The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis
Abstract
The present study uses a theory‐based statistical approach to investigate the dimensions of discourse complexity in English, analyzing the distribution of 33 surface linguistic markers of complexity across 23 spoken and written registers. The study shows that discourse complexity is a multidimensional construct, that different types of structural elaboration reflect different discourse functions, and that different kinds of texts are complex in different ways (in addition to being more or less complex). Building on earlier exploratory research, the study identifies a particular five‐dimensional model as the most adequate with respect to the surface linguistic features considered here. These dimensions are labeled to reflect their functional and grammatical underpinnings: Reduced Structure and Specificity, Structural Elaboration of Reference, “Framing” Structural Elaboration, Integrated Structure, and Passive Constructions. Analysis of the relative complexities of spoken and written registers with respect to these dimensions enables an assessment of the relative importance of each dimension, further refinement of their functional interpretations, and a multidimensional assessment of the discourse complexity of particular texts and registers. This analysis identifies a fundamental distinction between the discourse complexities of written and spoken registers: Whereas written registers exhibit many complexity profiles, differing widely in both the extent and the kinds of complexity, spoken registers manifest a single major pattern differing only in extent.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588 · Cited by 19,023
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
Huddleston, R., Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1988) · Language · doi:10.2307/415437 · Cited by 7,587
(1991) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.28-5764 · Cited by 6,847
A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language
Beauvais, P. J., Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1987) · College Composition and Communication · doi:10.2307/357731 · Cited by 5,488
Variation across Speech and Writing
Biber, D. (1988) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511621024 · Cited by 5,227
Self-citationBernstein, B. B. (1971) · Cited by 2,299
Introduction to Text Linguistics
De Beaugrande, R., & Dressler, W. U. (1981) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781315835839 · Cited by 1,786
Long, J. (1983) · Sage eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781412983778 · Cited by 1,511
Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances.
Land, K. C., & Hayduk, L. A. (1990) · Social Forces · doi:10.2307/2579660 · Cited by 1,308
Spoken and Written Language: Exploring Orality and Literacy
Dillon, G. L., & Tannen, D. (1984) · Language · doi:10.2307/413655 · Cited by 1,306
Cited by
A Method for Linguistic Metaphor Identification: From MIP to MIPVU
Steen, G. J., Dorst, A. G., Herrmann, J. B., Kaal, A. A., Krennmayr, T., & Pasma, T. (2010) · Converging Evidence in Language and Communication Research · doi:10.1075/celcr.14 · Cited by 1,368
BIBER, D., GRAY, B., & POONPON, K. (2011) · TESOL Quarterly · doi:10.5054/tq.2011.244483 · Cited by 804
Self-citationThe Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis
(2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.001.0001 · Cited by 639
The Cartography of Syntactic Structures
Cinque, G., & Rizzi, L. (2012) · The Oxford Handbook of Linguistic Analysis · doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199544004.013.0003 · Cited by 639
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108686136 · Cited by 623
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Biber, D.
- Venue
- Discourse Processes
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1992-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 133-163
- ISSN
- 0163-853X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6950
- OpenAlex
- W2087574244
- Cited by
- 262
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 70.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/01638539209544806
- The paper
- Biber, D. (1992). On the complexity of discourse complexity: A multidimensional analysis. Discourse Processes. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638539209544806
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.