Depending on the nature of two sets of data n, s, sampling naturethe means of the sets can be compared for bias by several variants of the t-test. The following most common types will be discussed:
Formality, arguably the most important dimension of stylistic variation, is subdivided into "deep" formality and "surface" formality, which inherits most stylistic features from the more fundamental deep variant. Deep formality is defined as avoidance of ambiguity by minimizing the context-dependence and fuzziness of expressions.
This is achieved by explicit and precise description of the elements of the context needed to disambiguate the expression. A formal style is characterized by detachment, accuracy, rigidity and heaviness; an informal style is more flexible, direct, implicit, and involved, but less informative.
An empirical measure of formality, the F-score, is proposed, based on the frequencies of different word classes in the corpus. Nouns, adjectives, articles and prepositions are more frequent in formal styles; pronouns, adverbs, verbs and interjections are more frequent in informal styles.
It is shown that this measure and related onesthough coarse-grained, adequately distinguishes more from less formal genres of language production, for some available corpora in Dutch, French, Italian, and English.
A factor similar to the F-score automatically emerges as the most important one from a factor analysis of different language samples.
As Labov noted, "the most immediate problem to be solved in the attack on sociolinguistic structure is the quantification of the dimension of style" Stylistic variation results from the fact that different people express themselves in different ways, and that the same person may express the same idea quite differently when addressing different audiences, using different modalities, or tackling different tasks.
The number of possible variations is so large, though, that Labov's problem seems unsolvable as a whole. The problem may be substantially simplified by focusing on just one aspect or dimension of style. Perhaps the most frequently mentioned of these aspects is formality. Everybody makes at least an intuitive distinction between formal and informal manners of expression.
A prototype of formal language might be the sentence read out by a judge at the end of a trial. Prototypical informal speech would be produced in a relaxed conversation among close friends or family members. But a clear and general definition of "formality" is not obvious.
This type of speech may be used, for example, at official functions, and in debates and ceremonies" This definition gives us an idea of what a formal situation is, but does not define formal speech as such; it just offers a hypothesis of what a speaker pays attention to in certain situations.
The main criterion for formality in speech is thus non-linguistic. In a similar vein, according to Labov and Taronethe presence of channel cues: The ambiguity that surrounds the definition of formality has puzzled researchers in other disciplines.
Irvine, for example, an anthropologist, notes that "when formality is conceived as an aspect of social situations, it is common to extend the term to linguistic varieties used in such situations, regardless of what those varieties happen to be like otherwise" Irvine She concludes that "formality" is a cover term "so general that it is not very useful as an analytic tool The lack of a good definition of "formality" and the quantification of the dimension of style has hampered sociolinguistic research as Labov had foreseen.
Kirk ; Gelas ; Blanche Benveniste have tried to determine the formality level of a speech extract by considering the frequency of words and grammatical forms that are viewed as either "familiar" or "careful", such as "vous" vs. Such a way of defining formality seems, however, ad hoc, intrinsically limited and too dependent on the specific language and culture.
The underlying assumption of these approaches is that formal language is characterized by some special "attention to form" Labovwhere the formal speaker tries to approximate as closely as possible the standard form and pronunciation of the language, perhaps the way it is defined in textbooks.
But we should first ask why someone would want to invest more than the usual amount of attention in the form of his or her expressions. Though we certainly can imagine particular occasions, such as ceremonies, rituals or examinations, where form appears important for form's sake, the most fundamental purpose of language production is still communication: Even language that seems to have a purely social, "non-informational" function e.
We assume that language production will in general obey Grice's maxims of conversation, which include requirements of informativeness, truth, relevance, and the avoidance of obscurity and ambiguity. In that perspective, speakers would pay more than the normal attention to form, if they would want to make sure that their expressions are not misunderstood.
That would be necessary in those situations where effective communication is for some reason more difficult or more important than in ordinary circumstances.
The prototypical examples we noted earlier seem to confirm this intuition: This analysis leads us to distinguish two types of formality. The first one, which may be called surface formality, is characterized by attention to form for the sake of convention or form itself. It corresponds to the definition of the word "formal" as "rigorously observant of forms; precise, prim in attire, ceremonious" Oxford Dictionary However, the same dictionary also lists another sense for "formal": For example, when we say that someone has "formally" denied an assertion, we mean that the denial was made explicitly, not in a ceremonious or conventional manner.
That second sense of the word corresponds to what we might call deep formality, that is, attention to form for the sake of unequivocal understanding of the precise meaning of the expression.
In the present paper we will focus on "deep" formality, because we believe that it is theoretically more fundamental, and has wider practical applications than the surface variant.The F-test (or Fisher's test) is a comparison of the spread of two sets of data to test if the sets belong to the same population, in other words if the precisions are similar or dissimilar.
The test makes use of the ratio of the two variances.
The first of two types is the explanatory design, which is the researcher explores two or more variables to associate the changes between the two given a change to one.
Factor analysis is a statistical technique which attempts to reduce the variation between the samples to a minimal number of newly derived components or factors.
The resulting factors are linear combinations of the original variables. Fear of crime has attracted a significant amount of research interest in recent years since it developed as a research focus in the UK.
The rationale for its development as a research focus includes the following. This first of two articles on method comparison studies gives some key concepts related to the design of the method comparison study, data analysis and graphical presentation, stressing the importance of a well-designed and carefully planned experiment using adequate statistical procedures for data analysis when carrying out a method comparison.
How to Write a Comparative Analysis. Throughout your academic career, you'll be asked to write papers in which you compare and contrast two things: two texts, two theories, two historical figures, two scientific processes, and so on. "Classic" compare-and-contrast papers, in which you weight A and B equally, may be about two similar things.