1、 中图分类号：学科分类号：密 级：公 开论文编号：WY118222009050211002山东财经大学硕士学位论文基于语料库的近义词rather和quite使用研究作者姓名：张传琪学科专业：外国语言学及应用语言学指导教师：杨慧琴培养院系：外国语学院二 一二年五月A Corpus-based Study of Near-synonymsrather and quitebyZhang ChuanqiUnder the Supervision ofProfessor Yang HuiqinA ThesisSubmitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirem
2、entsFor the Degree of Master of ArtsSchool of Foreign StudiesShandong University of Finance and EconomicsMay 2012中图分类号：学科分类号：密级：公开论文编号： WY118222009050211002硕士学位论文基于语料库的近义词rather和quite使用研究作者姓名：张传琪 申请学位级别：文学硕士指导教师姓名：杨慧琴 职 称：教授学科专业：外国语言学及应用语言学 研究方向：应用语言学学习时间：自 2009年9月 1日起至 2012年 6月30 日止学位授予单位：山东财经大学 学位
3、授予日期： 2012年6月山东财经大学学位论文独创性声明本人声明所呈交的学位论文是我个人在导师指导下进行研究工作及取得的研究成果。尽我所知，除了文中特别加以标注和致谢的地方外，论文中不包含其他人已经发表或撰写过的研究成果，也不包含为获得山东财经大学或其它教育机构的学位或证书而使用过的材料。与我一同工作的同志对本研究所做的任何贡献均已在论文中作了明确的说明并表示了谢意。学位论文作者签名： 日期： 年 月 日山东财经大学学位论文使用授权声明本人完全同意山东财经大学有权使用本学位论文（包括但不限于其印刷版和电子版），使用方式包括但不限于：保留学位论文，按规定向国家有关部门（机构）送交学位论文，以学术
4、交流为目的赠送和交换学位论文，允许学位论文被查阅、借阅和复印，将学位论文的全部或部分内容编入有关数据库进行检索，采用影印、缩印或其他复制手段保存学位论文。保密学位论文在解密后的使用授权同上。学位论文作者签名：指导教师签名：日期：日期：年年月月日日山东财经大学硕士学位论文ABSTRACT Synonym discrimination is always a challenge in English learning. Accurately graspthe subtle difference of synonyms can help the language learners correctly
5、 understand andproperly use the synonyms, making the communication smooth. As a new perspective oflexicology research, semantic prosody is an effective method to discriminate synonyms.The traditional way of semantic prosody research rely more on the intuition of researchers,while the emergence of mo
6、dern corpus linguistics provides a new approach for semanticprosody research. Since the corpus can provide a large amount of authentic language use,by analyzing the collocations of words, researchers can detect the subtle semantic prosodicdifference of synonyms, making synonyms discrimination possib
7、le.The present study takes rather and quite as examples to investigate the ChineseEnglish majors semantic prosodic behavior. The data are collected from the corpusWECCL and COCA. By using the software AntConc 3.2.1 w and the retrieval softwarebuilt in COCA, the data of rather and quite are retrieved
8、, and then the data are classified,compared and analyzed. This study aims at finding the semantic prosodic features of ratherand quite by Chinese English majors and the possible reasons of the outcome.The data show that the Chinese English majors and the native speakers demonstratesimilar negative s
9、emantic prosody of rather. However, Chinese English majors tend tooveruse the negative semantic prosody of quite, while underuse the positive prosody of it.From the perspective of collocational behavior, the Chinese English majors have notgrasped the significant collocates of rather and quite. They
10、have produced some unusualcollocates of the two node words. The possible reasons for the improper use of semanticprosody and collocations lie in the inadequate knowledge of semantic prosody andcollocation of both Chinese teachers of English and learners of English. The negativelanguage transfer espe
11、cially the Chinese equivalents of English words is another reason.Therefore, a focus on semantic prosodic information and typical collocates should be oniAbstractthe agenda.This research sheds some light on vocabulary learning and teaching. Much moreattention should be paid to the semantic prosodic
12、features and typical collocations of words.What is more, corpus-based approach should be widely applied to foreign languagelearning and teaching，as corpus can provide adequate authentic language use.Keywords: Near-synonym Semantic Prosody Collocationii山东财经大学硕士学位论文摘要近义词辨析一直是英语学习中的难点。准确辨析近义词有助于帮助学习者正确
