1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Functions of Language
  4. Volume 29, Issue 2
  5. Article
Volume 29, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-998X
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9765
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study investigates least delicate patterns of in two diachronic corpora of UK Parliament and U.S. Congress speeches over the last two centuries, focusing on diachronic changes and trends of systemic probabilities of least delicate and . Based on computational algorithms that automatically extract instances and intersections from the two corpora, the comparative analysis carried out in this paper incorporates several statistical methods, including homogeneity or ‘change-point’ tests, Mann-Kendall trend analysis, and time-series Correspondence Analysis. The results indicate that, in both corpora, probabilities of monoglossic as well as attitudinal patterns (as opposed to neutral ones) follow statistically significant upward trends. In addition, positive polarity is increasing steadily, especially in the U.S. Congress. intersections are also dynamically changing depending on changes in sociopolitical circumstances. More specifically, in the formative and early years during which party conflicts were intensified, heteroglossic patterns are favored. In war and post-war periods, monoglossic patterns are more associated with neutral polarity. In recent decades, during which political polarization hit a peak, monoglossic patterns begin to favor attitudinal polarity. These findings are discussed in terms of possible causal and correlational interpretations, limitations and directions for future research.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
2022-03-04
2023-05-28

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abercrombie, Gavin & Batista‑Navarro, Riza
    2020 Sentiment and position‑taking analysis of parliamentary debates: A systematic literature review. Journal of Computational Social Science3. 245–270. 10.1007/s42001‑019‑00060‑w
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-019-00060-w [Google Scholar]
  2. Almutairi, Bandar Alhumaidi A.
    2019 Quantifying systemic coupling and syndrome using multivariate statistical methods: An SFL corpus example. Linguistics and the Human Sciences15(1). 1–38.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. Álvarez-Benito, Gloria, Gloria Fernández-Díaz & Isabel Íñigo-Mora
    (eds.) 2009 Discourse and politics. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Archer, Dawn
    2018 Negotiating difference in political contexts: An exploration of Hansard. Language Sciences68. 22–41. 10.1016/j.langsci.2017.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2017.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  5. Argamon, Shlomo, Kenneth Bloom, Andrea Esuli & Fabrizio Sebastiani
    2007 Automatically determining attitude type and force for sentiment analysis. Paper presented at theLTC 2007, Berlin.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Arya, Apoorva, Vishal Shukla, Arvind Negi & Kapil Gupta
    2020 A review: Sentiment analysis and opinion mining. Paper presented at the theInternational Conference on Innovative Computing & Communications (ICICC) 2020, New Delhi.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bayley, Paul
    2004a The whys and wherefores of analysing parliamentary discourse. InPaul Bayley (ed.), 1–44. 10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.01bay [Google Scholar]
  8. (ed.) 2004b Cross-cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/dapsac.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10 [Google Scholar]
  9. Bednarek, Monika
    2006 Evaluation in media discourse: Analysis of a newspaper corpus. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Biber, Douglas
    1995 On the role of computational, statistical, and interpretive techniques in multi-dimensional analyses of register variation: A reply to Watson. Text15(3). 341–370.
     [Google Scholar]
  11. Chilton, Paul
    2004 Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203561218
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203561218 [Google Scholar]
  12. Chilton, Paul & Christina Schäffner
    1997 Discourse and politics. InTeun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction, Vol.2, 206–230. London: Sage.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Decter-Frain, Ari & Jeremy A. Frimer
    2016 Impressive words: Linguistic predictors of public approval of the U.S. Congress. Front. Psychol. 7(240). 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00240
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00240 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gentzkow, Matthew, Jesse M. Shapiro & Matt Taddy
    2019 Measuring group differences in high-dimensional choices: Method and application to congressional speech. Econometrica87(4). 1307–1340. 10.3982/ECTA16566
     https://doi.org/10.3982/ECTA16566 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gerston, Larry N.
