1887
Volume 23, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1384-6655
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9811
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Using collocation-based approaches, semantic prosody analyses of lemmas like and yield judgments of negative prosody, which contradict common sense. This poses a challenge to the concept of semantic prosody and the principle of co-occurrence. To solve such contradictions, this paper proposes a new approach to semantic prosody analysis named ‘prosody concord’. The approach adopts collostruction as the locus of analysis on the basis of the explication of the unit of meaning model, and uses a mechanism for semantic prosody determination that incorporates multiple sources of information such as interactions of words, collocations, colligations and semantic preferences. Case studies of the lemmas and show that the proposed approach can solve the contradictions and provide a consistent means for semantic prosody analysis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.17057.liu
2018-12-27
2019-09-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Ahmadian, M., Yazdani, H., & Darabi, A.
    (2011) Assessing English learners’ knowledge of semantic prosody through a corpus-driven design of semantic prosody test. English Language Teaching, 4(4), 288–298. 10.5539/elt.v4n4p288
    https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v4n4p288 [Google Scholar]
  2. Alba-Juez, L., & Thompson, G.
    (2014) “The many faces and phases of evaluation”. InG. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (Eds.), Evaluation in Context (pp.3–26). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.242.01alb
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.01alb [Google Scholar]
  3. Bednarek, M.
    (2008) Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 119–139. 10.1515/CLLT.2008.006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2008.006 [Google Scholar]
  4. Benamara, F., Tabooada, M., & Mathieu, Y.
    (2017) Evaluative language beyond bags of words: Linguistic insights and computational applications. Computational Linguistics, 43(1), 201–264. 10.1162/COLI_a_00278
    https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00278 [Google Scholar]
  5. Besnier, N.
    (1990) Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology, 19, 419–451. 10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002223
    https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.002223 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cruse, D. A.
    (1986) Lexical Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Dam-Jensen, H., & Zethsen, K. K.
    (2007) Pragmatic patterns and the lexical system – A reassessment of evaluation in language. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(9), 1608–1623. 10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  8. (2008) Translator awareness of semantic prosodies. Target: International Journal on Translation Studies, 20(2), 203–221. 10.1075/target.20.2.02dam
    https://doi.org/10.1075/target.20.2.02dam [Google Scholar]
  9. Dilts, P., & Newman, J.
    (2006) A note on quantifying “good” and “bad” prosodies. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 2(2), 233–242. 10.1515/CLLT.2006.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/CLLT.2006.011 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ellis, N., & Frey, E.
    (2009) “The psychological reality of collocation and semantic prosody (2): Affective priming”. InR. Corrigan, E. Moravcsik, H. Ouali & K. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language (pp.473–497). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.83.13ell
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.83.13ell [Google Scholar]
  11. Gries, S. T., & Stefanowitsch, A.
    (2004) Extending collostructional analysis  – A corpus-based perspective on ‘alternations’. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 97–129. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.06gri [Google Scholar]
  12. Guo, X., Zheng, L., Zhu, L., Yang, Z., Chen, C., Zhang, L., … Dienes, Z.
    (2011) Acquisition of conscious and unconscious knowledge of semantic prosody. Consciousness and Cognition, 20(2), 417–425. 10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.015 [Google Scholar]
  13. Hoey, M.
    (2004) Lexical priming and the properties of text. InA. Partington, J. Morley & L. Haarman, Corpora and Discourse (pp.385–412). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. (2005) Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hunston, S.
    (2007) Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 249–268. 10.1075/ijcl.12.2.09hun
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.12.2.09hun [Google Scholar]
  16. (2011) Corpus Approaches to Evaluation: Phraseology and Evaluative Language. New York, NY: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G.
    (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Hwang, J. D.
    (2011) Making Verb Argument Adjunct Distinction in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Colorado, Colorado, US.
