A Corpus-driven Study of Semantic Prosody in English and Chinese Con versation

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2020.02.012

Abstract

CLC Number:

LU Jun, LI Conghui. A Corpus-driven Study of Semantic Prosody in English and Chinese Con versation[J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2020, 20(2): 96-110.

Figures/Tables 2

References 36

[1]	Culpeper, J., D. Bousfield & A. Wichmann. 2003. Impoliteness revisited: With special reference to dynamic and prosodic aspects[J]. Journal of Pragmatics 35(10-11):1545-1579. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00118-2 URL
[2]	Ellis, N. C. & E. Frey. 2009. The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody: Affective priming [A]. In R. Corrigan, E.Moravcsik, H. Ouali & K. Wheatley (eds.). Formulaic Language. Typological Studies in Language[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 473-497.
[3]	Ellis, N., E. Frey & I. Jalkanen. 2009. The psycholinguistic reality of collocation and semantic prosody: Lexical access [A]. In U. Römer & R. Schulze (eds.). Exploring the Lexis-Grammar Interface: Studies in Corpus Linguistics[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 89-114.
[4]	Firth, J.R.. 1957. Papers in Linguistics,1934-1951[M]. Hague:Mouton & Co.
[5]	Guo, X., L. Zheng., L. Zhu., Z. Yang., C. Chen & L. Zhang. 2011. Acquisition of conscious and unconscious knowledge of semantic prosody[J]. Consciousness and Cognition 20(2):417-425. doi: 10.1016/j.concog.2010.06.015 URL
[6]	Gussenhoveo, C. 2004. The Phonology of Tone and Intonation [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[7]	Ladd, D. R. 1996. Intonational Phonology [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[8]	Ladd., D. R., K. Scherer & K. Silverman. 1986. An integrated approach to studying intonation and attitude [A]. In C. J Lewis (ed.). Intonation in Discourse[C]. London: Croom Helm. 125-138.
[9]	Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. 1996. Cross-linguistic and language-specific aspects of semantic prosody[J]. Language Sciences (1-2):153-178.
[10]	Louw, B. 1993. Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies [A]. In M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds.). Text and Technology. In Honour of John Sinclair[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 157-175.
[11]	Louw, B. 2000. Contextual prosody theory:Bringing semantic prosodies to life [A]. In C. Heffer,H.Sauntson & G.Fox (eds.). Words in Context:A Tribute to John Sinclair on His Retirement[C]. Birmingham:University of Birmingham.48-94.
[12]	Morley, J. & A. Partington. 2009. A few frequently asked questions about semantic-or evaluative-prosody[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics (14):139-158.
[13]	Oster, U. 2010. Using corpus methodology for semantic and pragmatic analyses: What can corpora tell us about the linguistic expression of emotions?[J]. Cognitive Linguistics (4):727-763.
[14]	O’Halloran, K. 2007. Critical discourse analysis and the corpus-informed interpretation of metaphor at the register level[J]. Applied Linguistics (1):1-24.
[15]	Partington, A. 1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching[M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
[16]	Partington, A. 2004. Utterly content in each other’s company: Semantic prosody and semantic preference[J]. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics (1):131-156.
[17]	Sinclair, J. 1996. The search for units of meaning[J]. Textus (9):75-106.
[18]	Sinclair, J. 1998. The lexical item [A]. In W. Weigand (ed.). Contrastive Lexical Semantics[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 1-24.
[19]	Sinclair, J. 2004. Trust the Text: Lexis, Corpus, Discourse[M]. London: Routledge.
[20]	Sinclair, J. 2007. Collocation Reviewed (manuscript)[M]. Italy: Tuscan Word Centre.
[21]	Smith, K. A. & D. A. Nordquist. 2012. Critical and historical investigation into semantic prosody[J]. Journal of Historical Pragmatics (2):291-312.
[22]	Stewart, D. 2010. Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation[M]. London: Routledge.
[23]	Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis:Computer-assisted Studies of Language and Culture[M]. Oxford:Blackwell.
[24]	Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work [M]. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
[25]	Wei, N. & X. Li. 2014. Exploring semantic preference and semantic prosody across English and Chinese: Their roles for cross-linguistic equivalence[J]. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 10(1):103-138.
[26]	Wichmann, A. 2009. Prosody and pragmatic effects [R]. Barcelona: Workshop on Prosody and Meaning.
[27]	Wichmann, A., N. Dehe' & D. Barth-Weingarten. 2009. Where prosody meets pragmatics: Research at the interface [A]. In D. Barth-Weingarten, N. Dehe' & A. Wichmann (eds.). Where Prosody Meets Pragmatics[C]. Bingley, UK: Emerald. 1-20.
[28]	Xiao, R & T. McEnery. 2006. Collocation,semantic prosody and near synonym: A cross-language perspective[J]. Applied Linguistics (1):103-129.
[29]	李文中. 2019. 局部语义韵与话语管理[J]. 外国语(4):81-91.
[30]	陆军、卫乃兴. 2014. 短语学视角下的二语词语知识研究[J]. 外语教学与研究 (6):865-878.
[31]	陆军、吴茜. 2019. 短语单位移变研究:汉语流行词语序列证据分析[J]. 现代外语 (5):597-609.
[32]	王雅刚、刘正光、邓金莲. 2014. 语义韵研究的核心问题:争鸣与考辨[J]. 外国语 (6):51.
[33]	卫乃兴. 2006. 基于语料库学生英语中的语义韵对比研究[J]. 外语学刊 (5):50-55.
[34]	卫乃兴. 2011. 基于语料库的对比短语学研究[J]. 外国语 (4):32-42.
[35]	卫乃兴、陆军. 2014. 对比短语学探索[M]. 北京: 外语教学研究出版社.
[36]	甄凤超、杨枫. 2019. 再谈语义韵的短语及语用属性[J]. 外语教学理论与实践(3):34-40.

