Questions
1 Lexicology as a scientific discipline. Branchs of lexicology.
2 Two attacks to linguistic communication survey, assortments of words.
3 Methods of probe.
4 Contrastive analysis.
5 Statistical analysis.
6 Immediate components analysis.
7 Distributional analysis.
8 Transformational analysis.
9 Componental analysis.
10 Method of semantic derived function.
11 Analytical ( referential ) definition of significance.
12 Functional ( contextual ) definition of significance.
13 Operational ( information-oriented ) definition of significance.
14 Naming. The nominative attack to significance.
15 The formation of constructs. Meaning and construct.
16 The ways of organizing sound signifiers of words.
17 Aspects of lexical significance.
18 Beginnings and types of significance variableness.
19 The semantic construction of a word.
20 Semantic dealingss of words.
21 Word-structure. Types of morphemes.
22 The method of immediate and ultimate components.
23 The derivational construction. Derivational bases. Types of roots.
24 Derivational forms.
25 Word-formation. Basic ways of coining words.
26 Minor types of coining words.
27 Affixes. Polysemy. Homonymy. Synonymy.
28 Conversion.
Lexicology as a scientific discipline.
Its basic units and methods.
Lexicology is a subdivision of linguistics & # 8211 ; the scientific discipline of linguistic communication. The term & # 8220 ; lexicology & # 8221 ; is composed of two Greek morphemes & # 8220 ; lexic & # 8221 ; & # 8211 ; word, phrase & A ; & # 8220 ; logos & # 8221 ; which denotes larning a section of cognition. Thus the actual significance of the term & # 8220 ; lexicology & # 8221 ; is & # 8220 ; the scientific discipline of the word & # 8221 ; . Lexicology as a subdivision of linguistics has its ain purposes & A ; methods of scientific research. Its basic undertaking & # 8211 ; being a survey & A ; systematic description of vocabulary in regard to its beginning, development & A ; its current usage. Lexicology is concerned with words, variable word-groups, phraseological units & A ; morphemes which make up words.
Differentiation is made between GENERAL LEXICOLOGY & A ; SPECIAL LEXICOLOGY. General lexicology is a portion of General linguistics. It is concerned with the survey of vocabulary irrespective of the specific characteristics of any peculiar linguistic communication. Particular lexicology is the lexicology of a peculiar linguistic communication ( Russian, German, Gallic, etc. ) .
Lexicology is closely connected with other subdivisions of linguistics: phonetics, for illustration, investigates the phonic construction of linguistic communication & A ; is concerned with the survey of the outer sound-form of the word. Grammar is the survey of the grammatical construction of linguistic communication. It is concerned with the assorted agencies of showing grammatical dealingss between words every bit good as with forms after which words are combined into word-groups & A ; sentences. There is besides a close relationship between lexicology & A ; stylistics which is concerned with a survey of a nature, maps & A ; manners of linguistic communications.
Two attacks to linguistic communication survey.
Assortments of words.
There are two principle attacks in lingual scientific discipline to the survey of linguistic communication stuff:synchronous & A ; historical. With respect to Special lexicology thesynchronicattack is concerned with the vocabulary of a linguistic communication as it exists at a given clip. It & # 8217 ; s Particular Descriptive lexicology that deals with the vocabulary & A ; vocabulary units of a peculiar linguistic communication at a certain clip.
Thediachronicattack in footings of Special lexicology trades with the alterations & A ; the development of vocabulary in the coarse of clip. It is Particular Historical lexicology that deals with the rating of the vocabulary units of a linguistic communication as the clip goes by.
The two attacks shouldn & # 8217 ; t be set one against the other. In fact, they are interconnected & amp ; interrelated because every lingual construction & A ; system exists in a province of changeless development so that the synchronous province of a linguistic communication system is a consequence of a long procedure of lingual rating, of its historical development. Closely connected with the Historical lexicology is Contrastive & A ; Comparative lexicology whose purposes are to analyze the correlativity between the vocabularies of two or more linguistic communications & A ; happen out the correspondences between the vocabulary units of the linguistic communications under comparing.
