dos.2 “Relatedness” Due to the fact Viewed From the Historic Semantics
There is no doubt, together with – and particularly – certainly gurus, that our rational language is highly organised. There are a great number of affairs between your solitary terminology regarding a words as well as the significance of these words, correspondingly. Certainly linguists, these relationships are called “semantic connections”, “sense affairs” otherwise “lexical relations”. This type of semantic relations can be analysed and you may discussed for part, and also in another, 1st of those of these connections should be demonstrated.
To help you offer an initial, critical malfunction of one’s state-of-the-art, it should be mentioned that there are a few research projects with this situation. Yet not, so it papers are only able to include some of them. Literary works that has been made use of can be obtained lower than section half a dozen, “Variety of Works Quoted”. Investment delimitations only have been generated in terms of outline is actually alarmed. Because report is just a highly short little bit of lookup, the new authors keeps confined themselves never to enter into continuously outline, but alternatively try to promote a good questionnaire of your matter.
2.step one Polysemy And you can Homonymy
Polysemy can be described as “a term utilized in semantic study to refer so you’re able to a good lexical product with various other significance” (Crystal 1997, 297). Amazingly gives because the example for polysemy the fresh lexical product “plain”, that has different significance “clear”, “unadorned”, “obvious”, etcetera.(ibid. Crystal).
Now, the situation that pops up to own linguists is exactly how to distinguish polysemy from a separate ambiguity, out of homonymy. Crystal describes homonymy given that “an expression included in semantic investigation to mention to help you [two or more] lexical items which [affect] have the same setting, however, differ when you look at the meaning” (Amazingly 1997, 185). Crystal’s instances here are “bear” and you may “ear”. “Bear” normally identify an animal or may have the definition regarding “to create”, “ear” is also make reference to you or perhaps to corn (ibid. Crystal).
Within these instances, homonymy covers each other verbal and you may written versions, but it is together with possible that the name out-of one or two lexemes is within an individual average, whereby linguists carry out talk about partial homonymy otherwise heteronymy (ibid. Crystal). You can identify 2 kinds of partial homonymy:
– Homography: two lexical issues have the same written means, but disagree within the enunciation (an example will be two lexical pieces of “lead”, one to pronounced [li:d] and you may meaning “to stay front side”, the other obvious [led] and you can determining a special brand of material). – Homophony: two lexical items have the same enunciation, but disagree during the spelling
(e.grams. the two lexical things “led” and you will “lead”, each of that are noticable [led], the first as being the prior stressful out-of “to lead”, the latter once again identifying a new version of material).
two sorts Off Ambiguity
Hence, polysemy and you may homonymy might be celebrated from one another by the existing otherwise forgotten relatedness between your definitions which will be designated to just one phonological form. What’s the core of number, is the matter to what the total amount this idea away from “relatedness” would be given. Simply put: just how do “relatedness” feel defined? In the event that an obvious and you may precise definition might possibly be provided, the whole problem might be set, getting then phenomenon of phonological forms whoever relatedness will be turned out could well be titled “homonymy”, whose relatedness cannot be turned out could be entitled “polysemy”. But not, given that happens so frequently in neuro-scientific semantics, one cannot offer a very clear and indisputable definition of the expression “relatedness”. There are two main basic methods to this matter, you to definitely given by historic semantics, one other by the synchronic semantics.
Historic semantics interprets the idea “relatedness” generally genetically which speaks away from polysemy in the event the an excellent lexeme having different significance holds a similar etymological roots (Kastovsky 1982, 121). Instances was “game” to your two meanings “wildlife” and “playful pastime” otherwise “funny” definition either “strange” otherwise “amusing”. Both advice inform you lexemes whose various other significance have a similar etymological roots and are usually thus translated because the polysemy by historical semantics.
Deja una respuesta
Lo siento, debes estar conectado para publicar un comentario.