类联接	语义韵	比例
能+VP	Affirm. +能+VP	积极:对某事件怀有期待、希望	19.8%
		积极:有把握、期待	12.1%
		中性:与听者共情	4.1%
	Neg.+能+VP	消极:反对、拒绝	18.4%
		消极:遗憾、后悔	0.8%
		中性:疑问	0.2%
		消极:反对	0.2%
	能+VP+(疑问语气词)+?	积极:期待肯定	5.9%
		消极:不耐烦、反对	2.2%
		消极:谴责	0.4%
		积极:好奇、赞美	0.4%
能够+VP		积极:期望、赞成	21.3%
只/才能 +VP	只能+VP	消极:困难、无奈	3.5%
	只能+VP	中性:贬低自己、抬高他人	0.5%
	才能+VP	消极:客观条件限制,有难度	2.9%
	才能+VP	积极:赞扬、抬举	0.6%
能不能 +VP		中性:期望消极:埋怨、抱怨中性:试探、期待	4.9% 1.2% 0.6%

	类联结	语义韵		比例
can+VP	can+[实义动词]VP	积极:建议、支持		26.0%
		中性:肯定、有把握		23.5%
		中性:有较大把握		12.2%
	can+[be]+NP/AP/V-ed	中性:有把握		1.9%
	can+[be]+NP/AP/V-ed	消极:犹豫、拒绝		0.7%
can+pron. +VP	can+[1st/2nd]pron.+[行为]VP	中性:请求、询问		13.6%
	can+pron.+?	中性:肯定、期待得到支持	2.2%
	can+pron.+?	中性:不确定	1.3%
	can+[1st/2nd]pron.+[感官]VP	中性:诧异、期待		1.0%
can+Neg. +VP	can+Neg.+[事件活动]VP	消极:困难、遗憾		3.5%
	can+Neg.+[行为、动作]VP	消极:反对		2.7%
	can+Neg.+[感官]VP	消极:反对、拒绝		1.4%
	can+Neg.+[感官]VP	积极:兴奋、期待		0.4%
pron.+can (结句)	pron.+can(结句)	中性:附和、肯定回应		4.6%
pron.+can (结句)	as+adj./adv.+as+pron.+can(结句)	中性:尽力、极限		0.6%
疑问词+can+ (pron.)+VP	Wh-+can+pron.+VP	中性:疑惑、寻求答案		1.3%
	Wh-+can+pron.+VP	消极:反对		0.1%
	How+can+pron.+VP	中性:疑惑、希望回复		1.0%
	How+can+pron.+VP	消极:怀疑、反对		0.4%
can+“only/ just”+VP	can+only+VP	消极:困难、无奈		0.9%
can+“only/ just”+VP	can+just+VP	中性:建议		0.7%

A Corpus-driven Study of Semantic Prosody in English and Chinese Con versation

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 2

References 36

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	JIANG Feng. The Dual Capabilities and Triple Foundations in the Professional and Discipline Development of Area Studies [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 12-16,21.
[2]	YANG Zhenyuan. From Footnoting to Being Footnoted: On the Luian Mindological Awareness of Benxin for Outward Translation of Chinese Literature [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 126-132.
[3]	TIAN Lu, LIU Zequan. Knowledge Recognition and Multimodal Narration in the Translation of Children’s Popular Science Picturebooks: A Case Study of The Magic School Bus [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 140-147.
[4]	HUANG Youyi. Heralding a New Phase in T&I Education [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 17-21.
[5]	MU Lei, LIU Xinyuan. Analyzing Doctor of Translation and Interpreting in the Context of Transformation of Knowledge Production Mode [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 22-29.
[6]	HUANG Qin, WANG Yajun. On the Translation of Peking Opera as Local Knowledge and its Global Paths [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(6): 37-45.
[7]	LIU Xiaoyu. On Emergency Language Comforting [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 110-119.
[8]	LI Hongru. Rationality and Frontier of Embodied-Cognitive Linguistics from the Perspective of History of Philosophy: The Philosophical Foundation of Embodied-Cognitive Linguistics II [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 40-48.
[9]	LIN Keqin. “Face Score”: Its Route of Birth, Meaning of Development and Argument of Embodiment-Cognition from the Perspective of Linguistic Phenomenon [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 49-57.
[10]	QUAN Lihong, MA Jinlong. Two Question Formats in Mandarin Chinese Conversation: An Epistemic Approach [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 58-69.
[11]	ZHOU Haiming. Theoretical Interpretation of Ontogenesis in SFL: Connotation, Origins and Implications [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 70-79.
[12]	LIN Yi. Language and Its Crisis in the Post-Truth Era [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 80-87.
[13]	HA Changchen, HUANG Guowen. New Thought of Ecolinguistics and Its Implications to Ecological Discourse Analysis [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 88-96.
[14]	WANG Yu, DU Shihong. A Reductive Analysis of Conceptual Metaphor from the Perspective of Philosophy of Dialogue [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 22(5): 97-109.
[15]	WU Jianguo, XIE Sisi, LI Jing. Investigating Legitimization in Political Discourse from the Perspective of CMA:An Analysis of the US Governmental Discourse on China-US Trade Talks [J]. Contemporary Foreign Languages Studies, 2022, 460(4): 111-122.