Lexicology surveies assorted lexical units. They are:morphemes, words, variable word-groups & A ; phraseological units.We proceed from the premise that thewordis the basic unit of the linguistic communication system, the largest on morphological & A ; the smallest on syntactic plane of lingual analyses. Thewordis a structural & A ; semantic entity within the linguistic communication system. Thewordevery bit good as any lingual mark is a ambidextrous unit possessing both signifier & A ; content or, to be more exact, sound-form & A ; significance.
e. g. boy & # 8211 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1081 ;
When used in existent address the word undergoes certain alteration & A ; maps in one of its signifiers. The system demoing a word in all its word-forms is called a When used in existent address the word undergoes certain alteration & maps in one of its signifiers. The system demoing a word in all its word-forms is called aparadigm. The lexical significance of a word is the same throughout the paradigm. The grammatical significance varies from one signifier to another. Therefore when we speak on any word as used in existent address we use the term & # 8220 ; word & # 8221 ; conventionally because what is manifested in the vocalizations is non a word as a whole but one of its signifiers which is identified as belonging to the definite paradigm. Wordss as a whole are to be found in the dictionary ( demoing the paradigm n & # 8211 ; noun, v & # 8211 ; verb, etc ) . . The lexical significance of a word is the same throughout the paradigm. The grammatical significance varies from one signifier to another. Therefore when we speak on any word as used in existent address we use the term “word” conventionally because what is manifested in the vocalizations is non a word as a whole but one of its signifiers which is identified as belonging to the definite paradigm. Wordss as a whole are to be found in the dictionary ( demoing the paradigm n – noun, v – verb, etc ) .
There aretwo attacks to the paradigm: as a system of signifiers of one word uncovering the differences & A ; the relationships between them.
e. g. to see & # 8211 ; saw – seen & # 8211 ; seeing
( different signifiers have different dealingss )
In abstraction from concrete words the paradigm is treated as a form on which every word of one portion of address theoretical accounts its signifiers, therefore functioning to separate one portion of address from another.
-s – & # 8216 ; s -s & # 8217 ; -ed -ing
nouns, of-phrases verbs
Besides the grammatical signifiers of words there are lexical assortments which are called & # 8220 ;discrepancies& # 8221 ; of words.Words rarely possess merely one significance, but used in speech each word reveals merely that intending which is required.
e. g. to larn at school to do a frock
to larn about smth. & # 8260 ; smbd. to do smbd. make smth.
These are lexico-semantic discrepancies.
There are besides phonic & A ; morphological discrepancies.
e. g. & # 8220 ; frequently & # 8221 ; can be pronounced in two ways, though the sound-form is somewhat changed, the significance remains unchangeable. We can construct the signifiers of the word & # 8220 ; to woolgather & # 8221 ; in different ways:
to woolgather & # 8211 ; dreamt & # 8211 ; dreamt
dreamed & # 8211 ; dreamed These are morphological discrepancies. The significance is the same but the theoretical account is different.
Like words-forms discrepancies of words are identified in the procedure of communicating as doing up one & A ; the same word. Therefore, within the linguistic communication system the word exists as a system & A ; integrity of all its signifiers & A ; discrepancies. Like words-forms discrepancies of words are identified in the procedure of communicating as doing up one & the same word. Therefore, within the linguistic communication system the word exists as a system & integrity of all its signifiers & discrepancies.
Methods of probe.
The scientific discipline is said to be formed when it has at its disposal certain methods of probe. The procedure of scientific probe may be subdivided into several phases:
Observationis an early & A ; basic stage of all modern scientific probes including linguistics & A ; is the centre of what is called & # 8220 ; the inductive method of enquiry & # 8220 ; . The central function of all inductive processs is that the statements of fact must be based on observation non on unsupported authorization, logical decisions or personal penchants.
