The Register Functional Approach To Grammatical Complexity Theoretical Foundation Descriptive Research Findings Application 1st Edition Douglas Biber

The Register Functional Approach to
Grammatical Complexity Theoretical

Foundation Descriptive Research
Findings Application 1st Edition
Douglas Biber
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-register-functional-approach-to-grammatical-comp
lexity-theoretical-foundation-descriptive-research-findings-application-1st-edition-doug
las-biber/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
A Complexity Approach to Sustainability Theory and

Application 2nd Edition Angela Espinosa
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-complexity-approach-to-
sustainability-theory-and-application-2nd-edition-angela-
espinosa/
A Functional Approach to Java Ben Weidig
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-functional-approach-to-java-ben-
weidig/
Overcoming Addiction: An Islamic Approach to Recovery

1st Edition Tayba Foundation
https://ebookmeta.com/product/overcoming-addiction-an-islamic-
approach-to-recovery-1st-edition-tayba-foundation/
A Functional Approach to Family Case Work Jessie Taft
https://ebookmeta.com/product/a-functional-approach-to-family-
case-work-jessie-taft/
Leadership: Research Findings, Practice, and Skills,
10e Andrew J. Dubrin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/leadership-research-findings-
practice-and-skills-10e-andrew-j-dubrin/
Leadership research findings practice and skills Ninth

Edition Andrew J. Dubrin
https://ebookmeta.com/product/leadership-research-findings-
practice-and-skills-ninth-edition-andrew-j-dubrin/
Generic Systems Engineering: A Methodical Approach to

Complexity Management 1st Edition Schlüter
https://ebookmeta.com/product/generic-systems-engineering-a-
methodical-approach-to-complexity-management-1st-edition-
schluter/
Learning Functional Programming: Managing Code

Complexity by Thinking Functionally 1st Edition Jack
Widman
https://ebookmeta.com/product/learning-functional-programming-
managing-code-complexity-by-thinking-functionally-1st-edition-
jack-widman/
Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and

application 6th Edition Bartol
https://ebookmeta.com/product/introduction-to-forensic-
psychology-research-and-application-6th-edition-bartol/
The Register-Functional
Approach to Grammatical
Complexity
This collection brings together the authors’ previous research with new
work on the Register-Functional (RF) approach to grammatical com-
plexity, offering a unifed theoretical account for its further study.
The book traces the development of the RF approach from its foun-
dations in two major research strands of linguistics: the study of soci-
olinguistic variation and the text-linguistic study of register variation.
Building on this foundation, the authors demonstrate the RF framework
at work across a series of corpus-based research studies focused spe-
cifcally on grammatical complexity in English. The volume highlights
early work exploring patterns of grammatical complexity in present-day
spoken and written registers as well as subsequent studies which extend
this research to historical patterns of register variation and the applica-
tion of RF research to the study of writing development for L1 and L2
English university students. Taken together, along with the addition of
introductory chapters connecting the different studies, the volume offers
readers a comprehensive resource to better understand the RF approach
to grammatical complexity and its implications for future research.
The volume will appeal to students and scholars with research in-
terests in descriptive linguistics or applied linguistics, especially those
interested in grammatical complexity and empirical, corpus-based
approaches.
Douglas Biber is Regents’ Professor of English (Applied Linguistics)

at Northern Arizona University. His research efforts have focused on
corpus linguistics, English grammar, and register variation. Previous
books include Register, Genre, and Style (2009/2019); the co-authored
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (1999); and stud-
ies of grammatical complexity (2016), university registers (2006), and
Multi-Dimensional Analyses of register variation (1988, 1995, 2018).
Bethany Gray is Associate Professor of English (Applied Linguistics

and Technology) at Iowa State University. Her research employs corpus
linguistics methodologies to explore register variation, with a focus on
academic language. Her publications include monographs on academic
research articles (2015) and historical change in writing (2016). She is a
co-founding editor of Register Studies.
Shelley Staples is Associate Professor of English (Applied Linguistics/

SLAT) at the University of Arizona. Her research focuses on corpus
analysis, particularly for applications to language learning/teaching.
Her publications include a monograph and an edited volume on health-
care discourse, as well as articles in the Journal of English for Aca-
demic Purposes, English for Specifc Purposes, Applied Linguistics, and
TESOL Quarterly.
Jesse Egbert is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern

Arizona University. He specializes in register variation, corpus linguis-
tics, and quantitative research methods. He is a General Editor of Reg-
ister Studies. Two of his recent books focus on online register variation
(2018) and corpus linguistics methods (2020).
Routledge Advances in Corpus Linguistics
Edited by Tony McEnery, Lancaster University, UK
Michael Hoey, Liverpool University, UK
21 Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech

Sociolinguistic Studies of the Spoken BNC2014
Edited by Vaclav Brezina, Robbie Love and Karin Aijmer
22 Multilayer Corpus Studies

Amir Zeldes
23 Self-Refexive Journalism
A Corpus Study of Journalistic Culture and Community in The
Guardian
Anna Marchi
24 The Religious Rhetoric of U.S. Presidential Candidates

A Corpus Linguistics Approach to the Rhetorical God Gap
Arnaud Vincent
25 Triangulating Corpus Linguistics with other Linguistic Research

Methods
Edited by Jesse Egbert and Paul Baker
26 Overcoming Challenges in Corpus Construction

The Spoken British National Corpus 2014
Robbie Love
27 Corpora in ESP/EAP Writing Instruction

Preparation, Exploitation, Analysis
Edited by Maggie Charles and Ana Frankenberg-Garcia
28 The Register-Functional Approach to Grammatical Complexity

Theoretical Foundation, Descriptive Research Findings, Application
Douglas Biber, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples, and Jesse Egbert
For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.rout-

ledge.com/Routledge-Advances-in-Corpus-Linguistics/book-series/
SE0593
Complexity
Theoretical Foundation, Descriptive
Research Findings, Application
Douglas Biber, Bethany Gray,
Shelley Staples, and Jesse Egbert
First published 2022
by Routledge
605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158
and by Routledge
4 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business
© 2022 Douglas Biber, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples, Jesse Egbert
The right of Douglas Biber, Bethany Gray, Shelley Staples,
Jesse Egbert to be identifed as authors of this work has been
asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted
or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented,
including photocopying and recording, or in any information
storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publishers.
Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be
trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for
identifcation and explanation without intent to infringe.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Biber, Douglas, author. | Gray, Bethany, author. |
Staples, Shelley, author. | Egbert, Jesse, 1985– author.
Title: The register-functional approach to grammatical
complexity: theoretical foundation, descriptive research
fndings, application / Douglas Biber, Bethany Gray,
Shelley Staples, Jesse Egbert.
Description: New York: Routledge, 2021. |
Series: Routledge advances in corpus linguistics |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifers: LCCN 2021027165 | ISBN 9780367520243 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781032138916 (paperback) | ISBN 9781003087991 (ebook)
Subjects: LCSH: Complexity (Linguistics) | Register (Linguistics) |
Corpora (Linguistics) | LCGFT: Essays.
Classifcation: LCC P128.C664 B53 2021 |
DDC 410—dc23/eng/20211029
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021027165
ISBN: 978-0-367-52024-3 (hbk)

ISBN: 978-1-032-13891-6 (pbk)
ISBN: 978-1-003-08799-1 (ebk)
DOI: 10.4324/9781003087991
Typeset in Sabon
by codeMantra
Contents
List of Figures x
List of Tables xv
Permissions xix
PART I
The Register-Functional Perspective on Complexity 1
1 Introduction 2
2 Theoretical and Descriptive Linguistic Foundation of the

Register-Functional Approach to Grammatical Complexity 6
3 Overview of the Analytical Methods Used in Register-

Functional Complexity Research 23
PART II
Descriptive Linguistic Studies of Synchronic Patterns 49
4 On the Complexity of Discourse Complexity:

A Multidimensional Analysis 51
DOUGLAS BIBER
5 Challenging Stereotypes about Academic Writing:

Complexity, Elaboration, Explicitness 78
D O U G L A S B I B E R A N D B E T H A N Y G R AY
6 On the Complexity of Academic Writing: Disciplinary

Variation and Structural Complexity 93
B E T H A N Y G R AY
viii Contents
7 Stance and Grammatical Complexity: An Unlikely
Partnership Discovered through Corpus Analysis 113
DOUGLAS BIBER
PART III
Descriptive Linguistic Studies of Diachronic Patterns 129
8 Grammatical Change in the Noun Phrase: The Infuence

of Written Language Use 132
9 Being Specifc about Historical Change: The Infuence of

Sub-register 147
10 Nominalizing the Verb Phrase in Academic Science Writing 176

11 The Functional Extension of Phrasal Grammatical

Features in Academic Writing 199
12 The Loss of Explicitness in Academic Research Writing 248

PART IV
Applied Research 273
13 Rationale and Hypotheses for the Study of Writing

Development from the RF Perspective 276
14 Should We Use Characteristics of Conversation to

Measure Grammatical Complexity in L2 Writing
Development? 291
D O U G L A S B I B E R , B E T H A N Y G R AY, A N D KO R N W I PA
POON PON
15 Predicting Patterns of Grammatical Complexity across

Language Exam Task Types and Profciency Levels 313
D O U G L A S B I B E R , B E T H A N Y G R AY, A N D S H E L L E Y S TA P L E S
Contents ix
16 Academic Writing Development at the University Level:
Phrasal and Clausal Complexity across Level of Study,
Discipline, and Genre 333
S H E L L E Y S TA P L E S , J E S S E E G B E RT, D O U G L A S B I B E R , A N D
B E T H A N Y G R AY
17 Understanding First-Year L2 Writing: A Lexico-

Grammatical Analysis across L1s, Genres, and Language
Ratings 360
S H E L L E Y S TA P L E S A N D R A N D I R E P P E N
18 Exploring the Longitudinal Development of

Grammatical Complexity in the Disciplinary Writing of
L2-English University Students 384
D O U G L A S B I B E R , R A N D I R E P P E N , S H E L L E Y S TA P L E S , A N D
J E S S E E G B E RT
19 The Longitudinal Development of Grammatical

Complexity at the Phrasal and Clausal Levels in Spoken
and Written Responses to the TOEFL iBT Test 406
B E T H A N Y G R AY, J O E G E L U S O , A N D P H U O N G N G U Y E N
20 Investigating Grammatical Complexity in L2 English

Writing Research: Linguistic Description versus
Predictive Measurement 432
D O U G L A S B I B E R , B E T H A N Y G R AY, S H E L L E Y S TA P L E S , A N D
J E S S E E G B E RT
PART V
Conclusion 459
21 Refecting on the Register-Functional Approach to

Grammatical Complexity: What Do We Know and
Where Do We Go from Here? 460
References 485
Index 504
Figures
2.1 Categorizing grammatical complexity features with

