DOCSLIB.ORG

English Homonym and Polysemy Words Through Semantic Approach: Novels Woy & the Dancer

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
English Homonym and Polysemy Words Through Semantic Approach: Novels Woy & the Dancer Vol. 13 No. 1, Januari-April 2021 hlm. 21-35 p-ISSN: 2085-2274, e-ISSN 2502-227X DOI: 10.30998/deiksis.v13i1.6608 ENGLISH HOMONYM AND POLYSEMY WORDS THROUGH SEMANTIC APPROACH: NOVELS WOY & THE DANCER Ayu Bandu Retnomurti Program Studi Pendidikan Bahasa Inggris, Fakultas Bahasa dan Seni, Universitas Indraprasta PGRI [email protected] Abstrak Setiap kata atau kalimat yang kita ucapkan sehari-hari harus memiliki makna tertentu yang dapat dipahami pendengar kita dengan baik. Ketika kita berbicara atau menulis sesuatu dengan kata- kata yang terkandung di dalamnya, makna dianggap memiliki peranan penting. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mempelajari beberapa kata yang diidentifikasi mirip dengan pengucapan dan pengejaan tetapi maknanya mungkin berbeda atau serupa. Penelitian ini menggunakan jenis metode kualitatif deskriptif dilihat dari tujuan penelitian kualitatif itu sendiri berdasarkan mode pengamatan yang digunakan. Hasil dari penelitian ini adalah peneliti menemukan bahwa ada sepuluh kata homonim dan lima kata polisemi yang ditemukan dalam novel "Waiting on You and the Dancer". Kata Kunci: Homonim, Polisemi, Pendekatan Semantik, Novel Abstract Every single word or sentence we utter every day should carry particular meaning that our listener can digest well. When we speak or write something with words contained in it, the meaning is considered as being contributed to it. This research aims to study some words which are identified similar by pronunciation and spelling, but the meaning may be either different or similar. This research was undertaken by the researcher used type of descriptive qualitative method seen from the objective of research and qualitative research seen from the inquiry mode used. The results of the research are the researcher found that there are ten homonym words and five polysemy words found in novels Waiting on You and the Dancer. Keywords: Homonym, Polysemy, Semantic Approach, Novel INTRODUCTION Language is one of the crucial tools of people, in general, to speak to each other. Without language, people will never ready to communicate with each other. People need language to speak, to interact, and to urge information from others. Language is employed widely for communication between people that don't share an equivalent first (or even second) language. It implies that language is often a primary necessity in human life. It has an enormous role for each people in making good relationships with others. Language is a means of communication. Through language, people can express their ideas, thought, and feelings. Therefore, language is a human and non-intensive method of communicating ideas, feelings, and desires through a system of sounds and sound 21 DEIKSIS | Vol. 13 No.1 | Januari-April 2020: 21-35 symbols. The language may represent the express and implicit feelings and thoughts. It may be described as a vehicle of thought because through language people can share or deliver what put in mind. In learning and understanding language, people do not only understand the form of language, but also the meaning in it (Talmy, 2011). People require a means to convey a message to each other. The general and widely used means people use to convey a message is by language. The language also has features as a system. It structures in sequence and systematically. The language also has features as sound. Every word we utter contains the smallest unit which is later called as phoneme (Phonetic field) or morpheme (Morphology field). Because language is also dynamic, every change we can experience from the recurring change of language is natural. When we speak or write something with words contained in it, the meaning is considered as being contributed to it. However, the meaning is also considered as an arbitrary one. The reason is there is no relation between concept and thing that it refers to. In brief, we cannot explain how the thing we refer to (e.g. Drinkable liquid) can be called a particular name (e.g. water) (Peterson, 2018). Meaning is learned in Semantics. Semantics is a study of meaning. This research aims to study some words which are identified similar by pronunciation and spelling, but the meaning may be either different or similar. Therefore, such a study is categorized in lexical semantics. There are some thoughts regarding sense. Peterson's (2018, 88) thoughts view sense by seen from the difference between sense and reference. There are some common categories for sense relations that embody: synonym, antonym, homonym, and polysemy. The most well- known linguist is Ferdinand De Saussure which currently we know terms "significant" and "signifies". Because sense varies, and it relates to each other creating sense relation. Sense relation occurs as the result of semantics relation among a unit of languages with another one. There are some common categories for sense relations that embody: synonym, antonym, homonym, and polysemy. The researcher, however, will only determine the meaning of words (lexemes) themselves without the intervention of external context relation (external context relation is discussed in pragmatics). When we learn about semantics, we surely learn about meaning and sense. Some opinions attempted to define meaning. According to Umagandhi and Vinothini (2017, 76), the meaning is defined as "what is referred to or indicated by e.g. sound, words or signals". Meanwhile, he recognized meaning linked to sign. A sign is slightly different from the symbol. The sign refers to something which can be referred or signified to represent notion, ideas, feeling directly and naturally. A symbol is something that conventionally used to mark something indirectly and unnaturally. Ferdinand also implied that every linguistics sign consists of two components where we currently recognize as significant (that define) and signified (that is defined). Significant embodies sequence of sound which explains something it refers to (signified). Assume an animate thing possesses two legs used to walk or run and it has two hands with a face on top of the body. Surely, we can acknowledge this concept (signified) is the concept or definition of /h/, /j/, /u: /, /m/, /a/, /n/ (significant). In another word, there are some expressions which are adherence to sign. The concept of referring expression and referent also contributes to the meaning formation. A referring expression is defined as something to which the linguistics units are linked to the non-linguistics unit. While referent is something to which referring expression is referred to. Concept Significant and Signified cannot be treated the same as the concept of referring and referent. Because significant and signified belongs to the concept of sign. At the same time, Riemer (2010, 86) cites the relation between symbol and concept as an association. The relation between referent and thought can be called as 22 English Homonym and Polysemy Words Through Semantic Approach: Novels Woy & The Dancer (Ayu Bandu Retnomurti) a reference, meanwhile, the relation between symbol and referent is meaning. Talking about meaning, it cannot be separated from the term "sense". Mansyur and Said (2020, 261) also proposed another view that was stated as if meaning were equated with reference, then two different expressions with the same reference could be substituted for one another in a sentence without changing its meaning. They also gave an example regarded as their statement about "evening star" and "morning star". Two statements indicate for the same reference, that is, Venus planet. Therefore, it is best to state that two statements are equally suited to the equality concept. Talking about meaning and sense, some linguistic signs are inseparable. It is also particularly important to distinguish between lexical, grammatical, and contextual meaning. There is indeed a relationship between a unit of language and another unit of language. This unit of language can be constituted into words, phrases, even sentences. This relationship is called a sense relation. This relation embraces the "sameness of meaning" (Hurford and Heasley, 2014). The opposition of meaning (antonym), the anomaly, the inclusion of sense (hyponym), Homonym and Polysemy, and redundancy. A synonym is supposed by "sameness of meaning". Almost entire of languages have synonymous words. An antonym refers to a linguistic relation between two opposite meanings. The inclusion of sense is encompassed into Hyponym; take an example of burung we can classify burung into several kinds like merpati, tekukur, perkutut, kepodang, etc (Riwu & Pujiati, 2018). A homonym is a word that has similar spelling and pronunciation but differs in meaning. While Polysemy is a word that has quite one meaning which is treated as bookkeeping in a dictionary. The last is Redundancy is kind of word which sounds redundant e.g. ‘Bola itu ditendang Tono’ Ball the kicked (passive form) by Tono. The ball is kicked by Tono. In Indonesian, it sounds redundant to use ‘oleh’ because we might not use such word and it becomes: “Bola itu ditendang Tono” (Machery et al., 2011). However, during this research, the researcher prefers to investigate sense relation handling homonym and polysemy. The researcher chooses only sense relation between homonym and polysemy because the researcher feels that words don't just one meaning attached to different or perhaps the same sentences (connotative meaning, not denotative meaning like metonym). That's why the objective of this research is to describe English homonym and polysemy are found in 'Waiting on you and also the Dancer Novels'. A homonym is troublesome because it should ask three distinct classes of words. Homonyms are also words with identical pronunciations but different spellings and meanings, like to, too, and two. Or they will be words with both identical pronunciations and identical spellings but different meanings, like quail (the bird) and quail (to cringe). Finally, they will be words that are spelled alike but are different in pronunciation and meaning, like the bow of a ship and bow that shoots arrows. Examples of homonym during a Sentence for the noun "bear" and also the verb "bear" are homonyms.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Assignment of Grammatical Gender in German: Testing Optimal Gender Assignment Theory