Another phase of scientific probe after observation iscategorizationof those facts which were obtained through observation.
e. g. It is observed that in English nouns the suffixal morpheme & # 8220 ; -er & # 8221 ; is added to verbal roots ( to cook & # 8211 ; cooker, to compose & # 8211 ; author ) & A ; noun stems ( small town & # 8211 ; villager, London & # 8211 ; Londoner ) . The same postfix besides occurs in the words such as female parent, male parent. The inquiry is whether the words & # 8220 ; mother, father & # 8220 ; have suffix. They haven & # 8217 ; t, therefore we can come to the decision that & # 8220 ; -er & # 8221 ; can be found in derived & A ; non-derived words.
The undermentioned phase is normally that ofgeneralisation, that is, the aggregation of informations & A ; their categorization must finally take to the preparation of a hypotheses, regulation, or jurisprudence.
e. g. In the instance with & # 8220 ; -er & # 8221 ; we can explicate the regulation that derived words in & # 8220 ; -er & # 8221 ; may hold either verbal or noun stems.The suffix & # 8220 ; -er & # 8221 ; in combination with adjectival or adverbial roots can & # 8217 ; t bring forth nouns ( bigger, longer, shorter are non nouns ) .
Any lingual generalisation is to be followed by the really all right procedure & # 8211 ; the linguist is required to seekconfirmationof the generalisations that are the consequence of his inquires. For these purposes different methods & A ; processs are used. They are: incompatible analyses, statistical methods of analyses, immediate components analyses, distributional analyses, transformational analyses, componental analyses & A ; method of semantic distinction.
Contrastive analysis.
Contrastive linguists attempt to happen out similarities & A ; differences in both related & amp ; non-related linguistic communications. Contrastive analysis grew as the consequence of the practical demands of a language-teaching methodological analysis, where it was through empirical observation shown that the mistakes which are made by foreign linguistic communication pupils can be frequently traced back to the differences in construction between the mark linguistic communication & A ; the linguistic communication of the scholar. This of course implies the necessity of a elaborate comparing of the construction of a native & A ; a mark linguistic communication. This process has been named incompatible analysis. Peoples proceed from the premise that the classs, elements on the semantic every bit good as on the syntactic & A ; other degrees are valid for both linguistic communications.
e. g. Associating verbs can be found in English, French, German, Russian, etc. Associating verbs holding the significance of & # 8220 ; alteration & A ; become & # 8221 ; are otherwise represented in each of the linguistic communications. In English, for case, & # 8220 ; become, come, turn, autumn, run, turn & # 8220 ; ; in Russian & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; & # 8220 ; are used. The undertaking is to happen out which semantic & A ; syntactic characteristics characterize the English set of associating verbs, the Russian linking verb & A ; how they can be compared, how the English word-groups & # 8220 ; turn thin, acquire angry, autumn ailment & # 8220 ; correspond to Russian & # 8220 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1093 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; , & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1103 ; , & # 1079 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1100 ; & # 8220 ; .
Contrastive analysis can be carried out at three lingual degrees: phonemics, grammar ( morphology & A ; sentence structure ) & A ; lexis. Contrastive analysis is applied to uncover the characteristics of sameness & A ; difference in the lexical significance & A ; the semantic construction of correlative words in different linguistic communications. It is normally assumed by non-linguists that all linguistic communications have vocabulary systems in which the words themselves differ in sound-form, but refer to world in the same manner. From this premise it follows that for every word in the female parent lingua there is an exact equivalent in the foreign linguistic communication. It is a belief which is reinforced by the little bilingual lexicon where single-word interlingual rendition is frequently used.Language larning can non be merely a affair of permutation a new set of labels for the familiar 1s of the female parent lingua.It should be born in head that though the nonsubjective world exists outside human existences & A ; irrespective of the linguistic communication they speak, every linguistic communication classifies world in its ain manner by agencies of vocabulary units.
e. g. In English, for illustration, the word & # 8220 ; pes & # 8221 ; is used to denote the appendage of the leg. In Russian there is no exact equivalent for & # 8220 ; pes & # 8221 ; : & # 8220 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1072 ; & # 8221 ; is a small spot smaller than pes, the word & # 8220 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1072 ; & # 8221 ; denotes the whole leg including the pes.