13、理解并恰当使用近义词，使交际顺利进行。语义韵研究作为词汇学研究的一个新视角，是进行近义词辨析的一种有效方法。传统的语义韵研究大多依赖于研究者的直觉经验。现代语料库语言学的出现，为语义韵研究提供了新的机会，语料库可以提供大量的真实语料，通过对这些语料中词语的搭配分析，可以揭示词语的细微的语义韵特征，进而使近义词辨析成为可能。本研究以 rather 和 quite 为 例，探究了中国英语专业 学习者对这两个词的语义韵使用情况，旨在揭示中国英语专业学生使用 rather和 quite语义韵特点及其形成原因。本文运用 AntConc 3.2.1 w软件以及 COCA自带检索软件，对 rather和 q
14、uite在 WECCL和 COCA中的数据进行提取、分类、比较和分析。从数据中发现现象，探究造成这些现象的原因。研究表明，中国英语专业学生表现出正确使用 rather的消极语义韵，对 quite的积极语义韵已经部分掌握，但是表现出过多使用 quite消极语义韵并且过少使用 quite积极语义韵。从搭配方面来说，中国英语专业学生没有准确使用 rather和 quite的显著搭配词。出现这些错误的原因在于，在英语教学和学习过程中，教师和学生忽视了词语的语义韵特征和词语的搭配习惯。另外，在识记单词的过程中，过分记忆中文对应词也是导致错误的重要原因。本研究对外语教学特别是词汇教学有重要启示。在词汇教学
15、过程中，语义韵知识和搭配知识应该被重视起来。另外，外语教学中应该引入数据库驱动的方法，使学生接触更多真实语料，提高教学质量。关键词：近义词 语义韵 搭配iiiiv山东财经大学硕士学位论文Table of Contents Abstract .i摘要 iiiList of TablesviiList of Figures .viiiChapter One INTRODUCTION. 11.1 Research background. 11.2 Significance of this study 21.3 Research questions 31.4 Organization of this
16、thesis. 3Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW 52.1 Synonymy and near-synonymy . 52.1.1 Definition of synonymy 52.1.2 Classifications of synonymy. 62.2 Semantic prosody 82.2.1 Definition of semantic prosody. 82.2.2 Classifications of semantic prosody102.2.3 Functions of semantic prosody .112.3 Collocation 1
17、12.3.1 Definition of collocation.122.3.2 Significance of collocation study 132.4 Corpus-based studies of semantic prosody 142.4.1 Corpus methodology for the study of semantic prosody abroad.142.4.2 Corpus methodology for the study of semantic prosody in China162.5 Studies on English near-synonym dis
18、crimination . 18Chapter Three RESEARCH METHODOLOGY . 223.1 Research instruments. 223.1.1 Corpora . 223.1.1.1 COCA 22vTable of Contents3.1.1.2 WECCL. 233.2 Near-synonyms chosen in this study. 243.3 Procedures of data analysis . 253.4 Summary . 26Chapter Four RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 274.1 Semantic pros
19、ody of rather. 274.1.1 Semantic prosody of rather in COCA 274.1.2 Semantic prosody of rather in WECCL. 314.1.3 The comparison of rather between COCA and WECCL. 344.2 Semantic prosody of quite. 364.2.1 Semantic prosody of quite in COCA 364.2.2 Semantic prosody of quite in WECCL. 394.2.3 The compariso
20、n of quite between COCA and WECCL. 424.3 The comparison between rather and quite in COCA 444.4 Results and interpretation 464.5 Summary . 46Chapter Five CONCLUSION . 485.1 Major findings. 485.2 Implications. 495.3 Limitations 505.4 Suggestions 51Bibliography 52Appendix The significant collocates of
21、rather and the MI scorein WECCL 55Appendix The significant collocates of quite and the MI scorein WECCL 57Appendix The collocates of rather and the MI score in COCA . 60Appendix The collocates of quite and the MI score in COCA . 64Article Published During M.A. Study . 69Acknowledgements 71vi山东财经大学硕士
22、学位论文List of Tables Table 2.1 Previously-studied examples of semantic prosody abroad (Xiao and the state of being a synonym is calledsynonymy.Many linguists have studied synonymy, and many linguists are interested in synonymy,but when it comes to the definition of synonymy, it becomes complicated. Th
23、ere is a questionthat whether synonymy exists.Some linguists insist on the non-existence of synonymy. For example, “In English thereis no synonym” (Maugham, cited in Zhu, 2005: 26). Both Tognini-Bonelli and Nida suggestthat synonymy does not exist. Tognini-Bonelli claims that even if “two words exis
24、t, theirmeanings tend to restrict themselves to specific area of usage, operating in specialized context,with a specific collocational profile and acquiring specific pragmatic functions within the textthat surrounds them” (2001: 34). Nida (1982) agrees with Tognini-Bonellis definition.However, more
25、linguists maintain the opinion that synonymy does exist. There areseveral versions of synonym definitions.Lyons (1995) says that “expressions with the same meaning are synonyms”. “Synonym5Chapter Two Literature Reviewis the technical name for the sameness relation.” (Hu, 2002: 284).“Word has the sam