respect to structural and syntactic parameters 19
3.1 Example of Biber-tagged text 32
3.2 Picoral’s ‘Biber Tag Checking Tool’ for evaluating
tagging accuracy 36
3.3 Example of FixTag program set to interactively correct
tags for ‘that’ 39
3.4 Relationship between three components of the RF approach 47
4.1 Inverse reduced structure dimension scores for 14
registers (approximations based on Figure 1 in Biber 1992) 65
4.2 Referential elaboration dimension scores for 14
registers (approximations based on Figure 2 in Biber 1992) 66
4.3 Integrated structure dimension scores for 14 registers
(approximations based on Figure 3 in Biber 1992) 66
4.4 Framing elaboration dimension scores for 14 registers
4.5 Passive constructions dimension scores for 14 registers
4.6 Complexity dimension scores for six written registers
4.7 Complexity dimension scores for fve spoken registers
5.1 Common dependent clause types 85
5.2 Common dependent phrasal types 86
5.3 Finite dependent clause types across university
registers (based on Biber 2006: Figure 4.10) 87
5.4 Relative clauses versus prepositional phrases across
university registers (based on Biber 2006: Figure 4.11) 88
6.1 Complement clauses and adverbials (fnite and non-
fnite) across disciplines 97
6.2 Types of non-fnite complement clauses across disciplines 98
6.3 Common adverbial subordinators across disciplines 99
6.4 Phrasal modifers across disciplines 101
6.5 Finite and non-fnite relative clauses across disciplines 103
Figures xi
6.6 Summary of the use of elaboration (including fnite
relative clauses) and compression (including non-fnite
relative clauses) features 105
6.7 Distribution of elaboration features across sections
within research articles in quantitative political
science, applied linguistics, biology, and physics 109
6.8 Distribution of compression features across sections
within research articles in quantitative political
science, applied linguistics, biology, and physics 110
7.1 Common dependent clause types in conversation vs
academic writing category (based on LGSWE Chapters
8, 9, and 10) 118
7.2 Distribution of stance markers by major grammatical
category (based on LGSWE Figure 12.1) 125
7.3 Breakdown of stance markers for that-clauses and
to-clauses (based on LGSWE Figure 12.4) 126
8.1 Historical use of nouns 138
8.2 Historical use of relative clauses 138
8.3 Historical use of nominalizations 139
8.4 Historical use of attributive adjectives 140
8.5 Historical use of nouns as nominal premodifers 141
8.6 Historical use of nouns as nominal premodifers in
science research articles 141
8.7 Prepositional phrases as nominal postmodifers (from
Biber and Clark 2002) 142
8.8 Prepositional phrases as nominal postmodifers in
medical research articles: of-phrases versus other
prepositions (from Biber and Clark 2002) 143
8.9 Appositive noun phrases as nominal postmodifers 143
9.1 Finite dependent clauses in written news reportage 152
9.2 Finite that complement clauses in ARCHER
(newspapers) vs TIME magazine 153
9.3 Finite adverbial clauses in ARCHER (newspapers) vs
TIME magazine 153
9.4 Direct and indirect quoted speech in New York Times
versus TIME 158
9.5 Historical use of passive voice in NYT vs TIME 159
9.6 Historical use of noun + of-phrase in NYT vs TIME 160
9.7 Historical use of noun + noun in NYT vs TIME 161
9.8 Nouns in academic registers 165
9.9 Nominalizations in academic registers 167
9.10 Finite relative clauses in academic registers 168
9.11 Noun + of-phrase in academic registers 169
10.1 Historical change in science research writing: common
nouns, nominalizations, and verbs 179
xii Figures
10.2 Main verbs that have decreased the most from
1900 to 2005 181
10.3 Historical change in the use of BE-clause construction
types: science research articles 182
11.1 Historical change in the proportional use of
premodifying noun genitives (versus ’s-genitives;
based on all occurrences of premodifying nouns and
’s-genitives that are interchangeable) 204
11.2 Historical change in the proportional use of
premodifying noun genitives (versus of-genitives; based
on all occurrences of premodifying nouns and of-
genitives that are interchangeable) 205
11.3 The hundred most frequent adjective types,
categorized for descriptive versus classifer functions 217
11.4 IN as noun modifer: concrete versus abstract meanings 224
11.5 ON as noun modifer: concrete versus abstract
meanings 224
11.6 Noun + Preposition + ING-clause in academic prose 229
11.7 Historical change in the use of predicative relative
clauses in science research articles (i.e., fnite relative
clauses with a subject gap and the main verb BE) 239
11.8 Historical change (in COHA) of three grammatical
variants: N* + of, N* + on, N + N*. Head nouns [N*]:
effect, emphasis, attack, constraint, debate, decision,
discussion, impact, infuence, limit, limitation, and
restriction 242
11.9 Historical change (in COHA) of three grammatical
variants: N* + of, N* + in, N + N*. Head nouns
[N*]: change, decrease, difference, fall, increase, rise,
variation, decline, growth, etc. 244
11.10 Historical change (based on COCA) of three
grammatical variants from 1990 to 2012: N* + of,
N* + in, N + N*. Head nouns [N*]: change, decrease,
difference, fall, increase, rise, variation, decline,
growth, etc. 245
12.1 Historical change in the use of linking adverbials
versus colons as clause connectors in academic prose 270
14.1 Common fnite clause types functioning as clausal
constituents 303
14.2 Common dependent phrasal types functioning as
constituents in a noun phrase 304
14.3 Dependent structures that mix the two parameters 304
15.1 Dimension 1 scores across task types and levels 327
16.1 Phrasal features across level of study 343
16.2 Clausal features across level of study 344
Figures xiii
16.3 Intermediate features across level of study 345
16.4 Phrasal features across level of study and discipline 346
16.5 Finite clauses across level of study and discipline 346
16.6 Intermediate features across level of study and discipline 347
16.7 Phrasal features across genre and level of study 350
16.8 Passives, verb + that complement clauses, WH relative
clauses, and noun + that complement clauses across
genre and level of study 350
16.9 Finite adverbials, desire + to-clauses, and that relative
clauses across genre and level of study 351
16.10 Premodifying nouns across level, discipline, and two
genres (critiques and essays) 353
17.1 Type/token ratio across L1s and genres 365
17.2 Attributive adjectives and premodifying nouns across
L1 and genre 367
17.3 Noun + that clauses, causative fnite adverbial clauses,
and conditional fnite adverbial clauses across L1
and genre 371
18.1 Mean scores for adverbial clauses across disciplines,
comparing undergraduate and graduate students at
Time 1 versus Time 2, with separate subfgures for
each discipline 398
18.2 Mean scores for relative clauses across disciplines,
comparing undergraduate and graduate students at
Time 1 versus Time 2 398
18.3 Mean scores for attributive adjectives across
disciplines, comparing undergraduate and graduate
students at Time 1 versus Time 2 399
18.4 Mean scores for premodifying nouns across
disciplines, comparing undergraduate and graduate
students at Time 1 versus Time 2 399
19.1 Mean item scores over time by mode and task type 410
19.2 Distribution of level-stratifed and longitudinal sub-
corpora on Dimension 1 – Literate vs. Oral 417
19.3 Rates of occurrence for complexity features
by developmental stage in integrated and
independent writing 422
19.4 Mean rates of occurrence for Stage 1 and 2 features in
writing 423
19.5 Mean rates of occurrence for Stage 3 features in writing 424
20.1 Finite dependent clauses as clause constituents in
conversation vs. academic prose (based on Biber et al.
1999; Biber and Gray 2010) 444
xiv Figures
20.2 Dependent phrases as NP constituents in conversation
vs. academic prose (based on Biber et al. 1999/2021;
Biber and Gray 2010) 445
Tables
2.1 Grammatical complexity features in English, by

structural type and syntactic function 14
3.1 Key characteristics of the RF approach and the
associated analytical methods 24
3.2 Illustration of per-text rates of occurrence, normalized
to 1,000 words 42
3.3 Descriptive statistics for selected complexity features
in RAs in four disciplines (per 1,000 words) 43
3.4 Per-corpus rate of occurrence for selected complexity
features in Physics RAs (per 1,000 words) 43
4.1 Summary of some situational differences among
selected registers used in the study 54
4.2 List of 33 surface features associated with linguistic
complexity 55
4.3 Goodness-of-ft statistics for fve models of discourse
complexity 59
4.4 Factor loadings for Model M5b, with fve dimensions:
Reduced structure/specifcity, Structural elaboration
of reference, Integrated structure, ‘Framing’ structural
elaboration, and Passive constructions 63
4.5 Statistical signifcance and importance among the
mean scores of 14 spoken and written registers with
respect to the fve complexity dimensions 64
5.1 Characterizations of academic writing as elaborated
and/or explicit 80
5.2 Corpus of research articles 81
6.1 Corpus description in terms of number of words
(30 texts per discipline/category) 95
7.1 Selected grammatical features associated with
structural elaboration 118
7.2 Major grammatical devices used to express stance
(from Biber et al. 1999: Chapter 12) 122
8.1 Corpora used in the analysis 136
9.1 Corpus composition for news reportage 155
xvi Tables
9.2 Descriptive statistics for four grammatical features in
NYT and TIME (rates of occurrence per 1,000 words) 156
9.3 Summary of the ANOVA factorial models for news
reportage sub-registers 157
9.4 Corpus composition for academic research writing 162
9.5 Descriptive statistics for fve grammatical features in
academic sub-registers from three recent (1965, 1985,
2005) historical periods (rates of occurrence per 1,000 words) 166
9.6 Summary of the ANOVA factorial models for four
academic sub-registers (specialist science, specialist
social science, multi-disciplinary science, humanities)
in three recent historical periods (1965, 1985, 2005) 167
10.1 Number of verb types in science research articles in
1900 and 2005 181
10.2 Verbs that have decreased in use from 1900 to 2005 181
10.3 Verbs that have increased in use from 1900 to 2005 195
12.1 Statistical comparisons for clause connectors signaling
logical relations 269
13.1 Hypothesized developmental stages for complexity
features (reprinted from Biber et al. 2011) 278
13.2 Parameters of the RF approach to developmental
complexity 283
14.1 Corpus used for the analysis 297
14.2 Specifc structural distinctions included in the analysis 299
14.3 Statistical comparisons for fnite dependent clause types 302
14.4 Statistical comparisons for non-fnite dependent
clause types 302
14.5 Statistical comparisons for dependent phrase types
(non-clausal) 303
14.6 Hypothesized developmental stages for complexity features 309
15.1 Summary of some major situational characteristics of
the TOEFL iBT text categories 318
15.2 Final corpus for analysis 319
15.3 Summary of the full factorial models for 23
grammatical features associated with complexity 322
15.4 Summary of the major patterns for linguistic features
across mode (speaking vs. writing), task (independent
vs. integrated), and score level 323
15.5 Summary of the important linguistic features loading
on Dimensions 1–4 326
15.6 Summary of the full factorial models for Dimensions 1–4 327
15.7 Pearson correlations between Dimension 1 scores and
TOEFL iBT score level, for each task type 328
15.8 MANOVA results for mode, task, and score level for
the 23 complexity features 332
Tables xvii
16.1 Initial corpus for analysis 337
16.2 Four genres across academic level 337
16.3 Essays and critiques across genre, discipline, and level
of study 338
16.4 Linguistic features included in the analysis 339
16.5 Summary of the factorial models for four levels of
study and three disciplines for 23 grammatical features
associated with complexity 342
16.6 Summary of the factorial models for four levels of
study and four genres (case studies, critiques, essays,
explanations) for 23 grammatical features associated
with complexity 349
16.7 Summary of the factorial models for four levels
of study, two disciplinary macro-groups (Arts,
Humanities, and Social Sciences and Life and Physical
Sciences) and two genres (critiques and essays) for 23
grammatical features associated with complexity 352
17.1 Description of the corpus by L1 and genre 362
17.2 Grammatical variables included in the study 363
17.3 Summary of the factorial models by L1 and genre 365
17.4 Top 10 adjective-noun sequences (lemmas) in the
Rhetorical Analysis across L1s 368
17.5 Top 10 adjective-noun sequences (lemmas) in the Long
Argument across L1s 369
17.6 Top 5 noun-noun sequences (lemmas) in the Rhetorical
Analysis across L1s 370
17.7 Top 5 noun-noun sequences (lemmas) in the Long
Argument across L1s 370
17.8 Top 10 nouns controlling that complement clauses by
L1 and genre. Normed per 100,000 words 372
17.9 Top 10 verb lemmas controlling that complement
clauses by L1 and genre. Normed per 100,000 words 373
17.10 Top 10 adverbial subordinators in fnite adverbial
clauses by L1 and genre. Normed per 100,000 words 373
18.1 Selected complexity features associated with the fve
hypothesized developmental stages 386
18.2 Breakdown of papers across four macro-disciplines 390
18.3 Descriptive statistics and results of Wilcoxon Signed-
Rank Tests for the true longitudinal design (numeric
scores for the complexity features are based on the
rates of occurrence per 1,000 words) 394
18.4 Summary table for the regression model predicting the
use of adverbial clauses 396
use of relative clauses 396
xviii Tables
use of attributive adjectives 396
use of nouns as NP premodifers 396
18.8 Estimated marginal means for linguistic complexity
features at Times 1 and 2 397
18.9 R 2 for fxed effects and random effects for all
regression models 401
19.1 Description of the longitudinal corpus of spoken and
written TOEFL iBT responses 409
19.2 Mean scores by mode, task type, and test
administration in the longitudinal TOEFL iBT corpus 410
19.3 Proposed developmental stages for phrasal and clausal
complexity features adapted from Biber et al. (2011) 411
19.4 Description of Multi-Dimensional analysis model from
Biber and Gray (2013c) 414
19.5 Dimension 1 scores over time—literate vs. oral responses 416
19.6 Change in the use of complexity features (per 100
words) by stage over time in integrated writing 420
19.7 Change in use of complexity features (per 100 words)
by stage over time in independent writing 421
19.8 Summary of complexity stage changes in the
longitudinal corpus 429
20.1 Grammatical complexity features in English, by
structural type and syntactic function 440
Permissions
The re-printed chapters in this volume have been excerpted, and tex-
tual cross-references have been updated. Section numbering has been
updated for inclusion in this volume.
We gratefully acknowledge the following sources for permission to
reproduce material in this book.
1 Biber, D. 1992. On the complexity of discourse complexity: A mul-

tidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes, 15: 133–163.
© 1992 Taylor and Francis. Reprinted with Permission through the
Copyright Clearance Center RightsLink service.
2 Biber, D. and B. Gray. 2010. Challenging stereotypes about aca-
demic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of En-
glish for Academic Purposes, 9: 2–20.
© 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Reprinted with Permission
through the Copyright Clearance Center RightsLink service.
3 Gray, B. 2015. On the complexity of academic writing: Disciplinary
variation and structural complexity. In V. Cortes & E. Csomay
(eds.), Corpus-Based Research in Applied Linguistics. In Honor of
Douglas Biber (pp. 49–77). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
© 2015 John Benjamins. Reprinted with Permission. https://benja-
mins.com/catalog/scl.66
4 Biber, D. 2015. Stance and grammatical complexity: An unlikely
partnership discovered through corpus analysis. Corpus Linguistics
Research, 1: 1–19.
© 2015 Korean Association for Corpus Linguistics. Reprinted with
Permission.
5 Biber, D. and B. Gray. 2011. Grammatical change in the noun
phrase: The infuence of written language use. English Language
and Linguistics, 15: 223–250.
© 2011 Cambridge University Press. Reprinted with Permission
through the Copyright Clearance Center RightsLink service.
xx Permissions
6 Biber, D. and B. Gray. 2013. Being specifc about historical change: The
infuence of sub-register. Journal of English Linguistics, 41: 104–134.
© Sage. Reprinting in a book authored/edited by the original au-
thors allowed under author agreement.
7 Biber, D. and B. Gray. 2013. Nominalizing the verb phrase in aca-
demic science writing. In B. Aarts and G. Leech (eds.), The English
Verb Phrase: Corpus Methodology and Current Change (pp. 99–132).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
© 2013 Cambridge University Press. Reprinting is allowed under
author agreement.
8 Biber, D. and B. Gray. 2016. The functional extension of phrasal gram-
matical features in academic writing. In: Grammatical Complexity
in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing (pp. 167–207).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
© Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved. Reproduced with
permission of the Licensor through PLSclear.
9 Biber, D. and B. Gray. 2016. The loss of explicitness in academic re-
search writing. In: Grammatical Complexity in Academic English:
Linguistic Change in Writing (pp. 218–243). Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
© Cambridge University Press. All rights reserved. Reproduced with
permission of the Licensor through PLSclear.
10 Biber, D., B. Gray, and K. Poonpon. 2011. Should we use charac-
teristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2
writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45: 5–35.
© 2011 John Wiley and Sons. All rights reserved. Reprinted with
permission.
11 Biber, D., B. Gray, and S. Staples. 2016. Predicting patterns of gram-
matical complexity across language exam task types and profciency
levels. Applied Linguistics, 37(5): 639–668.
© 2014 Oxford University Press. Reprinted with permission.
12 Staples, S., J. Egbert, D. Biber, and B. Gray. 2016. Academic writing
development at the university level: Phrasal and clausal complexity
across level of study, discipline, and genre. Written Communica-
tion, 33: 149–183.
© 2016 Sage. Reprinting in a book authored/edited by the original
authors allowed under author agreement.
13 Staples, S. and R. Reppen. 2016. Understanding frst-year L2 writ-
ing: A lexico-grammatical analysis across L1s, genres, and language
ratings. Journal of Second Language Writing, 32: 17–35.
© Elsevier. All rights reserved. Reprinted with Permission through
the Copyright Clearance Center RightsLink service.
Permissions xxi
14 Biber, D., R. Reppen, S. Staples, and J. Egbert. 2020. Exploring the
longitudinal development of grammatical complexity in the disci-
plinary writing of L2-English university students. International
Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 6(1): 38–71.
© John Benjamins. Reprinted with permission. https://benjamins.
com/catalog/ijlcr
15 Gray, B., J. Geluso, & P. Nguyen. 2019. The longitudinal develop-
ment of grammatical complexity at the phrasal and clausal levels in
spoken and written responses to the TOEFL iBT test. TOEFL iBT
Research Report No. RR-19–45. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing
Service.
© John Wiley and Sons, Inc. All rights reserved. Reprinted with
Permission through the Copyright Clearance Center RightsLink
service.
16 Biber, D., B. Gray, S. Staples, & J. Egbert. 2020. Investigating
grammatical complexity in L2 English writing research: Linguistic
description versus predictive measurement. Journal of English for
Academic Purposes, 46: 1–15.
© Elsevier. All rights reserved. Reprinted with Permission through
the Copyright Clearance Center RightsLink service.
Part I
Perspective on Complexity
1 Introduction
1.1 Introduction
Over the last ten years, the authors of this volume have been developing
a new theoretical and analytical framework for the study of grammatical
complexity referred to as the Register-Functional (RF) approach to gram-
matical complexity. The RF approach to complexity emerged inductively
from empirical corpus-based research, especially the previous Multi-
Dimensional studies of register variation (see the survey in Biber 2014,
and the descriptions of spoken/written grammatical variation in Biber
et al.’s (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (repub-
lished as the Grammar of Spoken and Written English, Biber et al. 2021)).
The theoretical interpretive foundation of the RF framework comes from
two major research strands in linguistics: (1) the study of (socio)linguistic
variation, and the underlying claim that variation is inherent in language
and thus must be accounted for by any complete linguistic description,
and (2) the text-linguistic (TxtLx) study of register variation, and the un-
derlying claim that linguistic variation has a functional basis relating to
the communicative purposes and contexts of use associated with different
spoken and written registers (see Biber 2019; Biber et al. 2021).
In almost all previous research outside of the RF tradition, whether in
descriptive linguistics or in applied linguistics, grammatical complexity
is conceptualized as essentially equivalent to structural elaboration, with
longer linguistic units and units having more structural embedding being
considered more complex. In particular, descriptive grammarians have
focused on the different types of dependent clauses as the most import-
ant manifestation of complexity (see, e.g., Huddleston 1984: 378; Willis
2003: 192; Purpura 2004: 91; Carter and McCarthy 2006: 489). There
is an even longer tradition of such research in applied linguistics and
educational linguistics, analyzing the complexity of texts produced by
students and language learners at different developmental stages. Most
of these studies have relied on analyses of ‘T-units’, a main clause and all
associated dependent clauses, which was a unit of analysis frst proposed
by Hunt (1965). Such studies employ measures like the average length of
T-units in a text, or the average number of dependent clauses per T-unit.
DOI: 10.4324/9781003087991-2
Introduction 3
Thus, similar to descriptive linguistic research, educational-linguistic
studies based on T-units adopt the same general conceptualization of
grammatical complexity: that it is essentially equivalent to structural
length and elaboration, refecting primarily the use of embedded depen-
dent clauses.
Against this backdrop, the RF approach was motivated by two sim-
ple descriptive observations that emerged repeatedly from corpus-based
studies of spoken and written registers:
1 the grammatical structures regularly employed by speakers in every-

day conversation were long and structurally elaborated, often incor-
porating dependent clauses
2 the grammatical structures regularly employed by authors in spe-
cialist written academic prose were not structurally elaborated; in
fact, they could be better characterized as structurally ‘compressed’
(with dependent clauses being comparatively rare)
Thus, corpus-based analyses of register variation showed repeatedly that

speakers in conversation frequently employ structurally elaborated lin-
guistic units, with extensive use of embedded dependent clauses. And in
contrast, dependent clauses—and even verbs—are comparatively rare in
academic research writing. Instead, what we commonly fnd in research
writing are linguistic units with phrases embedded in phrases—often
with very few verbs at all.
These patterns of use, documented repeatedly in empirical corpus in-
vestigations, ran directly counter to our expectations about grammatical
complexity based on previous theoretical accounts. Logically, there are
two possible ways to account for such register differences relative to
widely accepted notions of grammatical complexity: (1) we could con-
clude that everyday conversation is a more complex register than special-
ist research writing, or (2) we could conclude that traditional notions of
complexity are inadequate and that there are alternative ways to concep-
tualize grammatical complexity.
The frst possibility seemed implausible to us. Everything that we know
about conversation indicates that it is not a complex register. Rather,
barring a severe communication disorder, conversation is universally
acquired by all humans. Most native speakers can fuently produce con-
versational discourse, and these speakers produce elaborated structures
in their everyday interactions with no special effort at all, in real time
with no planning, revision, or editing. In contrast, everything that we
know about academic research writing indicates that it is a complex
register: profciency in producing academic prose is acquired by only a
small group of humans; and most of those writers struggle to produce
coherent academic discourse, requiring extensive time and effort for
planning, revision, and editing. Thus, all language-use characteristics
4 The Register-Functional Perspective on Complexity
of these registers indicate that academic prose is a much more complex
register than conversation.
This leads to the mystery that motivates the RF approach: how do
we explain the extensive use of elaborated grammatical structures—
especially embedded dependent clauses—in conversation, versus the
dense use of compressed structures—especially phrases without verbs—
in academic research writing? Our answer to this question is to propose
a fundamentally different conceptualization of grammatical complexity.
In particular, we argue in the following chapters that grammatical com-
plexity varies with respect to three major underlying parameters:
1 The different structural types of complexity (e.g., fnite versus non-

fnite dependent clauses), and
2 The different syntactic functions served by complexity features (e.g.,
adverbial versus noun-modifying)
3 The different functional patterns of register variation associated
with each complexity feature
The present book introduces and explains the theoretical foundation of

the Register-Functional framework, supported by a series of empirical
studies that have employed the framework. Those studies have been car-
ried out as part of a coherent research agenda over the last 10+ years,
with each study building on previous research. Early studies explored
the patterns of grammatical complexity in present-day spoken and writ-
ten registers; subsequent studies extended that line of research to his-
torical patterns of register variation (and to more specifc sub-registers);
and more recently, a series of studies explored the application of these
research results to the study of writing development for L1-English and
L2-English university students. By bringing all of these studies together
in a single volume, rounded out with several new introductory theoret-
ical chapters, readers will have the resources to understand how these
descriptive and applied linguistic studies complement one another, en-
abling a much fuller understanding of the goals, theoretical foundation,
and major research fndings associated with the RF approach to gram-
matical complexity.
1.2 Contents and Organization of the Book

The Register-Functional Approach to Grammatical Complexity com-
prises 20 chapters organized into fve major parts. The book is intro-
duced by the chapters in Part I, which describe the theoretical and
descriptive foundation and antecedents of the RF approach (Chapter 2)
and the analytical methods shared across RF studies (Chapter 3).
The RF approach has been infuential in both descriptive linguistic
studies and applied linguistics, and therefore the main body of the book
Introduction 5
is organized around these two arenas of research. Within descriptive
linguistics, RF studies have been carried out to investigate both syn-
chronic as well as diachronic patterns of variation, and thus the book
includes two major parts with studies taking either a synchronic per-
spective (Part II) or a diachronic perspective (Part III). At the same time,
the RF approach has been applied in several studies of language develop-
ment, especially focused on the ways in which students at the university
level develop the discourse styles associated with professional academic
prose. Part IV of the book brings together the most important of these
recent publications.
Finally, the book concludes with a single chapter in Part V, with two
major goals: (1) synthesizing the results of the research studies reported
in the preceding chapters, to document the current state-of-the-art with
respect to our knowledge of grammatical complexity, and (2) identifying
the important gaps in our knowledge and outlining a future research
agenda designed to address those gaps.
Overall, our goals in the book are to bring together in one place this
disparate body of research. The research articles that have been reprinted
in this book were originally targeted to quite different readerships, with
different theoretical or applied research goals, and published in quite
different types of academic journals. These range from theoretical/
descriptive linguistics journals like English Language and Linguistics to
psycholinguistic/discourse journals like Discourse Processes to writing
research journals like Written Communication and applied linguistics
journals like TESOL Quarterly. As a result of this diversity, it is unlikely
that any individual researcher will be familiar with the entire body of
research. However, we believe that this collection of research studies
constitutes the component parts of a coherent research program, which
has been developed from multiple research perspectives. As such, we
expect that familiarity with the theoretical/descriptive synchronic and
diachronic studies will provide important background information for
scholars interested in the pedagogical and language-development appli-
cations of the RF approach, and conversely, that familiarity with the
applied studies of L1-English and L2-English writing development will
provide important information to descriptive linguists concerning the
ways in which these features constitute advanced stages of language ac-
quisition in adulthood. Thus, by bringing all of these studies together
in one volume, we not only make these studies much more accessible
than they might otherwise be, but we hope to show how the study of
grammatical complexity can be informed by integrating descriptive-
synchronic, descriptive-diachronic, and applied linguistic studies.
2 Theoretical and Descriptive
Linguistic Foundation of
the Register-Functional
Complexity
2.1 Previous Approaches to Grammatical Complexity

