Literal versus exaggerated always and never A cross-genre corpus study

International Journal of Corpus Linguistics

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 219-249

  Lindley, Jori ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Adverbs; Cognitive; Frequency; Hyperbole

Indexed keywords

EID: 84984704712     PISSN: 13846655     EISSN: 15699811     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1075/ijcl.21.2.04lin     Document Type: Review

References (59)

1. Always, adv. (2015). Oxford English Dictionary Online. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Retrieved from http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/5941 (last accessed March 2015).
2. Anthony, L. (2011). AntConc (Version 3.3.0) [Computer software]. Tokyo: Waseda University. Retrieved from http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc-index.html (last accessed April 2016).
3. Baker-Brown, G., Ballard, E. J., Bluck, S., De Vries, B., Suedfeld, P., & Tetlock, P. E. (1990). Coding manual for conceptual/integrative complexity (Unpublished manuscript). University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada and University of California, Berkeley, CA.
4. Benz, J. K., Tompson, T. N., & Rosenstiel, T. (2014). The Personal News Cycle. Arlington, VA: American Press Institute & Chicago, IL: Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research. Retrieved from http://www.mediainsight.org/Pages/the-personal-news-cycle.aspx (last accessed May 2015).
5. Biber, D. (1993). The multi-dimensional approach to linguistic analyses of genre variation: An overview of methodology and findings. Computers and the Humanities, 26(5-6), 331-345.
6. Biber, D. (2006). University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/scl.23.
7. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511804489.
8. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
9. Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10. Cazes, J. (1983). Lest we exaggerate. Journal of Liquid Chromatography, 6(9), 1557-1558. doi:10.1080/01483918308064874.
11. Chafe, W., & Danielewicz, J. (1987). Properties of spoken and written language. In R. Horowitz & S. J. Samuels (Eds.), Comprehending Oral and Written Language (pp. 83-113). New York, NY: Academic Press.
12. Claridge, C. (2011). Hyperbole in English: A Corpus-based Study of Exaggeration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13. Davies, M. (2008-). The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990-present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/(last accessed April 2016).
14. Du Bois, J. W., Chafe, W. L., Meyer, C., Thompson, S. A., Englebretson, R., & Martey, N. (2000). Santa Barbara Corpus of Spoken American English, Parts 1-4. Philadelphia, PA: Linguistic Data Consortium.
15. Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2004). Complementarity in consumption of news types across traditional and new media. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 48(1), 41-60. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4801-3.
16. Evans, V., & Green, M. (2006). Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Fellbaum, C. (1995). Co-occurrence and antonymy. International Journal of Lexicography, 8(4), 281-303. doi:10.1093/ijl/8.4.281.
18. Godfrey, J. J., Holliman, E. C., & McDaniel, J. (1992). SWITCHBOARD: Telephone speech corpus for research and development. In The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing (Vol. 1, pp. 517-520). San Francisco, CA.
19. Gries, S. T., & Otani, N. (2010). Behavioral profiles: A corpus-based perspective on synonymy and antonymy. International Computer Archive of Modern and Medieval English Journal, 34, 121-150.
20. Hardy, J. A., & Römer, U. (2013). Revealing disciplinary variation in student writing: A multidimensional analysis of the Michigan Corpus of Upper-level Student Papers (MICUSP). Corpora, 8(2), 183-207. doi:10.3366/cor.2013.0040.
21. Hartung, W. (1996). Die Bearbeitung von Perspektiven-Divergenzen durch das Ausdrücken von Gereiztheit. In W. Kallmeyer (Ed.), Gesprächsrhetorik (pp. 118-189). Tübingen: Narr.
22. Iyengar, S., Hahn, K. S., Bonfadelli, H., & Marr, M. (2009). "Dark areas of ignorance" revisited: Comparing international affairs knowledge in Switzerland and the United States. Communication Research, 36(3), 341-358. doi:10.1177/0093650209333024.
23. Jing-Schmidt, Z. (2007). Negativity bias in language: A cognitive-affective model of emotive intensifiers. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(3), 417-443. doi:10.1515/COG.2007.023.
24. Jones, S. (2002). Antonymy: A Corpus-based Perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
25. Jones, S. (2006). A lexico-syntactic analysis of antonym co-occurrence in spoken English. Text & Talk, 26(2), 127-244. doi:10.1515/TEXT.2006.009.
26. Jones, S. (2007). "Opposites" in discourse: A comparison of antonym use across four domains. Journal of Pragmatics, 39(6), 1105-1119. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2006.11.019.
27. Jones, S., & Murphy, M. L. (2005). Using corpora to investigate antonym acquisition. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 401-422. doi:10.1075/ijcl.10.3.06jon.
28. Jones, S., Murphy, M. L., Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2012). Antonyms in English: Construals, Constructions and Canonicity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9781139032384.
29. Justeson, J. S., & Katz, S. M. (1991). Co-occurrences of antonymous adjectives and their contexts. Computational Linguistics, 17(1), 1-19.
30. Kearns, K. (2000). Semantics. New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
31. Keenan, E. L. (2006). Quantifiers: Semantics. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (2nd ed.) (pp. 302-308). Oxford: Elsevier. doi:10.1016/B0-08-044854-2/01116-0.
