Skip to main content

Negation Usage in the Croatian Parliament

  • 57 Accesses

Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS,volume 1520)

Abstract

At the center of this research is an analysis of negation usage in the Croatian Parliament. Research shows that psychologically speaking, it is much harder to process a negative word followed by a positive adjective (e.g., he is not happy) than an adjective with a negative prefix (e.g., he is unhappy). We investigate how negation is used among Croatian politicians during parliamentary sessions and whether its usage is dependent on the speaker’s gender and party preference, but also the time when the session was held.

Transcripts of the Croatian Parliament’s sessions have been available since 2003. Each transcript includes information on the date of the session, the speaker, and his/her party followed by the speech. We have made a selection of 4 points in time per each year since 2003 (January, May, September, December) for which the data exists in order to test if the time period of the session (just before and after the recess) has an impact on the usage of negation. This corpus is over 9 million tokens in size. Additionally, from this data, we were able to sort out different sub-corpora according to the gender of each speaker and their party.

For this experiment, a syntactic grammar was designed to annotate different types of negation on the sentence level: (a) negative verb + positive adjective; (b) positive verb + negative adjective; and (c) negative verb + negative adjective.

Keywords

  • Negation
  • Negative verb
  • Negative adjective
  • Syntactic grammar
  • Political discourse
  • PDA
  • Croatian
  • NooJ

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-92861-2_9
  • Chapter length: 13 pages
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
eBook
USD   64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • ISBN: 978-3-030-92861-2
  • Instant PDF download
  • Readable on all devices
  • Own it forever
  • Exclusive offer for individuals only
  • Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout
Softcover Book
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Fig. 1.
Fig. 2.
Fig. 3.
Fig. 4.
Fig. 5.
Fig. 6.
Fig. 7.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The archive of Parliamentary sessions is maintained by the Information and Documentation Department and the Parliamentary transcripts are freely available at https://edoc.sabor.hr/Fonogrami.aspx.

References

  1. Amador-Moreno, C.P.: How can corpora be used to explore literary speech representation? In: O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, pp. 531–544. Routldge Taylor & Francis Group, London (2010)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  2. Bayley, P.: Introduction: the whys and wherefores of analyzing parliamentary discourse. In: Bayley, P. (ed.) Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Parliamentary Discourse, pp. 1–44. John Benjamins, Amsterdam/Philadelphia (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bucholtz, M.: Theories of discourse as theories of gender: discourse analysis in language and gender studies. In: Holmes, J., Meyerhoff, M. (eds.) The Handbook of Language and Gender, pp. 43–68. UC Santa Barbara (2003). https://escholarship.org/uc/item/583711gp. Accessed 01 July 2021

  4. Calzada-Perez, M.: Researching the European parliament with corpus-assisted studies: institutional dimensions. In: Specialised Translation in Spain, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 465–490 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Chilton, P.: Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice. Routledge, London (2004)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  6. Dunmire, P.L.: Political discourse analysis: exploring the language of politics and the politics of language. Lang. Linguist. Compass 6(11), 735–751 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1002/lnc3.365

  7. He, A.W.: Discourse analysis. In: Aronoff, M., Rees-Miller, J. (eds.) The Handbook of Linguistics, pp. 445–462. Wiley, Hoboken (2017)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  8. Kirvalidze, N., Samnidze, N.: Political discourse as a subject of interdisciplinary studies. J. Teach. Educ. 05(01), 161–170 (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Levshina, N.: Corpus-based typology: applications, challenges and some solutions. In: Linguistic Typology, Advance online publication (2021). https://doi.org/10.1515/lingty-2020-0118

  10. Rao, P., Taboada, M.: Gender bias in the news: a scalable topic modelling and visualization framework. Front. Artif. Intell.: Lang. Comput. 4, 664737 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2021.664737

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  11. Romaine, S.: Variation in language and gender. In: Holmes, J., Meyerhoff, M. (eds.) The Handbook of Language and Gender, pp. 98–119. Blackwell, Oxford (2003)

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  12. Silberztein, M.: Formalizing Natural Languages: The NooJ Approach. Cognitive Science Series, Wiley-ISTE, London (2016)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Van Dijk, T.A.: What is political discourse analysis? In: Bloomaert, J., Bulcaen, Ch. (eds.) Political Linguistics, pp. 11–52, Amsterdam (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Van Dijk, T.A.: Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Stud. 8(1), 159–177 (2006). Special Issue: Discourse interaction and cognition

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilson, J.: Political discourse. In: Tannen, D., Hamilton, H.E., Schiffrin, D. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, pp. 398–415. Blackwel, Oxford (2015). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch36

  16. Žanpera, N., Kocijan, K., Šojat, K.: Negation of Croatian nouns. In: Fehri, H., Mesfar, S., Silberztein, M. (eds.) NooJ 2019. CCIS, vol. 1153, pp. 52–64. Springer, Cham (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-38833-1_5

    CrossRef  Google Scholar 

  17. Žanpera, N.: Računalno prepoznavanje i označavanje negacije u hrvatskom. MA thesis, Sveučilište u Zagrebu, Filozofski fakultet (2020). https://urn.nsk.hr/urn:nbn:hr:131:050307. Accessed 07 July 2021

Download references

Acknowledgements

The research reported here was supported by the European Commission in the CEF Telecom Programme: Action No. 2019-EU-IA-0034, CURLICAT.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Kocijan .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Kocijan, K., Šojat, K. (2021). Negation Usage in the Croatian Parliament. In: Bigey, M., Richeton, A., Silberztein, M., Thomas, I. (eds) Formalizing Natural Languages: Applications to Natural Language Processing and Digital Humanities. NooJ 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1520. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92861-2_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-92861-2_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-92860-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-92861-2

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)