Do Sitcom Conversations Fully Depict Those in Natural Settings: A Corpus-Based Lexical Analysis

Abstract

An increasing number of studies in pragmatics, second language acquisition, and related fields have opted to use sitcom conversations as a substitute for natural conversations in their analyses. However, few studies have critically examined the validity of this substitution. Taking this into consideration, the present study aims to examine the lexical similarities and differences between sitcom and natural conversations by utilizing the Friends Corpus and the Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English as samples under a synthesized analytic framework of six lexical categories that have been frequently examined in previous research. The findings indicate that there are significant differences between sitcom and natural conversations at the lexical level, particularly in terms of word lengths, keywords, and the use of discourse markers, personal pronouns, vocatives, and religious words. While sitcom conversations tend to be more concise, interactive, evaluative, and involving, natural conversations provide more explanations for their speech acts and refer to their parties who are not present in the conversations. Additionally, sitcom conversations use more intensifiers and vocatives while using fewer tentative modals, expletives, and religious words. Based on these results, it can be concluded that sitcom conversations do not fully depict the conversations in sitcoms, and thus substituting natural conversations with those in sitcoms should be approached with caution in language teaching and research. This study provides insight into the differences in lexical patterns between two types of conversations, and highlights the importance of using natural conversations as a basis for language teaching and research.