Linguistic complexity has become a hot topic of research over the last
several years. In many of these studies, the construct of linguistic com-
plexity is operationalized in terms of the ‘grammatical system’ of a lan-
guage, related to considerations like the number of contrastive elements
in the grammatical system (Nichols 2013), or the number of rules in
the grammatical system (McWhorter 2001). Through such analyses, ty-
pological linguists compare the complexities of different languages or
varieties, challenging the long-held belief that all languages and variet-
ies are equally complex (see, e.g., Hawkins 2004; Sampson et al. 2009;
Kortmann and Szmrecsanyi 2012; Newmeyer and Preston 2014).
However, as Szmrecsanyi (2015: 347–349) points out, the construct
of linguistic complexity can be approached in a fundamentally different
way, as ‘usage complexity’ or ‘text complexity’. From this perspective,
complexity is operationalized in terms of the extent to which speakers
and writers actually employ complex variants in language production.
Thus, rather than surveying reference books to describe the grammatical
system of a language, text complexity studies are based on empirical
analyses of corpora to describe the typical patterns of use.
The prerequisite for such text-based analyses is an a priori determi-
nation of the structural variants that are more complex than others,
usually based on theoretical grounds. For example, languages (and vari-
eties) have been compared for the extent to which they employ analytic
versus synthetic morphology (see Szmrecsanyi 2009, 2015), with the the-
oretical assumption that synthetic variants (with bound morphemes) are
more complex than analytic variants (e.g., compare the spokesperson
was unavailable/not available). Thus, from this perspective, languages
like Tok Pisin and English are not very complex, because texts in those
languages frequently employ independent function words (high use of
analytic morphemes), while a language like Russian is highly complex
DOI: 10.4324/9781003087991-3
Register-Functional Approach 7
because texts in that language frequently employ words that incorporate
synthetic morphemes.
In most text-based studies, structural elaboration has been the primary
consideration for determining the relative complexities of grammatical
variants, essentially equating the degree of complexity with the extent of
structural elaboration. In practice, the simplest approach has been to op-
erationalize complexity/elaboration as length, with longer variants being
treated as more complex than shorter variants. This operationalization
has often been applied to investigate cases of grammatical variation that
are infuenced by considerations of ‘end-weight’, with the general ten-
dency in English to place longer structures at the end of a clause. For
example, the choice of variant for particle placement with phrasal verbs
(e.g., look up NP vs look NP up), object order for ditransitive dative
constructions (e.g., give NP-IO NP-DO vs give NP-DO to NP-IO), and
genitive constructions (NP’s NP vs NP of NP) have all been shown to
be infuenced by the tendency to place longer structures towards the end
of a clause (see, e.g., Wasow 1997; Wolk et al. 2013; Biber et al. 2016;
Szmrecsanyi et al. 2016; Grafmiller and Szmrecsanyi 2019).
Berlage (2014) focuses specifcally on noun phrase (NP) complexity,
studying the differing complexities of different NP variants. In that
study, complexity was operationalized with respect to three factors: the
total length of the NP; the number of syntactic nodes in the NP; and the
extent to which the NP is postmodifed sententially (with fnite relative
clauses being more complex than non-fnite relative clauses, which are
in turn more complex than prepositional phrases). This study is inno-
vative in that it analyzes multiple structural realizations of complexity.
However, similar to most previous research, those operationalizations
all refect the extent to which a structure is long and/or elaborated.
This same general perspective on grammatical complexity has been
the dominant view in both descriptive linguistics and applied linguistics.
Descriptive grammarians have usually focused on dependent clauses as
the most important manifestation of grammatical complexity, essen-
tially equating structural elaboration with increased complexity (see,
e.g., Huddleston 1984: 378; Willis 2003: 192; Purpura 2004: 91; Carter
and McCarthy 2006: 489). There is an even longer tradition of similar
research in applied linguistics and educational linguistics, comparing the
complexity of written texts produced by students and language learners
at different developmental stages. Most of these studies rely on analyses
of ‘T-units’, a main clause, and all associated dependent clauses, which
was a unit of analysis frst proposed by Hunt (1965). Two measures have
been especially popular in applied linguistic studies of writing: the mean
length of all T-units in a text, and the mean number of dependent clauses
per T-unit in a text. However, in contrast to linguistic approaches to com-
plexity (such as Berlage 2014), applied linguistic studies based on T-units
are quite simplistic because they lump together all different structural
types and syntactic functions of complexity features into single omnibus
measures (see detailed discussion in Chapter 20).
Within descriptive linguistics, studies have adopted different opera-
tionalizations of grammatical complexity. For example, complexity has
been operationalized as adding more words, more syntactic nodes, and
more embedded clauses. A few studies have empirically compared the
predictive power of different operationalizations. For example, Wasow
(1997) found very little difference between overall length in words ver-
sus the number of syntactic nodes in predicting the complexity of dative
constructions, because the two are so highly correlated in the relevant
noun phrases. In contrast, other studies have documented an indepen-
dent infuence of NP-length versus NP-structure as predictors of varia-
tion in structures like particle placement with phrasal verbs (e.g., look X
up; see Wasow and Arnold 2005) and the choice between a bare infni-
tive versus to infnitive following complex transitive help (e.g., help NP
(to) V; see Berlage 2014: Chapter 8).
All of these different approaches share the underlying conceptual-
ization of grammatical complexity as essentially equivalent to struc-
tural elaboration: i.e., grammatical complexity is increased by adding
more grammatical structure (more embedding and longer structures).
In practice, this has meant an almost exclusive focus on dependent
clauses as the locus of grammatical complexity. This is a simple con-
sequence of the focus on structural length: fnite dependent clauses
are necessarily longer than non-fnite clauses, which are in turn longer
than phrases. However, the specifc focus on embedded clauses is often
overt, for both applied linguists and theoretical linguists. For example,
applied linguistic studies often employ the omnibus measure of (depen-
dent) clauses per T-unit in studies of grammatical complexity (see, e.g.,
Wolfe-Quintero et al. 1998; Ortega 2003). Arguing from the perspective
of historical and developmental linguistics, Givón (2009: 10) describes
the genesis of syntactic complexity as progressing through the stages
of simple words > simple clauses > clause chains > complex/embed-
ded clauses (see also Diessel 2004). And focusing specifcally on noun
phrase complexity, Berlage (2014) builds on the framework proposed
by Ross (2004) to make the specifc claim that “the more sentence-like
an NP is, the more complex it is” (15). Thus, at one extreme, NPs with
no postmodifers are the least complex (Berlage 2009: 45), regardless of
the number or type of premodifers. NPs with a prepositional phrase or
an adjective phrase as postmodifer are slightly more complex (Berlage
2009: 46–47), followed by NPs with a non-fnite clause as a postmod-
ifer (49). And at the far extreme, NPs that are postmodifed by a fnite
relative clause or noun complement clause are regarded as the most
complex structures (Berlage 2009: 49–52).
The important point to note for the purposes of the present book is
that this underlying assumption is usually not overt and not justifed.
Rather, the claim that longer and more elaborate structures are more
complex is simply accepted as an obvious fact because of its strong face
validity: It seems obvious that adding more structure to a sentence would
make it more grammatically complex. While we agree with this basic
claim, our main argument here is that there are two other key linguistic
factors that must be considered: (1) structures can be added in a maxi-
mally compressed way, or in a maximally elaborated way, and these two
strategies represent fundamentally different types of complexity; and (2)
added structures serve many different syntactic functions, and those are
not at all equivalent types of grammatical complexity. As we show in
the following chapters, these two considerations vary in systematic ways
across spoken and written registers, leading to the Register-Functional
(RF) approach to grammatical complexity.
2.2 Motivation for and Key Characteristics of the

Register-Functional Approach to Grammatical
Complexity
The RF approach to grammatical complexity differs from previous
frameworks in just about every conceivable way. In the frst place, the con-
ceptualization of complexity in the RF framework was arrived at inductively,
in contrast to the theoretically-based defnitions employed in previous anal-
yses. In particular, the conceptualization of complexity emerged from two
comprehensive grammatical descriptions of spoken and written registers: a
Multi-Dimensional analysis of spoken and written registers (Biber 1988),
and a major reference grammar of English that included lexico-grammatical
descriptions of four spoken and written registers (conversation, fctional
prose, newspaper prose, and academic writing; Biber et al. 1999/2021).
One research goal of both studies was to provide comprehensive de-
scriptions of the typical lexico-grammatical characteristics of spoken
and written registers, based on empirical corpus analyses. Relative to
the study of grammatical complexity, two especially surprising research
fndings emerged in these studies:
1 the grammatical structures regularly employed by speakers in every-

day conversation were long and structurally elaborated, often incor-
porating dependent clauses
2 the grammatical structures regularly employed by authors in special-
ist written informational prose were not structurally elaborated; in
fact, they could be better characterized as structurally ‘compressed’.
Dependent clauses, and especially fnite dependent clauses, are com-
paratively rare in informational written registers.
These patterns are illustrated in the following typical text excerpts from
a conversation and an academic research article:
Text 1: face-to-face conversation

All dependent clauses are marked in [bold]
A: I’m not usually wild about nuts, but I like the fact [that you chop
them all up], and [you can’t really taste them].
B: Yeah. See that’s the thing [I don’t like about nuts] [is that [they’re
chewy]]
B: No <unclear> I hope [I’m not getting olive oil on my dress].
C: What else do I make [that has olive oil in it]. <unclear> Oh, [when
I made that pasta with olive oil and red pepper], that had olive
oil.
A: You don’t need [to dry those]. Now strain. You have to make it
dry anyway. […] I don’t mean [to be rude], but I’m going to have
to go.
A: Hey, [if you ever need a beer], I’ve got like four cases of beer at my
house. […] Does anybody have a lip liner?
B: I do, in my purse. Do you want me [to come and help]?
A: Yeah, you’d better.
B: Did you tell her [to get into your purse]?
Text 2: psychology research article

All dependent clauses are marked in [bold]
This article presents a comprehensive model of deception and as-
sesses the effect of practice on deceptive responding. Much of the
extant deception literature has measured the possession of con-
cealed knowledge rather than deception per se. The current research
overcomes this shortcoming by [evaluating the behavioral conse-
quences of deception [in which there is no concealed information]]. A
three-session longitudinal study examined the effect of practice on re-
action time (RT) in relation to deception and response congruity. Par-
ticipants evaluated self-referent sentences and responded truthfully
or deceptively. The repeated-measures design of the current study
examined a potentially important element in real-world detection of
deception, that of practice effects. Findings indicate [that deceptive
responding generates longer RTs than does truthful responding] and
[that this relationship remains constant with practice].
As noted in Chapter 1, these patterns of use ran directly counter to our

expectations about grammatical complexity based on previous theoreti-
cal accounts. Face-to-face conversation is clearly not a complex register:
Virtually every human acquires the ability to produce fuent conver-
sational discourse at a young age, and by adulthood, they are able to
produce elaborated structures like those illustrated in Text 1 above with
no special effort (i.e., in real time with little pre-planning). In contrast,
everything that we know about the social uses and situational contexts
of academic research writing (and informational written prose more gen-
erally) indicates that it is a complex register. Many humans never acquire
profciency in producing academic prose, and most of those writers need
to work hard to produce coherent academic discourse, requiring exten-
sive time and effort for planning, revision, and editing. Thus, everything
that we know about the social and situational contexts of these regis-
ters indicates that academic prose is a much more complex register than
conversation. Thus, we are faced with a mystery: why would the least
socially/situationally complex register (conversation) make the greatest
use of grammatical complexity structures? And why would one of the
most socially/situationally complex registers (academic research writing)
rarely employ grammatical complexity structures?
It was this mystery that led us to inductively develop an alternative
conceptualization of grammatical complexity. Similar to other ap-
proaches, we retained the core notion that grammatical complexity can
be defned as the addition of structural elements to ‘simple’ phrases and
clauses. However, the RF conceptualization of grammatical complex-
ity is itself complex, recognizing that there are fundamentally different
ways in which structure can be added, and that these represent funda-
mentally different types of grammatical complexity. In particular, as we
show in the following chapters, the RF conceptualization of grammat-
ical complexity is a multi-faceted construct that varies with respect to
three major underlying parameters:
1 The different structural types of complexity (e.g., fnite versus

non-fnite dependent clauses)
• Especially the opposition between dependent clauses versus
dependent phrases as complexity features
2 The different syntactic functions served by complexity features
• Especially the distinction between verb/adjective complement ver-
sus adverbial versus noun-modifying syntactic functions
3 The different functional patterns of register variation associated
with each complexity feature, especially the fundamental opposition
between the complexities of conversation versus academic writing;
for example:
• Dependent clause structures with syntactic functions as clause
constituents (e.g., adverbials or verb complements) are extremely
common in conversation
• These structures, associated with the real-time production cir-
cumstances of conversation, are often used to express personal
stance meanings
• Phrasal structures with a syntactic function as noun modifers are
extremely common in academic writing
• These structures, associated with the careful production, revi-
sion, and editing possible in a written text, are used to express
dense informational content
Text Samples 1 and 2 illustrate this major difference. Finite dependent

