English Linguistics 1

English Linguistics 1

3.3 Lexical fields also: semantic field, G Wortfeld, lexikalischesFeld items in the vocabulary / lexicon which cover a coherent area / field,a conceptual domain the whole lexicon of a language is split up into lexical fields Session 3

e.g. domains of 'meals', 'fruit', 'vegetables', 'cooking', 'drinking', 'places for eating and drinking' etc. meals breakfast, lunch, brunch, dinner, ... = onomasiological approach (starts from concept, asks for all possible signs) general idea: the meaning of a member of the field can only be describedby referring to the other members Session 3

E big, large, great, tall G groß suggestion: the meaning space is divided as with the parts of a mosaic Session 3

lexical field of 'asking': ask, inquire, interrogate, question, wonder ... verbs of 'moving': walk, march, pace, amble, stroll, sneak, stagger ... colour adjectives: ... university teachers: professor, reader, lecturer, fellow (BE) (AE) Session 3

procedure for describing lexical fields: componential analysis or semantic feature analysis the meaning of a word is described as a bundle of semantic features girl [+ HUMAN, - ADULT, + FEMALE] boy [+ HUMAN, - ADULT, … ] woman [ … ] man [ ] cow [ ] Session 3

 matrix with a finite number of semantic features  description of the whole vocabulary / lexicon of a language implies - existence of clear boundaries between individual items Session 3

Try to complete the semantic feature matrix for the following verbs (lexical field of cooking) by indicating whether the verb can be used to signal the semantic feature in brackets or not, e.g.: you can boil sth. in [water], therefore '+', you do not toast sth. in the [oven], therefore ' − ' + … yes − … no ± … bothmayapply Session 3

Fig. Lexical field verbs of cooking Session 3

conclusion: - psychological reality of lexical fields is accepted by modern linguists - improbable, however, that systematic semantic features define the boundaries between individual items Session 3

remember the more recent idea of - prototypes / prototypical features in our minds - boundaries often fuzzy (exs.: chair, vase; see above) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are thereotherprinciples structuringthelexicon?

3.4.Lexical relations / meaning relations 3.4.1Synonymy expression of the same meaning by means of different words e.g. deep, profound The incident made a impression on me. deep profound Session 3

ex.commence – begin, finish – end, close – shut, adult – grown-up is there anything as absolute synonymy? test: exchangeable in all contexts? Session 3

This river is very deep / *profound. ?He commenced to cry. … absolutesynonymy ….

many 'so-called synonyms' interchangeable only in some contexts = total synonymy – to die – to pass away – to kick the bucket what is the difference? Session 3

3.4.2 Relationships of contrast – – – – • dead • single • sleep • have Session 4

1. complementarity relationship of contradictionthe denial of one term is the assertion of the other, no 'room' in between

– – – – • old • good • love • genius Session 4

2. antonymy, antonyms difference to 1.? Jumbo is a small elephant.

teacher • buy • over • behind • parent – – – – – Session 4

3. converseness, converses express the same meaning with a reversal of the order of participants Harris was Chomsky's teacher. Chomsky … The cat is behind the car. Session 3

arrive • come • have • learn • know – – – – – Session 4

4. directional opposites express some kind of direction(also metaphorically) you must have (own) sth. before you , you have to learn sth. in order to , you can only forget what you Session 3

3.4.3 Hierarchical relationships fish Session 3

= hyponymy: relationship of inclusion, superordinate term (hypernym) includes a set of (co)hyponyms Session 3

face nose mouth eyes chin lips, teeth, tongue Session 3

= meronymy: part-whole relationship (meronym – holonym) the holonym cannot be used for the meronym! (≠ hyponymy) Session 3

3.5 Lexical ambiguity a word allows more than one meaning an old friend (1) friend who is aged (2) friend who one has known for a long time he lost his head (1) metaphorical (2) literal Session 3

two types of ambiguity: polysemythe various meanings are associatively related to one another mouth – (1) opening through which so. takes food (2) part of a river which empties into a lake, sea Session 3

homonymy bark (1) outer covering of wood (2) sound uttered by a dog swallow (1) to go down through the throat (2) small bird Session 3

difference between polysemy and homonymy: (a) differentiation based on etymology p. – etymologically the same word, additional meanings via meaning transfer h. – two originally differently sounding words coalesce in the course of their development lie – OE licgan 'to be in a flat position' – OE leogan 'to tell sth. that is not true' Session 3

(b) based on psychologicalrelatedness p. – associative connection by the native speaker h. – no associative connection lie – no link between two meanings, therefore lie1 and lie2 two approaches may lead to divergentresults!

find the different meanings of box (n.) and ask yourself whether you can explain the meanings by associative connections or not Session 3

box (1) container for putting things (2) square on a page (3) (telephone) box (4) (witness) box (5) (royal) box (6) (to get a) box (on the ears) (7) box (hedge) Session 3

problematic cases pupil young student area in the middle of the eye G Schlosslock castle, palace Session 3

E pupil native speakerprobablywouldassume • very different in meaning • thereforehomonyms G Schloss seeabove

homographs: identical in spelling homophones: identical in sound regardless of spelling Session 3

3.6 Metaphor and metonymy 3.6.1 Metaphor "a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarities of dissimilars" (Aristotle, Poetics) similarity at least in one characteristic or feature Session 3

in traditional terminologytwo concepts (tenor and vehicle) are linked (tenor need not be explicit) An idea hit him. physical impact  intellectual process hit (vehicle) idea (tenor) also: a striking idea, the impact of an idea frequentcharacteristic: Session 3

literature, rhetoric – focus on the 'ingenious' metaphor theevilempire(president Reagan) everyday use: metaphors are an important structuringprinciple, we conceptualize one conceptual/mental domain in terms of another source domain – target domain strength: whole domain may be made use of Session 4

metaphor: mappingacrossdomains Session 4

+Love is + Our relationship has hit a dead-end street. Look how far we've come. It's been a long, bumpy road. We can't turn back now. We're at a crossroads. We may have to go our separate ways. The relationship isn't going anywhere. We're spinning our wheels. Our relationship is off the track. The marriage is on the rocks. We may have to bail out of this relationship. Session 4

transfer of knowledge about … to the concept … body metaphorsfoot of a hill ... affection is warmth to greet someone warmly / coldly Session 4

3.6.2 Metonymy relationship of contiguity within a conceptual frameThe pen is mightier than the sword. (Edward Bulwer-Lytton) 'the one who can use the pen ...' Session 4

the primary function of metonymy is referential helps to avoid too many and too specific terms Session 4

metonymy: mappingwithin a domain Session 4

two basic types: • part for the whole • the whole for the part = synecdoche in traditional rhetoric container  … the kettle's boiling, to drink a bottle Session 4

producer  … he bought a Picasso Weepingwoman Session 4

English Linguistics 1