DOCSLIB.ORG

Conventions Used

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Conventions Used Conventions used Quoted material is italicized and boldface ( Hungarian in italics; English in bold; other languages bold ) amid normal text, even if the original has some other highlighting. Consecutive stretches of quoted language may not be set off typographically. Italics is also used for emphasis. Senses are enclosed between single quotes. The same concerns quoted material where senses are originally not between single quotes. Where Hungarian material is between single quotes, an English translation is provided: the H. napirend is used in the sense ‘napirendi pont’ (= ‘item on the agenda’). The → sign indicates one-way directionality, between languages or dictionaries. The ↔ sign indicates two-way directionality, between languages or dictionaries, or a two-way reference work: English ↔Hungarian dictionary . E→H, e.g., abbreviates English →Hungarian; E →H stands for English →Hungarian. H↔E e.g., abbreviates Hungarian ↔English; H ↔E stands for H →E & E →H. Hungarian affixed forms with different shapes due to vowel harmony are referred to like this: -bAn, bÓl, nAk etc. – the capital vowel letter stands for both (or all three) allomorphs. In whatever format senses may be numbered in a dictionary, in this paper they are given as 1. … 2. … 3. ... etc. (number with full stop). A adjective AP Adjective Phrase Adv adverb AdvP Adverb Phrase C Complementizer E English H Hungarian N noun NP Noun Phrase O, Obj Object P Preposition PoS part of speech / word class / syntactic category PP Prepositional Phrase S, Subj Subject V verb VP Verb Phrase Material quoted from reference works (unless it is the exact original formatting that is relevant) is 10 pt Sans Serif, with the original type (boldface, italics) preserved. The same font is used for quoting non-existent but recommended entries. Irrelevant parts of quoted entries are signalled like this: […]. es·pres·so n., pl. -sos. 1. a strong coffee […] In material from reference works, any of the following may have been ignored when not relevant: (a) grammatical information; (b) the original centred dots for word division; (c) pronunciation information. Entries have usually been condensed into one paragraph, i.e. senses do not begin on a new line: espresso 1. a strong coffee prepared by forcing live steam under pressure, or boil- ing water, through ground dark-roast coffee beans. 2. a cup of this coffee. For a gender-neutral generic third person English pronoun, all the possible versions are used: s/he , (s)he, etc., sometimes they , as appropriate. 2 Contents CHAPTER ONE: DICTIONARIES FROM LINGUISTS’ AND USERS’ PERSPECTIVES________ 9 1.1 Background and aims ___________________________________________________________ 9 1.2 Coverage ______________________________________________________________________ 9 1.2.1 Interfaces: compromise vs. principle ___________________________________________________ 10 1.2.2 The structure of this study ___________________________________________________________ 11 1.3 Lexicology vs. lexicography______________________________________________________ 12 1.4 Words and their status in linguistics ______________________________________________ 13 1.4.1 The lexicon promoted, words demoted? ________________________________________________ 13 1.4.2 The lexicon seen as gaining prestige ___________________________________________________ 14 1.4.3 Separation of lexical and grammatical__________________________________________________ 14 1.4.4 Core vs. periphery _________________________________________________________________ 15 1.5 Lexicon, vocabulary, dictionary __________________________________________________ 15 1.6 The user–dictionary interface ____________________________________________________ 16 1.6.1 User research (based mainly on Atkins & Rundell 2008)____________________________________ 16 1.6.2 Problems with user profiling _________________________________________________________ 22 1.6.3 Word lists: non-homographic, homographic, partially homographic __________________________ 22 1.6.4 “Encyclopaedic” headwords _________________________________________________________ 25 1.6.5 Proper names of various types ________________________________________________________ 25 1.6.6 Productivity and user profiling _______________________________________________________ 29 CHAPTER TWO: WHAT GOES INTO THE DICTIONARY ______________________________ 31 2.1 Hedgehog vs. fox_______________________________________________________________ 31 2.1.1 Langue linguistics vs. parole linguistics ________________________________________________ 