國立高雄大學圖資館 |

登入

回首頁

A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Modal Adverbs of Certainty in English and Urdu.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Modal Adverbs of Certainty in English and Urdu.
作者:	Jehangir, Humaira.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023
面頁冊數:	316 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.
附註:	Advisor: Hardie, Andrew.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International85-01A.
標題:	Grammar.
電子資源:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30531505
ISBN:	9798379872267

A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Modal Adverbs of Certainty in English and Urdu.
Jehangir, Humaira.

A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Modal Adverbs of Certainty in English and Urdu. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2023 - 316 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Lancaster University (United Kingdom), 2023.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

This study uses the corpus-based contrastive approach to explore the syntactic patterns and semantic and pragmatic meanings of modal adverbs of certainty (MACs) in English and Urdu. MACs are a descriptive category of epistemic modal adverb that semantically express a degree of certainty.Due to the paucity of research to date on Urdu MACs, the study draws on existing literature on English MACs for cross-linguistic description of characteristics of English and Urdu MACs. A framework is constructed based on Boye’s (2012) description of syntactic characteristics of MACs, in terms of clause type and position within the clause; and on SimonVandenbergen and Aijmer’s (2007) description of their functional characteristics including both semantic (e.g. certainty, possibility) and pragmatic (e.g. authority, politeness) functions. Following Boye’s (2012) model, MACs may be grouped according to meaning: high certainty support – HCS (e.g. certainly); probability support – PS (e.g. perhaps); probability support for negative content – PSNC (e.g. perhaps not); and high certainty support for negative content – HCSNC (e.g. certainly not).Methodologically, the framework identified as suitable is one that primarily follows earlier studies that relied on corpus-based methods and parallel and comparable corpora for cross-linguistic comparative or contrastive analysis of some linguistic element or pattern. An approach to grammatical description based on such works as Quirk et al. (1985) and Biber et al. (1999) is likewise identified as suitable for this study.An existing parallel corpus (EMILLE) and newly created comparable monolingual corpora of English and Urdu are utilised. The novel comparable corpora are web-based, comprised of news and chat forum texts; the data is POS-tagged. Using the parallel corpus, Urdu MACs equivalent to the English MACs preidentified from the existing literature are identified. Then, the comparable corpora are used to extract data on the relative frequencies of MACs and their distribution across various text types. This quantitative analysis demonstrates that in both languages all four semantic categories of MAC are found in all text types, but the distribution across text types is not uniform. HCS MACs, although diverse, are considerably lower in frequency than PS MACs in both English and Urdu. HCSNC and PSNC MACs are notably rarer than HCS and PS MACs in both languages.The analysis demonstrates striking similarities in the syntactic positioning of MACs in English and Urdu, with minor differences. Except for Urdu PSNC MACs, all categories most frequently occur in clause medial position, in both independent and dependent clauses, in both languages. This difference is because ho nahiṁ sakta‘possibly not’ is most frequent in clause final position.MACs in both languages most often have scope over the whole clause in which they occur; semantically, the core function of MACs is to express speaker’s certainty and high confidence (for HCS and HCSNC) or low certainty and low confidence (for PS and PSNC) in the truth of a proposition. These groups thus primarily function as certainty markers and probability markers, respectively. In both languages, speakers also use MACs short responses to questions, and in responses to their own rhetorical questions.

ISBN: 9798379872267Subjects--Topical Terms:

275645
Grammar.

A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Modal Adverbs of Certainty in English and Urdu.
LDR:04451nmm a2200349 4500 001 655801
005 20240414211934.5
006 m o d
007 cr#unu||||||||
008 240620s2023 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798379872267
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30531505
035 $a (MiAaPQ)Lancaster_192100
035 $a AAI30531505
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Jehangir, Humaira. $3 966892
245 1 2 $a A Corpus-Based Contrastive Analysis of Modal Adverbs of Certainty in English and Urdu.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2023
300 $a 316 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 85-01, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Hardie, Andrew.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Lancaster University (United Kingdom), 2023.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a This study uses the corpus-based contrastive approach to explore the syntactic patterns and semantic and pragmatic meanings of modal adverbs of certainty (MACs) in English and Urdu. MACs are a descriptive category of epistemic modal adverb that semantically express a degree of certainty.Due to the paucity of research to date on Urdu MACs, the study draws on existing literature on English MACs for cross-linguistic description of characteristics of English and Urdu MACs. A framework is constructed based on Boye’s (2012) description of syntactic characteristics of MACs, in terms of clause type and position within the clause; and on SimonVandenbergen and Aijmer’s (2007) description of their functional characteristics including both semantic (e.g. certainty, possibility) and pragmatic (e.g. authority, politeness) functions. Following Boye’s (2012) model, MACs may be grouped according to meaning: high certainty support – HCS (e.g. certainly); probability support – PS (e.g. perhaps); probability support for negative content – PSNC (e.g. perhaps not); and high certainty support for negative content – HCSNC (e.g. certainly not).Methodologically, the framework identified as suitable is one that primarily follows earlier studies that relied on corpus-based methods and parallel and comparable corpora for cross-linguistic comparative or contrastive analysis of some linguistic element or pattern. An approach to grammatical description based on such works as Quirk et al. (1985) and Biber et al. (1999) is likewise identified as suitable for this study.An existing parallel corpus (EMILLE) and newly created comparable monolingual corpora of English and Urdu are utilised. The novel comparable corpora are web-based, comprised of news and chat forum texts; the data is POS-tagged. Using the parallel corpus, Urdu MACs equivalent to the English MACs preidentified from the existing literature are identified. Then, the comparable corpora are used to extract data on the relative frequencies of MACs and their distribution across various text types. This quantitative analysis demonstrates that in both languages all four semantic categories of MAC are found in all text types, but the distribution across text types is not uniform. HCS MACs, although diverse, are considerably lower in frequency than PS MACs in both English and Urdu. HCSNC and PSNC MACs are notably rarer than HCS and PS MACs in both languages.The analysis demonstrates striking similarities in the syntactic positioning of MACs in English and Urdu, with minor differences. Except for Urdu PSNC MACs, all categories most frequently occur in clause medial position, in both independent and dependent clauses, in both languages. This difference is because ho nahiṁ sakta‘possibly not’ is most frequent in clause final position.MACs in both languages most often have scope over the whole clause in which they occur; semantically, the core function of MACs is to express speaker’s certainty and high confidence (for HCS and HCSNC) or low certainty and low confidence (for PS and PSNC) in the truth of a proposition. These groups thus primarily function as certainty markers and probability markers, respectively. In both languages, speakers also use MACs short responses to questions, and in responses to their own rhetorical questions.
590 $a School code: 0416.
650 4 $a Grammar. $3 275645
650 4 $a Language. $3 180769
650 4 $a Linguistics. $3 176897
650 4 $a Writing. $3 177624
650 4 $a Gender. $3 915601
650 4 $a Semantics. $3 177636
650 4 $a Urdu language. $3 966893
650 4 $a Logic. $3 180785
690 $a 0679
690 $a 0290
690 $a 0395
710 2 $a Lancaster University (United Kingdom). $3 886721
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 85-01A.
790 $a 0416
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2023
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30531505