The difference in positivity of the Russian and English lexicon: The big data approach

Author:

Solovyev Valery D.ORCID,Ivleva Anna I.ORCID

Abstract

Psychological cross-cultural studies have long noted differences in the degree of cognition positivity, or optimism, in various cultures. Herewith, the question whether the difference shows up at the level of the language lexicon remains unexplored. Linguistic positivity bias has been confirmed for a number of languages. The point of it is that most words have a positive connotation in the language. This begs the question: is linguistic positivity bias the same for different languages or not? In a sense, the issue is similar to the hypothesis of linguistic relativity suggesting the language impact on the human cognitive system. The problem has been researched only in one work (Dodds et al. 2015), where data on the positivity bias values are given for different languages and the comparison for each pair of languages is based on merely one pair of dictionaries. In the present study, we radically increase the computational baseline by comparing four English and five Russian dictionaries. We carry out the comparative study both at the level of vocabularies and at the level of texts of different genres. A new, previously untapped idea is to compare positivity ratings of translated texts. Also, English and Russian sentiment dictionaries are compared based on the scores of translation-stable words. The results suggest that the Russian language is somewhat slightly more positive than English at the level of vocabulary.

Publisher

Peoples' Friendship University of Russia

Reference54 articles.

1. Madhusudhan, Aithal & Tan Chenhao. 2021. On positivity bias in negative reviews. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2106.12056.pdf

2. Bochkarev, Vladimir, Valery Solovyev, Timofei Nestik & Anna Shevlyakova. 2023 Variations in average word valence of Russian books in response to social change over a century. Proceedings of the Artificial Intelligence and Natural Language Conference. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. POMI 529. 24-42.

3. Bradley, Margaret M. & Peter. J. Lang. 1999. Affective Norms for English Words (ANEW): Instruction Manual and Affective Ratings. Technical Report C-1, The Center for Research in Psychophysiology, University of Florida.

4. Boucher, Jerry & Charles E. Osgood. 1969. The Pollyanna hypothesis. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 8. 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(69)80002-2

5. Dodds, Peter Sheridan, Eric M. Clark, Suma Desu, Morgan R. Frank, Andrew J. Reagan, Jake Rylnd Williams, Lewis Mitchell, Kameron Decker Harris, Isabel M. Kloumann, James P. Bagrow, Karine Megerdoomian, Matthew T. McMahon, Brian F. Tivnan & Christopher M. Danforth. 2015. Human language reveals a universal positivity bias. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112 (8). 2389-2394. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1411678112

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3