A Comparative Study on Intensifiers in Opinion Articles on Rudaw Portal

الشريط الجانبي للمقالة

View The PDF File (English)
منشور: يون 30, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.14500/kujhss.v5n1y2022.pp70-76

محتوى المقالة الرئيسي

Nahlah Khorsheed
Department of English Language, College of Education and Languages, Lebanese French University, Kurdistan Region, Iraq
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7935-5298
Hisham Dzakiria
Awang Had Salleh Graduate School, College of Arts, University of Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5492-1081
Manvender Kaur Sarjit Singh
Department of English Language, School of Language, Civilisation, and Philosophy, College of Arts, University of Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1571-9312

الملخص

Semantically, intensifiers are concerned with the degree that scales the element to which the intensifiers applied to a point either higher than the norm or lower. Thus, the writers’ involvement with or detachment from a statement can be reflected through the use of intensifiers. This paper explores the use of intensifiers by Kurdish authors in comparison to non-Kurdish authors who write opinion articles on Rudaw portal. The aim of the study is to demonstrate how these two groups of authors differ in their preference for the use of intensifiers. To this end, two corpora were compiled: Kurdish authors (COKA) and non-Kurdish authors (CONKA). The online interface of UCREL Semantic Analysis System (USAS) in Wmatrix was employed to identify the semantic categories of intensifiers. The results showed that boosters had the highest frequency (140 in COKA and 280 in CONKA). However, the use of all categories was higher by the non-Kurdish authors and with wider range of lexicons than the Kurdish authors. This study contributes to literature of the use of automated semantic tagger (USAS) for identifying intensifiers; it is a mechanism that can be fruitful for investigating other lexicogrammatical items for a better understanding of the link between language and socio-cultural factors.

التنزيلات

بيانات التنزيل غير متوفرة بعد.

تفاصيل المقالة

كيفية الاقتباس
Khorsheed, N., Dzakiria, H. . و Sarjit Singh, M. K. (2022) "A Comparative Study on Intensifiers in Opinion Articles on Rudaw Portal", مجلة جامعة كويه للعلوم الإنسانية والاجتماعية, 5(1), ص 70-76. doi: 10.14500/kujhss.v5n1y2022.pp70-76.
إصدار
مجلد 5 عدد 1 (2022): Issue Eighth
القسم
Articles
Creative Commons License

هذا العمل مرخص بموجب Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

السير الشخصية للمؤلفين

Nahlah Khorsheed، Department of English Language, College of Education and Languages, Lebanese French University, Kurdistan Region, Iraq

Nahlah N. Khorsheed is an assistant lecturer in the Department of English at the College of
Education and Languages, Lebanese French University. Her fields of interest are corpus
linguistics, critical discourse analysis, pragmatics, assessment, and speaking test. She is a PhD
candidate at University of Utara Malaysia.

Hisham Dzakiria، Awang Had Salleh Graduate School, College of Arts, University of Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Hisham Dzakiria presently is Dean of Awang Had Salleh Graduate School, College of Arts, University of Utara Malaysia. Formerly, a Post-Doctoral fellow with Commonwealth of Learning (COL), Vancouver, Canada. His Doctor of Philosophy is in Professional Development majoring in Lifelong Learning and Professional Development in ODL from University of East Anglia, UK (2004).

Manvender Kaur Sarjit Singh، Department of English Language, School of Language, Civilisation, and Philosophy, College of Arts, University of Utara Malaysia, Kedah, Malaysia

Associate Professor Dr. Manvender Kaur Sarjit Singh teaches in University of Utara Malaysia. She received her Ph.D. in Applied linguistics, specialising in corpus-based genre analysis, from University of Technology Malaysia. Her areas of research interest are TESL, ESP, corpus linguistics, genre, and discourse analysis. She holds the patent for the CACA approach which she developed during her PhD study. She is also an author of a book entitled “A Corpus-based Genre Analysis of Quality, Health, Safety and Environment Work Procedures in Malaysian Petroleum Industry” published in 2020.

المراجع

Abdollahzadeh, E., 2019. A cross-cultural study of hedging in discussion sections by junior and senior academic writers. Iberica 38, 177-202

Ahmada, U., and Mehrjooseresht, M., 2012. Stance Adverbials in Engineering Thesis Abstracts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 66, 29 – 36.

Al-Shorman, A., and Singh, M. K. S., 2019. Multidimensional Structural Linguistics Analysis of Moves in Abstracts: A Corpus-Based Approach. Opcion. 34. (19). 1603-1638.

Archer, D., A. Wilson, and P. Rayson. 2002. Introduction to the USAS category system. Lancaster University, University Centre for Computer Corpus Research on Language. Available at: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/usas/usas%20guide.pdf. [Accessed 18 November 2019].

Baker, P., Gabrielatos, C., and McEnery, T., 2013. Discourse Analysis and Media Attitudes: The Representation of Islam in the British Press. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bolinger, D. (1972). Degree words. Paris: Mouton.

Breivega, K. R., Dahl, T., and Flottum, K., 2002. Traces of Self and Others in Research Articles: A Comparative Pilot Study of English, French and Norwegian Research Articles in Medicine, Economics and Linguistics. Applied Linguistics, 12, 218-239. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1473-4192.00032

Brezina, V., 2018. Statistics in Corpus Linguistic: A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Cakır, H., 2016. Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of Stance Adverbs in English Research Article Abstracts. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 6, 85-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2016.62008

Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide spoken and written English grammar and usage. Cambridge University Press.