    The Assignment of Grammatical Gender in German: Testing Optimal Gender Assignment Theory Emma Charlotte Corteen Trinity Hall September 2018 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy The Assignment of Grammatical Gender in German: Testing Optimal Gender Assignment Theory Emma Charlotte Corteen Abstract The assignment of grammatical gender in German is a notoriously problematic phenomenon due to the apparent opacity of the gender assignment system (e.g. Comrie 1999: 461). Various models of German gender assignment have been proposed (e.g. Spitz 1965, Köpcke 1982, Corbett 1991, Wegener 1995), but none of these is able to account for all of the German data. This thesis investigates a relatively under-explored, recent approach to German gender assignment in the form of Optimal Gender Assignment Theory (OGAT), proposed by Rice (2006). Using the framework of Optimality Theory, OGAT claims that the form and meaning of a noun are of equal importance with respect to its gender. This is formally represented by the crucial equal ranking of all gender assignment constraints in a block of GENDER FEATURES, which is in turn ranked above a default markedness hierarchy *NEUTER » *FEMININE » *MASCULINE, which is based on category size. A key weakness of OGAT is that it does not specify what constitutes a valid GENDER FEATURES constraint. This means that, in theory, any constraint can be proposed ad hoc to ensure that an OGAT analysis yields the correct result. In order to prevent any constraints based on ‘postfactum rationalisations’ (Comrie 1999: 461) from being included in the investigation, the GENDER FEATURES constraints which have been proposed in the literature for German are assessed according to six criteria suggested by Enger (2009), which seek to determine whether there is independent evidence for a GENDER FEATURES constraint.
    [Show full text]
  • The Search for Old English Semantic Primes: the Case of HAPPEN
    The search for Old English semantic primes: the case of HAPPEN Raquel Mateo Mendaza, University of La Rioja Abstract This journal article aims at contributing to the research line of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage Research Programme by identifying the Old English exponent for the semantic prime HAPPEN. This study applies four different criteria, namely, the morphological, textual, semantic and syntactic one, in order to select the most suitable candidate for prime exponent. The analysis is based on both lexicographical and textual sources. Conclusions are reached on both the descriptive and the methodological side. Keywords: Natural Semantic Metalanguage; Semantic primes; Old English 1. Introduction This research takes the approach of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM) model, which is based on the assumption that there is a set of core meanings in every natural language in terms of which complex words can be described by means of simpler terms. If these words are identified in every language, this will give rise to a universal ‘natural semantic metalanguage’ by which every concept will be understood without cultural or ethnicity restrictions.1 In order to contribute to the development of the Natural Semantic Metalanguage Research Programme (NSMRP) as well as the study of Old English lexicology, this article aims at establishing the Old English exponent for the semantic prime HAPPEN. In this sense, this article follows the line of research represented by previous work by Martin Arista and Martin de la Rosa (2006), de la Cruz Cabanillas (2007), Guarddon Anelo (2009) and Mateo Mendaza (2013), who have searched Old English for the exponents of semantic primes.
    [Show full text]
  • Words and Alternative Basic Units for Linguistic Analysis
    Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis 1 Words and alternative basic units for linguistic analysis Jens Allwood SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg A. P. Hendrikse, Department of Linguistics, University of South Africa, Pretoria Elisabeth Ahlsén SCCIIL Interdisciplinary Center, University of Gothenburg Abstract The paper deals with words and possible alternative to words as basic units in linguistic theory, especially in interlinguistic comparison and corpus linguistics. A number of ways of defining the word are discussed and related to the analysis of linguistic corpora and to interlinguistic comparisons between corpora of spoken interaction. Problems associated with words as the basic units and alternatives to the traditional notion of word as a basis for corpus analysis and linguistic comparisons are presented and discussed. 1. What is a word? To some extent, there is an unclear view of what counts as a linguistic word, generally, and in different language types. This paper is an attempt to examine various construals of the concept “word”, in order to see how “words” might best be made use of as units of linguistic comparison. Using intuition, we might say that a word is a basic linguistic unit that is constituted by a combination of content (meaning) and expression, where the expression can be phonetic, orthographic or gestural (deaf sign language). On closer examination, however, it turns out that the notion “word” can be analyzed and specified in several different ways. Below we will consider the following three main ways of trying to analyze and define what a word is: (i) Analysis and definitions building on observation and supposed easy discovery (ii) Analysis and definitions building on manipulability (iii) Analysis and definitions building on abstraction 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Lectures on English Lexicology
    МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ГОУ ВПО «Татарский государственный гуманитарно-педагогический университет» LECTURES ON ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY Курс лекций по лексикологии английского языка Казань 2010 МИНИСТЕРСТВО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ И НАУКИ РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ ГОУ ВПО «Татарский государственный гуманитарно-педагогический университет» LECTURES ON ENGLISH LEXICOLOGY Курс лекций по лексикологии английского языка для студентов факультетов иностранных языков Казань 2010 ББК УДК Л Печатается по решению Методического совета факультета иностранных языков Татарского государственного гуманитарно-педагогического университета в качестве учебного пособия Л Lectures on English Lexicology. Курс лекций по лексикологии английского языка. Учебное пособие для студентов иностранных языков. – Казань: ТГГПУ, 2010 - 92 с. Составитель: к.филол.н., доцент Давлетбаева Д.Н. Научный редактор: д.филол.н., профессор Садыкова А.Г. Рецензенты: д.филол.н., профессор Арсентьева Е.Ф. (КГУ) к.филол.н., доцент Мухаметдинова Р.Г. (ТГГПУ) © Давлетбаева Д.Н. © Татарский государственный гуманитарно-педагогический университет INTRODUCTION The book is intended for English language students at Pedagogical Universities taking the course of English lexicology and fully meets the requirements of the programme in the subject. It may also be of interest to all readers, whose command of English is sufficient to enable them to read texts of average difficulty and who would like to gain some information about the vocabulary resources of Modern English (for example, about synonyms
    [Show full text]
  • Semantic Differences in Translation Exploring the Field of Inchoativity
    Semantic differences in translation Exploring the field of inchoativity Lore Vandevoorde language Translation and Multilingual Natural science press Language Processing 13 Translation and Multilingual Natural Language Processing Editors: Oliver Czulo (Universität Leipzig), Silvia Hansen-Schirra (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz), Reinhard Rapp (Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz) In this series: 1. Fantinuoli, Claudio & Federico Zanettin (eds.). New directions in corpus-based translation studies. 2. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Sambor Grucza (eds.). Eyetracking and Applied Linguistics. 3. Neumann, Stella, Oliver Čulo & Silvia Hansen-Schirra (eds.). Annotation, exploitation and evaluation of parallel corpora: TC3 I. 4. Czulo, Oliver & Silvia Hansen-Schirra (eds.). Crossroads between Contrastive Linguistics, Translation Studies and Machine Translation: TC3 II. 5. Rehm, Georg, Felix Sasaki, Daniel Stein & Andreas Witt (eds.). Language technologies for a multilingual Europe: TC3 III. 6. Menzel, Katrin, Ekaterina Lapshinova-Koltunski & Kerstin Anna Kunz (eds.). New perspectives on cohesion and coherence: Implications for translation. 7. Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Oliver Czulo & Sascha Hofmann (eds). Empirical modelling of translation and interpreting. 8. Svoboda, Tomáš, Łucja Biel & Krzysztof Łoboda (eds.). Quality aspects in institutional translation. 9. Fox, Wendy. Can integrated titles improve the viewing experience? Investigating the impact of subtitling on the reception and enjoyment of film using eye tracking and questionnaire data. 10. Moran, Steven & Michael Cysouw. The Unicode cookbook for linguists: Managing writing systems using orthography profiles. 11. Fantinuoli, Claudio (ed.). Interpreting and technology. 12. Nitzke, Jean. Problem solving activities in post-editing and translation from scratch: A multi-method study. 13. Vandevoorde, Lore. Semantic differences in translation. ISSN: 2364-8899 Semantic differences in translation Exploring the field of inchoativity Lore Vandevoorde language science press Vandevoorde, Lore.
    [Show full text]
  • The Analysis of Polysemy from the Perspective of Decategorization Lu
    Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, volume 319 5th International Conference on Humanities and Social Science Research (ICHSSR 2019) The Analysis of Polysemy from the Perspective of Decategorization Lu Hongyan Xiamen University Tan Kah Kee College, Zhangzhou, China [email protected] Key words: Prototype Category Theory, Polysemy, Decategorization Abstract: The cognitive semantics shows reasonable interpretation power as to the relations among the senses of each polysemous word by applying the prototype category theory, while it is far from enough as to the forming procedure of polysemy. Linguistic decategorization is a vital part of the linguistic categorization and shows that cognization is a gradually continual changing procedure, so it can help to analyze the dynamical forming mechanism and procedure of polysemy. This paper studies how decategorization functions in our cognization of the many senses of polysemous word. 1. Introduction According to Cognitive Linguistics, language is the representation of our conceptualization, so the language that we use and our concept are closely related. With the deepening of our cognition, there will be new things adding into our cognitive and conceptual system. In our linguistic system, many new concepts can be expressed by the already existing linguistic forms and constructs. The adding of new concepts into a concrete linguistic entity makes the entity multivocal, and the most common representative is polysemy. It arises from the fact that there are systematic relationships between different cognitive models and between elements of the same model. The same word is often used for elements standing in such cognitive relations to one another. Polysemy accounts for a large part of the whole vocabulary and it represents the economical principle of language.