clauses are especially common in conversation—exactly the kinds of
structures categorized as the most complex in previous research. In con-
trast, fnite dependent clauses are particularly rare in academic research
writing. Instead, sentences in research writing are typically composed of
phrases embedded in phrases—often with very few verbs at all.
The recognition that grammatical complexity is a multi-dimensional
construct leads to several specifc consequences that distinguish the RF
conceptualization from previous research. First, although grammatical
complexity entails the addition of structural elements, the RF conceptu-
alization directly challenges the assertions that structures with embed-
ded dependent clauses are the most complex and the longest structures
are the most complex. In fact, the kinds of grammatical complexity com-
mon in informational writing have exactly the opposite characteristics,
with maximally compressed phrasal structures that would be much lon-
ger if the same information was expressed through embedded dependent
clauses.
A related difference is that the RF framework is explicitly based on
analysis of the full range of grammatical structures, including phrase
types, non-fnite clause types, and fnite clause types. Other approaches
typically consider only a subset of these structures and/or lump together
the infuence of many different types of structures. However, as the fol-
lowing chapters show, a key fnding of RF research is that different types
of complexity structures pattern in fundamentally different ways. Thus,
each structural type needs to be considered on its own terms until it is
shown empirically to pattern in similar ways to other structures.
Equally important is the focus on syntactic function in the RF frame-
work, with the possibility that the same structural type might be more-
or-less complex depending on its syntactic function. For example, RF
studies show that fnite dependent clauses functioning as adverbials
are very common in conversation, while fnite dependent clauses func-
tioning as noun modifers are very common in informational writing.
Surprisingly, though, syntactic function has been almost entirely disre-
garded in previous research (especially in applied linguistic research); in-
stead, there has been an exclusive focus on added structure regardless of
syntactic function. However, the RF studies presented in the following
chapters show that syntactic function is actually a more important con-
sideration than structural type when trying to account for the differing
complexities of spoken and written registers. In particular, it turns out
that spoken registers rely heavily on complexity features that function
syntactically as clause modifers or complements (e.g., adverbials and
complement clauses) while informational written registers rely heavily
on complexity features that function syntactically as noun modifers.
Finally, the RF conceptualization of complexity is distinctive by its focus
on register differences interpreted with respect to their associated communi-
cative functions. As noted above, the patterns of spoken versus written reg-
ister variation led to our recognition of the importance of both clausal and
phrasal complexity, because the traditional focus on dependent clauses and
structural elaboration led to the untenable conclusion that conversation was
more complex than academic writing, while failing to provide any account
of the complexities of informational written registers.
2.3 Overview of the Inventory of Structural Types

and Syntactic Functions Included in RF Studies of
Grammatical Complexity
As a reference guide for the following chapters, Table 2.1 lists the major
grammatical complexity features in English, grouped into eight general
categories that represent combinations of Structural Type and Syntactic
Function. That is, these are the major features (grammatical structures +
syntactic functions) that meet the criteria given in our defnition above.
This taxonomy of grammatical structures/syntactic functions is based
on a survey of Biber et al.’s (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English (LGSWE), republished as the Grammar of Spoken and
Written English (GSWE, Biber et al. 2021). However, a survey of any
major reference grammar of English (e.g., Quirk et al. 1985; Huddleston
and Pullum 2002) would result in a similar taxonomy (although the la-
bels for some grammatical features might differ).
Three general categories of structural types are distinguished in
Table 2.1, and each of those types can serve any of the three syntac-
tic functions. Finite dependent clauses can function as adverbials (e.g.,
because-clauses or if-clauses), complements (that-clauses or WH-clauses
controlled by a verb), or noun modifers (e.g., WH relative clauses).
Non-fnite dependent clauses can similarly function as adverbials (e.g.,
to purpose clauses), complements (e.g., to-clauses or –ing-clauses con-
trolled by a verb), or noun modifers (e.g., to-clauses or –ing-clauses
functioning as relative clauses). Finally, dependent phrases are realized
as many different specifc structural types (e.g., noun phrases, adjective
phrases, prepositional phrases), functioning as clause modifers (i.e., ad-
verbials) or phrasal modifers (specifcally noun-phrase modifers, adjec-
tive phrase modifers, or adverb phrase modifers).
The RF approach differs from most previous studies of complexity in
that these structural/syntactic characteristics are all recognized and stud-
ied separately to determine the ways in which they are important for the
Table 2.1 Grammatical complexity features in English, by structural type and syntactic function
14
Structural Syntactic function within Specifc structural/syntactic features Examples

type structural type
Finite 1. Finite adverbial clause Causative clauses: because + clause She won’t narc on me, because she prides
Dependent herself on being a gangster.
Clauses Conditional clauses: if + clause Well, if I stay here, I’ll have to leave early in
the morning.
Concesssive clauses: although + clause If I don’t put my name, she doesn’t know
who wrote it, although she might guess.
2. Finite complement clause Verb controlled that-clause I would hope that we can have more
control over them.
(with ZERO complementizer): yeah, I think
I probably could.
Verb controlled wh-clause I don’t know how they do it.
Adjective controlled that-clause It is evident that the virus formation is
related to the cytoplasmic inclusions.
Noun controlled that-clause The fact that no tracer particles were found
in or below the tight junction (zonula
occludens) indicates that these areas are
not a pathway for particles of this size in
the toad bladder.
3. Finite noun modifer clause Relative clause with that The results from a large number of cloze
tests were used to estimate the amount
The Register-Functional Perspective on Complexity
of experimental error that could be

expected to result from using cloze tests
of various lengths
Relative clause with wh- relativizer Their nucleoid is formed by dense granules
and rods composing a ring which limits
a central electrontransparent space.
Non-f nite 4. Non-f nite adverbial clause to-clause indicating ‘purpose’ To verify our conclusion that the organic
dependent material is arranged as a coating around
clauses the silica shell components, thin sections
of f xed cells were also examined.
5. Non-f nite complement clause Verb-controlled to-clause I really want to f x this room up.
Verb-controlled ing-clause I like watching the traffc go by.
Adjective-controlled to-clause It was important to obtain customer
feedback.
Noun-controlled to-clause The project is part of a massive plan to
complete the section of road…
6. Non-f nite noun modifying Noun + ing-clause Transfer tests following over-training
clause (non-f nite relative clause) indicated individual variability.
Noun + ed-clause (non-f nite passive The results shown in Tables IV and V add
relative clause) to the picture…
Dependent 7. Adverbial phrase (i.e., a phrase Adverb phrase as adverbial I raved about it afterward.
phrases modifying a clause) Prepositional phrase as adverbial Alright, we’ll talk to you in the morning.
8. Phrasal Modifer of a noun Attributive adjectives as noun premodifer emotional injury, conventional practices
modifer phrase Nouns as noun premodifer aviation security committee, fghter pilot
(i.e., a training
phrase Prepositional phrases as noun Class mean scores were computed by
modifying postmodifer averaging the
another scores for male and female target students
phrase) in the class.
Appositive noun phrases as noun Two Stuart monarchs (Charles I and
postmodifer Charles II) were strongly suspected of
Romish sympathies.
James Klein, president of the American
Benefts Council
Register-Functional Approach
Modifer of an Adverb phrase as adjective modifer That cat was surprisingly fast.
adjective phrase
15
Modifer of an Adverb phrase as adverb modifer We will see those impacts fairly quickly.
adverb phrase
study of different registers and demographic varieties. This descriptive
approach refects the underlying theoretical view that linguistic varia-
tion is inherent to language and thus is given primacy in any linguis-
tic analysis. That theoretical perspective in turn refects the assumption
that linguistic variation exists for functional reasons (e.g., relating to
differing linguistic contexts, different communicative purposes, serving
to index different social groups), and thus any description of a linguistic
system should distinguish among the range of linguistic variants and
attempt to account for the patterns of variation in functional terms. In
contrast, the omnibus-measure perspective has adopted the opposite
approach, disregarding structural/syntactic variation, disregarding any
possible functional explanations for differences in the use of particular
complexity features, and instead relying on omnibus measures that try
to combine multiple aspects of complexity into a single variable.
Rather than disregarding structural and syntactic variants, the RF ap-
proach to grammatical complexity distinguishes among the full range of
structural devices and syntactic functions. In the following chapters, we
present empirical evidence—from descriptive synchronic and diachronic
studies as well as applied studies of language development—to show that
these structural and syntactic differences actually matter for the descrip-
tion of spoken and written discourse, because speakers and writers use
different complexity features in different ways, to differing extents, and
for different purposes.
2.4 Historical Antecedents of the RF Approach
2.4.1 Multi-Dimensional Analysis

Although they were not undertaken as investigations of grammatical
complexity, Multi-Dimensional (MD) analyses of register variation
provided the initial impetus for the development of the RF approach.
The MD analytical framework was originally developed to investigate
the linguistic differences between spoken versus written discourse in
English. Previous studies had come to a wide range of contradictory con-
clusions about the relationship between speech and writing, with some
claiming fundamental differences between the two modes, while others
claimed essentially no difference between the modes. MD analysis was
motivated by two major limitations in these previous studies: they were
based on a restricted set of registers (often only a single register in speech
and writing), and they typically investigated only a small set of linguistic
characteristics. In contrast, MD analysis was developed to investigate a
wide range of spoken and written registers with respect to a comprehen-
sive set of lexico-grammatical characteristics. The notion of linguistic
co-occurrence was key as the organizing principle to describe how those
linguistic characteristics worked together as a system defning the pat-
terns of variation among spoken and written registers in English.
Biber (1988) is the most important publication of the early phase of
MD research. This book-length study focused on the research question
of how speech and writing in English differed linguistically. The anal-
ysis identifed fve main dimensions of variation in a general corpus of
spoken and written registers. The co-occurring groupings of features
on each dimension refect distinct functional relations, indicated by the
interpretive labels for each one: ‘Involved versus informational produc-
tion’, ‘Narrative discourse’, ‘Situation-dependent versus elaborated ref-
erence’, ‘Overt expression of persuasion’, and ‘Impersonal style’.
For our purposes here, the most important fnding from the 1988
analysis related to the ‘Involved versus informational production’ di-
mension. At its extremes, that dimension distinguished between spoken
conversational registers versus specialist, informational written registers
(e.g., academic writing and offcial documents). Not surprisingly, con-
versation was characterized by the frequent use of interactive and personal
involvement features, such as pronouns, questions, and stance adverbs.
The surprising fnding, though, was that some dependent-clause complex-
ity features also frequently co-occurred with these interactive and involved
features, especially that complement clauses and fnite adverbial clauses.
In contrast, the informational written registers were characterized by their
extremely frequent use of phrasal features like nouns, attributive adjec-
tives, and prepositional phrases—with no co-occurring types of dependent
clauses. Based on these results, we started to think early on that traditional
approaches were failing to fully capture the complexities of spoken and
written registers and the nature of grammatical complexity itself.
The importance of these patterns became increasingly obvious as
researchers over the following decades carried out additional MD
analyses of register variation in other discourse domains in English
and in other languages. In all of these MD studies, there is a dimen-
sion associated with an oral-literate opposition (see the survey in Biber
2014). Linguistically, this opposition is realized as two fundamen-
tally different ways of constructing discourse: clausal versus phrasal.
That is, across studies the oral pole of this dimension consists of verb
classes (e.g., mental verbs, communication verbs), grammatical char-
acteristics of verb phrases (e.g., present tense, progressive aspect),
modifers of verbs and clauses (e.g., adverbs and stance adverbials),
pronoun classes, and colloquial features (like discourse markers). But
the important fnding for our purposes here is that these ‘oral’ features
also include grammatical complexity features: dependent clauses that
function as clausal constituents, especially adverbial clauses and fnite
complement clauses. In contrast, the ‘literate’ pole usually consists of
phrasal devices that mostly function as elements of noun phrases, espe-
cially nouns, nominalizations, attributive adjectives, and prepositional
phrases. In nearly every study, this parameter is the frst dimension
identifed by the statistical factor analysis; thus, it is the most import-
ant factor, accounting for the greatest amount of shared variance.
Apart from the frst paper in Part II of the book, the articles included
in this collection are not MD studies. Thus, we do not document here
the ways in which complexity features co-occur with the range of other
lexico-grammatical features in English. Rather, we focus specifcally on
grammatical complexity features: their register distributions, discourse
functions, and historical and individual development. However, our hy-
potheses about the use of these features, and especially our interest in
both phrasal as well as dependent-clause complexity features, have been
strongly infuenced by these earlier MD studies.
2.4.2 The Grammar of Spoken and Written English