31 2.2 Dichotomies and continua _______________________________________________________ 32 2.2.1 Rationalism vs. empiricism __________________________________________________________ 33 2.2.2 E-language vs. I-language ___________________________________________________________ 35 2.2.3 Spoken vs. written language _________________________________________________________ 38 2.3 Theory into practice ____________________________________________________________ 42 2.3.1 Rigour vs. user-friendliness __________________________________________________________ 43 2.4 Linguists’ views of lexicography, lexicographers’ views of linguistics ___________________ 45 2.4.1 Principles of lexicography ___________________________________________________________ 46 2.4.2 Linguistics and lexicography_________________________________________________________ 47 2.4.3 Trade-off between anecdotalism and rigour______________________________________________ 60 2.4.4 Trade-off between coverage and accessibility ____________________________________________ 61 2.4.5 Linguistics vs. lexicography: linguists’ voices ___________________________________________ 63 2.4.6 The task of lexicography ____________________________________________________________ 75 2.4.7 Pre-Saussurean and Saussurean dictionaries _____________________________________________ 82 2.5 Lexicon into dictionary __________________________________________________________ 85 2.5.1 Checklist for dictionary design: Hudson’s “types of lexical fact” _____________________________ 85 2.6 Lexicon into dictionary: listing in the lexicon vs. the dictionary ________________________ 89 2.6.1 Listedness and listemes _____________________________________________________________ 89 2.6.2 Listedness in the lexicon: the traditional rank scale________________________________________ 94 2.6.3 Below the level of words ____________________________________________________________ 95 2.6.4 Fine tuning the word level __________________________________________________________ 101 2.6.5 “Lexical” items of doubtful status ____________________________________________________ 106 2.7 Above the level of words _______________________________________________________ 125 2.7.1 Compounds for the linguist and the user________________________________________________ 125 2.7.2 Synthetic compounds______________________________________________________________ 125 2.7.3 Lexicon vs. lexis _________________________________________________________________ 126 2.7.4 Types of lexical items in Atkins & Rundell (2008) _______________________________________ 126 2.8 Lexical unit __________________________________________________________________ 128 2.8.1 “Phrasicon” and phraseology________________________________________________________ 129 2.8.2 Idiomaticity due to singularity of occurrence in some medium______________________________ 134 2.9 A catalogue of multiword expressions (MWEs)_____________________________________ 135 2.9.1 Cruse (2000) on compositionality ____________________________________________________ 136 2.9.2 Multiword expressions in Biber & al. (2000) ___________________________________________ 142 2.9.3 Multiwords in McCarthy (2006) _____________________________________________________ 143 2.9.4 Multiword expressions in Hanks (2006) _______________________________________________ 144 2.9.5 Idiom dictionaries in Dobrovol’skij (2006) _____________________________________________ 145 2.9.6 Idioms in Ayto (2006) _____________________________________________________________ 146 2.9.7 Corpus approaches to idiom: Moon (2006) _____________________________________________ 151 2.9.8 Formulaic language in Wray (2002) __________________________________________________ 152 2.9.9 Formulaic speech in Kuiper (2006) ___________________________________________________ 155 2.9.10 Multiword expressions in Fazly & Stevenson (2007) _____________________________________ 156 2.9.11 “Constructions” in Goldberg & Casenhiser (2007) _______________________________________ 158 2.9.12 Multiword units in Abu-Ssaydeh (2005) _______________________________________________ 159 2.9.13 Multiword expressions in Sag & al. (2002) _____________________________________________ 161 2.9.14 Semantic/syntactic compositionality, statistical idiosyncrasy _______________________________ 163 2.9.15 Bundles in Biber & al. (2000) _______________________________________________________ 165 2.9.16 Idioms in Nunberg & al. (1994)______________________________________________________ 167 2.10 Implications for lexicography ________________________________________________ 170 CHAPTER THREE: GRAMMAR AND LEXICON ____________________________________ 173 3.1 Grammar in the dictionary _____________________________________________________ 173 3.1.1 Grammar in definitions ____________________________________________________________ 173 3.1.2 Number and countability ___________________________________________________________ 174 3.1.3 One’s vs. smb’s : coreferentiality in MWE “slots” _______________________________________
