Adaptation of fictional and online conversations to communication media

  • C.M. Alis
  • M.T. LimEmail author
Regular Article


Conversations allow the quick transfer of short bits of information and it is reasonable to expect that changes in communication medium affect how we converse. Using conversations in works of fiction and in an online social networking platform, we show that the utterance length of conversations is slowly shortening with time but adapts more strongly to the constraints of the communication medium. This indicates that the introduction of any new medium of communication can affect the way natural language evolves.


Statistical and Nonlinear Physics 


  1. 1.
    R. Goulden, P. Nation, J. Read, Appl. Linguist. 11, 341 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    P. Nation, R. Waring, in Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and Pedagogy, edited by N. Schmitt, M. McCarthy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1997)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C. Browne, G. Cihi, B. Culligan, Measuring vocabulary size via online technology (2007), [Retrieved 08-12-2012]
  4. 4.
    D.P. Hayes, M.G. Ahrens, J. Child Lang. 15, 395 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    S. Hill, N. Launder, Australian J. Lang. Lit. 33, 240 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. Chafe, D. Tannen, Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 16, 383 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Wooffitt, Conversation Analysis and Discourse Analysis: A Comparative and Critical Introduction (Sage Publications Ltd, London, 2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    W. Sack, J. Manage. Inf. Syst. 17, 73 (2000)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    A. Warner, Complementation in Middle English and the Methodology of Historical Syntax: A Study of the Wyclifite Sermons (Croom Helm, London, Canberra, 1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Warner, Language Variation and Change 17, 257 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Lorenz, in ICAME 33: Corpora at the centre and crossroads of English linguistics, Leuven, 2012 (University of Leuven, 2012), p. 185Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Kytö, T. Walker, Guide to A Corpus of English Dialogues, 1560–1760 (Uppsala: Acta Universitatis, Uppsaliensis, 2006)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Davies, The Corpus of Historical American English: 400 million words, 1810–2009 (2010), [Retrieved 23-07-2012]
  14. 14.
    J.A. Smith, C. Kelly, Comput. Humanit. 36, 411 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Crystal, Language and the Internet, 2nd edn. (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 2006)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G.U. Yule, Biometrika 30, 363 (1939)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    E. Kelih, P. Grzybek, G. Antíc, E. Stadlobër, in From Data and Information Analysis to Knowledge Engineering, edited by M. Spiliopoulou, R. Kruse, C. Borgelt, A. Nurnberger, W. Gaul (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    T. Copeck, K. Barker, S. Delisle, S. Szpakowicz, in Proc. of TALN-2000, Lausanne (2000)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    C.B. Williams, Biometrika 31, 356 (1940)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    C.B. Williams, Style and Vocabulary: Numerical Studies (Hafner Pub. Co., New York, 1970)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    W.C. Wake, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. A 120, 331 (1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    H.S. Sichel, J. Roy. Stat. Soc. A 137, 25 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    P. Grzybek, in Contributions to the Science of Text and Language, edited by P. Grzybek (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    B. Sigurd, M. Eeg-Olofsson, J. Van de Weijer, Stud. Linguist. 58, 37 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Kučera, W. Francis, Computational Analysis of Present-day American English (Brown University Press, Providence, 1967)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    W. Francis, H. Kucera, Brown Corpus Manual of Information (Brown University Press, Providence, 1979)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    S. Bird, E. Klein, E. Loper, Natural Language Processing with Python (O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol, California, 2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    L. Wasserman, All of Statistics: A Concise Course in Statistical Inference (Springer, New York, 2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    E. Jones et al., SciPy: Open Source Scientific Tools for Python (2001), [Retrieved 19-04-2011]
  30. 30.
    English spelling: You write potato, i write ghoughpteighbteau, The Economist 388, 30 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    S.T. Piantadosi, H. Tily, E. Gibson, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 3526 (2011)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    U. Strauss, P. Grzybek, G. Altmann, in Contributions to the Science of Text and Language, edited by P. Grzybek, (Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2006)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    C. M. Alis, M. T. Lim, Supplementary material: PG authors list. (2012),
  34. 34.
    C.M. Alis, M.T. Lim, Supplementary material: Adap tation of fictional and online conversations to communication media (2012),˙si.pdf [Retrieved 27-09- 2012]
  35. 35.
    E. Williams, How @replies work on twitter (and how they might) (2008), [Retrieved 25-09-2012]
  36. 36.
    Twitter Help Center, What are @replies and mentions? (2012), [Retrieved 25-09-2012]
  37. 37.
    J. Kalucki, Streaming API documentation (2010), [Retrieved 15-04-2012]
  38. 38.
    C.M. Alis, M.T. Lim, Supplementary material: subs movie list (2012), [Retrieved 27-09-2012]
  39. 39.
    R.F.I. Cancho, R.V. Solé, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 100, 788 (2003)MathSciNetADSzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    T. Klee, M.D. Fitzgerald, J. Child Lang. 12, 251 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    C.A. Dollaghan, T.F. Campbell, J.L. Paradise, H.M. Feldman, J.E. Janosky, D.N. Pitcairn, M. Kurs-Lasky, J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 42, 1432 (1999)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    H.B. Mann, D.R. Whitney, Ann. Math. Stat. 18, 50 (1947)MathSciNetzbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Independent Television Commission, ITC Guidance on standards for subtitling (1999),˙publications/codes˙guidance/index.asp.html [Retrieved 15-04-2012]
  44. 44.
    S. Bernhardsson, L.E.C. da Rocha, P. Minnhagen, New J. Phys. 11, 123015 (2009)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    M. Milian, Why text messages are limited to 160 characters (Los Angeles Times, May 3, 2009)Google Scholar
  46. 46. top SMS 2009 (2010), [Retrieved 21-02-2012]
  47. 47.
    C. Thurlow, Discourse Analysis Online 1, 1 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© EDP Sciences, SIF, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Institute of Physics, University of the Philippines DilimanQuezon CityPhilippines

Personalised recommendations