The second major research project that informed the development of the
RF approach to grammatical complexity was Biber et al.’s (1999) Longman
Grammar of Spoken and Written English (LGSWE), republished as the
Grammar of Spoken and Written English (GSWE, Biber et al. 2021). The
LGSWE/GSWE is a corpus-based reference grammar of English, describ-
ing the complete range of grammatical features in English, and comparing
the distributions and functions of those features across four major regis-
ters: conversation, fction, newspapers, and academic prose. The register
comparisons are based on analysis of a representative corpus of texts (the
Longman Spoken and Written English Corpus) containing approximately
5 million words from each register (see Biber et al. 1999: 24–35). The
LGSWE/GSWE describes the structural characteristics of grammatical fea-
tures in English, but at the same time, it presents quantitative corpus-based
fndings that describe the patterns of register variation for those features.
Thus, the LGSWE/GSWE ends up providing a comprehensive quantitative
grammatical description of those four registers, specifying the extent to
which each lexico-grammatical feature is frequent or rare in each register.
The descriptions of conversation and academic prose turned out to be
especially relevant for the development of the RF approach. The frequency
fndings in the LGSWE/GSWE allow us to identify core grammatical fea-
tures that are typical of conversation or academic writing by virtue of the
fact that they occur frequently in those registers. Because the descriptive
goal was to survey the complete range of grammatical features in En-
glish, the LGSWE/GSWE ended up including coverage of many different
complexity features—and in the process, documenting patterns of register
variation that ran completely counter to prior expectations.
For example, corpus analysis in the LGSWE/GSWE shows that many
types of dependent clauses are much more frequent in conversation
than in academic writing. This is especially the case for fnite depen-
dent clauses that function syntactically as clause constituents. Thus,
that complement clauses controlled by verbs (e.g., think that… or know
that…) are 400% more common in conversation than in academic
writing (see Biber et al. 1999: 668–669, 674); Verb + WH complement
clauses (e.g., know what/who…) are over 1,000% more common in con-
versation than in academic writing (see Biber et al. 1999: 689), and fnite
adverbial clauses (e.g., because or if clauses) are almost 200% more fre-
quent in conversation (see Biber et al. 1999: 826).
In contrast, the corpus fndings in the LGSWE/GSWE showed that
many types of dependent phrases are extremely common in academic
writing (and rare in conversation), especially when they function as
modifers in a noun phrase. For example, attributive adjectives (an ad-
jective modifying a head noun; e.g., important consideration) are al-
most 400% more frequent in academic writing than in conversation,
and nouns as premodifers of a head noun (e.g., sea level change) are over
500% more frequent in academic writing (see Biber et al. 1999: 589 ff.).
Prepositional phrases as nominal postmodifers (e.g., reduction in vari-
ability) and appositive noun phrases (e.g., both types of computers, PCs
or Macs…) are similarly many times more frequent in academic writing
than in conversation (see Biber et al. 1999: 606).
Figure 2.1 provides a schematic overview of the grammatical complex-
ity system of English. Many of the linguistic features listed in Table 2.1
above are shown schematically in this fgure, organized according to the
two parameters of structural type and syntactic function. At the same
time, Figure 2.1 highlights some of the most important fndings from
Finite
Dependent Finite relative clauses That, wh-verb complement clauses
That, wh-noun complement clauses That, wh-adjective complement clauses
Clauses Finite adverbial clauses
Structural Form
Non-finite (-ed, -ing, to-) complement clauses

Non-Finite Non-finite (-ed, -ing) relative clauses
Non-finite adverbial clauses
Non-finite (-ed, -ing, to-) noun complements
Dependent
Clauses
Attributive adjectives
Nouns as noun modifiers
Prep phrases as noun modifiers Prepositional phrases as adverbials
Dependent Appositive noun phrases
Phrases
Noun Phrase Clause

Constituents Constituents
Syntactic Function
Figure 2.1 Categorizing grammatical complexity features with respect to

structural and syntactic parameters (features common in academic
writing but rare in speech are marked in the solid box; features com-
mon in speech but rare in academic writing are marked in the dashed
oval; information based on The Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English, Biber et al. 1999).
the corpus research in the LGSWE/GSWE: complexity features that are
especially common in academic writing but rare in speech are marked in
the solid box, and features that are especially common in speech but rare
in academic writing are marked in the dashed oval.
Corpus-based fndings from the LGSWE/GSWE, like those summa-
rized in Figure 2.1, provide strong empirical evidence to support the
claim that syntactic function is equally important to structural type as
factors that explain the patterns of register variation for complexity fea-
tures. Thus, fnite dependent clause structures functioning syntactically
as clausal constituents (i.e., adverbial clauses or complement clauses—
marked in the dashed oval on Figure 2.1) are extremely frequent in spo-
ken registers, but rare in academic written registers. In contrast, phrasal
structures functioning syntactically as modifers of noun phrases (e.g.,
attributive adjectives, premodifying nouns, postmodifying prepositional
phrases—marked in the solid box on Figure 2.1) are extremely frequent
in written academic registers, somewhat common in other written infor-
mational registers, but notably rare in spoken registers.
Looking beyond the two extreme types of grammatical features high-
lighted in Figure 2.1, the fndings reported in the LGSWE/GSWE further
indicate that all complexity features have their own register distribu-
tions. For example, fnite dependent clauses functioning as noun modif-
ers (i.e., fnite relative clauses) and prepositional phrases functioning as
adverbials are relatively common in both written and spoken registers.
Non-fnite complement clauses controlled by verbs and non-fnite adver-
bial clauses tend to be more common in spoken registers than written
registers. But noun complement clauses (fnite and non-fnite) tend to be
considerably more common in written registers than in spoken registers.
In addition, many of these grammatical complexity features co-occur
with particular sets of controlling words, and those lexico-grammatical
combinations often have strong register patterns.
Thus, although the research underlying the LGSWE/GSWE was not
motivated by an interest in grammatical complexity, the corpus-based
fndings presented in that reference grammar provide a strong founda-
tion for research focused specifcally on complexity features. The chap-
ters included in Parts II and III of this book provide the details of those
subsequent studies.
2.4.3 The Text-Linguistic (TxtLx)

Approach to Register Variation
Taken together, the studies outlined in Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 above
constitute a research agenda with several distinctive characteristics.
More recently, that research approach has been formalized under the
rubric of the Text-Linguistic (TxtLx) approach to register variation (see,
e.g., Biber 2019; Biber, Egbert, and Keller 2020; Biber et al. 2021, to
appear). There are several key characteristics of the TxtLx approach that
distinguish it from other theoretical approaches to registers and register
variation, including:
• The overall analytical goal:

– Generalizable descriptions of registers and patterns of register
variation
• Analytical methods:
– Corpus-based; linguistic; quantitative and qualitative/
interpretive
• Research design:
– Based on quantitative-linguistic analysis of each text, i.e. not
based on analysis of the entire corpus
• The major underlying theoretical assumption:
– The use of linguistic features varies quantitatively across texts/
registers because those features serve the communicative func-
tions required by the situational contexts of those texts/registers
This last point is the most important distinguishing characteristic of

the TxtLx approach. In many other subdisciplines of linguistics (such as
variationist sociolinguistics and construction grammar), patterns of lan-
guage use and variation are analyzed as being conventionally associated
with dialect and register differences. In this view, learning a language
involves learning how particular linguistic variants are conventionally
associated with particular contexts of use. The TxtLx framework, how-
ever, goes a step further, positing a causative relationship between the
communicative requirements of a situational context and the linguistic
features that tend to be used in that context. The practical difference be-
tween the two perspectives relates to the question of whether the pattern
of use could, in theory, be reversed. If linguistic variants simply have a
conventional association with a situation of use, the answer to that ques-
tion is ‘yes’. But, if the situational context is the direct functional force
infuencing linguistic choice and preference, the answer is ‘no’.
To take a simple example, consider the distribution of nouns and
pronouns across spoken and written registers. In general, pronouns are
extremely common in most spoken registers and comparatively rare in
many written registers. Nouns have the opposite distribution: relatively
rare in most spoken registers, but extremely common in some written
registers. If this pattern refected a simple conventional association,
then we could imagine a theoretical language where the reverse pattern
would be found: nouns especially common in speech, and pronouns es-
pecially common in writing. However, there is instead every reason to
believe that the observed linguistic distribution is actually caused by the
functional requirements of the spoken and written modes, and there-
fore this pattern of variation could not be reasonably reversed. That is,
the communicative functions of nouns versus pronouns relate to their
relative informational loads and the extent to which they are used for
context-dependent reference. And spoken versus written registers tend
to differ with respect to these same considerations: the typical situa-
tional contexts of spoken registers involve shared contexts and interper-
sonal purposes, while the typical situational contexts of written registers
typically involve a complete lack of shared physical/temporal context
combined with informational purposes. This latter interpretation—that
linguistic patterns of variation are caused by the functional requirements
of the associated situational contexts—is the hallmark of the TxtLx
framework.
This characteristic of the TxtLx framework turns out to be especially
relevant for the interpretation of RF studies of grammatical complex-
ity. In particular, the differing production circumstances of the spoken
versus written modes are claimed to have a direct functional infuence
on the types of complexity features that are commonly used in spoken
registers versus written registers. Several of the chapters included in this
book take up the functional basis of the relationships between the com-
plexity features that are prevalent in different registers and the typical
situational contexts of those registers. Then, in Chapter 21, we return to
a more detailed discussion of these patterns.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
the lawyer's office alighted from the coach-top at the open
portals of the George Inn.
"Can't do better than stop here, sir," said the guide,

philosopher, and friend. "They keep a good pantry and
cellar; and that's a recommendation in these out-of-the-
world places," he added.
"Ah, yes, to be sure; you have been here before."
"Haven't I? And a jolly enough place it is, for all it looks

so dull. Shall we go in, sir?"
They had not much choice about it, as it seemed to

John Tincroft, for the inn porter had already pounced upon
the travellers' luggage, and was bearing it off in triumph.
Ten minutes later, and the two had taken possession of a
private room, and were ordering bed-chambers, a dinner, a
bottle of port, and a fire.
It was during the discussion of the third item in this

catalogue that "mine host of the George" was invited to a
confidential conference by the dapper lawyer's clerk, with
whom he claimed a previous acquaintance, and who was
not going to let the grass grow under their feet, he said.
The information obtained from the innkeeper was very

limited. It consisted altogether in negatives. There was no
such medical man in Saddlebrook as John Batts. Of this he
was quite sure. He was equally sure that there was no
practitioner of that name in the town. There might have
been fifty years or more ago, he could not say from his own
knowledge; nor was it likely that he could, he himself not
having yet arrived at that age of maturity and wisdom. To
tell the honest truth, there being no reason why he
shouldn't, he wasn't a native of Saddlebrook, and hadn't
lived in it over fifteen years; so it was not likely he should
know much on the subject. Thus Mr. Bartrum protested.
"At any rate, you will take a glass of wine with us, Mr.
Bartrum?" said Foster, who had constituted himself master
of the ceremonies, and slipped into that position with
professional ease.
Mr. Bartrum accepted the invitation, sealing himself at

the table meanwhile. And as the port was really good, he
made no wry faces over it.
The inquisition proceeded. Could Mr. Bartrum refer to

any old inhabitant of the town likely to possess the requisite
information?
Yes, to be sure: wasn't there old Freeman, the sexton,

who was also town-crier, and had held those joint offices
any time within the memory of man, so to speak, under
correction? To say the least, as Mr. Bartrum had heard, he
had held them over sixty years. He was an old fellow now,
eighty-five or more, people said; but he was as strong as
ever in the lungs.
"You should hear him cry out his 'Oh yes! Oh yes!'" said
mine host, admiringly. "Why, he is to be heard from the
market-place up to the top of the street as plain as plain
can be. And sometimes he is parish clerk as well, when the
proper one is away. And what do you think he did a few
Sundays ago, when he was in the desk?"
Mr. Bartrum's hearers did not know, but would be happy

to be informed.
"Ha, ha! He, he!" giggled the innkeeper. "I beg pardon,
gentlemen, but I can't help laughing when I think of it. It
was a hot day, you must know, and the poor old man got
drowsy while the sermon was going on—went off to sleep,
in fact; and so, no doubt, he would have slept on all the
while the parson's voice was going on overhead. But
presently there was a sort of stop when the sermon was
ended, and this roused the old fellow, who jumped up,
forgetting where he was, but fancying he had got something
to do in his regular everyday calling, and bawled out at the
top of his voice, 'Oh yes! Oh yes!' I reckon he won't be
parish clerk again in a hurry."
"And you think this old sexton can help us out, Mr.
Bartrum?" said Foster, when the needful tribute of attention
had been paid to his anecdote.
"I shouldn't wonder, for he knows about everything and

everybody in Saddlebrook; and if he can't tell, I don't know
who can."
"And about Elizabeth Foold?"
Here again was a blank. There was no such person, to

his knowledge, in Saddlebrook now, whatever might have
been. But then, she being a very humble person (only a
nurse, it seemed), Mr. Bartrum could not be expected to
know much about it. Old Freeman would be the man,
however, to know. Or perhaps the marriage-book or the
burial-book in the church vestry might give some
information.
And here, for that night, the subject was dismissed.
The old sexton was easily found on the following

morning. He was superintending the digging of a grave in
the churchyard, his infirmities of age having rendered it
necessary to employ a subordinate. He was ready enough,
also, to furnish information, so far as his own knowledge
extended. But even he, though a very almanack in the past
history of Saddlebrook, could not tell all that the young
lawyer and his client would have liked to know.
He told them this, however. He remembered the doctor

whose name appeared on the document. He remembered
him very well; and ah! Wasn't he a clever doctor? But he
hadn't been able to cure himself—whatever he did for
others—of a great swelling that came out of his neck like,
just above his collar-bone. People called it "a new schism,"
or something of that sort. He didn't understand fine names,
the old sexton didn't; but he had always looked upon
schism as being another name for yeast, and clearly that
wasn't what was the matter with the doctor.
"Perhaps it was aneurysm," suggested John Tincroft.
"Like enough, sir; and anyhow, the swelling got bigger,

till at last the poor doctor died of a sudden, as he always
said he should. There's his tombstone, gentlemen, if you
have any curiosity that way," continued the sexton, pointing
to one some little distance across the churchyard.
"We may as well look, and make a note of it," said

Foster; and they accordingly walked up to the stone, the
clerk taking out his note-book and pencil.
"Name—so and so," muttered he, as he copied down

the inscription: "date, um—thirty-five years ago; age, sixty-
nine. Thank you, that will do, friend. Ever married, was he?"
"Married when young, and lost his wife soon after.

