Evaluative Prosody in the Collocations Used in Introduction Sections of Scientific English Articles of Hard and Soft Disciplines
Leila Ghaemi
1
(Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
Nesa Nabifar
2
(Department of English, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tabriz, Iran)
Davud Kuhi
3
(English Language Department, Maragheh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Maragheh, Iran)
کلید واژه: "collocations", "evaluative prosody", "hard and soft disciplines", "introduction sections",
چکیده مقاله :
AbstractThis study investigates the collocations, as specific type of multiword sequences that frequently occur in the scientific writing of hard and soft disciplines based on Hoey's (2005) model. The study also extends the semantic prosody of collocations in general words across disciplines. To this end, the introduction sections of 1000 research articles (RAs) from two disciplines of soft and hard were gathered from disciplines of applied linguistics, sociology, and psychology under the category of soft science and from the majors of computer science, chemistry, physics and medicine under the category of hard science in order to find a relationship between these two types of RAs with differences in discipline and the authors’ use of collocations and their semantic prosody. In this study, function words containing articles were ignored that their rates and frequencies were higher than the content words, including specific and general words. The findings indicated that the collocates of general words expressed the positive, negative, and neutral senses and being in soft or hard science did not affect their semantic prosody. It means that the general words directly expressed the meaning they transferred to the reader, without the interference of the context. The results can result in collocation teaching, which is a popular genre of academic writing assigned across disciplines as well as in language-related courses.
چکیده انگلیسی :
این مطالعه همایندهای - نوع خاصی از توالی چند کلمه ای که اغلب در نوشتار اتفاق می افتد- کلمات عمومی و خاص را در مقالات رشته های سخت و نرم بر اساس مدل هووی (2005) بررسی می کند.این مطالعه معنای احساسی همایندهای کلمات عمومی را در رشته های مختلف گسترش می دهد. برای این منظور ، مقدمه 1000 مقاله از دو رشته نرم و سخت از رشته های زبانشناسی کاربردی ، جامعه شناسی و روانشناسی (علوم نرم) و علوم کامپیوتر ، شیمی ، فیزیک و علوم پزشکی (علوم سخت) جمع آوری شد تا رابطه ای بین این دو نوع از علوم با تفاوت در نظم و نحوه استفاده نویسندگان از محاوره ها و معنای احساسی مورد نظر آنها را پیدا کند.نتایج نشان داد که فراوانی کلمات عملکردی مانند مقالات دارای فرکانس بالا هستند ، که در مطالعه حاضر ، آنها نادیده گرفته شدند و فراوانی کلمات محتوایی ، از جمله کلمات خاص و عمومی ، تخمین زده شد.علاوه بر این ، این مطالعه نتیجه می گیرد که کلمات کلی مستقیماً با هم همایند می شوند ، بدون تداخل زمینه ، معنای احساسی مورد نظر نویستده و معنایی را که به خواننده منتقل می کنند ، بیان می کنند. این نتیجه به آموزش همایندی منجر می شود ، که ژانر محبوب نوشتاری آموزشی است که در رشته ها و همچنین در دوره های متمرکز بر زبان اختصاص داده می شود.
Anthony, L. (2011). Antconc (Version 3.2. 4w) [Computer Software]. Tokyo: Waseda University, [cit. 31.5. 2015]. Dostupné na: http://www. antlab. sci. waseda. ac. jp/antconc_index. html.
Baker, P., Hardie, A., & McEnery, A. (2006). A glossary of corpus linguistics. Edinburgh, Scotland: Edinburgh University Press.
Begagić, M. (2013). Semantic preference and semantic prosody of the collocation make sense. Jezikoslovlje, 14(2-3), 403-416.
Bi, Z. (2019). A Semantic Prosody Analysis on Two Synonymous Pairs in English Native Speakers' and Chinese Learners' Writings. English Language Teaching, 12(8), 14-19.
Bublitz, W. (1996). Semantic prosody and cohesive company: Somewhat predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen: Tijdschrift voor Germaanse Filologie,85(1– 2), 1-32.
Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequence: Are they processed more quickly than non-formulaic language by native and nonnative speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72-89.
Dam-Jensen, H., & Zethsen, K. K. (2008). Translator awareness of semantic prosodies. Target,
20(2), 203–21.
Davis, M., & Morley, J. (2015). Phrasal Intertextuality: The Responses of Academics from Different Disciplines to Students’ Re-Use of Phrases. Journal of Second Language Writing. 28(2015), 20–3.
Du, Y., Wang, B., & Yang, L. (2018). A Corpus-Based Study on the Semantic Prosody of Quasi-Affix “Zu”. In Workshop on Chinese Lexical Semantics (pp. 445-453). Springer, Cham.
