Teacher Discussion Forums

I'm probably a bit of a slow study, but there are certain terms that just don't seem to "stick" with me (perhaps there is a killer definition in some book or other, if so, recommend away!).

Anyway, I was wondering if other teachers had similar problems (and we'll soon see if this is the case, according to the responses (or lack of them LOL!)).

Here are a few to start with (not being critical of metal for "introducing" them to the AL forum recently, rather, they are just two terms that I realized I was a bit hazy on):

semantic prosody

colligation

If you are genuinely familiar with the terms, please provide a definition IN YOUR OWN WORDS (no rushing off to pore over websites, manuals etc).

Obviously, feel free to post whatever other terms from whichever field of linguistics (nothing too specialized or arcane though, please).

It could well be that a term is relatively new and hence still "finding its feet", so to speak, but perhaps there are some terms that simply will not catch on for whatever reason.

Semantic prosody, appears to be a young malnourished and growth-retarted discipline, yet. It may catch up....

Somehow, it sounds like a misnomer and is misleading.
Louw could've christened it better.

If you are genuinely familiar with the terms, please provide a definition IN YOUR OWN WORDS (no rushing off to pore over websites, manuals etc).

I'm afraid my definition is totally primed by websites, manuals, etc. And, there are a number of working-definitions of the term. I often wonder why you want people to give their definition of terms that already have working defintions.

If you almost immediately understand every term that you come across, and find others have too (i.e. that the terms are useful, a shorthand, have gained a deserved currency and following), bully for you, metal. Champion away. But why the opposition to defining in one's own words? Have you never taken an exam where you were asked to do exactly that?

Here's an example of me flexing my fingers totally unnecessarily - no way was the time that I took over typing anything other than links or other people's words at all worthwhile. I learned/relearned/solidified my understanding/helped others not one iota.

http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic.php?t=32579

But why the opposition to defining in one's own words? Have you never taken an exam where you were asked to do exactly that?

To define semantic prosody in one's own words is impossible. They would always be, in some part, the words of the original definers, the coiners. They'd be primed. Intertextual.

Anyway, I'll go along with you a while... . Now, you've spent a few hours around the expression, can you define semantic prosody in your OWN words?

Obviously, feel free to post whatever other terms from whichever field of linguistics (nothing too specialized or arcane though, please).

You're beginning to sound like a forum moderator, Fluff.

Ah yes, intertextuality. You're quite fond of the term.

If you took a "glass is half-empty" view (or should that be "half-full" in this context? LOL), though, you'd perhaps be less opposed to paraphrasing.

P.S. Most words aren't copyrighted. Examples would be 'the', 'fluffy', 'hamster', 'eats' and 'bananas'. Not sure how useful these would be in writing about linguistics, though.

Ah yes, intertextuality. You're quite fond of the term.

And you get upset each time I post it. Is it because it has more than three syllables?

Examples would be 'the', 'fluffy', 'hamster', 'eats' and 'bananas'. Not sure how useful these would be in writing about linguistics, though.

Believe me, I know which semantic prosody the words "fluffy" and "hamster" have for me. The lexical priming of those words will never be what it used to be before I joined this forum.

Lexical pumping: the overuse of whatever term has obviously taken the user's fancy lately, regardless of the term's appeal to others.

fluffyhamster wrote:Lexical pumping: the overuse of whatever term has obviously taken the user's fancy lately, regardless of the term's appeal to others.

Well, finally you got to the point. Problem is, it's always the same point.

Still waiting for YOUR definitions of the above terms.

I've not had time to read much of Hoey, but if all he's ultimately saying is that words and phrases produce/set up expectations in receivers (due to the collected,collective experiences of the usages), there's not anything really that surprising in that (if my assumption is wrong, correct me and/or direct me back to that paper).

As for Louw, his term doesn't seem to have impressed at least three members, but that hasn't stopped you from peppering your posts with it. I can't see what's wrong with simply 'the meaning' (of whatever collocations a word or phrase has entered into), and as I implied before, looking at KWICs with 'cause' (the verb) as the node is not the only place one could start from (it is however I fear where many students might all too soon finish - 'Ta teacher, that was very informative'. That is, I sometimes wonder how thoroughly concordances are mined when the "answer" to a task might well be just 'That's right, the node has a negative "semantic prosody"'. (BTW, if that's not a term of relevance to students then perhaps teachers also need not concern themselves too much with it).

Well I've defined (replaced?) one term. Your turn.

As for Louw, his term doesn't seem to have impressed at least three members, but that hasn't stopped you from peppering your posts with it.

Am I here to impress you? Do you think that should be my role?

That is, I sometimes wonder how thoroughly concordances are mined when the "answer" to a task might well be just 'That's right, the node has a negative "semantic prosody"'. (BTW, if that's not a term of relevance to students then perhaps teachers also need not concern themselves too much with it).

You must do as you feel, Fluff. No one forcing you to go further into the land of semantic prosody, lexical priming, grammatical and textual colligation, etc.

But, do us a favour, will you? Put this definition in your own words:

"colligation is the grammatical company a word prefers or avoids"

Well I've defined (replaced?) one term. Your turn.

As I said, my definition/s would be primed, and I'm happy with the definitions of the coiners.

No, I don't think you need to feel you have to impress anyone, but you yourself do seem to feel the need.

I've always liked CL (corpus linguistics) but KWICs often strike me as "dumping"-they can be a bit overwhelming. I'd like all the concordances to be hand-picked, of maximum value, which begs the question, why not then take a more item-by-item, thorough approach.

Is that definition of colligation in your own words? It's familiar (perhaps an expansion with 'grammatical' of Firth's def. of (more 'lexical') collocation?), and admittedly pithy, but some might appreciate you being a tad more generous with the wording.

Still, we should maybe all just go buy a book rather than expect to learn much here (not that the "discussion" is always over people's heads-far from it; the problem is often rather one of being talked down to and/or ignored/disregarded, or interrogated, much of the time).

No, I don't think you need to feel you have to impress anyone, but you yourself do seem to feel the need.

Scuse my yawn, Fluff.

but some might appreciate you being a tad more generous with the wording.

Then you wouldn't have to work hard reading all those articles and papers, right, Fluff? Anyone who wants to understand colligation from one or two sentence definition can't be all that interested, I'd say.

the problem is often rather one of being talked down to and/or ignored/disregarded, or interrogated, much of the time).

So why do you do it? Remember, Fluffed up, you're the one who begins posts with comments such as "not much of a topic" and proceeds to win friends by questioning my intentions and the value of my topics.

Give us a break, Fluff. You're the biggest whiner on this forum.

Biggest whiner, eh? What does that make you then, you who more or less immediately ran crying to the mod the moment a newer member tired of you and dared to say 'So long, Playmates' (Gasp!).

but some might appreciate you being a tad more generous with the wording.

Then you wouldn't have to work hard reading all those articles and papers, right, Fluff? Anyone who wants to understand colligation from one or two sentence definition can't be all that interested, I'd say.

Eh? My point was that people might actually be interested in what an experienced teacher like you would be able to impart, and they'd welcome and be willing to read more than a sentence or two (no reason a definition can't become a longer passage), if you could ever bring yourself to type even that much! Or should they just bypass you completely?

What does that make you then, you who more or less immediately ran crying to the mod the moment a newer member tired of you and dared to say 'So long, Playmates' (Gasp!).

You'd have to forgive me if I said "get a life, Fluff", wouldn't you?

Or should they just bypass you completely?

They might want to.