语义韵律、分类和信度

Mathias Russnes
{"title":"语义韵律、分类和信度","authors":"Mathias Russnes","doi":"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100264","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>This article investigates the inter-rater reliability of established methods of categorising semantic prosody. Semantic prosody is a concept associated with corpus linguistics, which describes the tendency of seemingly neutral items to occur in particular evaluative contexts. In previous research on semantic prosody, there has been a heavy reliance on manual analysis of smaller samples, and because of this, questions have been raised about the stability of the established methods for categorisation. Furthermore, there is also a lack of consensus regarding how such categorisations should be operationalised. Traditionally, it has often been viewed in binary terms, distinguishing between <em>positive</em> and <em>negative</em> prosodies. However, this restricted system has also received criticism, and certain researchers have adopted a more comprehensive (or fine-grained) categorisation, more connected to a unit’s semantic preference. This paper aims to evaluate the inter-analyst consistency of these systems through two experimental studies, in which four researchers independently analyse the same set of random concordance lines of the items <em>habit</em> and <em>views</em> from BNC2014, applying both methods of categorisation. The results indicate that a binary distinction between <em>positive</em> and <em>negative</em> offers a higher inter-analyst consistency than a more fine-grained categorisation. Additionally, this more comprehensive system was also found to obscure the borders between semantic preference and semantic prosody. However, because neither system achieved satisfactory inter-rater agreement, both studies highlight the need for more objective methods of analysing and categorising semantic prosody.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":101075,"journal":{"name":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","volume":"4 3","pages":"Article 100264"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Semantic prosody, categorisation and inter-rater reliability\",\"authors\":\"Mathias Russnes\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.rmal.2025.100264\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>This article investigates the inter-rater reliability of established methods of categorising semantic prosody. Semantic prosody is a concept associated with corpus linguistics, which describes the tendency of seemingly neutral items to occur in particular evaluative contexts. In previous research on semantic prosody, there has been a heavy reliance on manual analysis of smaller samples, and because of this, questions have been raised about the stability of the established methods for categorisation. Furthermore, there is also a lack of consensus regarding how such categorisations should be operationalised. Traditionally, it has often been viewed in binary terms, distinguishing between <em>positive</em> and <em>negative</em> prosodies. However, this restricted system has also received criticism, and certain researchers have adopted a more comprehensive (or fine-grained) categorisation, more connected to a unit’s semantic preference. This paper aims to evaluate the inter-analyst consistency of these systems through two experimental studies, in which four researchers independently analyse the same set of random concordance lines of the items <em>habit</em> and <em>views</em> from BNC2014, applying both methods of categorisation. The results indicate that a binary distinction between <em>positive</em> and <em>negative</em> offers a higher inter-analyst consistency than a more fine-grained categorisation. Additionally, this more comprehensive system was also found to obscure the borders between semantic preference and semantic prosody. However, because neither system achieved satisfactory inter-rater agreement, both studies highlight the need for more objective methods of analysing and categorising semantic prosody.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":101075,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\",\"volume\":\"4 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100264\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125000850\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Methods in Applied Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772766125000850","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文研究了已建立的语义韵律分类方法的间信度。语义韵律是一个与语料库语言学相关的概念,它描述了看似中性的项目在特定的评价语境中出现的趋势。在先前的语义韵律研究中,大量依赖于对较小样本的人工分析,因此,对既定分类方法的稳定性提出了质疑。此外,关于如何实施这种分类也缺乏共识。传统上,它经常被看作是二元的,区分积极和消极的韵律。然而,这种受限制的系统也受到了批评,某些研究人员采用了更全面(或细粒度)的分类,与单位的语义偏好更相关。本文旨在通过两项实验研究来评估这些系统的内部一致性,其中四名研究人员分别使用两种分类方法,独立分析了BNC2014中项目习惯和观点的同一组随机一致性线。结果表明,积极和消极之间的二元区分比更细粒度的分类提供了更高的分析师之间的一致性。此外,这个更全面的系统也被发现模糊了语义偏好和语义韵律之间的界限。然而,由于两种系统都没有达到令人满意的一致性,这两项研究都强调需要更客观的方法来分析和分类语义韵律。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Semantic prosody, categorisation and inter-rater reliability
This article investigates the inter-rater reliability of established methods of categorising semantic prosody. Semantic prosody is a concept associated with corpus linguistics, which describes the tendency of seemingly neutral items to occur in particular evaluative contexts. In previous research on semantic prosody, there has been a heavy reliance on manual analysis of smaller samples, and because of this, questions have been raised about the stability of the established methods for categorisation. Furthermore, there is also a lack of consensus regarding how such categorisations should be operationalised. Traditionally, it has often been viewed in binary terms, distinguishing between positive and negative prosodies. However, this restricted system has also received criticism, and certain researchers have adopted a more comprehensive (or fine-grained) categorisation, more connected to a unit’s semantic preference. This paper aims to evaluate the inter-analyst consistency of these systems through two experimental studies, in which four researchers independently analyse the same set of random concordance lines of the items habit and views from BNC2014, applying both methods of categorisation. The results indicate that a binary distinction between positive and negative offers a higher inter-analyst consistency than a more fine-grained categorisation. Additionally, this more comprehensive system was also found to obscure the borders between semantic preference and semantic prosody. However, because neither system achieved satisfactory inter-rater agreement, both studies highlight the need for more objective methods of analysing and categorising semantic prosody.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信