Differences in the lexical significance of correlative words account for the differences of their collocability in different linguistic communications.
e. g. Thus, the English adjective & # 8220 ; new & # 8221 ; & A ; the Russian adjective & # 8221 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1081 ; & # 8221 ; when taken in isolation are felt as correlative words: a new frock, New Year. In collocation with other nouns nevertheless the Russian adjective can non be used in the same significance in which the English word & # 8220 ; new & # 8221 ; is presently used: new murphies, new staff of life, etc.
Contrastive analysis on the degree of the grammatical significance reveals that co-related words in different linguistic communications may differ in grammatical features.
e. g. Russians are apt to state & # 8220 ; intelligence are good, the money are on the tabular array, her hair are black & # 8221 ; because the Russian words & # 8220 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1080 ; , & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1100 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1080 ; , & # 1074 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1083 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1099 ; & # 8221 ; have the grammatical significance of plurality.
Contrastive analysis brings to illume the kernel of what is normally described as idiomatic English, idiomatic Russian, i. e. the curious manner in which every linguistic communication combines & A ; constructions in lexical units assorted constructs to denote extra-linguistic world.
e. g. A typical Russian word-group used to depict the manner person performs an action or to province how a individual finds himself has the construction that may be represented by the expression & # 8220 ; adjectival + a finite signifier of a verb & # 8221 ; ( & # 1086 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1087 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1090 ; , & # 1073 ; & # 1099 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1089 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1074 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1090 ; ) . In English we can besides utilize structurally similar word-groups & A ; state & # 8220 ; he learns fast/slowly & # 8221 ; . The construction of idiomatic word-group in English is different. The construction is & # 8220 ; adjectival + deverbal noun & # 8221 ; . It is truly in English to state & # 8220 ; he is a heavy tobacco user, hapless learner early riser & # 8221 ; .
Statistical analysis. Statistical analysis.
Statistical linguistics is nowadays by and large recognized as the one of the major subdivisions of linguistics. Statistical enquiries have considerable importance because of their relevancy to certain jobs of communicating technology & A ; information theory. Statistical attack proved indispensable in the choice of vocabulary points of a foreign linguistic communication for learning intents. Very few people know more than 10 % of the words in their female parent lingua. It follows that if we do non wish to blow clip on perpetrating to memorise vocabulary points which are ne’er likely to be utile to the scholar we have to choose merely lexical units that are normally used by a native talker.
Out of about 500 000 words listed in Oxford English dictionary the active vocabulary of an educated Englishman comprises no more than 30 000 words & A ; of these 4 000 – 5 000 are presumed to be amplisufficient for the day-to-day demands of an mean member of the English address community. Therefore, it is apparent that the job of choice of learning vocabulary is of critical importance. Statistical techniques have been successfully applied in the analysis of assorted lingual phenomena. Different structural types of words, affixes, the vocabularies of great authors & A ; poets & A ; even in the survey of some jobs of Historical Lexicology.
Statistical regularities can be observed merely if the phenomena under analysis are sufficiently legion. Therefore, the first demand of any statistic probe is the size of the sample. It is known that relatively little group of words makes up the majority of any text. It was found that about 1300 & # 8211 ; 1500 most frequent words make up 85 % of all words happening in the text. If nevertheless we analyze a sample of 60 words it is difficult to foretell the figure of happenings of most frequent words.
e. g. If we take the word & # 8220 ; room & # 8221 ; we can happen some significances of the word: 1 ) & # 8220 ; room & # 8221 ; – denoting & # 8220 ; infinite & # 8221 ; as in & # 8220 ; take less room, non plenty room to make smth. & # 8221 ; ; 2 ) portion of a house as in & # 8220 ; sitting-room & # 8221 ; ; 3 ) used in plural = diggingss as in & # 8220 ; to acquire suites & # 8221 ; . Statistical analysis shows that most often the word is used in its 2nd significance & # 8211 ; 83 % of all happenings of the word in different texts, 12 % of all takes its first significance & # 8211 ; & # 8220 ; infinite & # 8221 ; , & A ; merely 2 % takes the 3rd significance of the word.