There's her stone, next his, and that's how I came to know
about it."
"Married again, perhaps?"

"No, sir. He wur faithful to his first love, he wur," said
the old man, with unction.
"Children, any?"
"Not a chick, sir. And nobody to take his name. His

business got sold for what it would fetch, and that and
some money he had went, by will, to some far-away cousin.
And there was the end of him."
Clearly, there was not much to be made of this

information. But a thought suggested itself to Mr. Foster's
legal mind. Since property was left behind, and a will for the
disposal of it, some lawyer in the town would, in all
probability, be acquainted with the late practitioner's
signature. And there was the will itself which told of
Doctors' Commons.
Making a note of these hints, the adroit clerk turned to

the second head of his inquiries—Elizabeth Foold. But here
he could obtain no further information than that no family
of that name had ever lived in Saddlebrook, to the old
sexton's knowledge. Certainly, none such had ever been
buried in the graveyard in his time; and none such had ever
been married in Saddlebrook Church, he was pretty sure.
But the book would show that, and the book was in the
parish clerk's keeping, along with the clergyman and the
churchwardens.
Setting this aside for the present, therefore, for further

research if necessary, the gentleman from Mr. Roundhand's
office placed in the old man's hand a fee, which would
perhaps have been larger if the success of his inquiries had
been more decided.
It would be tedious and unprofitable to follow our two

antiquarians, as we may for the present consider them, in
their further researches that day. It will suffice to say that
they returned to their late dinner at the George—Mr. Foster
rather disgusted with the general stolidity of the inhabitants
of Saddlebrook, the more so that his inquiries had hitherto
produced no palpable result; and John Tincroft thinking he
should be much happier with another companion, and
wondering how they got on at High Beech Farm without
him.
The next morning a new light entered the mind of the

lawyer's clerk. This Elizabeth Foold, whose name figured as
a nurse on the certificate, and of whom no trace or track
could yet be discovered—might she not be heard of in the
religious community or congregation with which her then
employers had been connected? What more natural than
that the heads of a Dissenting household should engage the
services of a Dissenting nurse? Now, as we have explained,
there were two Dissenting chapels in Saddlebrook: one of
these, Foster had learned, was the meeting-house of a
congregation of the Presbyterian body; the other belonged
to the Baptists.
"We'll go and find out the minister of that chapel, to

begin with," quoth Mr. Foster, as he and Tincroft sat
together at breakfast.
"Should you mind going alone?" asked John, timidly,

with an undefinable dread, perhaps, of coming into personal
contact with a live sectarian.
"Oh, that wouldn't do. We must go together, of course.

You are my principal, you know, sir; and you have to see
that I do my duty by you."
No further opposition being offered, and the address of

the minister being easily obtained, the two gentlemen from
London, as they were supposed to be, presently proceeded
to his house. They found him at home, and were shown into
his study—a quiet back room of moderate dimensions, well
furnished with book-shelves, and looking out upon a
cheerful garden.
After a short delay, the minister appeared, and very

much, probably, to the surprise of John Tincroft, who
examined him, with his eyes, narrowly from head to foot,
he was so much like a gentleman, that John concluded he
must be one, in spite of his being a Dissenter. He was a
young man, somewhat to the disappointment of Mr. Foster,
who opened the business, however, and was attentively
listened to.
"Of course," he said, "I can have no personal

remembrance of the persons you name; but possibly the
records of our church—"
("Church, too!" thought John within himself. "He calls

his meeting-house a church, does he! Rather strong that, I
think.")
"May contain some information on the subject. Our

church-book dates back at its commencement more than a
hundred years. And I have it by me. And also my friend, the
senior deacon of our church, may be able to tell us
something. He has been a member more than fifty years. I
will send and ask him to step in. He lives not far-off."
A messenger was accordingly despatched; and while

waiting for him, the minister took the lead in a conversation
which somewhat enlightened our friend John as to the
meaning to be attached to the word to which he had taken
mental exception; and this enlightenment reminded him of
one of the fundamental Articles of his own Church, which,
for the moment, had escaped his memory.
The conversation was broken off by the arrival of the

senior deacon, whose grave and gentlemanly appearance
once more gave Tincroft a start of surprise.
"I shouldn't think the Munster fanatics were anything

like these gentlemen," he candidly argued within himself.
Yes, Mr. Cooper (the deacon) remembered Mr.

Makepeace Tincroft, though at that time he was a young
member, having very recently joined the church; and he
remembered Mrs. Tincroft, too—a most godly woman,
whose death, soon after that of her husband, was
universally lamented. She was a most devoted, charitable
lady; a true Tabitha.
"I don't know why you should give that name to my

grandmother, sir," said John rather nettled for a moment,
the more so that he had been warmed up by the other part
of the eulogium passed upon her. "I don't see why she
should be called nicknames," said he.
"Otherwise Dorcas, who made coats for the poor, and

was full of good works and alms deeds, and who was so
mourned when she died that the Apostle Peter restored her
to life," said the minister quietly and aside to his visitor,
whereupon John, recollecting the second name, blushed
deeply and penitently.
Proceeding in his reminiscences, the senior deacon had

some slight remembrance of a young person, once also a
member of the church, named Foold. But there his
knowledge ended. The church-book, then, was the ultimate
resort; and before long these records were found, under
their proper dates and headings, such as Name, Residence,
When admitted into the Church, Date, and Cause of
Separation.
First was Makepeace Tincroft, of whom (omitting the

first items and dates) it was written that he "died in the
Lord."
Next was Susannah Tincroft, who "died much honoured

in life and greatly lamented in death."
Next and that most sought for and desired, the name of
Elizabeth Foold was found. "A young person of much
promise, aged twenty-two; not in permanent residence in
Saddlebrook, but in much request in the town and
neighbourhood as a nurse, for which she has been trained."
Then, in the last column, came this entry: "Withdrawn.
Gone to reside in London."
There was no more to be obtained at Saddlebrook; and

so after another day or two spent in futile inquiries, Mr.
Foster and his client, for the time being, turned their backs
upon the dull town, enlivened only by the attractions of the
George; and in due time arrived at Oxford to report their
want of success.
CHAPTER IX.
A RIFT IN THE CLOUD.
ON the day after his return to Oxford, John Tincroft

entered upon his temporary lodgings at Jericho—an outlying
district of the university city. I need not stop to explain how
it came to bear this Oriental name.
On taking possession of the little sitting-room, John

made a great show of literary industry. He covered the
round table with papers, and all the minuter paraphernalia
of a diligent student. He piled up his books of reference and
instruction within reach of his hand, when seated at the
aforesaid table, in the arm-chair placed at his disposal. He
hung upon the walls his store of maps and diagrams of the
Indian dependencies and their cities; and he rather
ostentatiously displayed, spread open on a second chair, his
bulky dictionary of some unknown tongue, perhaps (for who
is without some weakness?) to strike with astonishment the
brisk college scout, should he happen to enter the room in
his absence, or the equally brisk little wife who undertook to
take care of the lodger's apartments, also of his outer and
his inner man.
For Barry was a married man, without encumbrances

however; much to the comfort of the student, to whom a
squalling infant would at that time have been, as he said,
an unbearable nuisance.
The little wife, though she kept no servant girl, was not
the only female in the establishment, as Tincroft soon
learned. There was upstairs, in a back apartment, a
mysterious old lady, the mother of the Oxford scout. I say
mysterious, simply because John Tincroft chose to make a
mystery of her, on the ground that he had been in the
enjoyment of his lodgings some days before he heard of her
existence, and because he was then told that she very
rarely left her room. Once, indeed, as he was ascending
from his room below to his chamber above, he caught a
glimpse on the landing-place of a very broad back and
shoulders in feminine gear, and a high white muslin cap
above the shoulders; but these disappeared within the
doorway of the back apartment before he arrived at the top
stairs, and for that time, and during the whole time of his
sojourn in Jericho, he beheld the vision no more. It did not
matter to him, John thought, and as he dismissed the
mystery from his mind as soon as formed, we also may
dismiss it too for the present.
Great as was the show our friend Tincroft made of his

studious inclinations and intentions, he was never less
inclined to set to work than at this present time; and when
he forced himself to begin, his vagrant thoughts perpetually
forced him to lay down his books or his pen (whichever
might be in his hand) in despair.
"For which I ought to be whipped if there were anybody

to take me in hand," quoth John to himself, in a scold.
But there was not anybody to do it, so the experiment

was not tried. Perhaps it would have failed if it had been, for
John's wandering ideas were very stubborn, though they
were limited to two or three separate topics.
First of all, his failure at Saddlebrook dwelt on his mind.

Up to the time of that excursion into Sussex, Tincroft had
thought but lightly of his chances of success in the
Chancery suit. Possibly he might win, and then so much the
better. But the greater probability was that he would lose,
so his guardian had always averred; for what chance had he
against his prosperous rival and competitor? True, he had
occasionally boasted, as to Mark Wilson, for instance, of his
great prospects; but this was with the natural desire, and
yielding to the natural temptation, to stand at as high a
figure as he could in the eyes of that besotted lump of
humanity, as the guest of his friend and Mark's landlord,
Grigson; and not himself believing in his own "tall talk."
The truth is, John would have abandoned the suit on his
first coming of age, or would have sold his pretensions for a
very inconsiderable sum of money down, if he could have
thus got rid of any future demands on his purse. But he was
told then that neither of these courses could be thought of,
and that the suit must be carried on. Now, however, a little
clearer light had broken in upon his dull comprehension. Mr.
Roundhand's explanations had done something in this
direction. There wanted only one link, it seemed, in the
chain of evidence, and this had been almost in his grasp,
but not quite. His expectations had been raised, but only to
be disappointed. No doubt the lawyer had, since his return,
endeavoured to raise his hope that something might be
made of the Saddlebrook notes of his clerk. But Tincroft
saw, or thought he saw, that this was to let him down
gently. At any rate, he did not implicitly believe in Mr.
Roundhand's representations.
But, notwithstanding this, since the vision of property, if

not, of great wealth, had loomed with more distinctness on
his mind, he could not help thinking what a very pleasant
thing it would be, could these expectations be realised. The
ideal of a leisurely life of ease had grown upon him more
distinctly during his visit to the Manor House in—no, I shall
not write the name—in that distant county.
His destination to India had never been very much to
John's taste. There was too much work in it, both present
and in prospect, to suit his inherent love of inertness and
ease—an inclination probably inherited from his father, the
literary busy idler. It was not then, as it once had been, or
was supposed to have been, that a man had only to get to
India and shake the pagoda tree, and then come home with
a disordered liver and a fabulous fortune. John, dull as he
was, knew better than this; and only for the necessity laid
upon him by circumstances, he would willingly long ago
have abandoned his Oriental studies and prospects.
And during his sojourn in the Manor House, John had

seen so much that was inviting in a life of moneyed ease,
that he had thought how cruel it was to be shut out from it.
Not that he would ever have emulated or imitated Mr.
Richard Grigson in his preposterous activity, with his
hunting, and shooting, and cricketing, and other
unnecessary occupations, which his (John's) soul abhorred.
But to have a quiet home, a sufficient income, a tolerable
library, gardens and greenhouses, a corresponding
establishment of servants, and—to crown all—a wife!
Poor John Tincroft! Take which way he would to it, there

was the ultimatum of bliss—those pretty curls, those bright
and beaming eyes, those soft cheeks and pouting lips, that
alabaster neck, those gentle hands!
And so, travelling from Tincroft house and estate to