  19. Isama, H., Zainb, M. I. M., Mutalibc, M. A., & Harond, R.
    (2014) Semantic prosody of [pendidikan / education] from Khaled Nordin’s perspective: An analysis of speech texts based on corpus linguistic methodology. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 118, 172–179. 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.023
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.02.023 [Google Scholar]
  20. Leech, G. N.
    (1974) Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. (1993) 100 million words of English. English Today, 9(1), 9–15. 10.1017/S0266078400006854
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400006854 [Google Scholar]
  22. Louw, B.
    (1993) Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. InM. Barker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and Technology: In Honor of John Sinclair (pp.157–176). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/z.64.11lou
    https://doi.org/10.1075/z.64.11lou [Google Scholar]
  23. (2000) Contextual prosodic theory: Bring semantic prosodies to life. InC. Heffer, H. Sauntson & G. Fox (Eds.), Words in Context: A Tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement (pp.48–94). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. MacMillan English-Chinese Dictionary for Advanced Learners
    MacMillan English-Chinese Dictionary for Advanced Learners (2005) Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press. (Original work published 2002)
  25. Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R.
    (2007) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Merlo, P., & Ferrer, E. E.
    (2006) The notion of argument in prepositional phrase attachment. Computational Linguistics, 32(3), 341–377. 10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.341
    https://doi.org/10.1162/coli.2006.32.3.341 [Google Scholar]
  27. Morley, J., & Partington, A.
    (2009) A few frequently asked questions about semantic  – or evaluative  – prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 139–158. 10.1075/ijcl.14.2.01mor
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.14.2.01mor [Google Scholar]
  28. Nordquist, D.
    (2004) Comparing elicite data and corpora. InM. Achard & S. Kemmer (Eds.), Language, Culture, and Mind (pp.211–223). Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Osgood, C. E.
    (1957) The Measurement of Meaning. Urbana, IN: University of Illinois Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Palmer, F. R.
    (2001) Mood and Modality. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  31. Partington, A.
    (2004) “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 131–156. 10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par [Google Scholar]
  32. Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C.
    (2013) Patterns and Meanings in Discourse: Theory and Practice in Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.55
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.55 [Google Scholar]
  33. Sinclair, J.
    (1991) Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. (2004a) The lexical item. InJ. Sinclair & R. Carter (Eds.), Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse (pp.149–172). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. (2004b) The search for units of meaning. InJ. Sinclair & R. Carter (Eds.), Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse (pp.131–148). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Smith, K. A., & Nordquist, D.
    (2012) A critical and historical investigation into semantic prosody. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 13(2), 291–312. 10.1075/jhp.13.2.05smi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.13.2.05smi [Google Scholar]
  37. Snefjella, B., & Connolly, J.
    (2016) Searching for neurophysiological evidence for semantic prosody: An ERP study using generalized additive mixed models. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 108, 167–167. 10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.07.478
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpsycho.2016.07.478 [Google Scholar]
  38. Stanford NLP Group
    Stanford NLP Group (2015) Stanford Parser (Version 3.5) [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttps://nlp.stanford.edu/software/lex-parser.shtml (last accessedSeptember 2018).
  39. Stefanowitsch, A., & Gries, S. T.
    (2003) Collostructions: Investigating the interaction of words and constructions. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 8(2), 209–243. 10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.8.2.03ste [Google Scholar]
  40. Stewart, D.
    (2010) Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. New York, NY: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203870075
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203870075 [Google Scholar]
  41. Stubbs, M.
    (1995) Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods. Function of Language, 2(1), 1–22. 10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.2.1.03stu [Google Scholar]
  42. (1996) Text and Corpus Analysis: Computer-assisted Studies of Language and Culture. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. (2001a) On inference theories and code theories: Corpus evidence for semantic schemas. Text, 21(3), 436–465. 10.1515/text.2001.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2001.007 [Google Scholar]
  44. (2001b) Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Tang, X.
    (2017) Lexeme-based collexeme analysis with DepCluster. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 13(1), 165–202. 10.1515/cllt‑2015‑0007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2015-0007 [Google Scholar]
  46. Thackeray, W. M.
    (2010) Vanity Fair: A Novel without a Hero. London: Penguin Classics. (Original work published in 1898).
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Tognini-Bonelli, E.
    (2001) Corpus Linguistics at Work. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.6
    https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wei, N., & Li, X.
    (2014) Exploring semantic preference and semantic prosody across English and Chinese: Their roles for cross-linguistic equivalence. Corpus Linguistics & Linguistic Theory, 10(1), 103–138. 10.1515/cllt‑2013‑0018
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cllt-2013-0018 [Google Scholar]
  49. Whitsitt, S.
    (2005) A critique of the concept of semantic prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 283–305. 10.1075/ijcl.10.3.01whi
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.10.3.01whi [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.17057.liu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.17057.liu
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): collostruction , prosody concord , semantic prosody and unit of meaning
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