Contrastive relational markers in women’s expository writing in nineteenth-century English

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Margarita Esther Sánchez Cuervo
{"title":"Contrastive relational markers in women’s expository writing in nineteenth-century English","authors":"Margarita Esther Sánchez Cuervo","doi":"10.6035/languagev.7228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study seeks to analyse the occurrence of contrastive relational markers in a corpus of recipes called Corpus of Women’s Instructive Texts in English, the 19th century sub-corpus (COWITE19). Opposition relations, also referred to as adversative or contrastive, are usually identified with markers such as “but”, “although”, and “however”. From a semantic point of view, a classification of these relations can be established into contrast, concession, and corrective, based on their linguistic evidence, lexical differences and syntactic behaviour (Izutsu, 2008). A further rhetorical function is antithesis, presented as a consistent device possessed of a verbal, analytical and persuasive nature (Fahnestock, 1999). The analysis of these markers is made following a computerised corpus analysis methodology and tries to discern which contrastive markers are mostly employed for the instructions conveyed by females. It also shows which opposition relation is predominant, whether contrastive, concessive, or corrective and, finally, it detects antithesis as an additional opposing meaning. In all cases, the possible argumentative role of these markers is highlighted as another step in the characterisation of women’s scientific writing.","PeriodicalId":36244,"journal":{"name":"Language Value","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Language Value","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6035/languagev.7228","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study seeks to analyse the occurrence of contrastive relational markers in a corpus of recipes called Corpus of Women’s Instructive Texts in English, the 19th century sub-corpus (COWITE19). Opposition relations, also referred to as adversative or contrastive, are usually identified with markers such as “but”, “although”, and “however”. From a semantic point of view, a classification of these relations can be established into contrast, concession, and corrective, based on their linguistic evidence, lexical differences and syntactic behaviour (Izutsu, 2008). A further rhetorical function is antithesis, presented as a consistent device possessed of a verbal, analytical and persuasive nature (Fahnestock, 1999). The analysis of these markers is made following a computerised corpus analysis methodology and tries to discern which contrastive markers are mostly employed for the instructions conveyed by females. It also shows which opposition relation is predominant, whether contrastive, concessive, or corrective and, finally, it detects antithesis as an additional opposing meaning. In all cases, the possible argumentative role of these markers is highlighted as another step in the characterisation of women’s scientific writing.
19世纪英语女性说明文写作中的对比关系标记
本研究试图分析对比关系标记在一个名为“英语女性指导性文本语料库”的食谱语料库中的出现,该语料库是19世纪的子语料库(COWITE19)。对立关系,也被称为对抗性或对比性,通常用“但是”、“尽管”和“然而”等标记来识别。从语义的角度来看,根据这些关系的语言学证据、词汇差异和句法行为,可以将其分类为对比、让步和纠正(Izutsu,2008)。另一个修辞功能是对偶,它是一种连贯的手段,具有言语、分析和说服的性质(Fahnestock,1999)。这些标记的分析是根据计算机语料库分析方法进行的,并试图辨别哪些对比标记主要用于女性传达的指令。它还显示了哪种对立关系占主导地位,无论是对比关系、让步关系还是纠正关系,最后,它将对偶视为一种额外的对立意义。在所有情况下,这些标记物可能的议论文作用都被强调为女性科学写作特征化的又一步。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Language Value
Language Value Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
28 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信