Saddlebrook, and from Saddlebrook to Oxford, and from
Oxford to Calcutta, or elsewhere in India, and then back
again in a trice to Blankshire in England, John Tincroft's
vagabond imagination never halted till it rested on that ark
of no promise to him, the shabby parlour of High Beech
farmhouse, with its knobby-seated chair.
IL was to no purpose that John argued within himself,
as he sometimes did, that all this was vain and even sinful.
"I verily believe," said he to himself on one occasion,

"that I am led captive of the devil at his will," and he
dashed the book he was trying to read on to the floor with
such violence that little Mrs. Barry rushed from the kitchen
below in alarm to ask if anything was the matter, which for
the time brought John to his senses.
But again and again, day after day, the image of the
enchantress rose before his thoughts; and not the less so
that he well knew, as a man and a gentleman, that Sarah
Wilson could be no more to him than a bewitching and
distracting though delightful memory of the past.
Thus three or four weeks passed away, with little

addition to John Tincroft's stores of Oriental erudition; and
the time came when he must quit the retirement of Jericho
for the more classic shades of Queen's College, with his two
solitary rooms therein. Meanwhile, as he was contemplating
this flight, the following epistle reached him:
"DEAR TINCROFT,—This has been a horrid

bad season for birds (videlicet, partridges). The
wet weeks at hatching time, and the rats and
weasels, have brought down our bags to a
minimum. I was out all day, the 25th inst., and
only bagged a brace and a half. Luckily, there is
a good promise of pheasants; and pheasant-
shooting, you know, begins to-morrow. And
then there's a splendid lot of hares, to say
nothing of foxes, on Dick's happy hunting-
ground. So I don't mean to see Oxford till Lent
term begins. I shan't lose much by dropping
Michaelmas term, I reckon; and I shall manage
to get an excuse."
"Please make all needful arrangements about

my rooms and books, and so forth, and call on
Dry, my tailor, in the High Street, and one or
two others that you know of, to set their minds
at rest that I haven't run away."
"There is not much going on down here.

Rubric isn't come back yet from the Continent,
and we have got a Cambridge man to do duty
for him—a good sort of fellow enough, but he
can't shoot."
"The harvest is all got in now, though a late

one, and the wheat has turned out an average
crop, Dick says. Ditto the barley; and turnips
are splendid. But I forget, you are no Agricola. I
wish I was going to be one, that's all."
"By the way, I have been over to the Mumbles

a few times since you ran away from us. I wish
you had gone; I should like to have your
opinion of Kate Elliston."
"Dick sends his messages, and says when you

like to have another turn out, you know the way
to, and the ways of, Liberty Hall. So says also
—"
"TOM
GRIGSON."
Matters were not much improved with Tincroft when he
got, back to his old rooms at Queen's—not at first, that is;
but gradually, he slid back into his old habits, and, partially
at least, forgot the disturbances of the last three months of
his existence. In other words, there was a lull in the visible
current of the maelstrom, that was all.
One day came the scout Barry to his room, with a face
full of importance.
"Very busy, Mr. Tincroft?"
"Not very—not more than usual. What is it, Barry?"
"I wouldn't trouble you, sir; but my mother is in such a

way."
"Your mother?"
"She keeps going on at me for not telling her before.

You know my mother, sir?"
"I can't say that I do," said John, wondering whether

the scout had lost his senses. "I know you have a mother—
that is, I heard as much from your wife while I was staying
at Jericho. But I never had the pleasure of seeing her,
except, to be sure, her back once," added John, with a strict
regard to veracity.
"That's very true, sir. You see she doesn't like to be

stared at, mother doesn't; that's why, Mr. Tincroft."
"Was she afraid that your lodger would stare at her?"

asked John, without much apparent curiosity.
"Well, partly, sir; otherwise, she is afraid of being stared

at when she goes out, which she never does if she can help
it, letting alone the getting up and down stairs."
"Ah! How so?" asked John, crossing his legs, and biting
the feather end of his pen.
"The truth is, she is so uncommon stout, and she

doesn't like it to be seen or known. It isn't her fault, sir; she
starves herself to keep it down: that's what mother does.
But the more she starves, the fatter she gets, poor thing,"
said Barry, pathetically.
"Oh," said John, "then I think I should leave off starving

myself if I were in her place."
"That's what I tell her, but what's the use? None at all,"
remarked the affectionate son, in a tone of pathetic
remonstrance. "But that's neither here nor there," added
he, reverting to his primary topic. "Mother's uncommon
sorry she didn't know about who it was had our rooms till
you was gone, not till a week ago: and ever since she has
been going on in a way, sir; ever since she knowed you was
a Tincroft."
"And why—why?" asked John, with a new interest

awakened. "I mean, what reason has she to care about my
being a Tincroft?"
"Well," said Scout, "that's what I wanted to know of

mother."
"Yes; well?"
"Oh!" says mother. "I have known Tincrofts before in

my time. You see, sir, before mother got so overgrowed
with starving, she was out and about a good deal, here and
there as a monthly—" and here Mr. Barry jerked his head
once or twice knowingly—
("Monthly! What's that?" John put to himself, mentally,
for the term was lost upon him. Not to appear ignorant,
however, he nodded his head, too; and Barry went on.)
"And so got acquainted with a many high families. And

by reason of this," continued the dutiful, "she laid up a good
bit of money against the rainy day; so now she lives
comfortable if it wasn't for her fatness, which is none of her
choosing, if you'll believe me, sir."
John Tincroft showed no signs of disbelief, so Mr. Barry

still proceeded.
"The house we live in is mother's, sir; she bought it and

paid for it, and set me up with furniture, wife and all, fifteen
years ago, bless her; and I'm down in her will for
everything when she dies, which," added the son, "won't be
for many years to come, if God pleases. Only as she is five-
and-seventy, if ever a day, and with her fat, too, much isn't
to be expected."
"I dare say not," said John, dreamily, for he was

wondering what would come next. Then he added, "And
your good mother, did you say she wishes to see me?"
"Ever since she heard of your being a Tincroft, sir; and

more particularly when I happened to mention your having
come up from Sussex, where you had been on some law
business, as you told me, sir. I hope there was no harm in
mentioning that?" said Barry, solicitously.
"None at all."
"Thank ye, sir."
"But why should the old lady be concerned about my

having been down to Sussex?" John wanted to be told.
"Why, sir, she says of course then you must be one of
the Sussex Tincrofts, begging your pardon for using
mother's words."
"Oh! No harm in that; and as to that, I am one of the

Sussex Tincrofts, the only one left," said John. "Did she say
any more?" he asked, his interest growing stronger.
"Yes, sir. She asked your given name; and when I said it
was John, she was rather put out, and said it ought to have
been Josiah, or else Makepeace."
John Tincroft started from his chair, and then took what
Barry afterwards described as "three skips and a jump to
the window just like a flea." And as that useful personage
was bedmaker by profession, there was less that was
startling and odd in his simile. After looking out of the
window, and making sure that the dome of the Radcliffe
Library was in its proper place, he turned again to the half-
alarmed scout, with a—
"Dear me, Barry! Why, my father's name was Josiah,

and my grandfather's was Makepeace. And what came
next?" he demanded, wildly.
"Why, sir, she said she nursed a little Josiah Tincroft

when he was brought into the world, and Makepeace
Tincroft was his father."
"Come with me, Barry; come with me this instant,"

shouted John, as, rushing to the scout and clutching his
arm, he dragged him to the door. "You must go with me to
my lawyer, Roundhand, you know, in St. Aldates."
"Yes, sir, yes, certainly, Mr. Tincroft; but won't you put
on your cap and gown, sir?"
"Ah! Yes, yes," and John relinquished his hold.
"And excuse me, sir, you have only got your slippers on.
Here are your boots, Mr. Tincroft."
"Thank you, Barry. Ah! I forget myself sometimes," said

John, as he properly equipped himself. "And now I am
ready," he added.
"But, Barry," said he, as they, having taken a short cut,

were crossing the Peckwater Quadrangle of Christ Church,
"there must be some mistake, I think. For I happen to know
that the nurse's name on that occasion was Elizabeth Foold;
and your mother's is Barry."
"That's just it, sir," replied the scout, without showing

any symptoms of surprise, happening to be tolerably well
acquainted with John's absence of mind. "You see most girls
or women take another name when they get married; and
that's how mother's name is Barry now. Otherwise for five-
and-thirty years or more, before she fell in with my father
(and lost him ten years after), her name was Elizabeth
Foold; and so it stands in her old Bible and her Rippon's
hymn-book, that she used to take to chapel with her. For
mother's a Baptist, sir; but a good woman for all that, and
one that would not deceive you for anything you could
name, Mr. Tincroft—not if she knew it."
The information conveyed to Mr. Roundhand by his

client and the unexpected witness was too important, as
well as welcome, not to be immediately turned to account.
Proceeding at once to Jericho, and the old lady having
forgotten or overcome her aversion to being made a sight of
in her eagerness to behold the grandson of the "dear good
gentleman, Makepeace Tincroft, and his lovely, patient

The Register Functional Approach To Grammatical Complexity Theoretical Foundation Descriptive Research Findings Application 1st Edition Douglas Biber

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Register Functional Approach To Grammatical Complexity Theoretical Foundation Descriptive Research Findings Application 1st Edition Douglas Biber

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Register Functional Approach to

Grammatical Complexity Theoretical

A Complexity Approach to Sustainability Theory and

A Functional Approach to Java Ben Weidig

Overcoming Addiction: An Islamic Approach to Recovery

A Functional Approach to Family Case Work Jessie Taft

Leadership research findings practice and skills Ninth

Generic Systems Engineering: A Methodical Approach to

Learning Functional Programming: Managing Code

Introduction to forensic psychology: Research and

Douglas Biber is Regents’ Professor of English (Applied Linguistics)

Bethany Gray is Associate Professor of English (Applied Linguistics

Shelley Staples is Associate Professor of English (Applied Linguistics/

Jesse Egbert is Associate Professor of Applied Linguistics at Northern

21 Corpus Approaches to Contemporary British Speech

22 Multilayer Corpus Studies

24 The Religious Rhetoric of U.S. Presidential Candidates

25 Triangulating Corpus Linguistics with other Linguistic Research

26 Overcoming Challenges in Corpus Construction

27 Corpora in ESP/EAP Writing Instruction

28 The Register-Functional Approach to Grammatical Complexity

For more information about this series, please visit: https://www.rout-

ISBN: 978-0-367-52024-3 (hbk)

2 Theoretical and Descriptive Linguistic Foundation of the

3 Overview of the Analytical Methods Used in Register-

4 On the Complexity of Discourse Complexity:

5 Challenging Stereotypes about Academic Writing:

6 On the Complexity of Academic Writing: Disciplinary

8 Grammatical Change in the Noun Phrase: The Infuence

9 Being Specifc about Historical Change: The Infuence of

10 Nominalizing the Verb Phrase in Academic Science Writing 176

11 The Functional Extension of Phrasal Grammatical

12 The Loss of Explicitness in Academic Research Writing 248

13 Rationale and Hypotheses for the Study of Writing

14 Should We Use Characteristics of Conversation to

15 Predicting Patterns of Grammatical Complexity across

17 Understanding First-Year L2 Writing: A Lexico-

18 Exploring the Longitudinal Development of

19 The Longitudinal Development of Grammatical

20 Investigating Grammatical Complexity in L2 English

21 Refecting on the Register-Functional Approach to

2.1 Categorizing grammatical complexity features with

2.1 Grammatical complexity features in English, by

1 Biber, D. 1992. On the complexity of discourse complexity: A mul-

1 the grammatical structures regularly employed by speakers in every-

Thus, corpus-based analyses of register variation showed repeatedly that

1 The different structural types of complexity (e.g., fnite versus non-

The present book introduces and explains the theoretical foundation of

1.2 Contents and Organization of the Book

2.1 Previous Approaches to Grammatical Complexity

2.2 Motivation for and Key Characteristics of the

1 the grammatical structures regularly employed by speakers in every-

Text 1: face-to-face conversation

Text 2: psychology research article

As noted in Chapter 1, these patterns of use ran directly counter to our

1 The different structural types of complexity (e.g., fnite versus

Text Samples 1 and 2 illustrate this major difference. Finite dependent

2.3 Overview of the Inventory of Structural Types

Structural Syntactic function within Specifc structural/syntactic features Examples

of experimental error that could be

2.4 Historical Antecedents of the RF Approach

2.4.1 Multi-Dimensional Analysis

2.4.2 The Grammar of Spoken and Written English