37.3093, Qs: Seeking Feedback on a Corpus-Pragmatic Comparison of Japanese and Chinese Fan-Discourse Expressions

[The LINGUIST List]

LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3093. Mon Sep 28 2026. ISSN: 1069 - 4875.

Subject: 37.3093, Qs: Seeking Feedback on a Corpus-Pragmatic Comparison of Japanese and Chinese Fan-Discourse Expressions

Moderator: Steven Moran (linguist at linguistlist.org)
Managing Editor: Valeriia Vyshnevetska
Team: Helen Aristar-Dry, Daniel Swanson
Jobs: jobs at linguistlist.org | Conferences: callconf at linguistlist.org | Pubs: pubs at linguistlist.org

Homepage: http://linguistlist.org

Editor for this issue: Daniel Swanson <daniel at linguistlist.org>

================================================================


Date: 27-Sep-2026
From: S. Zhang [lishuizhang8 at gmail.com]
Subject: Seeking Feedback on a Corpus-Pragmatic Comparison of Japanese and Chinese Fan-Discourse Expressions


I am currently working on a corpus-pragmatic study of Japanese oshi
and Chinese tui-family expressions in online fan discourse. The
dataset contains 646 manually coded public-web instances.
The study examines whether an observed cross-context difference in
pragmatic function is partly shaped by the internal composition of the
two expression families. One high-frequency Chinese person-suffix
subtype substantially amplifies the aggregate functional contrast,
although the contrast remains after that subtype is separated out.
I would be very interested in perspectives from researchers working on
corpus pragmatics, pragmatic borrowing, digital discourse, or related
areas, particularly on the following questions:
1. Is internal resource-family composition a substantively meaningful
explanation for aggregate pragmatic differences, or does this risk
becoming primarily a methodological decomposition?
2. If the Chinese and Japanese samples are collected through somewhat
different retrieval routes, should this be regarded as a serious
design problem, or mainly as a limitation on interpretation and
generalization?
3. For manually coded pragmatic functions in a dataset of this size,
how important would independent coding or inter-rater validation
normally be?
I would also be grateful for any other weakness in the design or
argument that stands out from this description.
If useful, I would be happy to share a one-page summary or anonymized
manuscript privately.

Linguistic Field(s): Discourse Analysis
                     Pragmatics
                     Sociolinguistics




------------------------------------------------------------------------------

********************** LINGUIST List Support ***********************
Please consider donating to the Linguist List, a U.S. 501(c)(3) not for profit organization:

https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=87C2AXTVC4PP8

LINGUIST List is supported by the following publishers:

Australian Linguistics Society https://als.asn.au/Home

Bloomsbury Publishing http://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/

Cambridge University Press http://www.cambridge.org/linguistics

Cascadilla Press http://www.cascadilla.com/

De Gruyter Brill https://www.degruyterbrill.com/?changeLang=en

Edinburgh University Press http://www.edinburghuniversitypress.com

European Language Resources Association (ELRA) http://www.elra.info

John Benjamins http://www.benjamins.com/

Language Science Press http://langsci-press.org

Lincom GmbH https://lincom-shop.eu/

MDPI Languages https://www.mdpi.com/journal/languages

MIT Press http://mitpress.mit.edu/

Multilingual Matters http://www.multilingual-matters.com/

Narr Francke Attempto Verlag GmbH + Co. KG http://www.narr.de/

Netherlands Graduate School of Linguistics / Landelijke (LOT) http://www.lotpublications.nl/

Peter Lang AG http://www.peterlang.com

SIL International Publications http://www.sil.org/resources/publications


----------------------------------------------------------
LINGUIST List: Vol-37-3093
----------------------------------------------------------