Conrad, S., and Biber, D., 2001. Multi-dimensional methodology and the dimensions of register variation in English. In S. Conrad, and D. Biber, Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies (pp. 13-42). London/ New York: Routledge.

Department of East Asian Language and Literature, 2019. A cross-linguistic and cross-cultural study of stance markers in research articles in English and Korean. [pdf] University of Hawaii at Manoa. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/66274 [Accessed 2 September 2021].

Fairclough, N., 1996. Language and power. New York: Longman.

Gabrielatos, C. 2018. Keyness Analysis: nature, metrics and techniques. In Corpus Approaches to Discourse: A critical review, ed. by C. Taylor, and A. Marchi, 225-258. London and New York: Routledge.

Hardie, A., 2014. Modest XML for Corpora: Not a standard, but a suggestion. ICAME Journal, Volume 38 (1), 73-103.

Hardie, A., April 28, 2014. Log Ratio – an informal introduction [Blog post]. Available at: http://cass.lancs.ac.uk/log-ratio-an-informal-introduction/ [Accessed September 29, 2020].

Hyland, K., 1996. Writing Without Conviction? Hedging in Science Research Articles. Applied Linguistics, Oxford University Press, 17(4), 433-454.

Hyland, K., 2005. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.

Hyland, K., 2006. English for Academic Purposes: An advanced resource book. London and New York: Routledge.

Kuha, M., 2005. Investigating the Spread of 'So' as an Intensifier. Texas Linguistic Forum (48), 217–227.

Lorenz, G., 1998. Overstatement in advanced learners’ writing: stylistic aspects of Adjective intensification. In S. Granger, Learner English on Computer (pp. 53-66). London and New York: Longman.

Nordquist, R., 2020, August 26. Degree Modifiers in Grammar. Available at: https://www.thoughtco.com/degree-modifier-grammar-1690425

Partington, A., 1993. Corpus Evidence of Language Change: The Case of the Intensifier. In M. Baker, G. Francis, and E. Tognini-Bonelli, Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair (pp. 177-192). Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing.

Petch-Tyson, S., 1998. Writer/reader visibility in EFL Written Discourse. In S. Granger, Learner English on Computer (pp. 107-118). London/New York: Longman.

Piao, S. L., Rayson, P., Archer, D., Wilson, A. and McEnery, T., 2003. Extracting Multiword Expressions with a Semantic Tagger. In proceedings of the Workshop on Multiword Expressions: Analysis, Acquisition and Treatment, at ACL 2003, (pp. 49-56) Sapporo, Japan, July 12, 2003.

Piao, S. S., Rayson, P., Archer, D., and McEnery, T., 2004. Evaluating lexical resources for a semantic tagger. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2004 (pp. 499-502). Lancaster : Lancaster University.

Prentice, S. (2010). Using automated semantic tagging in Critical Discourse Analysis: A case study on Scottish independence from a Scottish nationalist perspective. Sage, 405-437.

Pullum, G. and Huddleston (2017). Adjectives and adverbs. In The Cambridge grammar of the English Language ed. by R. Huddleston, and G. K. Pullum 525-595. Cambridge University Press.

Rayson, P. and Wilson, A., 1996. The ACAMRIT semantic tagging system: progress report. 13-20 Paper presented at Language Engineering for Document Analysis and Recognition, LEDAR, AISB96. Workshop proceedings, Brighton: England.

Rayson, P., 2008. Computational Tools and Methods for Corpus Compilation and analysis. The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics.

Rayson, P., 2015. Increasing Interoperability for Embedding Corpus Annotation Pipelines in Wmatrix and other corpus retrieval tools. Lancaster University, 2015-2018.

Rayson, P. (January, 2019). Wmatrix tutorials. Retrieved from Wmatrix corpus analysis and comparison tool. Available at: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix/tutorial/

Rayson, P., Archer, D., Piao, S., and McEnery, T., 2004. The UCREL Semantic Analysis System. In Proceedings of the beyond named entity recognition semantic labelling for NLP tasks workshop (pp. 7-12). Lancaster University.

Reisigl, M. and Wodak, R., (2001). Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of Racism and Antisemitism. London: Routledge.

Roberts, W. R., 1984. Ryetoric. In J. Barnes, The Complete Work of Aristotle: Volume two (pp. 2152-2169). New Jersey:Princeton University Press.

Su, Y., 2016. Corpus-based comparative study of intensifiers: quite, pretty, rather and fairly. Journal of World Languages, 3(3), 224-236, DOI: 10.1080/21698252.2017.1308306. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21698252.2017.1308306

Tagliamonte, S., and Roberts, C., 2005. So weird; so cool; so innovative: the use of intensifiers in the television series friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280-300.

Tannen, D., 1982. Spoken/Written Language and the Oral/Literate Continuum. [online]. Proceedings of the Sixth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (1980), pp. 207-218. Available through: BLS Workshop: Phonological Representations - Proceedings (berkeley.edu) [Accessed 17 August 2021].

Yakhontova, T., 2002. “Selling” or “telling”? The issue of cultural variation in research genres. In J. Flowerdew (ed.), Academic discourse. London: Longman.

Yakhontova, T., 2006. Selling’ or ‘telling’? The issue of cultural variation. In K. Hyland, English for Academic Purposes: An advanced resource book (pp. 153-157). London and New York: Routledge.