winter wondering
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
winter wondering
Which of the following expressions would one expect to find in 1) a gardening magazine or website and 2) in travel writing?
a) in winter
b) during the winter months
a) in winter
b) during the winter months
-
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Not much of a topic? Are we at the "I'm Fluff. I don't yet work at that level of questioning with my students in my small world and so I expect that nobody else does or should find a need to." point of the discussion?Well, it's not much of a topic, is it.
Since when was semantic prosody and lexical priming not an interesting topic for EFL teachers working with high-level learners?
Moving on...
Do moist and damp have the same meaning, for you?
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
Other posters on your 'Awareness of semantic prosody' thread have implicitly questioned the utility of the term (it doesn't seem a very helpful one, does it); I myself wonder why anyone would ask 'What does "set in" or "cause" mean when the "collocates" (that is, items encountered at any point of time in the actual original text) would seem to make the (in this case, negative) 'semantic prosody' (i.e. meaning) perfectly clear to anyone knowing the meaning of 'rot' and 'accident' respectively. (I'm drawing upon the Wikipedia entry that you posted. It might help to post something a bit more substantial...perhaps from the likes of McEnery et al 2006. I'll try a bit later, if I have time).
To put it another way, one could simply present students with sentences containing phrases like 'and then the rot really set in', and 'his negligence caused a horrific traffic accident', then leave them to realize the "negativity" involved (assuming such realization would take long at all).
But hold on...what's so "negative" about the above contexts? Nothing really, if we accept (as we must) that unfortunate or undesirable events can and do occur (maybe this is a bit "real world" versus "linguistic system/means of expression" blah blah blahblah).
It might help the cause of corpus linguistics sometimes if the examples that were selected actually shed some light on the mysterious and subtle whatsits ('semantic prosody' etc) involved i.e. weren't quite so "obvious" (see above 'wonder why anyone would ask...' bit) and lame. On the face of this, a lot of what is touted as 'discoveries' probably wouldn't give even (passably competent) learners too much of a problem.
All that being said, 'moist' versus 'damp' could well do with some explaining. My two cents' worth:
This thread is getting me...wet/?moist/*damp!
But seriously though, how will a KWIC (and even the eyes scanning it) be able to reveal (assuming that there are sufficient occurences) that 'wet' there is not just (or even necessarily) sexual (it could be referring to my 'linguistic appetite'), let alone ironic? The subtler nuances of the language are perhaps less to be taught than "simply" picked up (when noticed) by the perpetual learner (native as well as non)...but I'm not against a few JUICY examples being sent their way every now and then.
Blast from the past:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... ight=irony
To put it another way, one could simply present students with sentences containing phrases like 'and then the rot really set in', and 'his negligence caused a horrific traffic accident', then leave them to realize the "negativity" involved (assuming such realization would take long at all).
But hold on...what's so "negative" about the above contexts? Nothing really, if we accept (as we must) that unfortunate or undesirable events can and do occur (maybe this is a bit "real world" versus "linguistic system/means of expression" blah blah blahblah).
It might help the cause of corpus linguistics sometimes if the examples that were selected actually shed some light on the mysterious and subtle whatsits ('semantic prosody' etc) involved i.e. weren't quite so "obvious" (see above 'wonder why anyone would ask...' bit) and lame. On the face of this, a lot of what is touted as 'discoveries' probably wouldn't give even (passably competent) learners too much of a problem.
All that being said, 'moist' versus 'damp' could well do with some explaining. My two cents' worth:
This thread is getting me...wet/?moist/*damp!

But seriously though, how will a KWIC (and even the eyes scanning it) be able to reveal (assuming that there are sufficient occurences) that 'wet' there is not just (or even necessarily) sexual (it could be referring to my 'linguistic appetite'), let alone ironic? The subtler nuances of the language are perhaps less to be taught than "simply" picked up (when noticed) by the perpetual learner (native as well as non)...but I'm not against a few JUICY examples being sent their way every now and then.
Blast from the past:
http://forums.eslcafe.com/teacher/viewt ... ight=irony
Pick your own term. There are others.(it doesn't seem a very helpful one, does it);
So you are saying that students who wish to use "set in", for example, having come across it in one or two texts and with negative semantic prosody, will from then on only use it negatively, right?I myself wonder why anyone would ask 'What does "set in" or "cause" mean when the "collocates" (that is, items encountered at any point of time in the actual original text) would seem to make the (in this case, negative) 'semantic prosody' (i.e. meaning) perfectly clear to anyone knowing the meaning of 'rot' and 'accident' respectively.
Interesting response. Most of the natives I've questioned on this responded by saying "I didn't know that" to comments such as "cause" is normally primed with negative semantic prosody. Also, are you sure you are not speaking too much as a native? Do you think these things are obvious to most nonnatives?i.e. weren't quite so "obvious" (see above 'wonder why anyone would ask...' bit) and lame.
Students do come up with example such as "caused a lot of joy", thinking there's nothing unusual about such a combination. Do you think their native-speaking readers will also miss the "unusualness" of such?
A learner needs to know when something sounds natural and when it sounds unusual. Or maybe you don't agree with that.
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again
I've gotta dash soon, but a few parting words: 'cause joy' smacks of settling for the wrong noun (or indeed forgetting that there are adjectives such as '(make sb/people) happy' (and the derived 'happiness' etc) rather than (coincidentally, also wrong) verb.
I'm glad that you posted that example, because it's reminded me of how dictionaries such as the Oxford Collocations usually operates from (assumes one will proceed from) more "concrete" words (that is, '(...)cause...' draws more of a blank in the mind, would be a "weaker" word to start with, than say '...happy...' (or indeed, 'joy(ful)').
As for ruling on what sounds natural or unnatural, it reminds me a bit of that whole Ron Carter vs Guy Cook debate.
I'm glad that you posted that example, because it's reminded me of how dictionaries such as the Oxford Collocations usually operates from (assumes one will proceed from) more "concrete" words (that is, '(...)cause...' draws more of a blank in the mind, would be a "weaker" word to start with, than say '...happy...' (or indeed, 'joy(ful)').
As for ruling on what sounds natural or unnatural, it reminds me a bit of that whole Ron Carter vs Guy Cook debate.
Last edited by fluffyhamster on Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
You don't need those two, Fluff, just tell us if "cause joy" sounds unnatural to you or not. And, if you do think it sounds unnatural, do you imagine that your fellow natives feel the same?As for ruling on what sounds natural or unnatural, it reminds me a bit of that whole Ron Carter vs Guy Cook debate.
-
- Posts: 3031
- Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:57 pm
- Location: UK > China > Japan > UK again