The Semantic Distinction Between "Risk" and "Danger": A Linguistic Analysis

Risk Analysis

Volumn 32, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 281-293

  Boholm, Max ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Agency; Corpus linguistics; Danger; Risk; Semantics

Indexed keywords

A-FRAMES; AGENCY; BRITISH NATIONAL CORPORA; CORPUS LINGUISTICS; DANGER; EMPIRICAL DATA; FRAME ELEMENTS; LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS; RELATED WORD; RISK COMMUNICATION;

LINGUISTICS; RISKS;

SEMANTICS;

COGNITION; DATA SET; DECISION MAKING; EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS; HAZARD ASSESSMENT; LANGUAGE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SOCIOBIOLOGY; THEORETICAL STUDY;

ARTICLE; LINGUISTICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMANTICS;

LINGUISTICS; RISK ASSESSMENT; SEMANTICS;

EID: 84857110100     PISSN: 02724332     EISSN: 15396924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01668.x     Document Type: Article

References (52)

1. Knight F. Risk, Uncertainty and Profit. New York : Harper Row, 1965 [1921].
2. Rosa EA. Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1998; 1(1):15-44.
3. Kaplan S, Garrick J. On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1981; 1(1):11-27.
4. Douglas M. Risk and Blame: Essays in Cultural Theory. London and New York : Routledge, 1992.
5. Lupton D. Risk. New York : Routledge, 1999.
6. Ulbig E, Hertel RF, Böl G-F (eds). Evaluation of Communication on the Differences between "Risk" and "Hazard". Berlin : Federal Institute for Risk Assessment, 2010.
7. Beck U. Ecological Politics in an Age of Risk. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA : Polity Press, 1995.
8. Garland D. The rise of risk. Pp. 48-86 in Ericson RV, Doyle A (eds). Risk and Morality. Toronto, Buffalo, and London : University of Toronto Press, 2003.
9. Fischoff B, Watson SR, Hope C. Defining risk. Policy Sciences, 1984; 17(2):123-139.
10. Hansson S-O. A philosophical perspective on risk. Ambio, 1999; 27(6):539-542.
11. Luhmann N. Soziologie des Risikos. Berlin : Walter de Gruyter, 1991.
12. Luhmann N. Risk: A Sociological Theory. New York : Aldine de Gruyter, 1993.
13. Luhmann N. Technology, environment and societal risk: A systems perspective. Industrial Crisis Quarterly, 1990; 4:223-231.
14. Luhmann N. Modern society shocked by its risks. Social Sciences Research Centre: Occasional Papers. Hong Kong : Department of Sociology, University of Hong Kong, 1996.
15. Ale B. Risk: An Introduction: The Concepts of Risk, Danger and Chance. London and New York : Routledge, 2009.
16. Arnoldi J. Risk: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK and Malden, MA : Polity, 2009.
17. Sand I-J. The legal regulation of the environment and new technologies-In view of changing relations between law, politics and science. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 2001; 22(2):1-38.
18. Athanassoulis N, Allison R. A virtue ethical account of making decisions about risk. Journal of Risk Research, 2010; 13(1-2):217-230.
19. Rescher N. Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management. Lanham, MD, New York, and London : University Press of America, 1983.
20. Zinn JO. Risk as discourse: Interdisciplinary perspectives. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines 2010; 4(2):106-124.
21. Thompson PB. Norton's sustainability: Some comments on risk and sustainability. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics, 2007; 20(4):375-386.
22. Hamilton C, Adolphs S, Nerlich B. The meanings of "risk": A view from corpus linguistics. Discourse & Society, 2007; 18(2):163-181.
23. Firth JR. A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. Pp. 168-205 in Palmer FR (ed). Selected Papers of JR Firth, 1952-1959. London : Longman, 1968.
24. Halliday MAK. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Baltimore, MD : University Park Press, 1978.
25. Hunston S, Francis G. Pattern Grammar: A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English. Amsterdam : John Benjamins, 2000.
26. Stewart D. Semantic Prosody: A Critical Evaluation. New York and London : Routledge, 2010.
27. Stubbs M. Words and Phrases: Corpus Studies of Lexical Semantics. Malden, MA, Oxford, and Victoria : Blackwell Publishing, 2002.
