The DOI matches its Crossref record.
English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 601–603 of 603
Lala, R., Robinson, P. G., & Gibson, B. (2026) · Community Dentistry And Oral Epidemiology · doi:10.1111/cdoe.70116
Nodes, networks, and redundancies
Horsch, J. (2026) · Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone linguistics · doi:10.1075/ihll.46.01hor
Larsson, M. M. (2026) · Studies in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics · doi:10.1515/shll-2026-3004
Metadata
- Authors
- Schmid, H.-J.
- Venue
- De Gruyter eBooks
- Publisher
- DE GRUYTER
- Published
- 2000-12-31
- 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 › Linguistics and Language › 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