    [Show full text]
  • Polysemy Page Ii Page Iii
    page i Polysemy page ii page iii Polysemy Theoretical and Computational Approaches Edited by Yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock page iv Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2 6dp Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota Buenos Aires Calcutta Cape Town Chennai Dar es Salaam Delhi Florence Hong Kong Istanbul Karachi Kuala Lumpur Madrid Melbourne Mexico City Mumbai Nairobi Paris SaÄo Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York editorial Matter + organization # yael Ravin and Claudia Leacock 2000 Individual chapters # the contributors The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 2000 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organisation. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquiror British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Data applied ISBN 0±19±823842±8 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset in Times by Kolam Information Services Pvt Ltd, Pondicherry, India Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by page v Preface The problem of polysemy, or of the multiplicity of word meanings, has preoccupied us since the beginning of our professional careers.
    [Show full text]
  • PDF Polysemy and Metaphor in the Verbs of Perception
    Manasia: Polysemy and Metaphor 55 Polysemy and Metaphor in the Verbs of Perception Mihaela Georgiana Manasia ABSTRACT: This paper addresses the idea that has been recently that perception verbs have a polysemous structure motivated by ourput forwardexperience by andseveral understanding studies in the of fieldthe world. of cognitive Metaphor linguistics is not only characteristic of poetic language, but on the contrary, it can be found everywhere in everyday language and the polysemous and constructional alternatives makes them a motivating semantic character of perception verbs reflected into a wide range of syntactic KEY WORDS: polysemy, metaphor, perception verbs, prototypical meaning,field to approach metaphorical in this meaning. respect. olysemy represents, within semantics, the term used to Pcharacterize the situation in which a word has two or more polysemy has been subject to controversies and continues to remain similar meanings. Despite this very simple definition, the concept of In 1980, the study of polysemy and metaphor expands a debatable field in the linguistic research. book Metaphors We Live By. relationwithin cognitive of meanings. linguistics It is perceivedespecially withas categorization Lakoff and Johnson’s namely related meanings are organised They intodefine categories polysemy based as a systematic on family resemblance. 55 56 HARVARD SQUARE SYMPOSIUM | THE FUTURE OF KNOWLEDGE to put forward that perception verbs have a polysemous structure, motivatedRecent by studies our experience in the field and of cognitive understanding semantics of thehave world. tried Metaphor represents one of the cognitive instruments structuring the way in which we think, perceive and act. this varietyThe authors of meanings of Metaphors and a part We of Live everyday By criticized language the that classical affects theory of metaphor as a comparison, describing similarities that already exist.
    [Show full text]
  • The Polysemy of the Words That Children Learn Over Time Arxiv
    The Polysemy of the Words that Children Learn over Time Bernardino Casas [email protected] 1 Neus Català [email protected] 2 Ramon Ferrer-i-Cancho [email protected] 1 Antoni Hernández-Fernández [email protected] 1,3 Jaume Baixeries [email protected] 1 1. Complexity & Quantitative Linguistics Lab, Departament de Ciències de la Computació, Laboratory for Relational Algorithmics, Complexity and Learning (LARCA), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia. 2. Complexity & Quantitative Linguistics Lab, Departament de Ciències de la Computació, Center for Language and Speech Technologies and Applications (TALP Research Center), Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia. 3. Institut de Ciències de l0Educació, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Catalonia. arXiv:1611.08807v2 [cs.CL] 26 Mar 2019 1 Abstract Here we study polysemy as a potential learning bias in vocabulary learning in children. Words of low polysemy could be preferred as they reduce the disambiguation effort for the listener. However, such preference could be a side-effect of another bias: the preference of chil- dren for nouns in combination with the lower polysemy of nouns with respect to other part-of-speech categories. Our results show that mean polysemy in children increases over time in two phases, i.e. a fast growth till the 31st month followed by a slower tendency towards adult speech. In contrast, this evolution is not found in adults interacting with children. This suggests that children have a preference for non-polysemous words in their early stages of vocabulary acquisition. Interestingly, the evolutionary pat- tern described above weakens when controlling for syntactic category (noun, verb, adjective or adverb) but it does not disappear completely, suggesting that it could result from a combination of a standalone bias for low polysemy and a preference for nouns.
