A two-step procedure to identify lexical elements of stance constructions in discourse from political blogs

IF 0.8 Q3 LINGUISTICS Corpora Pub Date : 2019-11-01 DOI:10.3366/COR.2019.0179
Vasiliki Simaki, C. Paradis, Kerren Andreas
{"title":"A two-step procedure to identify lexical elements of stance constructions in discourse from political blogs","authors":"Vasiliki Simaki, C. Paradis, Kerren Andreas","doi":"10.3366/COR.2019.0179","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Brexit Blog Corpus (bbc) is a collection of texts extracted from political blogs, which, in a recent study, was annotated according to a cognitive–functional stance framework by two independent annotators (Annotator A and B) using semantic criteria ( Simaki et al., 2017 ). The goal was to label the stance or stances taken based on the overall meaning of a set of utterances. The annotators were not instructed to identify the lexical forms that were used to express the stances. In this study, we make use of those stance-labelled utterances as a springboard to approach stance-taking in text from the opposite point of view, namely from how stance is realised through language. Our aim is to provide a description of the specific lexical elements used to express six stance categories (i.e., contrariety, hypotheticality, necessity, prediction, source of knowledge and uncertainty). To this end, we followed a two-step experimental procedure. First, we performed a quantitative analysis of the stance-labelled utterances in order to identify the lexical realisations of each stance category. Second, we carried out a meta-annotation of the data. Annotator B was instructed to single out the actual lexical forms of the constructions that triggered his semantic stance category decisions. This meta-annotation procedure made it possible for us to sift out the most salient lexical realisations of the constructions of each of the six category types on the basis of the qualitative assessments made by Annotator B. We then compared the results of the quantitative and the qualitative approaches, and we present a list of shared stance expressions for each stance category type.","PeriodicalId":44933,"journal":{"name":"Corpora","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.3366/COR.2019.0179","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Corpora","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3366/COR.2019.0179","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

The Brexit Blog Corpus (bbc) is a collection of texts extracted from political blogs, which, in a recent study, was annotated according to a cognitive–functional stance framework by two independent annotators (Annotator A and B) using semantic criteria ( Simaki et al., 2017 ). The goal was to label the stance or stances taken based on the overall meaning of a set of utterances. The annotators were not instructed to identify the lexical forms that were used to express the stances. In this study, we make use of those stance-labelled utterances as a springboard to approach stance-taking in text from the opposite point of view, namely from how stance is realised through language. Our aim is to provide a description of the specific lexical elements used to express six stance categories (i.e., contrariety, hypotheticality, necessity, prediction, source of knowledge and uncertainty). To this end, we followed a two-step experimental procedure. First, we performed a quantitative analysis of the stance-labelled utterances in order to identify the lexical realisations of each stance category. Second, we carried out a meta-annotation of the data. Annotator B was instructed to single out the actual lexical forms of the constructions that triggered his semantic stance category decisions. This meta-annotation procedure made it possible for us to sift out the most salient lexical realisations of the constructions of each of the six category types on the basis of the qualitative assessments made by Annotator B. We then compared the results of the quantitative and the qualitative approaches, and we present a list of shared stance expressions for each stance category type.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两步法识别政治博客话语中立场结构的词汇要素
英国脱欧博客语料库(bbc)是从政治博客中提取的文本集合,在最近的一项研究中,两个独立的注释者(注释者a和B)使用语义标准根据认知功能立场框架对其进行了注释(Simaki et al., 2017)。目标是根据一组话语的总体含义标记所采取的立场或立场。注释者没有被要求识别用来表达立场的词汇形式。在本研究中,我们利用这些带有立场标签的话语作为跳板,从相反的角度,即从立场如何通过语言实现的角度来探讨文本中的立场采取。我们的目的是提供一个具体的词汇元素的描述,用于表达六个立场类别(即,矛盾,假定性,必要性,预测,知识来源和不确定性)。为此,我们采用了两步实验程序。首先,我们对立场标记的话语进行了定量分析,以确定每个立场类别的词汇实现。其次,我们对数据进行了元注释。注释者B被指示挑出触发他的语义立场类别决定的结构的实际词汇形式。这种元注释程序使我们能够在注释者b所做的定性评估的基础上筛选出六种类别类型中每种类型结构的最显著的词汇实现。然后,我们比较了定量方法和定性方法的结果,并给出了每种立场类别类型的共享立场表达列表。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Corpora
Corpora LINGUISTICS-
CiteScore
1.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20
期刊最新文献
Towards increased reliability and transparency in projects with manual linguistic coding The Corpus of Historical Mapudungun: morpho-phonological parsing and the history of a Native American language A comparable corpus-based study of phrasal verbs in academic writing by English and Chinese scholars across disciplines A corpus-based study of the discourse functions of English tense: the co-occurrence of tense and lexical aspect at various textual positions of news reports Twenty-first century ideological discourses about US migrant education that transcend registers
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1