    2010 Public policy making: Process and principles. Armonk: M.E.Sharpe.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Glynn, Dylan
    2014 Correspondence analysis: Exploring data and identifying patterns. InDylan Glynn & Justyna A. Robinson (eds.), Corpus methods for semantics: Quantitative studies in polysemy and synonymy (Human Cognitive Processing 43), 443–485. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.43.17gly
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.43.17gly [Google Scholar]
  17. Greenacre, Michael J.
    1984 Theory and applications of correspondence analysis. London: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Haarman, Louann & Linda Lombardo
    2009 Introduction. InLouann Haarman & Linda Lombardo (eds.), Evaluation and stance in war news, 1–26. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1991a Corpus studies and probabilistic grammar. InKarin Aijmer & Bengt Altenberg (eds.), English corpus linguistics: Studies in honour of Jan Svartvik. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. 1991b Towards probabilistic interpretations. InEija Ventola (ed.), Functional and systemic linguistics: Approaches and uses, 39–62. Berlin: de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Horák, Aleš & Pavel Rychlý
    2013 Methods for detection of word usage over time. InOndˇrej Herman & Vojtˇech Kováˇr (eds.), Proceedings of the seventh workshop on recent advances in Slavonic natural languages processing, RASLAN 2013, 79–85. Brno: Tribun EU.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Ilie, Cornelia
    2003 Discourse and metadiscourse in parliamentary debates. Journal of Language and Politics2(1). 71–92. 10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.2.1.05ili [Google Scholar]
  23. Jensen, Jacob, Ethan Kaplan, Suresh Naidu & Laurence Wilse-Samson
    2012 Political polarization and the dynamics of political language: Evidence from 130 years of partisan speech. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity43(2). 1–81. 10.1353/eca.2012.0017
     https://doi.org/10.1353/eca.2012.0017 [Google Scholar]
  24. Jenset, Gard B. & Barbara McGillivray
    2017 Quantitative historical linguistics: A corpus framework. Oxford: OUP. 10.1093/oso/9780198718178.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198718178.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  25. Kirvalidze, Nino & Nino Samnidze
    2016 Political discourse as a subject of interdisciplinary studies. Journal of Teaching and Education5(1). 161–170.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. Křen, Michal
    2017 Grammatical change: Trends in contemporary Czech newspapers. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis68(2). 238–248. 10.1515/jazcas‑2017‑0033
     https://doi.org/10.1515/jazcas-2017-0033 [Google Scholar]
  27. Kruger, Haidee, Bertus van Rooy & Adam Smith
    2019 Register change in the British and Australian Hansard (1901–2015). Journal of English Linguistics47(3). 183–220. 10.1177/0075424219857114
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424219857114 [Google Scholar]
  28. Labov, William
    2008 Triggering Events. InElizabeth Closs Traugott & Bernd Kortmann (eds.), Topics in English linguistics, Vol.61, 11–54. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Li, Zuhe, Yangyu Fan, Bin Jiang, Tao Lei & Weihua Liu
    2019 A survey on sentiment analysis and opinion mining for social multimedia. Multimedia Tools and Applications78(6). 6939–6967. 10.1007/s11042‑018‑6445‑z
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-018-6445-z [Google Scholar]
  30. Loerts, Hanneke, Wander Lowier & Bregtje Seton
    2020 Essential statistics for applied linguistics: Using R and JASP. London: Red Globe Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Mann, Henry B.
    1945 Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica13(3). 245–259. 10.2307/1907187
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1907187 [Google Scholar]
  32. Martin, J. R.
    1992 English text: System and structureAmsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/z.59
     https://doi.org/10.1075/z.59 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2000 Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English. InSusan Hunston & Geoff Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 142–175. New York: OUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. Martin, J. R. & Peter R. R. White
    2005 Language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  35. Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M.
    2006 Frequency profiles of some basic grammatical systems. InGeoff Thompson & Susan Hunston (eds.), System and orpus: Exploring connections, 103–142. London: Equinox.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Militino, Ana E., Mehdi Moradi & Dolores Ugarte
    2020 On the performances of trend and change-point detection methods for remote sensing data. Remote Sens. 12(6). 1008–1033. 10.3390/rs12061008
     https://doi.org/10.3390/rs12061008 [Google Scholar]
  37. Miller, Donna
    2004 Truth, Justice and the American Way: The appraisal system of judgement in the U.S. House debate on the impeachment of the President, 1998. InPaul Bayley (ed.), 271–300. 10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil [Google Scholar]