32. Labov, W. (1984). Intensity. In D. Schiffren (Ed.), Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 1984: Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications (pp. 43-70). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
33. Langacker, R. W. (1988). An overview of cognitive grammar. In B. Rudzka-Ostyn (Ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 3-48). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi:10.1075/cilt.50.03lan.
34. Lakoff, G. (1990). The invariance hypothesis: Is abstract reason based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics, 1(1), 39-74. doi:10.1515/cogl.1990.1.1.39.
35. Legitt, J. S., & Gibbs, R. W. (2000). Emotional reactions to verbal irony. Discourse Processes, 29(1), 1-24. doi:10.1207/S15326950dp2901-1.
36. Linell, P. (2005). The Written Language Bias in Linguistics: Its Nature, Origins and Transformations. London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9780203342763.
37. Link, K. E., & Kreuz, R. J. (2005). Do men and women differ in their use of nonliteral language when they talk about emotions? In H. L. Colston & A. N. Katz (Eds.), Figurative Language Comprehension. Social and Cultural Influences (pp. 153-179). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38. McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2004). "There's millions of them": Hyperbole in everyday conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 36(2), 149-184. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00116-4.
39. McGlone, M. S., & Reed, A. B. (1998). Anchoring in the interpretation of probability expressions. Journal of Pragmatics, 30(6), 723-733. doi:10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00011-3.
40. Mettinger, A. (1994). Aspects of Semantic Opposition in English. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
41. Muehleisen, V. (1997). Antonymy and Semantic Range in English (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
42. Murphy, M. L. (1994). In Opposition to an Organized Lexicon: Pragmatic Principles and Lexical Semantic Relations (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana- Champaign, Urbana, Champaign, IL.
43. Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic Relations and the Lexicon: Antonyms, Synonyms and Other Semantic Paradigms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511486494.
44. Nakao, M. A., & Axelrod, S. (1983). Numbers are better than words: Verbal specifications of frequency have no place in medicine. The American Journal of Medicine, 74(6), 1061- 1065. doi:10.1016/0002-9343(83)90819-7.
45. Paradis, C., & Willners, C. (2006). Antonymy and negation: The boundedness hypothesis. Journal of Pragmatics, 38(7), 1051-1080. doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2005.11.009.
46. Paradis, C., Willners, C., & Jones, S. (2009). Good and bad opposites: Using textual and experimental techniques to measure antonym canonicity. The Mental Lexicon, 4(3), 380-429. doi:10.1075/ml.4.3.04par.
47. Pepper, S., & Prytulak, L. S. (1974). Sometimes frequently means seldom: Context effects in the interpretation of quantitative expressions. Journal of Research in Personality, 8(1), 95- 101. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(74)90049-X.
48. Pew Research Center. (2007). What Americans know: 1989-2007. Public knowledge of current affairs little changed by news and information revolutions. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2007/04/15/public-knowledge-of-current-affairs-littlechanged-by-news-and-information-revolutions/(last accessed April 2015).
49. Pew Research Center. (2012). Trends in news consumption: 1991-2012. In changing news landscape, even television is vulnerable. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2012/09/27/section-3-news-attitudes-and-habits-2/(last accessed April 2015).
50. Rockwell, P. (2005). Sarcasm on television talk shows: Determining speaker intent through verbal and non-verbal cues. In A. Clark (Ed.), Psychology of Moods (pp. 109-140). New York, NY: Nova.
51. Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J., & Swales, J. M. (2002). The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.
52. Suedfeld, P., Tetlock, P. E., & Streufert, S. (1992). Conceptual/integrative complexity. In C. P.Smith, J. W. Atkinson, D. C. McClelland, & J. Veroff (Eds.), Motivation and Personality: Handbook of Thematic Content Analysis (pp. 393-400). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511527937.028.
53. Tannen, D. (1982). Oral and literate strategies in spoken and written narratives. Language, 58(1), 1-21. doi:10.2307/413530.
54. Tetlock, P. E. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(6), 1565-1585. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.49.6.1565.
55. Tetlock, P. E., Hannum, K. A., & Micheletti, P. M. (1984). Stability and change in the complexity of senatorial debate: Testing the cognitive versus rhetorical style hypotheses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 979-990. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.46.5.979.
56. Tuckman, B. W. (1966). Integrative complexity: Its measurement and relation to creativity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 26(2), 369-382. doi:10.1177/001316446602600209.
57. Von Fintel, K. (1995). A minimal theory of adverbial quantification (Unpublished manuscript). Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
58. Wallsten, T. S., Fillenbaum, S., & Cox, J. A. (1986). Base rate effects on the interpretations of probability and frequency expressions. Journal of Memory and Language, 25(5), 571- 587. doi:10.1016/0749-596X(86)90012-4.
59. Willners, C. (2001). Antonyms in context: A corpus-based semantic analysis of Swedish descriptive adjectives. In Travaux de l'Institut de Linguistique de Lund 40. Lund: Department of Linguistics, Lund University.