Immediate components analysis.
The theory of Immediate Constituents was originally elaborated as an effort to find the ways in which lexical units are relevantly related to one another. It was discovered that combinations of units are normally structured into hierarchial sets of binary buildings.
e. g. In the word-group & # 8220 ; a black frock in terrible manner & # 8220 ; we do non associate the indefinite article & # 8220 ; a & # 8221 ; to adjective & # 8220 ; black & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; black & # 8221 ; to & # 8220 ; frock & # 8221 ; ,
“dress” to “in” , “in” to “severe” , “severe” to “style” .We set up a construction which may be represented as “a black dress” & “in terrible style” .
Therefore, the cardinal purpose of immediate components analysis is to section a set of lexical units into two maximally independent sequences & A ; these maximally independent sequences are called immediate components. The farther cleavage of immediate components consequences in ultimate components, which means that farther cleavage is impossible for no significance can be found.
e. g. The ultimate components of the phrase given are & # 8220 ; a & # 8221 ; , & # 8221 ; black & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; frock & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; in & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; terrible & # 8221 ; , & # 8220 ; manner & # 8221 ; . This method of analysis is highly fruitful in detecting the derivational construction of words. e. g. The ultimate components of the phrase given are “a” , ”black” , “dress” , “ in” , “severe” , “style” . This method of analysis is highly fruitful in detecting the derivational construction of words.Distributional analysis.
Distributional analysis in its assorted signifiers is normally used presents. By the term & # 8220 ; distribution & # 8221 ; we understand the happening of a lexical unit comparative to another lexical units of the same degrees: words to words, morpheme to morphemes. In other words, by this term we understand the place which lexical unit occupies or may busy in the text or in the flow of address. It is observed that a certain constituent of the word-meaning is described when the word is identified distributionally.
e. g. In the sentence
The boy__________ place. The boy__________ place.
the losing word is easy identified as a verb. It may be & # 8220 ; came, ran, went, goes & # 8221 ; , but non as an adverb or a noun, or an adjectival.
Therefore, we see that the constituent of significance that is distributionally identified is really the part-of-speech significance. It is besides observed that in a figure of instances words have different lexical significances in different distributional forms.
e. g. The verb & # 8220 ; to handle & # 8221 ; has different lexical significances in & # 8220 ; to handle smbd kindly & # 8221 ; & A ; & # 8220 ; to handle smbd to ice-cream & # 8221 ; .
The mutuality of distribution & A ; significance can be besides observed at the degree of word-groups.
e. g. It is merely the distribution of wholly indistinguishable lexical units but arranged on the contrary that differentiates the significance & # 8211 ; H2O pat & A ; tap H2O.
Transformational analysis.
Transformational analysis in lexicological probes may be defined as repatterning ( stand foring, reorganisation ) of assorted distributional constructions in order to detect difference or sameness of significance of practically indistinguishable distributional forms. As distributional forms are in a figure of instances polysemous transformational processs are of aid non merely in the analysis of semantic sameness / difference of the lexical units but besides in the analysis of the factors that account for their lexical ambiguity. Word-groups of indistinguishable distributional construction when repatterned show that the semantic dealingss between words & A ; accordingly the significance may be different.e. g. A form & # 8220 ; genitive pronoun & # 8221 ; + & # 8221 ; noun & # 8221 ; ( his auto, his failure, his apprehension, his kindness ) . Harmonizing to transformational analysis the significance of each word-group may be represented as: he has a auto, he failed, he was arrested, he is sort. In each of the instances different significance is revealed: ownership, action, inactive action, quality.The regulations of transmutation are instead rigorous & A ; shouldn & # 8217 ; t be identified with paraphrasing in the usual sense of the term.There are many limitations both on syntactic & A ; lexical degrees. These are:
Substitution& # 8211 ; the repatterning on status that the basic subordinating relationships between words & A ; word-stems of the lexical units are non changed.e. g. & # 8220 ; His work is first-class & # 8220 ; may be transformed into & # 8220 ; his first-class work, the excellence of his work, he works magnificently & # 8220 ; .In the illustration given the relationships between lexical units & A ; the roots of the fanciful words are basically the same.
