Semantic Prosody of Research Verbs: A Corpus-Informed Study

IF 1 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
G. Al-Otaibi
{"title":"Semantic Prosody of Research Verbs: A Corpus-Informed Study","authors":"G. Al-Otaibi","doi":"10.17323/jle.2022.12985","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background. Synonymous words behave differently, and language users should be aware of the fact that though near-synonyms share similar denotational meanings, they require different collocates. Further, with specific collocates, they provoke a special affective meaning called semantic prosody. To give an example of this problematic area, researchers use a lot of reporting verbs that merely describe an opinion such as argue, claim, believe, etc. or state facts such as find, confirm, cite, etc. Such verbs cannot be used interchangeably as some novice researchers usually do when they discuss their findings or compare their results with others'. \nPurpose. This study aimed at examining the semantic prosody of 24 research verbs commonly used by researchers. For this purpose, collocational behavior of nearly synonymous verbs was examined. Compared to previous studies, this study considered only adverbs co-occurring with such research verbs.    \nMethods. The researcher used the Directory Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which is of 2.6 billion words and 659,132 texts, and focused on predicational adverbs that end in –ly. For the purpose of the study, adverbs with positive semantic prosody are those proving a stronger attitude towards the proposition, improving the quality, quantity, manner of a piece of information or its the relation to the topic or those suggesting a higher level of certainty. \nResults. Investigating 24 research verbs related to hypothesizing, reporting, and summarizing, the researcher found that such verbs have different sets of collocates and thus distinct semantic prosodies. Results showed that 12 of the research verbs were positive (i.e., quantify, argue, claim, suggest, state, mention, indicate, outline, summarize, encapsulate, recapitulate, and reveal), whereas 12 verbs (i.e., hypothesize, review, conclude, presume, posit, assume, theorize, speculate, note, report, find, and postulate) were neutral. \nImplications. The study has its own implications for writing instructors and researchers. Novice researchers should not use some research verbs interchangeably as they require different collocates of adverbs. Further, future research should address the relationship between word's etymology and semantic prosody as the present study showed that verbs derived from Latin (e.g., conclude, hypothesize, postulate, etc.) are neutral compared to those that are originally French. ","PeriodicalId":37020,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Language and Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Language and Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17323/jle.2022.12985","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background. Synonymous words behave differently, and language users should be aware of the fact that though near-synonyms share similar denotational meanings, they require different collocates. Further, with specific collocates, they provoke a special affective meaning called semantic prosody. To give an example of this problematic area, researchers use a lot of reporting verbs that merely describe an opinion such as argue, claim, believe, etc. or state facts such as find, confirm, cite, etc. Such verbs cannot be used interchangeably as some novice researchers usually do when they discuss their findings or compare their results with others'. Purpose. This study aimed at examining the semantic prosody of 24 research verbs commonly used by researchers. For this purpose, collocational behavior of nearly synonymous verbs was examined. Compared to previous studies, this study considered only adverbs co-occurring with such research verbs.    Methods. The researcher used the Directory Open Access Journals (DOAJ), which is of 2.6 billion words and 659,132 texts, and focused on predicational adverbs that end in –ly. For the purpose of the study, adverbs with positive semantic prosody are those proving a stronger attitude towards the proposition, improving the quality, quantity, manner of a piece of information or its the relation to the topic or those suggesting a higher level of certainty. Results. Investigating 24 research verbs related to hypothesizing, reporting, and summarizing, the researcher found that such verbs have different sets of collocates and thus distinct semantic prosodies. Results showed that 12 of the research verbs were positive (i.e., quantify, argue, claim, suggest, state, mention, indicate, outline, summarize, encapsulate, recapitulate, and reveal), whereas 12 verbs (i.e., hypothesize, review, conclude, presume, posit, assume, theorize, speculate, note, report, find, and postulate) were neutral. Implications. The study has its own implications for writing instructors and researchers. Novice researchers should not use some research verbs interchangeably as they require different collocates of adverbs. Further, future research should address the relationship between word's etymology and semantic prosody as the present study showed that verbs derived from Latin (e.g., conclude, hypothesize, postulate, etc.) are neutral compared to those that are originally French. 
研究动词的语义韵律:基于语料库的研究
背景同义词表现不同,语言使用者应该意识到,尽管近同义词具有相似的指称意义,但它们需要不同的搭配。此外,通过特定的搭配,它们激发出一种特殊的情感意义,称为语义韵律。举一个这个有问题的领域的例子,研究人员使用了很多报告动词,这些动词只描述一种观点,如争论、主张、相信等,或者陈述事实,如发现、确认、引用等。这些动词不能像一些新手研究人员在讨论他们的发现或将他们的结果与其他人的结果进行比较时那样互换使用。意图本研究旨在检验研究者常用的24个研究动词的语义韵律。为此,研究了近同义动词的搭配行为。与以往的研究相比,本研究只考虑了与此类研究动词共现的副词。方法。研究人员使用了目录开放获取期刊(DOAJ),该期刊共有26亿个单词和659132篇文本,并重点研究了以–ly结尾的表语副词。就本研究而言,具有积极语义韵律的副词是指那些证明对命题态度更强、改善信息的质量、数量、方式或与主题的关系的副词,或那些表明具有更高确定性的副词。后果研究人员对24个与假设、报告和总结相关的研究动词进行了调查,发现这些动词具有不同的搭配集,从而具有不同的语义韵律。结果表明,12个研究动词是积极的(即量化、争论、声称、暗示、陈述、提及、指示、概述、概括、重述和揭示),而12个动词(即假设、回顾、总结、推测、假设、理论化、推测、注释、报告、发现和假设)是中性的。含义。这项研究对写作教师和研究人员有其自身的启示。新手研究者不应该互换使用某些研究动词,因为它们需要不同的副词搭配。此外,未来的研究应该解决单词词源和语义韵律之间的关系,因为目前的研究表明,源自拉丁语的动词(如结论、假设、假设等)与源自法语的动词相比是中性的。
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
Journal of Language and Education
Journal of Language and Education Arts and Humanities-Language and Linguistics
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
14.30%
发文量
33
审稿时长
18 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