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Messerli, Thomas C. 2017. Participation structure in fictional discourse: Authors, scriptwriters, audiences and characters. In Miriam A. Locher & Andreas H. Jucker (eds.), Pragmatics of fiction, 25–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110431094-002Search in Google Scholar
Miller, Jim. 2006. Spoken and written English. In Bas Aarts & April McMahon (eds.), The handbook of English linguistics, 670–691. Malden: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470753002.ch28Search in Google Scholar
Moore, Allan F. 2012. Song means: Analysing and interpreting recorded popular song. Farnham: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Marcus. 2015. Sprachliches Rollenverhalten: Korpuspragmatische Studien zu divergenten Kontextualisierungen in Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110379068Search in Google Scholar
Murphey, Tim. 1989. The when, where, and who of pop lyrics: The listener’s prerogative. Popular Music 8(2). 163–170. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0261143000003378.Search in Google Scholar
Murphey, Tim. 1990. Song and music in language learning: An analysis of pop song lyrics and the use of song and music in teaching English to speakers of other languages. Frankfurt: Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Ochs, Elinor. 1979. Why look at unplanned and planned discourse? In Talmy Givón (ed.), Discourse and syntax, 51–80. New York: Academic Press.10.1163/9789004368897_004Search in Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. 1982. Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. Padstow: T. J. Press.10.4324/9780203328064Search in Google Scholar
O’Keeffe, Anne. 2006. Investigating media discourse. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203015704Search in Google Scholar
Oesterreicher, Wulf & Peter Koch. 2016. 30 Jahre Sprache der Nähe – Sprache der Distanz: Zu Anfängen und Entwicklung von Konzepten im Feld von Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. In Helmuth Feilke & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Zur Karriere von Nähe und Distanz: Rezeption und Diskussion des Koch-Oesterreicher-Modells, 11–72. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110464061-003Search in Google Scholar
Pettijohn, Terry F. & Donald F. Sacco. 2009. The language of lyrics: An analysis of popular Billboard songs across conditions of social and economic threat. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 28(3). 297–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x09335259.Search in Google Scholar
Quaglio, Paulo. 2009. Television dialogue: The sitcom Friends vs. natural conversation. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/scl.36Search in Google Scholar
Queen, Robin M. 2018. Working with performed language: Movies, television, and music. In Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs & Gerard Van Herk (eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications, 218–226. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Richardson, Kay. 2010. Television dramatic dialogue: A sociolinguistic study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195374056.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Schaefer, Ursula. 1992. Vokalität: Altenglische Dichtung zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit. Tübingen: Narr.Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Jan Georg. 2011. Hat die gesprochene Sprache eine eigene Grammatik? Grundsätzliche Überlegungen zum Status gesprochensprachlicher Konstruktionen und zur Kategorie ‚gesprochenes Standarddeutsch‘. Zeitschrift für Germanistische Linguistik 39. 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1515/zgl.2011.014.Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Jan Georg. 2016. Nähe, Distanz und Medientheorie. In Helmuth Feilke & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Zur Karriere von Nähe und Distanz: Rezeption und Diskussion des Koch-Oesterreicher-Modells, 333–356. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110464061-012Search in Google Scholar
Schneider, Edgar W. 2018. Written data sources. In Christine Mallinson, Becky Childs & Gerard Van Herk (eds.), Data collection in sociolinguistics: Methods and applications, 169–177. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315535258-34Search in Google Scholar
Schwittalla, Johannes & Ruth Betz. 2006. Ausgleichsprozesse zwischen Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit in öffentlichen Textsorten. In Eva Neuland (ed.), Variation im heutigen Deutsch: Perspektiven für den Sprachunterricht, 389–401. Frankfurt: Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Selig, Maria. 2017. Plädoyer für einen einheitlichen, aber nicht einförmigen Sprachbegriff: Zur aktuellen Rezeption des Nähe-Distanz-Modells. Romanistisches Jahrbuch 86(1). 114–145.10.1515/roja-2017-0005Search in Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1982. The oral/literate continuum in discourse. In Deborah Tannen (ed.), Spoken and written language: Exploring orality and literacy, 1–17. Norwood: Ablex.Search in Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1985. Implications of the oral/literate continuum for cross-cultural communication. In James E. Alatis & John Staczek (eds.), Perspectives on bilingualism and bilingual education, 312–333. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Tegge, Friederike A. G. 2015. Investigating song-based language teaching and its effect on lexical learning. Wellington: Victoria University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Thompson, Paul. 2019. Creativity in the recording studio. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1007/978-3-030-01650-0Search in Google Scholar
Trotta, Joe. 2010. Whose rules rule? Grammar controversies, popular culture and the fear of English from below. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(3). 41–65. https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.229.Search in Google Scholar
Vagle, Wenche. 1991. Radio language – spoken or written? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 1(1). 118–131. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1991.tb00009.x.Search in Google Scholar
Veirano Pinto, Marcia. 2014. Dimensions of variation in North American movies. In Tony Berber Sardinha & Marcia Veirano Pinto (eds.), Multi-dimensional analysis, 25 years on: A tribute to Douglas Biber, 109–147. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/scl.60.04veiSearch in Google Scholar
Werner, Valentin. 2012. Love is all around: A corpus-based study of pop music lyrics. Corpora 7(1). 19–50. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2012.0016.Search in Google Scholar
Werner, Valentin. 2018. Linguistics and pop culture: Setting the scene(s). In Valentin Werner (ed.), The language of pop culture, 3–26. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315168210-1Search in Google Scholar
Werner, Valentin. Forthcoming. Catchy and conversational? A register analysis of pop lyrics. Corpora 16(2).10.3366/cor.2021.0219Search in Google Scholar
Yos, Gabriele. 2001. Gespräche in künstlerischen Texten im Spannungsfeld von mündlicher und schriftlicher Kommunikation. Zeitschrift für Germanistik 11(1). 54–70.Search in Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja. 2013. ‚Mündlichkeit‘ ist nicht gleich ,Mündlichkeit‘: Implikationen für eine Theorie der gesprochenen Sprache. In Jörg Hagemann, Wolf Peter Klein & Sven Staffeldt (eds.), Pragmatischer Standard, 191–205. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.Search in Google Scholar
Zeman, Sonja. 2016. Nähe, Distanz und (historische) Pragmatik – Oder: Wie „nah“ ist ‚Nähesprache‘? In Helmuth Feilke & Mathilde Hennig (eds.), Zur Karriere von Nähe und Distanz: Rezeption und Diskussion des Koch-Oesterreicher-Modells, 259–298. Berlin: Mouton de Gryuter.10.1515/9783110464061-010Search in Google Scholar
Zhou, Ziwei. 2016. A music-based agenda for teaching English as a second/foreign language: Common themes and directions. In Carmen Maria Fonseca-Mora & Mark Gant (eds.), Melodies, rhythm and cognition in foreign language learning, 163–173. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.Search in Google Scholar
© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