Replacement& # 8211 ; the permutation of a constituent of the distributional construction by a member of a certain purely defined set of lexical units.e. g. Replacement of a fanciful verb by an subsidiary or link verb ( he will do a bad error & A ; he will do a good instructor ) . The sentences have indistinguishable distributional construction but merely in the 2nd one the verb & # 8220 ; to do & # 8220 ; can be substituted by & # 8220 ; become & # 8220 ; or & # 8220 ; be & # 8220 ; . The fact of impossibleness of indistinguishable transmutations of distributionally indistinguishable constructions is a formal cogent evidence of the difference in their significance.
Addition ( or enlargement )may be illustrated by the application of the process of add-on to the categorization of adjectives into two groups- adjectives denoting built-in & amp ; non-inherent qualities.
e. g. John is happy.
John is tall.
We add a word-group & # 8220 ; in Moscow & # 8220 ; . We shall see that & # 8220 ; John is happy in Moscow. & # 8221 ; has significance while the 2nd 1 is mindless. That is accounted by the difference in the significance of adjectives denoting inherent ( tall ) & A ; non-inherent ( happy ) qualities.
Omission& # 8211 ; a process which shows whether one of the words semantically subordinated to the other. e. g. The word-group & # 8220 ; ruddy flowers & # 8221 ; may be deleted & amp ; transformed into & # 8220 ; flowers & # 8221 ; without doing the sentence senseless: I like ruddy flowers or I like flowers. The other word-group & # 8220 ; ruddy tape & # 8220 ; can & # 8217 ; t be deleted & amp ; transformed either into & # 8220 ; I hate tape & # 8220 ; or & # 8220 ; I hate ruddy & # 8220 ; because in both transformed sentences the significance of the phrase & # 8220 ; ruddy tape & # 8221 ; means & # 8220 ; bureaucratism & # 8221 ; & amp ; it can & # 8217 ; t be divided into two parts.
Componental analysis.
In this analysis linguists proceed from the premise that the smallest units of significance are sememes or semes. e. g. In the lexical point & # 8220 ; adult female & # 8221 ; several sememes may be singled out, such as homo, non an animate being, female, grownup. The analysis of the word & # 8220 ; girl & # 8221 ; will demo the undermentioned sememes: homo, female, immature. The last constituent of the two words differentiates them & A ; makes impossible to blend up the words in the procedure of communicating. It is classical signifier of uncovering the work of componental analysis to use them to the so called closed systems of vocabulary, for illustration, coloring material footings. The analysis as a regulation was formalized merely every bit far as the symbolic representation of intending constituents it is concerned with.Each sememe in the footings of colors acquires or is given a certain missive ( A, B, C, D & # 8230 ; ) & A ; the significance of the footings may be given in a formalistic signifier. e. g. Red & A ; vermilion will differ merely in one constituent & A ; that is strength of coloring material & A ; by the missive it may be illustrated as
A BacillusC
A B CUnder the missiveCthe strength is meant.
The formalistic representation of intending aid to happen out different semantic constituents which influence collocability of words ( during the twenty-four hours but non during the steps, down the stepss but non down the twenty-four hours ) .
Componental analysis is practically ever combined with transformational processs or statistical analysis.The combination makes it possible to happen out which of the significances should be represented foremost of all in the lexicons of different types & A ; how the words should be combined in order to do your address sensible.
Method of semantic derived function.