  38. Mulgan, Richard G.
    1974 Aristotle’s doctrine that man is a political animal. Hermes102(3). 438–445.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. Nesbitt, Chris & Guenter Plum
    1988 Probabilities in a systemic-functional grammar: The clause complex in English. InRobin P. Fawcett & David J. Young (eds.), New developments in systemic linguistics, Vol.2, 6–39. London: Pinter.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Oteíza, Teresa & Claudia Castro
    2019 Dictatorship and the Cold War in official Chilean history textbooks. InBarbara Christophe, Peter Gautschi & Robert Thorp (eds.), The Cold War in the classroom: International perspectives on textbooks and memory practices, 221–247. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑11999‑7_11
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11999-7_11 [Google Scholar]
  41. Owoyea, Oluwole & Matthew Dabrosb
    2017 The analysis of White House occupant and political polarization in the United States. Review of Social Sciences2(4). 1–18. 10.18533/rss.v2i4.94
     https://doi.org/10.18533/rss.v2i4.94 [Google Scholar]
  42. Read, Jonathon & John Carroll
    2012 Annotating expressions of Appraisal in English. Language Resources and Evaluation46(3). 421–447. 10.1007/s10579‑010‑9135‑7
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10579-010-9135-7 [Google Scholar]
  43. Rodríguez-Vergara, Daniel
    2015 Clause combining in research articles in Spanish and English: A systemic-functional analysis. US-China Foreign Language13(7). 471–482. 10.17265/1539‑8080/2015.07.001
     https://doi.org/10.17265/1539-8080/2015.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rokach, Lior
    2019 Ensemble learning: Pattern classification using ensemble methods (2nd edn.). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing. 10.1142/11325
     https://doi.org/10.1142/11325 [Google Scholar]
  45. Sheckels, Theodore F.
    2000 When congress debates: A Bakhtinian paradigm. New York: Praeger.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. Stadler, Kevin
    2016 Direction and directedness in language change: An evolutionary model of selection by trend-amplification. Edinburgh: University of Edinburgh PhD thesis.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Stefanowitsch, Anatol
    2005 New York, Dayton (Ohio), and the raw frequency fallacy. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory1(2). 295–301. 10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.295
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt.2005.1.2.295 [Google Scholar]
  48. Steiner, Jürg, André Bächtiger, Markus Spörndli & Marco R. Steenbergen
    2004 Deliberative politics in action: Analyzing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge: CUP.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Su, Hang & Monika Bednarek
    2018 Bibliography of appraisal, stance and evaluation. Available online athttps://www.researchgate.net/profile/Hang_Su3/contributions
  50. Taboada, Maite, Julian Brooke, Milan Tofiloski, Kimberly Voll & Manfred Stede
    2011 Lexicon-based methods for sentiment analysis. Computational Linguistics37(2). 267–307. 10.1162/COLI_a_00049
     https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00049 [Google Scholar]
  51. Taboada, Maite & Jack Grieve
    2004 Analyzing appraisal automatically. Paper presented at theAAAI Spring Symposium on Exploring Attitude and Affect in Text, Stanford.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Thornbury, Scott & Diana Slade
    2006 Conversation: From description to pedagogy. Cambridge: CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511733123
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511733123 [Google Scholar]
  53. Treimane, Laura
    2011 Analyzing parliamentary discourse: Systemic functional perspective. Kalbotyra63(3). 78–94. 10.15388/Klbt.2011.7653
     https://doi.org/10.15388/Klbt.2011.7653 [Google Scholar]
  54. van Dijk, Teun A.
    1997 What is political discourse analysis. InJan Blommaert & ‎Chris Bulcaen (eds.), Political Linguistics, 11–52. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/bjl.11.03dij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.11.03dij [Google Scholar]
  55. 2004 Text and context of parliamentary debates. InPaul Bayley (ed.), 339–372. 10.1075/dapsac.10.10dij
     https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.10dij [Google Scholar]
  56. 2006 Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society17(3). 359–383. 10.1177/0957926506060250
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926506060250 [Google Scholar]
  57. Vardanega, Moreno
    2016 Analysis of sentiment direction based on two centuries of the Hansard Debate Archive. Stirling: University of Stirling unpublished manuscript.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. Vukovic, Milica
    2014 Strong epistemic modality in parliamentary discourse. Open Linguistics1. 37–52. 10.2478/opli‑2014‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.2478/opli-2014-0003 [Google Scholar]
  59. Vuković, Milica
    2015 Emphasisers in the UK parliamentary language: A diachronic and a synchronic perspective. Paper presented at theICIFL5, Podgorica.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Załęska, Maria
    2012 Rhetoric and politics: Mapping the interrelations. InMaria Załęska (ed.), Rhetoric and politics: Mapping the interrelations, 1–19. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Zappavigna, Michele, Chris Cléirigh, Paul Dwyer & J. R. Martin
    2009 The coupling of gesture and phonology. InMonika Bednarek & J. R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 237–266. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
Loading
Diachronic changes of least delicate appraisal in parliamentary and congressional language
Functions of Language 29, 169 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
/content/journals/10.1075/fol.21001.alm
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error