Load more

Recommended publications
  • “Joking, Kidding, Teasing”: Slippery Categories for Cross-Cultural
    Intercultural Pragmatics 2018; 15(4): 487–514 Cliff Goddard* “Joking, kidding, teasing”: Slippery categories for cross-cultural comparison but key words for understanding Anglo conversational humor https://doi.org/10.1515/ip-2018-0017 Abstract: Terms like to joke (and joking)andto tease (and teasing)havea curious double life in contrastive and interactional pragmatics and related fields. Occasionally they are studied as metapragmatic terms of ordinary English, along with related expressions such as kidding. More commonly they are used as scientific or technical categories, both for research into English and for cross-linguistic and cross-cultural comparison. Related English adjectives, such as jocular and mock, are also much-used in a growing lexicon of compound terms, such as jocular abuse, mock abuse, jocular mock- ery,andthelike. Against this background, the present paper has three main aims. In the first part, it is argued that the meanings of the verbs to joke and to tease (and related nouns) are much more English-specific than is commonly recognized. They are not precisely cross-translatable even into European languages such as French and German. Adopting such termsasbaselinecategoriesforcross- cultural comparison therefore risks introducing an Anglocentric bias into our theoretical vocabulary. Nor can the problem be easily solved, it is argued, by attributing technical meanings to the terms. Detailed analysis of the everyday meanings of words like joking and teasing, on the other hand, can yield insights into the ethnopragmatics of Anglo con- versational humor. This task is undertaken in the second part of the paper. The important English verb to kid and the common conversational formulas just kidding and only joking are also examined.
    [Show full text]
  • Language and Definitions
    This asset is intentionally omitted from this text. It may be accessed at Language and Definitions www.mcescher.com. (Waterfall by 1 Language Functions M.C. Escher) 2 Emotive Language, Neutral Language, and Disputes 3 Disputes and Ambiguity 4 Definitions and Their Uses 5 The Structure of Definitions: Extension and Intension 6 Definition by Genus and Difference 1 Language Functions When people reason, they typically do so using language, manipulating proposi- tions in a logical or informative spirit. But language is used in a great variety of ways, only some of which are informative. Without the intention to inform, we may express ourselves using language: “That’s really great!” we may say; and the poet, overcome by the beauty of an ancient city, channels his emotions in writing these lines: Match me such marvel, save in Eastern clime— A rose-red city—“half as old as time.”1 Of course, some expressive discourse also has informative content, and may express attitudes as well as beliefs. Grow old along with me! The best is yet to be, The last of life for which the first was made.2 Moreover, some discourse is directive, with or without expressive or informa- tive elements. It seeks to guide or to command. “Step on the scale, please,” we may be told, or we may receive this good advice: Drive defensively. The cemetery is full of law-abiding citizens who had the right of way. A mixture of functions is a natural feature of almost all our uses of language. We can see this in our own speech and writing.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 5. Formal Semantics and the Lexicon. Meaning Postulates And
