CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 604linguistics and terminology studiesSyntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies

English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition

Schmid, Hans-Jörg·2000·De Gruyter eBooks
DOI 10.1515/9783110808704
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Based on a systematic analysis of a very large corpus, this book introduces a conceptual and terminological framework for the linguistic description of abstract nouns. The uses and meanings of 670 abstract English nouns are described and their semantic, pragmatic, rhetorical, textual and cognitive functions are discussed, always with reference to authentic corpus data. This way a link between the corpus method and functional and cognitive theories of language is established. The book includes an appendix giving statistical information on the lexico-grammatical usage of the 670 nouns.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1515/9783110808704

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The noun is specified in the post-nominal content clause, during which they interactively refer forward to the content of the clause and interactionally label the stance that writers take towards this content.

    “The noun is specified in the post-nominal content clause (Schmid, 2000; Downing & Locke, 2006), during which they interactively refer forward to the content of the clause and interactionally label the stance that writers take towards this content.”

    From Nouns and Academic Interactions: A Neglected Feature of Metadiscourse (2016) · cites this paper as Schmid, 2000

  • The productivity of the N+postnominal pattern lies in the fact that it both facilitates cataphoric linkage and the expression of the writer's stance.

    “The productivity of this pattern lies in the fact that it both facilitates cataphoric linkage (interactive function) and the expression of the writer's stance (interactional function), although Benitez-Castro & Thompson (2015) comment on the paucity of studies into the cataphoric use of these nouns.”

    From Nouns and Academic Interactions: A Neglected Feature of Metadiscourse (2016) · cites this paper as Schmid, 2000

  • The functional approach corrects an overemphasis on semantic interpretations found in other models.

    “We believe this functional approach corrects an overemphasis on semantic interpretations found in other models (e.g. Schmid, 2000; Flowerdew & Forest, 2015), which classfiy affect-laden nouns in strictly definitional terms.”

    From Nouns and Academic Interactions: A Neglected Feature of Metadiscourse (2016) · cites this paper as Schmid, 2000

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Schmid, H.-J.
Venue
De Gruyter eBooks
Publisher
DE GRUYTER
Published
2000-12-31
DOI
10.1515/9783110808704
OpenAlex
W648412724
Cited by
604
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 48 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 54 · 2018: 64 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 58 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 12
FWCI
5.28
Type
book
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
De Gruyter eBooks (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › linguistics and terminology studies
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
Keywords
abstract nouns, English noun, semantic functions, pragmatic functions, rhetorical functions, text functions, cognitive function, corpus linguistics, functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, word meaning

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review