Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorMurphy, M. Lynneen
dc.contributor.authorJones, Stevenen
dc.contributor.authorKoskela, Anuen
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-20T14:09:20Z
dc.date.available2015-07-20T14:09:20Z
dc.date.issued2015-07
dc.identifier.citationMurphy, M. L. , Jones, S. and Koskela, A. (2015) Signals of contrastiveness: But, oppositeness, and formal similarity in parallel contexts. Journal of English Linguistics, 43 (3)en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2086/11085
dc.descriptionBy examining contexts in which “emergent” oppositions appear, we consider the relative contribution of formal parallelism, connective type, and semantic relation (considered as an indicator of relative semantic parallelism) in generating contrast. The data set is composed of cases of ancillary antonymy—the use of an established antonym pair to help support and/or accentuate contrast between a less established pair. Having devised measures for formal and semantic parallelism, we find that but is less likely to appear in contexts with high levels of formal parallelism than non-contrastive connectives like and or punctuation. With respect to semantic parallelism, we find that contrastive connectives are less likely to occur with pairs that are in traditional paradigmatic relations (“nym relations”: antonymy, co-hyponymy, synonymy). The article’s main hypothesis—that non-paradigmatic relations need more contextual sustenance for their opposition—was therefore supported. Indeed, pairs in nym relations were found to be more than twice as likely to be joined by a non-contrastive connective as by a contrastive one.en
dc.description.abstractBy examining contexts in which “emergent” oppositions appear, we consider the relative contribution of formal parallelism, connective type, and semantic relation (considered as an indicator of relative semantic parallelism) in generating contrast. The data set is composed of cases of ancillary antonymy—the use of an established antonym pair to help support and/or accentuate contrast between a less established pair. Having devised measures for formal and semantic parallelism, we find that but is less likely to appear in contexts with high levels of formal parallelism than non-contrastive connectives like and or punctuation. With respect to semantic parallelism, we find that contrastive connectives are less likely to occur with pairs that are in traditional paradigmatic relations (“nym relations”: antonymy, co-hyponymy, synonymy). The article’s main hypothesis—that non-paradigmatic relations need more contextual sustenance for their opposition—was therefore supported. Indeed, pairs in nym relations were found to be more than twice as likely to be joined by a non-contrastive connective as by a contrastive one.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherSAGEen
dc.subjectantonymyen
dc.subjectparallelismen
dc.subjectcoordinationen
dc.subjectcontrasten
dc.subjectcorpus linguisticsen
dc.titleSignals of Contrastiveness: But, Oppositeness, and Formal Similarity in Parallel Contextsen
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1177/0075424215591852
dc.peerreviewedYesen
dc.researchinstituteInstitute of Englishen


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record