    Topics in Formal Semantics, Lecture 5 Topics in Formal Semantics, Lecture 5 B.H. Partee, MGU, March 22, 2005 B.H. Partee, MGU, March 22, 2005 Lecture 5. Formal semantics and the lexicon. Ideally, this abstraction should mirror a “real” abstraction which our “language faculty” Meaning postulates and the lexicon. Adjective meanings. imposes on the real world, “natural language metaphysics” or “naïve picture of the world” (naivnaja kartina mira in the terminology of Moscow semantic school). We will discuss this later when considering the integration of formal and lexical semantics. 1. The Lexicon in Model-theoretic Semantics. .................................................................................................1 1.1. Languages, world, models. Axioms.............................................................................................................1 In Montague’s formal semantics the simple predicates of the language of intensional 1.2. Axioms and theories. ..................................................................................................................................2 logic (IL), like love, like, kiss, see, etc., are regarded as symbols (similar to the “labels” of 2. Integrating formal semantics, lexical semantics, natural language metaphysics ...............................................4 PC) which could have many possible interpretations in many different models, their “real 2.1. Formal semantics in the broader setting of natural language use. ...............................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • Characterizing the Definitions of Anatomical Concepts in Wordnet and Specialized Sources
    Characterizing the definitions of anatomical concepts in WordNet and specialized sources Olivier BODENREIDER Anita BURGUN National Library of Medicine Laboratoire d’Informatique Médicale 8600 Rockville Pike Avenue du Pr Léon Bernard Bethesda, MD, 20894 35043 Rennes Cedex, France [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Objectives : The objective of this study is to characterize the definitions of anatomical concepts in a general terminological system (WordNet) and a domain-specific one (a medical dictionary). Methods : Definitions were first classified into five groups with respect to the nature of the definition. The principal noun phrase (or head) of the definiens was then compared to the definiendum through a reference hierarchy of anatomical concepts. Results : This study confirms the predominance of genus-differentia definitions for anatomical terms. Hierarchical relationships are, as expected, the principal type of relationships found between the definiendum and the head of the definiens. Discussion : Differences in the characteristics of the definitions between WordNet and medical dictionaries are presented and discussed. Introduction We are interested in characterizing the definitions of medical terms in various sources in order to get a better understanding of their structure. Our ultimate goal, though, is to obtain a representation of the definitions in a formalism such as conceptual graphs in order to compare definitions from various sources. This study is part of a larger project aimed at comparing definitions of medical terms in specialized sources such as medical dictionaries with those in general resources such as WordNet . In other words, our goal is to compare definitions of medical terms for health professionals and for users of consumer health applications.
    [Show full text]
  • Ⱥ¼ì²´²Üàôâúàôü
    Ⱥ¼ì²´²ÜàôÂÚàôÜ Tatev GYURJYAN Yerevan State University [email protected] LEXICAL DEFINITION: ITS SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE Understanding the notion of definition is a central issue in such scientific disciplines as Philosophy, Semantics, and Lexicography. The paper considers different types of definitions focusing on lexical definition, which is the main component of a dictionary entry. An attempt is made to designate lexical definition and stipulative definition as subcategories of word-thing definition. Key words: nominal definition, word-thing definition, lexical definition, stipulative definition, truth value Definition is the main component of a dictionary entry. It can be long or short, accompanied by an example or an image. What kind of definition is presented in dictionaries? Many lexicographers would claim it is lexical definition. To have a comprehensive idea of lexical definition it is necessary to designate its place in the hierarchy of different types of definition. In its wider sense definition is not confined to a single field of science, but rather represents the product of the cognitive ability of an individual to define things, concepts, and words. The ancient tradition of defining definition mostly revolves around the following two main types – real and nominal. The former as proposed by Plato and Aristotle is the only true and universal definition of things, which is not conditioned by the word usage; the latter is the description of the word meaning, i.e. the definition of words /see Gyurjyan, 2016/. This differentiation is also adopted by Richard Robinson. In his book Definition he first of all draws a distinction between the purpose of definition (what it is trying to do) and the method of definition (how it is achieved).
