浙江林学院国际教育学院

1、A Corpora Study of English Dimension AdjectivesIn Academic Speaking and Writing Chen ShengweiInternational College Zhejiang Forestry University 陈声威 浙江林学院国际教育学院1. Adjectives Biber et al. (1999): central adjectives peripheral adjectives color, size, dimension, time, etc - descriptive, characterizing t

2、he referent of a nominal expression2. What dimension adjectives in focus? broad deep high long low tall widehigh vs. tallTsui (2001):high to be used in a metaphorical sense with more abstract nouns; tall to be used more frequently with concrete nouns such as people, trees and buildings. 3. Research

3、questions(1) What is the relationship of dimension adjectives between literal and non-literal uses in academic English speaking and writing? (2) What are the features of academic adjectives in their non-literal uses? Defining literal uses of dimension adjectives: where they define the spatial extent

4、s of concrete and visible objects 4. The corpora4.1 MICASE - 1.7 millions words from 152 speech events recorded the University of Michigan 1997 2001 - lectures, colloquia, research group meetings, dissertation defense, faculty meetings, student study groups - English Language Institute, The Universi

5、ty of Michigan; Rita Simpson, John Swales 4. The Corpora 4.2 Hyland - 1.3 million words - 80 recent (by 2004) research articles, 10 each from eight fields - Professor Ken Hyland of the Institute of Education of University of London5. Data collected Table 1: Percentage of literal use of the dimension

6、 adjectives (base form only)MICASE Hyland TotalLiteral%TotalLiteral % 1tall 262492tall 54802deep 512447deep 6014233high 66211217broad 7713174wide 621016wide 16225155broad 60915long4394196low 286176high 10483337long69950.7low 73260.8By “base form”, here it means the comparatives of the adjectives, e.

7、g. higher, and highest, are not covered. 6. The findings 6.1 All have been used more or less in literal sense.(1) tall: 24 out of 26 in M, 4 of 5 in H;(2) Majority ranging between 10 50 %;(3) Average: 27.7 for M, 21.3 for H.6. The findingsThe dimension adjectives are rather frequently used, and more

8、 frequently used in non-literal sense than literal sense, in both academic speaking and writing Literal uses of tall vs. high regardingTsui (2001)In this study: tall 92% in M and 80% in H high 17% in M and 3% in H- Supporting Tsui (2001) In the situation when both are used in literal sense, authors

9、or speakers tended to use high more frequently than tall. hightallMICASE11224Hyland3346. The findings6.2 deep, high, long, wide positive in meaning, indicating “greatness” in value thus more compatible in investigation The four dimension adjectives are used in non-literal sense 52% less frequently i

10、n speaking than in writing (see Table 1)Reason: to be exploredIncompatibility with Swales and Burke (2003):Evaluative adjectives overall are 30% more frequent in the spoken data. 6. The findings6.3 Non-literal uses of the four adjectives: their semantic features(lexicographic implication)(1) All des

11、cribing human understanding, learning or exploration of the nature of something. most frequent co-occurrence (collocation) knowledge deep rationale, deep understanding, deep sense, a deep study, deep instinct; high learning, high awareness, a high estimate, high trust; wide thinking, wide vocabulary

12、, wide sense, wide perspectives(2) deep, high and wide are also common in describing the range and influence of human activities or natural phenomena. e.g. deep scrutiny, deep encumbrance, deep impact, deep change, deep penetration, deep role, deep price reduction; high relation, high temperature, high association, high