28. Sinclair J. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1991.
29. Fillmore C. "Corpus linguistics" or "computer-aided armchair lingistics." Pp. 35-60 in Svartvik J (ed). Directions in Corpus Linguistics. Berlin and New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 1992.
30. Fillmore C, Atkins B. Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge of corpus lexicography. Pp. 349-393 in Atkins B, Zampolli A (eds). Computational Approaches to the Lexicon. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1994.
31. Fillmore CJ, Atkins BT. Toward a frame-based lexicon: The semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Pp. 75-102 in Lehrer A, Kittay EF (eds). Frames, Fields, and Contrast: New Essays in Semantic and Lexical Organisation. Hillsdale, NJ, Hove, UK, and London : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 1992.
32. Kjellmer G. On the awkward polysemy of the verb risk. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 2007; 6(1):57-70.
33. Zaefferer D. The puzzle of the autoantonymous argument role: Unraveling the polysemy of risk/riskieren. Pp. 413-437 in Restle D, Zaefferer D (eds). Sounds and Systems: Studies in Structure and Change-A Festschrift for Theo Venneman. Berlin and New York : Mounton de Gruyter; 2002.
34. Hasaegawa Y, Ohara KH, Lee-Goldman R, Fillmore C. Frame integration, head switching, and translation: RISK in English and Japanese. Presented at 4th International Conference on Construction Grammar, September 1-3, 2006, Tokyo, Japan, 2006.
35. Pustejovsky J. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 1995.
36. Pustejovsky J. Lexical shadowing and argument closure. Pp. 68-90 in Ravin Y, Leacock C (eds). Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2000.
37. Langacker RW. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin and New York : Mouton de Greuter, 2000.
38. Hilgartner S. The social construction of risk objects: Or how pry open networks of risk. Pp. 39-53 in Short JFJ, Clarke L (eds). Organizations, Uncertainties, and Risk. Boulder, CA : Westview Press, 1992.
39. Boholm Å, Corvellec H. A relational theory of risk. Journal of Risk Research, 2011; 14(2):175-190.
40. Halliday MAK. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London : Edward Arnold, 1973.
41. The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium, 2007.
42. Burnard L (ed). Reference Guide for the British National Corpus (XML edition). Oxford University Computing Services, 2007;, Accessed on April 28, 2011.
43. Lyons J. Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 1968.
44. Bohner G. Writing about rape: Use of the passive voice and other distancing text features as an expression of perceived responsibility of the victim. British Journal of Social Psychology, 2001; 40(4):515-529.
45. Henley NM, Miller M, Beazley JA. Syntax, semantics and sexual violence: Agency and the passive voice. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 1995; 14(1-2):60-84.
46. Allwood J. Semantics as meaning determination with semantic-epistemic operations. Pp. 1-18 in Allwood J, Gärdenfors P (eds). Cognitive Semantics: Meaning and Cognition. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA : John Benjamins, 1998.
47. Allwood J. Meaning potential and context: Some consequences for the analysis of variation in meaning. Pp. 29-66 in Cuyckens H, Dirven R, Taylor JR (eds). Cognitive Approaches to Lexical Semantics. Berlin and New York : Mouton de Gruyter, 2003.
48. Evans V. Lexical concepts, cognitive models and meaning-constructions. Cognitive Linguistics, 2006; 17(4):491-534.
49. Matthiessen CMIM. Meaning in the making: Meaning potential emerging from acts of meaning. Language Learning, 2009; 59(1):206-229.
50. Recanati F. Literal Meaning. Cambridge, UK : Cambridge University Press, 2004.
51. Glynn D. Polysemy, syntax, and variation: A usage based method for cognitive semantics. Pp. 77-104 in Evans V, Pourcel S (eds). New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam and Philadelphia, PA : John Benjamins, 2009.
52. Boholm Å. Speaking of risk: matters of context. Environmental Communication. A Journal of Nature and Culture, 2009; 3(3):335-354.