    [Show full text]
  • Morphology, Material for Incorporation in Curricula
    REPOR TRESUMES ED 019 258 24 TE 000 261 MORPHOLOGY, MATERIAL FORINCORPORATION IN CURRICULAOF GRADES 11 AND 12. NORTHERN ILLINOIS UNIV.,DE KALB 'REPORT NUMBER CRP-H-144-2 PUB DATE AUG 66 REPORT NUMBER BR -5- 1112-2 CONTRACT OEC-4-10-252 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.50 HC-$4.66 115P. DESCRIPTORS- *LANGUAGE INSTRUCTIONS*MORPHOLOGY (LANGUAGES), *CURRICULUM GUIDES, *ENGLISHINSTRUCTION, *FORM CLASSES (LANGUAGES), APPLIED LINGUISTICS,LANGUAGE GUIDES, GRAMMAR, PHONOLOGY, SYNTAX, GRACE119 .GRADE 12, SECONDARYEDUCATION, LANGUAGE, NORTHERN ILLINOISUNIVERSITY, DEKALB, PROJECT ENGLISH, THIS 'NORTHERN ILLINOISUNIVERSITY PROJECT ENGLISHUNIT IS PLANNED TO COMPLEMENT THEGRAMMAR WHICH 11TH- AND 12TH-GRADE STUDENTS ALREADYKNOW, AND TO ENRICH THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF THE ENGLISHLANGUAGE. THOUGH NOT PRIMARILY AN INTRODUCTION TO THE PARTSOF SPEECH, THE UNIT'ROVIDES SECTIONS ON NOUNS, VERBS ANDAUXILIARIES, ADJECTIVES, ADVERBS, CONJUNCTIONS, SUBORDINATORS,SENTENCE CONNECTORS, PRONOUNS, AND QUALIFIERS. THE UNITALSO CONTAINS (1) A DIAGNOSTIC TEST ON THE PARTSOF SPEECH,(2) A LESSON PLAN TO INTRODUCE MORPHEMICS,. (3) ANINTRODUCTION TO VOCABULARY STUDY, (4) A SECTION ON DERIVATIONALSUFFIXES,(5) A LESSON USING THE PARTS OF SPEECH INTEACHING THE ESSAY OF DEFINITION,(6) AN INTRODUCTION TO A12TH-GRADE UNIT ON THE PARTS OF SPEECH AND FORMALDEFINITION, AND (7)A TEST ON PHONOLOGY, MORPHOLOGY, AND SYNTAX.PARTS OR ALL OF THIS UNIT CAN BE USED (1) PRECEDING OR FOLLOWING A UNIT ON SYNTAX, (2) FOLLOWING A UNIT ON PHONOLOGY, (3) IN AN HONORS SENIOR ENGLISH CLASS, OR (4) TO ENRICHA PROGRAM FOR SUPERIOR STUDENTS. (MM) It.,1 110 e 'PO 13B MORPHOLOGY Material for incorporation in curricula of grades 11 and12 Caution:Those materials are being used experimentally by Project English participants, who are continuing to develop them.
    [Show full text]
  • Study Material Lecture 16.Pdf
    Semantics and Pragmatics Lecture No.16 Study Material Practical Dictionary Dictionary may be seen as a reference book which is the inbuilt dictionary that everyone of us carries around as part of his mental equipment as a speaker of a language. ‘Semantic Competence’ is how a native speaker knows about lexical items to understand the meaning. Leech (1981) has used different terminologies for dictionaries such as: ‘Theoretical dictionaries, ‘flesh-and-blood dictionaries or practical dictionaries’, such as the Concise Oxford Dictionary, compiled by lexicographers – we all consult regularly. Why should we use dictionary while we are using proper lexical items? Because human language is getting vast day by day and the dictionary as a refence book adapts to the various linguistic needs which society expects it to satisfy (Leech, 1981). We have learnt to go to ‘the dictionary’ for all manners of information on words, for example; their history and origin, etc. An approach: that the meaning of a linguistic expression is precisely that knowledge which enables one to use it appropriately in linguistic communication, whether in everyday or specialist contexts. According to Leech (1981), there are two practical conditions of dictionary-writing. The first: lexicographers try to make dictionaries comprehensive even to the extent of defining easy words. The second: the more important, because it arises from a basic unavoidable difference between ‘practical and theoretical’ dictionaries: It is that a practical dictionary - definition must consist of words. It has been argued that the lexical definition, as part of the native speaker’s linguistic equipment, can be precisely represented only by a special formal language.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Thinking
