A Corpus-Based Sociolinguistic Study of Amplifiers in British English
http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/SS/article/view/3055/2790
http://www.equinoxjournals.com/ojs/index.php/SS/article/view/3055/2790
Amplifiers in the BNC
- 主题发起人 xiaoz
- 时间
回复: Amplifiers in the BNC
Congratulations!
Congratulations!
回复: Amplifiers in the BNC
I have benefited enormously from this paper and thank you for your excellent work. The authors fail to explain why the 33 words based upon which they do research are typical of amplifiers. Some individuals use the same amplifiers all the time, some don't use amplifiers at all while others use different amplifiers on different occasions and/or at different ages. "statistically significant" is overused in this paper.
I have benefited enormously from this paper and thank you for your excellent work. The authors fail to explain why the 33 words based upon which they do research are typical of amplifiers. Some individuals use the same amplifiers all the time, some don't use amplifiers at all while others use different amplifiers on different occasions and/or at different ages. "statistically significant" is overused in this paper.
回复: Amplifiers in the BNC
Thank you.
From the paper:
Would be more useful if you could elaborate further on this point?
Thank you.
From the paper:
Would be more useful if you could elaborate further on this point?
回复: Amplifiers in the BNC
1) Thanks for your interest and comments.
2) I agree to your statement - "Some individuals use the same amplifiers all the time, some don't use amplifiers at all while others use different amplifiers on different occasions and/or at different ages." That's why this paper includes a much more extensive range of amplifiers than existing empirical studies of amplifiers, and that's why it is interesting to explore variation in usage.
BTW- We explained why those amplifiers are included. Quirk et al (1985), which our list is based on, might have explained why they "are typical of amplifiers"? - or if not, then blame them for their failure first.
3) Apropos of overuse of "statistically significant", indeed there are 16 instances. But if you make a concordance of this phrase, you will find that they almost exclusively appear with a set of statistics - LL scores, p values etc. What else could we have done without using the phrase in such contexts?
1) Thanks for your interest and comments.
2) I agree to your statement - "Some individuals use the same amplifiers all the time, some don't use amplifiers at all while others use different amplifiers on different occasions and/or at different ages." That's why this paper includes a much more extensive range of amplifiers than existing empirical studies of amplifiers, and that's why it is interesting to explore variation in usage.
BTW- We explained why those amplifiers are included. Quirk et al (1985), which our list is based on, might have explained why they "are typical of amplifiers"? - or if not, then blame them for their failure first.
3) Apropos of overuse of "statistically significant", indeed there are 16 instances. But if you make a concordance of this phrase, you will find that they almost exclusively appear with a set of statistics - LL scores, p values etc. What else could we have done without using the phrase in such contexts?