    [Show full text]
  • Grammatical Polysemy and Grammaticalization in Cognitive and Generative Perspectives: Finding Common Ground in Inter- Generational Corpora of Ancient Languages1
    Stellenbosch Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 48, 2017, 239-253 doi: 10.5774/48-0-294 Grammatical polysemy and grammaticalization in cognitive and generative perspectives: Finding common ground in inter- generational corpora of ancient languages1 Christian Locatell Institute of Archaeology and the Department of Land of Israel Studies and Archaeology, Ariel University, Israel Department of Ancient Studies, Stellenbosch University, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Abstract Cognitive and generative approaches to linguistics have taken a different perspective on grammatical polysemy and grammaticalization. While the former see polysemy as a core characteristic of language and a necessary result of grammaticalization within idiolects, the latter see it as a less interesting phenomenon peripheral to linguistics proper. Grammaticalization is seen as a phenomenon of language acquisition which does not disturb the homogeneity of idiolects. These differing perspectives have generated much debate between the two approaches and are even in large part responsible for the different programmatic focuses of each. While the disagreement over grammatical polysemy between these two approaches to language is rooted in entrenched commitments on each side that are perhaps irreconcilable, at least some common ground does seem to be possible. Specifically, when it comes to inter- generational corpora, it seems that both cognitive and generative approaches to linguistics can agree that the universal phenomenon of grammaticalization would result in
    [Show full text]
  • Andras Final.Pdf
    Masaryk University Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies English Language and Literature Jozef Andraš Theoretical Approaches to Polysemy Bachelor’s Diploma Thesis Supervisor: Doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, Ph. D. 2018 1 I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the primary and secondary sources listed in the bibliography. …………………………………………… Author’s signature I would like to thank my supervisor, doc. PhDr. Naděžda Kudrnáčová, CSc. for her kind supervision, patient guidance and support. I would also like to thank my family for their support during the years of my studies. Table of Contents Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 5 1. Meaning .................................................................................................................. 6 2. Lexical Ambiguity.................................................................................................. 7 3. Polysemy in contrast to homonymy ....................................................................... 9 3.1. Polysemy ................................................................................................................ 9 3.2. Homonymy ........................................................................................................... 10 3.3. Distinction between polysemy and homonymy ................................................... 12 4. Relations between polysemes..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • S&P 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change
    4.43201 Semantics & Pragmatics 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change S&P 2012 Lecture 3: Semantic Change Today’s Menu: 1. Semantic shift: various processes of semantic change (widening /narrowing, amelioration/ pejoration) & their causes 2. Grammaticalization (both semantic & structural change) and its causes. Last week, we zoomed in on the ‘technical features’ of our ‘spinning wheel’; we examined the smallest units that make it up (word-meanings), and grouped them by resemblance (synonyms/ antonyms; homonymy/ polysemy) and contiguity (hyponymy/ hypernymy & meronymy/ holonymy). Thus, we established the nature of ‘systemic’ lexical relations between word-meanings because of resemblance or contiguity between them, as perceived by our minds. This week, while still focused on the ‘technical specifications’ of the language tool, we will ‘zoom out’ a little, and view its smallest units in the 4th dimension of all existence – Time. Our task this week is to establish how word-meanings change over time, and to explain why they do so. 1. Semantic Change: How do word-meanings change over time? In historical/ diachronic linguistics, semantic change refers to a change in denotative, socially shared, word meaning. Semantic shift is the general way of referring to any unspecified semantic change. Major types of semantic change may be viewed as . Widening (generalization) – a shift to a more general meaning: i.e., in Middle English, bridde meant a ‘small bird’; later, bird came to be used in a general sense and the word fowl, formerly the more general word, was restricted to the sense of ‘farm birds bred especially for consumption’; . Narrowing (specification) – a shift towards a more specific concept: the opposite of widening, or expansion.
    [Show full text]