    Critical Thinking Mark Storey Bellevue College Copyright (c) 2013 Mark Storey Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.3 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts. A copy of the license is found at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.txt. 1 Contents Part 1 Chapter 1: Thinking Critically about the Logic of Arguments .. 3 Chapter 2: Deduction and Induction ………… ………………. 10 Chapter 3: Evaluating Deductive Arguments ……………...…. 16 Chapter 4: Evaluating Inductive Arguments …………..……… 24 Chapter 5: Deductive Soundness and Inductive Cogency ….…. 29 Chapter 6: The Counterexample Method ……………………... 33 Part 2 Chapter 7: Fallacies ………………….………….……………. 43 Chapter 8: Arguments from Analogy ………………………… 75 Part 3 Chapter 9: Categorical Patterns….…….………….…………… 86 Chapter 10: Propositional Patterns……..….…………...……… 116 Part 4 Chapter 11: Causal Arguments....……..………….………....…. 143 Chapter 12: Hypotheses.….………………………………….… 159 Chapter 13: Definitions and Analyses...…………………...…... 179 Chapter 14: Probability………………………………….………199 2 Chapter 1: Thinking Critically about the Logic of Arguments Logic and critical thinking together make up the systematic study of reasoning, and reasoning is what we do when we draw a conclusion on the basis of other claims. In other words, reasoning is used when you infer one claim on the basis of another. For example, if you see a great deal of snow falling from the sky outside your bedroom window one morning, you can reasonably conclude that it’s probably cold outside. Or, if you see a man smiling broadly, you can reasonably conclude that he is at least somewhat happy.
    [Show full text]
  • Satire and Definition1
    DOI 10.1515/humor-2012-0019 Humor 2012; 25(4): 375 – 399 Conal Condren Satire and definition1 Abstract: This paper explores some of the difficulties involved in defining satire. Neither the formal characteristics of satire nor its informing purposes, in- cluding its variable associations with humour and the provocation of amusement allow for a unifying definition over the long term. It considers a range of ap- proaches to and types of definition and takes as a principle example the notion of Menippean satire. It argues that a characterisation in terms of family resemblance is more helpful for a strictly historical understanding than formal definitions and that it is misleading to take satire as a genre, let along a literary one. Throughout it also suggests that the case of satire tells us something about definition and the often naïve expectations of what definitions can establish. Keywords: definition, dictionaries, genre, history, humor, Menippean, morality, parody, satire Conal Condren: Centre for the History of European Discourses: University of Queensland, Australia 4072. E-mail: [email protected] Plato’s early dialogue Euthyphro begins with Socrates going to the law courts to be tried for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens. On his way he meets the young Euthyphro, also bound for court to accuse his father of killing a slave, who was thought to have committed murder. One travels to accuse, the other to be accused: both are in search of justice. Euthyphro is confident he knows what it is, for he can provide examples; but how, asks Socrates, can he be sure unless he already has in mind a paradeigma, a pattern of virtue? This is what Socrates de- mands, an abstract idea by which any matter can be defined and judged (Plato 1969 [c.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 3-Disputes and Definitions
    Logic: A Brief Introduction Ronald L. Hall, Stetson University Chapter 3-Disputes and Definitions 3.1 Introduction At this point, we must deal with one more consequence that the recognition of the pragmatic dimension of language has for the study of logic. When human beings construct arguments, they do so to establish that some conclusion follows from a set of premises. What is the context in which such an argument would normally be constructed? Often, arguments are constructed because there is dispute about the truth of some particular sentence. No sentence is worthy of belief unless we take it to be true. That is, to believe that P (some sentence) is just to believe that P is true. Remember that establishing that some sentence follows from a set of premises does not establish that the sentence is true, unless of course, all of the premises are true. That is, the way to settle disputes about whether a particular sentence is true or not is to establish that sentence as the conclusion of a sound argument. And as we have mentioned, constructing a sound argument is not always easy to do. We can, however, always make a first step in the resolution of disputes about the truth or falsity of a sentence by showing that a particular conclusion validly follows from a set of premises that are more or less uncontroversial. While we might well settle a disagreement about the truth of a particular sentence by constructing an argument with this sentence as its conclusion, not all disputes hinge on whether some particular sentence is true or false.