26、e or nearly the same meaning as another word in a language cansubstitute each other in certain contexts.” (Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching andApplied Linguistics, 2005: 685)Hjorland (2007, cited in Shiyab, 2007) believes that words or phrases are synonymousonly if they have the same meaning.
27、 His definition of synonymy is from the aspect ofsemantic relationship.Generally speaking, words which belong to the same part of speech and share at leastone nearly identical meaning are synonyms. They can replace each other in one context butdiffer in connotations.2.1.2 Classifications of synonymy
28、Since many linguists believe that absolute synonymy does not exist, some attempts havebeen made to classify synonymy. Quine (1951, cited in Shiyab, 2007) puts forward that thereare two types of synonymy: complete synonymy and partial synonymy.If the words have identical meaning components, they are
29、considered as completesynonymy. In other words, words are complete synonyms if and only if they share allingredients with one another. According to Quine (1951, cited in Shiyab, 2007), completesynonymy does not exist simply because words may share most of the ingredients with oneanother, but not all
30、 the constituents.If words share most of the necessary constituents, they belong to partial synonymy. Anexample proposed by Shiyab (2007),The words finish and terminate may share most of the characteristics with one another, but they arestill different in some respects. The word finish suggests the
31、final stage of doing something, whereasterminate suggests reaching a limit.Shiyab (2007) suggest that synonymy should be classified as follows:6山东财经大学硕士学位论文Figure 2.1 Classifications of SynonymyHe explains the above diagram like this:For two words to be synonymous, they have to be identical and shar
32、e all essential components andthus capable of being used to substitute one another in all contexts without any noticeable differencein their meanings. This kind of synonymy does not exist, without any doubt, between two text versionsof the same language or source texts, let alone texts across langua
33、ges. (2007)Cruse also classifies synonymy into three categories: “absolute synonymy, propositionalsynonymy and near-synonymy” (2000: 156). When it comes to the absolute synonymy, heputs forward that there is “no obvious motivation for the existence of absolute synonyms in alanguage” (2000: 156). In
34、his opinion, the absolute synonyms which refer to the two wordspossess exactly the same meaning in any contexts where they can exchange without changingtheir style; emotional meaning and connotations are quite rare. As for propositional synonymy,“if two lexical items are propositional synonyms, they
35、 can be substituted in and expressionwith truth-conditional properties without effect on those properties” (2002: 158). That is tosay, “two sentences which differ only in that one has one member of a pair of propositionalsynonyms where the other has the other member of the pair are mutually entailin
36、g” (2002:158). His definition of propositional synonymy is in terms of entailment. Cruse (1980) definesnear-synonyms as “certain pairs or groups of lexical items bearing a special sort of semanticresemblance to one another”. As far as Cruse concerned, the difference between propositionalsynonymy and
37、 near-synonymy is clear, but “the borderline between the near-synonymy andnon-synonymy is much less straightforward”.7Chapter Two Literature ReviewIn this paper, the safest way is to use the term “near-synonymy” to refer the two nodewords rather and quite. The definition of near-synonymy in the pres
