Termout.org logo/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) prosody (*)
(*) Términos presentes en el nuestro glosario de lingüística

1) Candidate: prosody


Is in goldstandard

1
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : The semantic prosody of the words inmigración and inmigrante in the Spanish written media: A corpus-based study of two national newspapers

2
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : 1.1. The concept of semantic prosody: Origins and perspectives

3
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Two perspectives towards the study of semantic prosody are distinguished: (i ) the discoursal perspective and (ii) the corpus-based perspective. From the first one, semantic prosody is defined as the evaluative speaker’s intention with regard to a topic, in other words, the individual speaker’s attitude towards a phenomenon in a given text. According to Sinclair (2004a), this is the basic, primary choice of a speaker, and the rest of choices about that item relate to this initial choice. The second perspective, which is corpus-based, consists of analysing items that appear together many times in many texts (Sinclair, 2004a). These two perspectives are two ways of approaching the same phenomenon and can be exemplified by a wider viewpoint, ‘priming’, which is followed by linguists such as Hoey (2005), Xiao and McEnery (2006) or Morley (2007). Indeed, Hoey (2005) states that lexical items carry primings, that is, suggestions on how those items can be used, and prosody is one of these primings.

4
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : According to Whitsitt (2005), semantic prosody is not a univocal concept, but it has been described from three different points of view, which have provided prosody with various nuances: from a diachronic point of view (Louw, 1993 ; Bublitz, 1996) as opposed to a synchronic one (Sinclair, 2003), from a pragmatic perspective (Sinclair, 1996; Stubbs, 1995, 2001b) and, finally, from the point of view of its connection with connotation (Louw, 2000; Partington, 1998, 2004; Hunston, 2002).

5
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Regarding the diachronic-synchronic axis, according to Stewart (2010), there is a tendency to use both diachronic and synchronic criteria when approaching semantic prosody, without being aware of the differences that each approach involves. As for the diachronic point of view, semantic prosody is defined as an attached meaning or as a meaning which is transferred from one word to another during the course of time (Stewart, 2010). In his critical evaluation of semantic prosody, Stewart (2010) summarizes how this phenomenon has been approached within a diachronic framework, where we can find a wide range of metaphors describing semantic prosody as a meaning transferable to an item over time:

6
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Although numerous scholars have defined and described semantic prosody from a diachronic perspective, only a few of them have carried out strict diachronic analyses. On the contrary, most authors have adopted a synchronic point of view, despite “briefly introducing and defining semantic prosody as the result of a diachronic phenomenon” (Stewart, 2010: 55 ).

7
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : As opposed to the diachronic orientation, we have adopted a synchronic approach which sees semantic prosody as an extending meaning, that is to say, as a feature which characterizes a group of items rather than a single item. Understood in synchronic terms, semantic prosody refers, as Stubbs (2001a: 65 ) points out, to “a feature which extends over more than one unit in a linear string”. In this sense, semantic prosody is described as a meaning which “belongs to or is distributed over a unit of language” (Stewart, 2010: 53), ranging over several units or combinations of words (Sinclair, 2003). Our analysis therefore focuses on semantic prosody as a synchronic process in which the meaning is extended over groups of words.

8
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Nonetheless, Bednarek (2008) warns that semantic prosody cannot always be identified as a pragmatic element. The author continues explaining that collocational clashes can only result in pragmatic meanings when items exhibit “a very strong preference” (Bednarek, 2008: 127) for negative or positive meanings. Consequently, we have to bear in mind that semantic prosody is not a “pragmatic backdrop” (Sorli, 2013: 108 ). In Sorli’s words, it has to be understood as “a result of empirically identifiable elements of the meaning structure” (Sorli, 2013: 108).

9
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Louw (2000) amplifies his definition of semantic prosody as ‘aura of meaning’ and considers it as something distinguishable from connotation. In the context of semantic prosody, connotation is understood as evaluative meaning. Connotation is frequently identified as semantic prosody (Sinclair, 2003). Thus, connotation and semantic prosody can be closely related but they should be considered different phenomena. Connotation is more obvious and consistent, as well as related to individual items, whereas semantic prosody is less evident and more prone to changing with context:

10
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : The semantic prosody of a lexical item is commonly classified in three different categories: positive, negative and neutral . Other evaluative labels have been used in the literature: favourable and unfavourable, desirable and undesirable, pleasant and unpleasant. Indeed, Xiao and McEnery (2006: 108) point out that:

11
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Thus, intuition and introspection may not be enough, but that does not mean that they should be discarded. In fact, Stewart (2010) suggests that there is no empirical evidence that semantic prosody cannot be intuitively or introspectively reached. This author advocates for a role of intuition and introspection in the study of semantic prosody: “[…] we should perhaps think twice before stigmatizing intuition and introspection as inaccurate and unreliable by comparison with corpus data” (Stewart, 2010: 134 ). The author continues explaining that corpus searches and finds do not simply happen, but are triggered by “moments of intuition and introspection” (Stewart, 2010: 135).

12
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : Nonetheless, the two perspectives developed above do not have to oppose each other. McEnery and Wilson (2001) do not consider intuition and the corpus-based approach mutually exclusive but complementary. Zhang (2013) does not question this idea but he highlights that semantic prosody is less accessible only through intuition, and computation would contribute to a better and more complete approach towards semantic prosody: “it is computational research and corpus linguistics that make it possible to highlight its existence” (Zhang, 2013: 64 ).