Firth, J. R. (1957). Papers in linguistics 1934–1951. London, England: Oxford University Press.
Firth, J.R. (1968). A synopsis of linguistic theory 1930–1955’ in F. R. Palmer (ed.): Selected Papers of J. R. Firth 1952–59. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, pp. 1–32.
Gilquin, & Paquot, M. (2008). Too chatty. Learner academic writing and register variation. English Text Construction, 3(1), 41-61.
Greenbaum, S. (1974). Some verb-intensifier collocations in American and British English,’ American Speech, 49, 79–89.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1966). Lexis as a linguistic level’ in C. Bazell, J. Catford, M. A. K. Halliday, and R. Robins (eds): In Memory of J.R. Firth. London: Longman, pp. 148–62.
Hoey, M. (1991). Patterns of Lexis in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hoey, M. (2003). Why grammar is beyond belief. In J.-P. van Noppen, C. Den Tandt, & I. Tudor (Eds.), Beyond: New perspectives in language, literature and ELT (Belgian journal of English language and literature, new series, 1, pp. 183–96). Ghent, Belgium: Academia Press.
Hoey, M. (2004). The textual priming of lexis. In S. Bernadini, G. Aston, & D. Stewart (Eds.), Corpora and language learners (pp. 21–41). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Hoey, M. (2005). Lexical priming: A new theory of words and Language. London: Routledge.
Howarth, P. (1998). The Phraseology of Learners’ Academic Writing. In A. Cowie (Ed.), Phraseology: Theory, Analysis and Applications (pp.161– 186). Oxford: OUP.
Hu, H. C. (2015). A Semantic Prosody Analysis of Three Adjective Synonymous Pairs in COCA. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 117-131.
Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 249-268.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press, UK.
Louw, B. (1993). Irony in the text or insincerity in the writer? The diagnostic potential of semantic prosodies. In M. Baker, G. Francis, & E. Tognini-Bonelli (Eds.), Text and technology: In honour of john Sinclair (pp. 157-176). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Louw, B. (2000). Contextual prosodic theory: Bringing semantic prosodies to life. In C. Heffer, H. Sauntson, & G. Fox (Eds.), Words in context: A tribute to john Sinclair on his retirement (pp. 48-94). Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
Oster, U. (2010). Using corpus methodology for semantic and pragmatic analyses: What can corpora tell us about the linguistic expression of emotions? Cognitive Linguistics, 21(4), 727-763.
Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and Meanings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Partington, A. (2004). Utterly content in each other’s company: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 131-156.
Krishnamurthy, R. (2000).Collocation: from silly ass to lexical sets’ in C. Heffer, H. Sauntson, and G. Fox (eds): Words in Context: A Tribute to John Sinclair on his Retirement. Birmingham: University of Birmingham.
McEnery, A. & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Martín, P., Rey-Rocha, J., Burgess, S., & Moreno, A. I. (2014). Publishing research in English-language journals: Attitudes, strategies and difficulties of multilingual scholars of medicine. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 16, 57-67.
Meunier, F. (2012). Formulaic language and language teaching. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 111-129.
Sardinha, T. B. (2000). Lingüística de corpus: histórico e problemática. Delta: documentação de estudos em lingüística teórica e aplicada, 16(2), 323-367.
Schmitt, N., & Carter, R. (2004). Formulaic sequences in action: An introduction. Formulaic sequences. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Selmistraitis, L. (2020). Semantic Preference, Prosody and Distribution of Synonymous Adjectives in COCA. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, 20(3).
Shin, Y. (2019). Do native writers always have a head start over nonnative writers? The use of lexical bundles in college students’ essays. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 40, 1-14.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation: Describing English language. Oxford: OUP.
Stubbs, M. (1995). Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative methods,’ Function of Language, 2(1), 1–33.
Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. (1994). Academic writing for graduate students (pp. 155-6). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
Tognini-Bonelli, E. (2001). Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Tribble, C. (2011). Revisiting apprentice texts: Using lexical bundles to investigate expert and apprentice performance in academic writing. In F. Meunier, S. De Cock, G. Gilquin, & M. Paquot (Eds.), A taste for corpora. In honour of Sylviane Granger (pp. 85-108). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Wei, Y., & Lei, L. (2011). Lexical bundles in the academic writing of advanced Chinese EFL learners. RELC Journal, 42(2), 155-166.
Wilkins, D. A. (1972). Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Edward Arnold.
Wilson, J. L. (2012). Carbonate facies in geologic history. Springer Science & Business Media.
Xiao, R., & Mcenery, T. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 103-129.
