Affective Meaning in Language and Discourse: A Bibliometric Analysis

  • Hanglyu Duan Department of Foreign Language, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Zalina Mohd Kasim Department of Foreign Language, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
  • Lay Hoon Ang Department of Foreign Language, Faculty of Modern Languages and Communication, Universiti Putra Malaysia, 43400, Serdang, Selangor, Malaysia
Keywords: Affective meaning, Bibliometric analysis, CiteSpace, Evaluation, Affective stance

Abstract

This study investigates the evolution, intellectual structure, and thematic analysis of affective meaning research using bibliometric analysis of 154 English-language articles and review articles from 1994 to 2025 in the Web of Science Core Collection. The publication trend, collaboration network, co-citation network, co-occurrence of keywords, clustering of themes, and temporal evolution were explored using CiteSpace. A significant increase in the number of research publications after 2018 is evident, as well as widespread geographic involvement and relatively scattered institutional and author collaboration. Cited-author and cited-journal networks, on the other hand, show a much larger common intellectual ground that includes systemic functional linguistics and Appraisal, stance and evaluation studies, corpus linguistics, pragmatics and interactional approaches. Some co-existing trends of research are also identified in the present corpus through keyword and cluster analyses using corpus-based, interactional, multimodal, cross-cultural, second-language and context-specific approaches. Temporal patterns suggest that these developments occurred in conjunction with ongoing language- and discourse-based issues, revealing a process of gradual thematic diversification instead of sudden thematic replacement. Therefore, the results suggest a field that, while intellectually connected, is conceptually plural. Future studies should focus on more explicitly comparing and integrating constructs that overlap, cross-linguistic validation, and methodological designs that integrate corpus and contextual evidence and multimodal interpretation.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Bednarek, M. (2006). Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in English news discourse: A text-driven approach. Text & Talk, 26(6), 635–660. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.027

Bednarek, M. (2008). Emotion talk across corpora. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230285712

Bednarek, M. (2009a). Dimensions of evaluation: Cognitive and linguistic perspectives. Pragmatics & Cognition, 17(1), 146–175. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed

Bednarek, M. (2009b). Language patterns and ATTITUDE. Functions of Language, 16(2), 165–192. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.2.01bed

Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9(1), 93–124. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.93

Chen, C. (2006). CiteSpace II: Detecting and visualizing emerging trends and transient patterns in scientific literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(3), 359–377. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20317

Chen, C. (2017). Science mapping: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of Data and Information Science, 2(2), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1515/jdis-2017-0006

Donthu, N., Kumar, S., Mukherjee, D., Pandey, N., & Lim, W. M. (2021). How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 133, 285–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.04.070

Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139–182). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du

Feng, D., & O’Halloran, K. L. (2012). Representing emotive meaning in visual images: A social semiotic approach. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(14), 2067–2084. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.10.003

Firouzi, R., & Farahzad, F. (2025). A systematic review of appraisal theoretical research in translation studies published between 2017 and 2024. Iranian Journal of Translation Studies, 22(88), 44–60. https://journal.translationstudies.ir/ts/article/view/1221

Hunston, S. (2004). Counting the uncountable: Problems of identifying evaluation in a text and in a corpus. In A. Partington, J. Morley, & L. Haarman (Eds.), Corpora and discourse (pp. 157–188). Peter Lang.

Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001

Li, J., Lei, L., & Cheng, L. (2020). Mapping evaluation, appraisal and stance in discourse (2000–2015): A bibliometric analysis. Glottotheory, 10(1–2), 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/glot-2019-0002

Liu, Q. Y., Ang, L. H., Waheed, M., & Kasim, Z. M. (2022). Appraisal theory in translation studies—A systematic literature review. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 30(4), 1589–1605. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.30.4.07

Liu, Y., Wang, G., & Xiang, L. (2026). A bibliometric study of linguistic evaluation research and its implications (1992–2023). Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 13, Article 436. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-026-06789-w

Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910

Ochs, E., & Schieffelin, B. (1989). Language has a heart. Text, 9(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1989.9.1.7

Partington, A. (2004). “Utterly content in each other’s company”: Semantic prosody and semantic preference. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 9(1), 131–156. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.9.1.07par

Phan, L. T. (2025). Tracing the development of research on Appraisal Theory within Systemic Functional Linguistics (2003–2025): A bibliometric analysis. Language Teaching Research Quarterly, 52, 87–109. https://doi.org/10.32038/ltrq.2025.52.05

Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (2010). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Pearson.

Zeng, J., Dong, M., & Fang, A. C. (2024). Annotating evaluative language: Challenges and solutions in applying Appraisal Theory. In H. Bunt, N. Ide, K. Lee, V. Petukhova, J. Pustejovsky, & L. Romary (Eds.), Proceedings of the 20th Joint ACL–ISO Workshop on Interoperable Semantic Annotation @ LREC-COLING 2024 (pp. 144–151). ELRA and ICCL. https://aclanthology.org/2024.isa-1.17/

Zupic, I., & Čater, T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organizational Research Methods, 18(3), 429–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114562629

Published
2026-09-27
Section
Articles