A word has non merely one significance & A ; even one word normally implies some extra information which differentiates one word from another.
e. g. to wish, to love, to adore, to warship. All the words denote positive feelings, feature of a human being. But each of them gives extra information on the alleged strength of feeling.
This is the connotative of facet which was singled out by the semantic derived function & # 8211 ; the method which was worked out by a group of American psycholinguists. Their technique requires the topics to judge & # 8211 ; a series of constructs with regard to a set of antonymic adjectival graduated table.
e. g. A Equus caballus can be:
good & # 8211 ; bad
fast & # 8211 ; decelerate
strong & # 8211 ; weak
difficult & # 8211 ; soft
happy & # 8211 ; sad
The significance of the divisions is that each of the quality may be gradated stand foring highly good, really good, neither good nor bad, somewhat bad, highly bad & A ; these classs can be marked by a plus.And the Equus caballus may be really good, non bad, etc.
The revealed steps demoing some part of quality helps to singled out such words which are normally referred to as impersonal, expressive, antediluvian & A ; new words proper & # 8211 ; neologies. All the methods of analysis are applied in one & A ; the same domain of probe. If you are interested in intending you shouldn & # 8217 ; t pay much attending to the construction, if you are interested in collocation of words you shouldn & # 8217 ; t pay much attending what parts of words represent the distributional construction. The combination of different methods of analysis helps to sort the vocabulary as a whole & A ; each lexical unit taken individually. It should be said that practically no processs function independently & A ; individually from each other. It is merely for survey purposes that we separate one process from another. In fact, being a ambidextrous unit a lexical point provides to be an indivisible unit of signifier & A ; content. That is why you can non look into one side of the point paying no attending to the other one.
Semasiology. Lexical
intending & A ; its facets.
Semasiology ( or semantics ) is a subdivision of linguistics which surveies intending. Semasiology is singled out as an independent subdivision of lexicology alongside word-formation, etymology, wording & A ; lexicography. And at the same clip it is frequently referred to as the cardinal subdivision of lexicology. The significance of cognitive semantics may be accounted for by three chief considerations:
Language is the basic human communicating system aimed at guaranting the exchange of information between the communicants which implies that the semantic side forms the anchor of communicating.
By definition lexicology trades with words, morpheme & A ; word-groups. All those lingual units are ambidextrous entities holding both signifier & A ; significance.
Semasiology underscores all other subdivisions of lexicology. Meaning is the object of semasiological survey.
However, at present there is no universally accepted definition of significance or instead a definition reflecting all the basic characteristic characteristics of intending & A ; being at the same clip operational. Therefore, linguists province that significance is & # 8220 ; one of the most equivocal & A ; most controversial footings in the theory of linguistic communication & # 8220 ; ( Steven Ullman ) .Leech provinces that the bulk of definitions turn out to be a dead terminal non merely on practical but on logical evidences. Numerous statements on the complexness of the phenomenon of significance are found on the Russian tradition as good by such linguists as & # 1040 ; . & # 1040 ; . & # 1055 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1103 ; , & # 1048 ; . & # 1040 ; . & # 1041 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1101 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1050 ; & # 1091 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1090 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1077 ; , & # 1065 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1073 ; & # 1072 ; , & # 1042 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1075 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1072 ; & # 1076 ; & # 1086 ; & # 1074 ; , & # 1040 ; . & # 1048 ; . & # 1057 ; & # 1084 ; & # 1077 ; & # 1088 ; & # 1085 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1094 ; & # 1082 ; & # 1080 ; & # 1081 ; & amp ; others.
However obscure & A ; unequal, different definitions of intending aid to sum up the general features of the impression comparing assorted attacks to the description of the content side of the linguistic communication. There are three chief classs of definitions which may be referred to as:
analytical or referential definition of significance
functional or contextual definition of significance
operational or information-oriented definition of significance
Analytic or referential
definition of significance.
They seek to happen the kernel of intending set uping the mutuality between words of the objects or phenomena they denote. The best known analytical theoretical account of significance is the alleged & # 8220 ; basic trigon & # 8221 ; .
