/LING
|
Update: February 24, 2023 The new version of Termout.org is now online, so this web site is now obsolete and will soon be dismantled. |
Lista de candidatos sometidos a examen:
1) preference (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística
1) Candidate: preference
Is in goldstandard
1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines192 - : Inter-stratal genre projection rules cc_lp2-4 comply with the implication subtype (6ix). They are LF predetermination rules for they enforce preferences of terminal genre elements on LF Rules (LFR) features. This effect is attained by altering the system initial state feature probability settings, in most cases by assigning a 100% value. These genre projection rules differ from CLG preference altering RRs in the nature of the features triggering them: genre features for the former and LF features for the latter . Inter-stratal Genre Projection Rules also trigger the application of algorithms guiding LF construction like, for example, the Research Announcement LF Selection Algorithm (see [50]Figure 5 page 349).
2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Semantic prosody should not be confused with semantic preference, although the terms are closely related (Partington, 2004; O’ Halloran, 2007; Bednarek, 2008). Scholars such as Sorli (2013), Hoey (2005) or Philip (2009) argue that meaning is structured on different levels of abstraction, semantic prosody being the most abstract, followed by what they call semantic preference. In Sorli’s words (2013), semantic preference is to be distinguished from semantic prosody. Although neither is directly observable, the former “can be stated upon the examination of the preferred lexis” (Sorli, 2013: 101). Within Sinclair’s model (2004a: 33), semantic preference refers to the words an item co-occurs with, since “some words prefer, or even require, a semantic profile of the words with which they combine” (Dam-Jensen & Zethsen, 2008: 206 ). Semantic prosody, however, refers to relations that involve evaluative meaning or evaluative prosodic patterns. Therefore, according to Partington (2004), it could be
Evaluando al candidato preference:
1) semantic: 9 (*)
2) genre: 5 (*)
5) sorli: 3
6) prosody: 3 (*)
7) projection: 3
preference
Lengua: eng
Frec: 37
Docs: 24
Nombre propio: / 37 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 3
Puntaje: 3.894 = (3 + (1+4.58496250072116) / (1+5.24792751344359)));
Candidato aceptado
Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término
(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)| preference |
: Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 119-139. : Cochet, H. & Vauclair, J. (2010). Pointing gesture in young children: Hand preference and language development. Gesture, 10, 129-149. : Partington, A. (2004). Utterly Content in Each Other’s Company: Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 131-156. : Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53, 361-382. : Trueswell, J. C., Tanenhaus, M. K. & Kello, C. (1993). Verb-specific constraints in sentence processing: Separating effects of lexical preference from garden-paths. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 528-553. |