25.12.2013 Views

Evaluative Meanings and Disciplinary Values - eTheses Repository ...

Evaluative Meanings and Disciplinary Values - eTheses Repository ...

Evaluative Meanings and Disciplinary Values - eTheses Repository ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

are also interrelated.<br />

In an attempt to resolve this interpretative problem, Hunston (2007b, 2007c) divides<br />

the concept of semantic prosody into two ideas, derived from Partington (2004) <strong>and</strong> Sinclair<br />

(1991) respectively. In Partingtons view, semantic prosody is still the semantic property of a<br />

word, presenting the positive or negative attitudinal meaning. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, in Sinclairs<br />

view, both the attitudinal discourse function <strong>and</strong> semantic feature are created not by a single<br />

word, but by a phrasal unit or unit of meaning. Hunston (2007b) supports s view that<br />

semantic prosody is identified by collocation <strong>and</strong> phraseology <strong>and</strong> could be renamed<br />

semantic preference or attitudinal preference because its feature is not simply<br />

distinguished between positive <strong>and</strong> negative value, but indicates a particular evaluative<br />

meaning (p. 24). In other words, evaluation in a text can be retrieved <strong>and</strong> interpreted from<br />

semantic prosody.<br />

However, such discussion may be of no value in the case of investigation in a<br />

particular academic discourse. Semantic prosody should be changeable in a general English<br />

corpus because various genres <strong>and</strong> types of texts construct such a general reference corpus<br />

whereby the aura of a lexical item should vary in different ways. On the other h<strong>and</strong>, it is<br />

reasonable to assume that the tendency (I would rather say probability) of semantic prosody<br />

is likely to be more consistent (<strong>and</strong> less ambiguous) in a particular discourse, largely because<br />

the structure, content <strong>and</strong> phraseological expression of discourse-specific argumentation is<br />

more constrained by convention <strong>and</strong> shared underst<strong>and</strong>ings that make up disciplinary custom<br />

<strong>and</strong> culture. In other words, my hypothesis is that semantic prosody is more consistently<br />

realized in a specialized discourse than it is in general English.<br />

3.6. Conclusion<br />

This chapter has introduced <strong>and</strong> discussed the theoretical underpinnings of the major features<br />

that will be analysed in the current study: lexico-grammatical patterns, collocations, <strong>and</strong><br />

evaluationsattitude in my term. It has been argued that lexico-grammatical patterns are<br />

closely connected to textual meaning <strong>and</strong> evaluation (Hunston & Sinclair, 2000; Hunston,<br />

2002b, 2007a), that patterns, meanings, <strong>and</strong> discourse are interrelated to one another, <strong>and</strong> that<br />

their interaction plays a major role in constructing the discursive identity in a disciplinary<br />

specific discourse. In other words, to identify patterns <strong>and</strong> their meanings is to identify<br />

features of a particular discourse <strong>and</strong> its (disciplinary) culture. This is the main aim of the<br />

45

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!