Home The impact of recurrent propositions on readers’ perceptions of gist: A study of hard news
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

The impact of recurrent propositions on readers’ perceptions of gist: A study of hard news

  • Li Yuan ke

    Li Yuan ke received his PhD in applied linguistics from the University of Liverpool and is currently Associate Professor in South China Normal University. His research interests include systemic functional grammar, corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. His most recent book-length publication is Cohesion in Text and Text Aboutness (2012, Sun Yat-sen University Press).

    EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: March 9, 2016

Abstract

Employing a systemic functional approach to the analysis of cohesive elements, this paper investigates the impact of recurrent propositions in texts on readers’ perceptions of their gist in a study of hard news and their summaries written by competent readers. The results show that the number of times propositions recur in news does not correspond to readers’ perceptions of their degrees of importance to the gist of news in which they occur, pointing to the limited role of repetition in identifying important propositions. This study also shows that two factors, namely the textual positions of propositions occurring in news, and the relationships between different propositions, played an important part when readers examined whether propositions were important to the gist of news in which they occur. The study complements the corpus-driven approaches to phraseology by extending the scope of phraseological combinations to include paraphrases and other semantic relations in the identification of identical and similar propositions recurring in individual texts.

About the author

Li Yuan ke

Li Yuan ke received his PhD in applied linguistics from the University of Liverpool and is currently Associate Professor in South China Normal University. His research interests include systemic functional grammar, corpus linguistics and discourse analysis. His most recent book-length publication is Cohesion in Text and Text Aboutness (2012, Sun Yat-sen University Press).

Acknowledgments

This study received support from the Chinese Overseas Returned Scholar Grant awarded by the Education Ministry of China.

References

Bell, Alan. 1991. The language of news media. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and Written English. Longman: Harlow.Search in Google Scholar

Biber, Douglas. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.23Search in Google Scholar

Brown, Gillian & George Yule. 1983. Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511805226Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie, Chris Greaves & Martin Warren. 2006. From n-gram to skipgram to concgram. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4). 411–433.10.1075/ijcl.11.4.04cheSearch in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie, Chris Greaves, John Sinclair & Martin Warren. 2009. Uncovering the extent of the phraseological tendency: Towards a systematic analysis of concgrams. Applied Linguistics 30(2). 236–252.10.1093/applin/amn039Search in Google Scholar

Greaves, Chris. 2009. ConcGram 1.0: A phraseological search engine. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/cls.1Search in Google Scholar

Gutwinski, Waldemar. 1976. Cohesion in literary texts. The Hague: Mouton.10.1515/9783111352176Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1985. Language, context, and text: Aspects of language in a social semiotic perspective, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Hodder Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2013. Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar, 4th edn. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203431269Search in Google Scholar

Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1984. Coherence and cohesive harmony. In J. Flood (ed.), Understanding reading comprehension, 181–219. Delaware: International Reading Association.Search in Google Scholar

Hoey, Michael. 1991. Patterns of lexis in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hoey, Michael. 2001. Textual interaction. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Hoey, Michael & Matthew O’Donnell. 2008. Lexicology, grammar, and textual position. International Journal of Lexicology 21(3). 293–309.10.1093/ijl/ecn025Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 2008. Starting with the small words: Patterns, lexis and semantic sequences. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3). 271–295.10.1075/bct.22.02hunSearch in Google Scholar

Kintsch, Walter & Janice Keenan. 1974. Recall of propositions as a function of their position in the hierarchical structure. In W. Kintsch (ed.), The representation of meaning in memory, 137–140. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Kintsch, Walter & Teun Van Dijk. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychology Review 85 (4). 363–394.10.1037/0033-295X.85.5.363Search in Google Scholar

Li, Yuan ke. 2012. Cohesion in text and text aboutness. Guangzhou: Sun Yat-sen University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Yuan ke & Michael Hoey. 2014. Strategies of writing summaries for hard news texts: A text analysis approach. Discourse Studies 16(1). 89–105.10.1177/1461445613496356Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Mei hua & George Braine. 2005. Cohesive features in argumentative writing produced by Chinese undergraduates. System 33(4). 623–636.10.1016/j.system.2005.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Milizia, Denise. 2010. Keywords and phrases in political speeches. In Marina Bondi & Mike Scott (eds.), Keyness in texts, 127–145. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.41.10milSearch in Google Scholar

O’keeffe, Anne, Michael McCarthy & Ronald Carter. 2007. From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511497650Search in Google Scholar

Parsons, Gerald. 1991. Cohesions and coherence: Scientific texts. Nottingham: University of Nottingham, Department of English Studies.Search in Google Scholar

Phillips, Martin. 1989. Lexical structure of text. Birmingham: ELR, University of Birmingham.Search in Google Scholar

Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4). 519–549.10.1075/ijcl.13.4.06raySearch in Google Scholar

Scott, Mike & Christopher Tribble. 2006. Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.22Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, concordance, collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John. 2005. Document relativity. Italy: Tuscan Word Centre.Search in Google Scholar

Sinclair, John, Susan Jones & Robert Daley. 1970. English collocation studies: The OSTI report. London & New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Stubbs, Michael. 2004. On very frequent phrases in English: Distribution, functions and structures [EB/OL]. http://www. uni-trier.de/uni/fb2/anglistik/projeke/stubbs/icame-2004.htm (accessed 9 May 2014).Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun. 1988. News as discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Ventola, Eija. 1987. The structure of social interaction: A systemic approach to the semiotics of service encounters. London: Frances Pinter.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Dongfeng. 2009. Coherence and translation. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Warren, Martin. 2010. Identifying aboutgrams in engineering text. In Marina Bondi & Mike Scott (eds.), Keyness in texts, 113–126. Amsterdam & Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.41.09warSearch in Google Scholar

White, Peter. 1997. Death, disruption and the moral order: The narrative impulse in mass-media “hard news” reporting. In M. Toolan (ed.), Critical discourse analysis: Critical concepts in linguistics, Vol. 3, 390–424. London & New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Widdowson, Henry. 2004. Text, context, and pre-text: Critical issues in discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470758427Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Wenxing & Ying Sun. 2012. The use of cohesive devices in argumentative writing by Chinese EFL learners at different proficiency levels. Linguistics & Education 23(1). 31–48.10.1016/j.linged.2011.09.004Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, Yongsheng, Lixin Zheng & Xingwei Miao. 2001. A contrastive study of cohesion in English and Chinese. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-3-9
Published in Print: 2016-1-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 24.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/text-2016-0004/html?lang=en
Scroll to top button