38、ent study is the “lexicalpairs that have very similar cognitive or denotation meanings, but which may differ incollocational or prosodic behaviors” (Partington, 1998: 77).2.2 Semantic prosodyIn this section, the definition of semantic prosody is firstly introduced, and then theclassifications and th
39、e functions of semantic prosody are discussed.2.2.1 Definition of semantic prosodyThe study of semantic prosody is a brand new area in linguistic field. It has found greatpotential applications in dictionary compiling, translation, and second language acquisition,etc. Since Sinclair (1987) first not
40、ices the phenomenon of semantic prosody in thecollocational behaviors of lexical items, there have been a great variety of definitions of thisnotion.The concept of semantic prosody is firstly introduced to the public by Louw in 1993.Since then it has become one of the most important concepts in corp
41、us linguistics and it hasclaimed more and more attention from corpus linguistics. “Prosody” in the term “semanticprosody” is borrowed from the Firthian sense of prosody. In his theory, “phonologicalcoloring was capable of transcending segmental boundaries” (Firth, 1957: 158).Louw coins the term “sem
42、antic prosody” and defines it as “consistent aura of meaningwith which a form is imbued by its collocates” (1993: 157). In his opinion, the primaryfunction of semantic function is to express the speakers or writers attitude or evaluation(2000: 58). More precisely, the meaning of a word should be rel
43、ated to the environment inwhich it locates. However, this definition has not shed any light on the functions of semanticprosody.Based on the long research on lexicography, John Sinclair, father of semantic prosodystudy, realizes that there is a close relationship between lexical meaning and the envi
44、ronmentin which semantic prosody is used. He defines semantic prosody as “When the usage of aword gives an impression of an attitudinal or pragmatic meaning, this is called a semanticprosody” (1999). Further he puts forward that “the initial choice of semantic prosody is thefunction choice which lin
45、ks meaning to purpose; all subsequent choice within the lexicalitem relate back to the prosody” (1996: 86 ). Sinclairs definition lies on three points. Firstly,8山东财经大学硕士学位论文it emphasizes that the initial word meaning choice is actually at the functional level ofsemantic prosody. Secondly, the combin
46、ation of every word and its collocates is notarbitrary, but all words are in mutually selection relationship. Thirdly, for thecommunicational purpose, that is, harmony and explicitness, the right semantic prosody isbound to express the attitudes of the language users. Sinclairs studies of semantic p
47、rosodylay special emphasis on the pragmatic function of semantic prosody.As far as Stubbs is concerned, “It is becoming increasingly well documented thatwords may habitually collocate with other words from a definable semantic set” (1995). Hethen proposes his definition as “words occur in characteri
48、stic collocations, showing theassociations and connotations they have and therefore the assumptions which they embody”(1996: 182). His definition relates semantic prosody to the practical use of co-occurring ofthe words.Partington forms his own definition of semantic prosody as “the spreading ofconn
49、otational coloring beyond single word boundaries” (1998: 68). Compared with thedefinitions made by Stubbs, Louws definition and Partingtons definition emphasize thatmeaning transfers from one word to another. Therefore, semantic prosody is not confined to asingle word.Hunston summarizes the concept of semantic prosody as “Briefly, a word may be said tohave a particular semantic prosody if it can be shown to co-occur typically with other wordsthat belong to a particular semantic set” (1999: 104). However, this definitio
