Three Ubiquitous Terms in Semantics - Assignment Example

Important points: I feel that except the grammatical and spelling errors, your work was very good on the whole. I really liked it. You have tried to explain all the concepts in detail using very good examples. I feel it would be even better if you could give a list at the end that shows the reader at a glance which word is what without having to go through the entire text. Other points are as follows: 1. All the changes in spelling, grammar, style, citation, etc. that I have made have been highlighted in yellow. 2. In the Harvard system of citation, you cannot cite the url within the text. The name of the author and the date has to be cited and if there is no author, then the title of the web page needs to be cited. For more information, refer to the link http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lskills/open/sfl/content/harvard/citing/05.html Therefore, i have removed the url from the text and cited the title of the web page "Dictionary.com" along with the year. 3. If you do not know the date of publication, use "n.d." (which stands for "not dated") in place of the year. For more information, refer to the link http://www.lmu.ac.uk/lskills/open/sfl/content/harvard/citing/03.html Define the term regular polysemy and demonstrate whether or not the relation between the senses of the bold words in (a) and (b) is a regular relation. Be sure to describe the senses of (a) and (b) first, before going on to explore the polysemy of semantically similar words. If you find that it is not a completely regular relation, discuss any reasons you can see for the limits on the pattern. a. The Smiths keep a pet turkey. b. We had turkey for Christmas dinner Before we explore the relation between the senses of the bold words in (a) and (b) and whether it is a regular relation or not, let us throw some light upon three ubiquitous terms in semantics. These terms are polysemy, regular, and regular polysemy. First, Crystal (1988, p.236) defines polysemy as a term used in semantic analysis to refer to a lexical item which has a range of different meanings. The definition sounds clear and concise. According to this definition, any lexical item (word) which has more than one meaning is polysemous and thus falls under the umbrella of polysemy. Regular, on the other hand, is predictable from non – lexical conceptual information, Murphy (2004, p.235). When we combine the two words together, we will get a semantic term that has gained much attention recently, viz. regular polysemy (also known as meaning shifts). Many definitions have been given to regular polysemy by linguists and semanticists. According to Peters (2005, p.232) regular polysemy is a metonymic phenomenon: a non – literal figure of speech in which the name of one thing is substituted for that of another related to it. Lobner (2002) refers to regular polysemy as meaning variants which are related via metaphor, metonymy or differentiation. Clearly speaking, regular polysemy denotes the process whereby a word has more than one meaning due to a general rule for making new meanings out of old ones. For example, a word which indicates a container indicates the content of the container too as illustrated below: Can as container: I have poured coke into the can. Can as content: I have drunk the whole can. Also, a disc might refer to a thin, flat, round object in general as well as a magnetic disc. A mouse is used to refer to a small furry animal with a long tail only, but it is also a device that controls the movement of the cursor on a computer screen, Lobner (2002). The relation between the senses of the bold words in (a) and (b) is a regular relation. The senses of these two words are closely related since they are all related to poultry. Turkey, in the first sentence, refers to a large, gallinaceous bird of the family Meleagrididae, especially Meleagris gallopavo of America that typically has green, reddish-brown and yellowish-brown plumage of a metallic luster and that is domesticated in most parts of the world (Dictionary.com, 2008) .In the second sentence, turkey refers to the flesh of this bird, used as food. The second sense, flesh of bird, is a meaning variant related to the first sense, the bird. It has been made out of the old one namely the name of the bird. Turkey is not the only example we have for using the name of the bird to indicate the flesh or meat of that bird especially when it is prepared to be eaten. For instance, chicken could be used to refer to both the domestic fowl kept for its eggs or meat as well as the flesh of the chicken as illustrated below: I keep three chickens. Last time, we had chickens and salad in a Lebanese restaurant. Similarly, Duck could be used to refer to both a water bird with a broad blunt bill, short legs, webbed feet, and a waddling gait (Dictionary.com, 2008) as well as the flesh of the duck as illustrated below: The mother feeds the ducks. She barbecued a duck for her boyfriend. As shown below, Goose is a clear example: I watched an interesting documentary on geese. Mary had a roast goose for her birthday. We can conclude that , in the class of poultry , or more precisely the kingdom of poultry , the word which refers to the bird may also refer to the flesh or meat of the bird especially , as we mentioned earlier , when it is prepared to be eaten. The very same rule is