Concept ( or our idea )
Sound-form Word-object ( referent )
They are connected straight that means that if we hear a sound-form a certain thought arises in our head & A ; the thought brings out a certain referent that exists in the world. But the sound-form & A ; the referent are connected indirectly because there are no objects or phenomena in the world that predict a certain sound-form, that need to be named by a certain sequence of sounds. The strongest point in the attack is an effort to associate the impression of intending with the procedure of calling the objects, procedures or phenomena of concrete world. The analytical definitions of intending are normally criticized on the evidences that they can non be applied to sentences.
e. g. The sentence & # 8220 ; I like to read long novels & # 8220 ; does non show individual impression, it represents complexs of impressions stipulating the dealingss between them.
The referential definition of significance can barely be applied to semantic add-ons that come to the surface in the procedure of communicating.
e. g. & # 8220 ; That & # 8217 ; s really cagey & # 8220 ; may intend different kinds of things including that it is non cagey at all.
It has besides been stated that the referential attack fails to account for that fact that one word may denote different objects & A ; phenomena. That is the instance of lexical ambiguity. On the other manus one & A ; the same object may be denoted by different words & A ; that is the instance of synonymity.
Functional or contextual
Definitions of significance.
Continuing from the premises that the true significance of a word is to be found by detecting what a adult male does with it non what he says about it, the advocates of functional attack to intending specify it as the usage of the word in the linguistic communication. It has been suggested that the significance of a word is revealed by replacing different contexts.
e. g. The significance of the wordcatmay be singled out of contexts:
____________ gimmick mice.
I bought fish for my _____ .
and similar sentences.
To acquire a better penetration in to the semantics of a word it is necessary to analyse as many contexts in which it is realized as possible. The inquiry arises & # 8211 ; when to halt roll uping different contexts & A ; what sum of stuff is sufficient to do a dependable decision about the significance of a word? In pattern a bookman is guided by intuition which sum to the old cognition of the impressions the given word denotes. Besides, there are contexts which are so infrequent that they can barely be registered & amp ; rather evidently they have ne’er been met by the talkers of the given linguistic communication. However being presented with a context a native talker returns non from a list of possible contexts but from something else. The functional attack to significance is of import because it emphasizes the fact that words are rarely if of all time used in isolation & A ; therefore the significance of a word is revealed merely when it is realized in a context. But on the whole the functional attack may be described as a complimentary, extra to the referential 1.
Operational definition
Of significance.
They are centered on specifying significance through its function in the procedure of communicating. Just like functional attack information-oriented definitions are portion of analyzing words in action. They are more interested in how the words work, how the significance works than what the significance is. The operational attack began to take form with the turning involvement of linguists in the communicative facet of the linguistic communication when the object of survey was shifted to the dealingss between the linguistic communication we use & amp ; the state of affairss within which it is used. In this frame-work significance is defined as information conveyed from the talker to the hearer in the procedure of communicating. The definition is applicable both to words & A ; sentences & A ; therefore overcomes one of the drawbacks of the referential attack. The job is that it is more applicable to sentences than to words & A ; even as such fails to pull a clear separating line between the direct sense ( that is intending ) & A ; deduction ( that is extra information ) .
e. g. Thus the sentence & # 8220 ; John came at 6 O & # 8217 ; clock & # 8221 ; besides the direct significance may connote that John was 2 hours tardily, that he was punctual as usual, that it was a surprise for John to come, that he came earlier, that he was non expected at all & As ; many others.
In each instance the deduction would depend on the concrete state of affairs of communicating. And discoursing significance as the information conveyed would amount to the treatment of an about eternal set of possible communicating state of affairss which in the terminal will convey us back to a modified contextual or functional attack to significance. The differentiation between the two beds in the information conveyed is so of import that two different footings may be used to denote them: the direct information conveyed by the units which build up a sentence may be referred to as intending while the information added to the given extralinguistic state of affairs may be called sense.
19
