Evaluative polarity of antonyms (original) (raw)

Abstract

ABSTRACT: This study investigates speakers’ assessment of the evaluative polarity of the members of eight antonym pairs, e.g., fast–slow and warm–cold, that are not inherently evaluative, unlike antonyms such as good–bad, ugly–beautiful. The contentful structures foregrounded by fast–slow and warm–cold are SPEED and TEMPERATURE, repectively, but the properties that they evoke may also be profiled against a dimension of positive and negative polarity. In this article we adapt the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to measure whether speakers in fact associate such antonym pairs with positivity and negativity, and if they do, which is positive and which is negative. The results of the experiments show clear and consistent polarity patterns across the antonym pairs under investigation, i.e. one of the members of a pair of antonyms is more readily associated with negativity and the other with positivity. KEYWORDS: opposite, adjectives, positive, negative, Implicit Association Test, valence

Figures (8)

As already pointed out, our focus is on the valence value associated with the members of the pairs in the grey zone in between clear cases such as good- bad, as shown in Figure 1. In addition to the eight pairs selected through the pre-test, also a clear case of evaluative antonyms are included in the experiment, namely, positive and negative. They play a role in the experiment as associative protagonists and as part of the experiment design, as described in Section 2.3 below. Apart from positive-negative, the eight antonym pairs under investigation, mentioned in the previous section, are reiterated in Table 1. TABLE 1: ANTONY MS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY (TRANSLATED FROM SWEDISH, SEE APPENDIX A AND B).

As already pointed out, our focus is on the valence value associated with the members of the pairs in the grey zone in between clear cases such as good- bad, as shown in Figure 1. In addition to the eight pairs selected through the pre-test, also a clear case of evaluative antonyms are included in the experiment, namely, positive and negative. They play a role in the experiment as associative protagonists and as part of the experiment design, as described in Section 2.3 below. Apart from positive-negative, the eight antonym pairs under investigation, mentioned in the previous section, are reiterated in Table 1. TABLE 1: ANTONY MS INCLUDED IN THE STUDY (TRANSLATED FROM SWEDISH, SEE APPENDIX A AND B).

TABLE 2: STIMULUS WORDS (TRANSLATED FROM SWEDISH, SEE APPENDIX A AND B). Furthermore, the nouns selected for the 8 antonym pairs that form part of the test items proper were selected by the searches. Three of the analysts and one person external to the naturalness of the use of the combina nouns, using a language corpus (KORP, Google. In Table 2, we use large and smal selection principle. All lists are given in Ap analysts on tions of the http://spraak the basis of corpus the group assessed adjectives and the banken.gu.se/) and as an example to describe the pendix A. T he meanings of the nouns that appear with the 8 pairs combine in a natural way with the properties expressed by the members of the pairs. For instance, large and small respectively denote things or animals that people consider to be large or small and the nouns are chosen in accordance with these opposite properties of the dimension of SIZE. 2.2 The Implicit Association Task

TABLE 2: STIMULUS WORDS (TRANSLATED FROM SWEDISH, SEE APPENDIX A AND B). Furthermore, the nouns selected for the 8 antonym pairs that form part of the test items proper were selected by the searches. Three of the analysts and one person external to the naturalness of the use of the combina nouns, using a language corpus (KORP, Google. In Table 2, we use large and smal selection principle. All lists are given in Ap analysts on tions of the http://spraak the basis of corpus the group assessed adjectives and the banken.gu.se/) and as an example to describe the pendix A. T he meanings of the nouns that appear with the 8 pairs combine in a natural way with the properties expressed by the members of the pairs. For instance, large and small respectively denote things or animals that people consider to be large or small and the nouns are chosen in accordance with these opposite properties of the dimension of SIZE. 2.2 The Implicit Association Task

FIGURE 2, SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE EXPERIMENT,

FIGURE 2, SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE EXPERIMENT,

TABLE 2; RESPONSE TIME RESULTS, FASTER RESPONSES ARE IN BOLD,

TABLE 2; RESPONSE TIME RESULTS, FASTER RESPONSES ARE IN BOLD,

Loading...

Loading Preview

Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.

References (14)

  1. Cruse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Cruse, D. A. (2001). The lexicon. In: M. Aronoff and J. Rees-Miller (eds.), The Handbook of Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  3. Cruse, D. A. (2002).The Construal of Sense Boundaries, Revue de Se´mantique et Pragmatique 12, 101-119.
  4. Crutch, S. J., Williams, P., Ridgeway, G. R., & Borgenicht, L. (2012). The role of polarity in antonym and synonym conceptual knowledge: Evidence from stroke aphasia and multidimensional ratings of abstract words. Neuropsychologia 50, 2636-2644.
  5. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74, 1464-1480.
  6. Jones, S., Murphy, M.L., Paradis, C. & Willners, C. (2012). Antonyms in English: Construals, constructions and canonicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  7. Lakoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  8. Murphy, M. L. (2003). Semantic relations and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Osgood, C. E. & Richards, M. M. (1973). From Yang and Yin to and or but. Language 49 (2), 380-412.
  10. Paradis, C. (2005). Ontologies and construals in lexical semantics. Axiomathes 15, 541-573.
  11. Paradis, C. (2001). Adjectives and boundedness. Cognitive Linguistics 12, 47-64.
  12. Paradis, C. & Willners, C. (2011). Antonymy: From convention to meaning-making. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (2), 367-391.
  13. Stenberg, G., Wiking, S., & Dahl, M. (1998). Judging words at face value: Interference in a word processing task reveals automatic processing of affective facial expressions. Cognition and Emotion, 12(6), 755-782.
  14. Willners, C., Paradis, C., van de Weijer, J. & Löhndorf, S. (in preparation). Antonymy and evaluative polarity.