usually inapplicable to other birds and animals belonging to different classes. A gull refers to a long-winged seabird having white plumage with a grey or black back (Dictionary.com, 2008) but not the flesh of the gull and so is the case with falcon, vulture, sheep, and pig, to name a few examples. Q3. For each of the following expressions, determine whether it is a ‘word’ on (i) orthographical and (ii) grammatical grounds, then (iii) discuss whether it is a lexeme. In each case, explain your reasoning. a. United Kingdom b. Six o’clock c. Ouch d. Lip balm e. Non-contributory Some linguists estimate that an average speaker of a particular language knows from 45,000 to 60,000 words roughly. These words are stored in his or her mental lexicon. But what do we mean by a word? Several lexicographers and semanticists give several definitions for the term and these definitions are partly not equivalent. For instance, Cruse (1986, p.35) refers to a word as the smallest element of a sentence which has positional mobility – that is , the smallest that can be moved around without destroying the grammaticality of the sentence. However, some difficulties have arisen in arriving at a consistent usage of the term concerning other categories of linguistic description as well as languages pertaining to dissimilar structural types. Such difficulties led to a set of related explanations for the term. In this exercise, I will go over each expression on the list and determine whether it is a word on (i) orthographical and (ii) grammatical grounds. Finally, we will discuss if it is a lexeme or not. a. United Kingdom b. Six Oclock c. Ouch d. Lip balm e. Non-contributory An important feature of words is that they should have a form of orthographic representation. In terms of orthography, a word is a string of letters that is preceded and followed by a blank space and has no blank space in the middle. This sounds straightforward and therefore, it is easy to pick out orthographic words from a written text. For example, consider the words United Kingdom, six oclock and lip balm. Applying the aforementioned norms of orthographic words, we will easily notice that the expression United Kingdom is not one word on the orthographic ground. Instead, it is two words, United and Kingdom. The reason is that there is a white blank space between the two words. The same thing applies to six oclock and lip balm. For each expression, there is a white blank space in the middle which thus indicates that six oclock, in terms of orthography, is a two – word expression and not one (Six and oclock) and so is the case with lip balm (lip and balm). There are two words left viz. ouch and non-contributory. Each of them is bounded at each end by a blank space and there is no blank space in the middle of it. Ouch and non-contributory strictly abide by the orthographic criteria set to define a word. Accordingly, ouch is a word on the orthographical ground and so is non-contributory. Having identified the expressions in terms of orthography, we will turn now to grammar. Even though a word has been fully defined at orthographic, phonological and semantic levels, the grammatical definition of a word is the most accepted and recommended one among linguists. Corstairs & McCarthy (2002, p.146) argue that, from a syntactic point of view, words are fundamental unit out of which phrases and sentences are composed. Unlike Orthographic words, grammatical words are of great interest in the linguistic study. According to some semanticists, a grammatical word is a linguistic unit that can be repositioned, but not split up, within a sentence and that is uninterruptible and can be classed into one of the parts of speech based upon how it syntactically behaves. Baner (2003, p.60) also adds that a word is the smallest unit that can be taken out if given appropriate discourse conditions. Whilst United Kingdom is two orthographical words, it is regarded as one word on the grammatical grounds. It belongs to the category of nouns and can be repositioned within a sentence: (1) He lives in United Kingdom. (2) In United Kingdom, he lives. In the former examples, United Kingdom has taken different positions within the sentences. In (1), its position is at the end of the sentence while, in (2), it appears at the beginning of the sentence. Another evidence that United Kingdom is one grammatical word is that by using the replacement test, it can be replaced by the pronoun it (3a). United Kingdom helps poor countries. (3b). It helps poor countries. Furthermore, it can not be split up: (4) * He will fly United to Kingdom. The composite word six oclock is considered a word on the grammatical grounds. Although it has a space within it, it is a composite word whose orthographical representation did not catch up with its grammatical status. As we have done beforehand, we could use the movement test to turn sentence (a) into a cleft sentence by moving six oclock into it was clause to ensure and prove that it forms a constituent by itself and thus is a grammatical word: (5a). Mick hit the bodyguard at six oclock. (5b). It was at six oclock that Mick hit the bodyguard. In addition, we can not put words in the middle of it so that its position inside a sentence changes depending on the speaker or writer as the following examples demonstrate: (6) * I will visit you at six morning oclock. (7a).At six oclock