13
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : cism’, pollution and racism being also considered denotatively negative. Contra acts in the same way with other concepts which are not so clearly negative. Yet, if we analyse a more neutral word such as government or technology in being against the government or being against technology, these words are understood as negative terms in these expressions, although technology or government are not denotatively negative. However, it cannot be ignored that this seems to be one of the unresolved dilemmas in studies on semantic prosody, i.e., the parameter or the criterion with which the prosody should be inferred: is the concept denoted by the co-occurrence unpleasant in the mind of the person who produces the utterance, or is it a generally unfavourable concept ?

14
paper corpusSignosTxtLongLines417 - : The linguistic results obtained here are in the line of different sociological studies on the phenomenon of immigration. Thus, the last sociological study about immigration published by the CIS (Spanish Centre of Sociological Research) in 2011 explored the Spanish people’s attitudes towards this phenomenon. It reveals that over 8% of the population considers immigration the biggest problem of the country, even more serious than gender violence, drugs or corruption. These data are interesting given the fact that the big economic crisis in which we are immersed had already started in 2011. According to the CIS, over 60% think that immigrants receive a lot of help or enough help and protection on the part of the government. The negative semantic prosody shown by our results and therefore mirrored by linguistic behaviour is in line with the answer to one of the CIS questions: what is the first thing that comes to your mind when you hear the word immigration ? Up to 43% of the respondents’

Evaluando al candidato prosody:


1) semantic: 29 (*)
3) stewart: 8
4) diachronic: 8 (*)
6) synchronic: 6 (*)
7) sinclair: 6
8) items: 6
9) intuition: 6 (*)
10) connotation: 5 (*)
11) phenomenon: 5 (*)
16) corpus-based: 4 (*)
18) pragmatic: 4 (*)
19) understood: 4
20) introspection: 4

prosody
Lengua: eng
Frec: 65
Docs: 10
Nombre propio: / 65 = 0%
Coocurrencias con glosario: 8
Puntaje: 9.077 = (8 + (1+6.58496250072116) / (1+6.04439411935845)));
Candidato aceptado

Referencias bibliográficas encontradas sobre cada término

(Que existan referencias dedicadas a un término es también indicio de terminologicidad.)
prosody
: Alcaraz-Mármol, G. & Soto Almela, J. (2016). The semantic prosody of the words inmigración and inmigrante in the Spanish written media: A corpus-based study of two national newpapers. Revista Signos. Estudios de Lengüística, 49(91), 145-167.
: Along the same lines, Stubbs (2001a) underlines the pragmatic and discourse function of semantic prosody, so he prefers the term ‘discourse prosody’. In fact, Stubbs (2001a: 65) underlines the attitudinal nature of semantic prosody by stating that:
: Bednarek, M. (2008). Semantic preference and semantic prosody re-examined. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 4(2), 119-139.
: Bublitz, W. (1996). Semantic Prosody and Cohesive Company: Somewhat Predictable. Leuvense Bijdragen, 85, 1-32.
: Hunston, S. (2007). Semantic prosody revisited. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 12(2), 249-268.
: Louw (2000) claims that while semantic prosody depends on the co-text and thus can be explored in a corpus through regular co-occurrences of an item, connotation is related to instinctive semantic associations that are often made of an item, regardless of the collocates.
: Louw, B. & Chateau, C. (2010). Semantic prosody for the 21st century: Are prosodies smoothed in academic contexts? A contextual prosodic theoretical perspective. In Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Statistical Analysis of Corpus Study (pp. 755-764).
: Morley, J. & Partington, A. (2009). A few Frequently Asked Questions about semantic –or evaluative– prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(2), 139-158.
: Oteíza, T. & Pinuer, C. (2013). Valorative prosody and the symbolic construction of time in historical recent national discourses. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 43-64.
: Partington, A. (2004). Utterly Content in Each Other’s Company: Semantic Prosody and Semantic Preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9, 131-156.
: Roustan, B. & Dohen, M. (2010). Co-production of contrastive prosodic focus and manual gestures: Temporal coordination and effects on the acoustic and articulatory correlates of focus. En Proceeding of the Speech Prosody, Chicago.
: Sorli, M. (2013). Forms of encoding pragmatic meaning: Semantic prosody. A lexicographic perspective. Lingue e Linguaggi, 10, 95-111.
: Speer, S. R. & Blodgett, A. (2006). Prosody. En M. J. Traxler & M. A. Gernsbacher (Eds.), The Handbook of Psycholinguistics (pp. 505-538). Ámsterdam: Elsevier .
: Stewart, D. (2010). Semantic Prosody. A Critical Evaluation. London: Routledge.
: Taler, V., Baum, S. R., Chertkow, H. & Saumier, D. (2008). Comprehension of grammatical and emotional prosody is impaired in Alzheimer’s disease. Neuropsychology, 22(2), 188.
: Trofimovich, P. & Baker, W. (2006). Learning second language suprasegmentals: Effect of L2 experience on prosody and fluency characteristics of L2 speech. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 28(1), 1-30.
: Whichmann, A., Simon-Vandenberger, A. M. & Aijmer, K. (2010). How prosody reflect semantic change: a synchronic case study of ‘of course’. In K. Davidse (Ed.), Subjectification, Intersubjectification and grammaticalization (pp. 103-154). Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
: Whitsitt, S. (2005). A critique of the concept of semantic prosody. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10, 283-305.
: Xiao, R. & McEnery, T. (2006). Collocation, Semantic Prosody, and Near Synonymy: A Cross-Linguistic Perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27, 103-129.
: Zhang, R. (2013). A corpus-based study of semantic prosody change: The case of the adverbial intensifier. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics, 39(2), 61-82.