    [Show full text]
  • Definitions (PDF)
    Prof. C. Byrne Phil 251 Definitions Definitions are a useful way of clearing up the many instances of vagueness and ambiguity in natural language (that is, the ordinary use of language by speakers in a linguistic community). Vagueness and Ambiguity: Vagueness: no clear meaning to a word or expression, e.g., words such as: bald, large, quick, wealthy, cold, capitalism, euthanasia. Ambiguity: unclear which of several meanings is to be understood. Words that have more than one meaning are said to be ambiguous, multi-vocal or homonyms; e.g., ‘chair’ (piece of furniture vs. person holding a certain position of authority); ‘free’ (legal, political, or social standing vs. having no monetary cost; ‘bat’ (flying animal vs. stick used to hit thrown objects). This kind of ambiguity is sometimes called semantic ambiguity because it is unclear which of the several meanings of a word is being used. Another kind of ambiguity is syntactic ambiguity (amphibole), where the grammatical construction makes the meaning of the sentence ambiguous, e.g., “Last night I shot a burglar in my pajamas. What he was doing in my pajamas I don’t really know.” Sign over entrance to a restaurant: “Serving good food since 1990.” Ambiguity can lead people to argue at cross-purposes, that is, to engage in a merely verbal dispute. Equivocation: fallacy in reasoning involving ambiguity in the words used in an argument, e.g., we cannot be running out of energy because energy is indestructible. Definitions: Definiendum: the word to be defined; definiens: the definition, that is, the words doing the defining.
    [Show full text]
  • UNIVERZITA PALACKÉHO V OLOMOUCI Pedagogická Fakulta Ústav Cizích Jazyků
    UNIVERZITA PALACKÉHO V OLOMOUCI Pedagogická fakulta Ústav cizích jazyků Bc. JAN GREGAR II. ročník, prezeční navazující magisterské stadium Obor: Učitelství anglického jazyka pro 2. stupeň základních škol – Učitelství technické a informační výchovy pro SŠ a 2. st. ZŠ HUMOR IN THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING Magisterská diplomová práce Vedoucí závěrečné písemné práce: Mgr. Josef Nevařil, Ph.D. OLOMOUC 2016 Prohlašuji, že jsem závěrečnou práci vypracoval samostatně a použil jsem jen uvedených pramenů a literatury. V Olomouci ……………….. ……………….……….…………………. vlastnoruční podpis I would like to thank Mgr. Josef Nevařil, Ph.D. for his support, comments and guidance of my diploma thesis. I would also like to thank teachers and classes observed in the practical part of the present thesis. Lastly, I thank my family, friends and colleagues that supported me all the years in Olomouc and encouraged me not to give up, not only my studies. Abstract This thesis strives to describe the role of humor in the ELT at Czech schools. It presents terms humor and ELT and puts them into a relationship in order to proof that humor influences the education (or ELT) and it is even possible to use humor (or its means) to teach language. The research presents three perspectives of humor in ELT – teachers’ perspective, learners’ perspective and the direct observation of English lessons. It is presented that a vast majority of teachers and even the vast majority of learners are convinced that humor may be used to teach language while this example of humor employment was not directly observed in any of 13 observed lessons. However, this does not mean that humor is absent in English lessons, nevertheless, it is not used to teach, but merely to comment or to entertain students.
    [Show full text]