evening, we will start our convocation. (7b).We will start our convocation at six oclock evening. Ouch, the third word on the list is a grammatical word because it adheres to the yardsticks of grammatical words. It is an interjection, one of word classes, which can be identified on the basis of its distribution in the sentence. Besides, it moves within a sentence as one word as illustrated below: (8a).Ouch ! , you are hurting me. (8b).When I stepped onto his toes, he produced a loud sound, ouch! Like the composite word United Kingdom, lip balm is a composite word and labeled as one word on the grammatical grounds. The criteria we have applied already to United Kingdom can also be applied to lip balm. For example, lip balm can not be interrupted as shown below: (9a).Every day, I use a lip balm to make my lips softer. (9b).* I use a lip every day balm to make my lips softer. It is a noun and its place within a sentence is moveable: (10a). I use a lip balm when necessary. (10b).A lip balm is used when necessary. Moreover, it can be substituted with the pronoun it which indicates clearly that it is a constituent: (11a).A lip balm makes lips softer. (11b). It makes lips softer. Although the adjective non-contributory consists of two parts, non and contributory, it is a grammatical word. The reason is that when we attach the prefix non to an adjective, its part of speech remains the same and does not alter. So, non-contributory is still an adjective although a prefix is added to it. Also, the expression non-contributory is a word on the grammatical grounds since the properties which characterize grammatical words can directly be applied to it. It is uninterruptible, as shown in (12) and can occupy different positions within a sentence, as shown in (13): (12). * non factors contributory. (13a). Alcohol is a non- contributory factor for 10 % of road accidents. (13b).These factors are non-contributory. Now we turn to demonstrate whether each expression is a lexeme or not. First of all, we need to explain the word lexeme. According to Lobner (2002) a lexeme is an expression, simple or composite, carries a lexical meaning if this meaning can not be compositionally derived but must be known, i.e. permanently stored in the mind. What linguists use to signal the minimal distinctive unit in the semantic system is called a lexeme (Crystal, 1988). A lexeme is composed of one or more forms – meaning composites called lexical units. Its original motivation, as some linguists argue, was to lessen the vagueness of the term word that applies to orthographic, phonological and lexical levels and also to create a more suitable term for use in the context of discussing vocabulary of a language. A lexeme, in order to be called as such, has to be both non – compositional and conventional, Murphy (n.d., 3). What we mean by conventional is that people of a particular language associate certain forms with certain meanings and these associations are common knowledge between those people; we ought to learn these associations from other speakers of the language community. If its meaning is not predictable from the meaning of its parts, then the lexeme is non-compositional. Although United Kingdom is two words in terms of orthography, it is treated as one lexeme. The letter u does not represent England, neither letter k represents Scotland. This random pairing of form and meaning proves the non – compositionality of this lexeme. Besides, If we look it up in a dictionary we will find that its non-compositionality exists there, having a special entry and therefore, we learn it and store it in our minds as we learn English vocabulary. As Lobner (2002) states, a lexeme ought to be assigned to a particular part of speech. If we accept his view, we would acknowledge that the composite word, United Kingdom, is a lexeme since it belongs to noun category. Whilst United Kingdom is a lexeme, six oclock is not. It is compositional because its meaning is built out of its parts meaning. If we know that the word six means one more than five and oclock is used after the numbers one to twelve for saying what the time is , then the meaning of the expression is deducible. In our minds, we never store six oclock as a one word. Instead, we store six as a different entry and so is the case with oclock. In Brief, six oclock is not a one lexeme. They are two lexemes, six and oclock. Although ouch seems unconventional, in fact it is not. For speakers of English, it signifies sudden pain and so they associate this meaning with the form. It also exists in their mental lexicon as a word denoting a sudden pain. Aside from conventionality, it is non-compositional. We can not get the meaning simply from its parts. The case of lip balm is quite similar to United Kingdom. It is a lexeme even though it is a composite word because it is both conventional and non-compositional. People combine lip and balm and use as one word which clearly shows that they store this composite expression as one lexeme in their minds. In English, there is a similar instance namely lipstick. It is a combination of lip and stick. Although lip balm has not yet been combined orthographically like lipstick, people use it as a combined word in speech. Orthographically speaking, the combination process takes longer time than speech combination. The reason is that people speak more than they write and writing is more rule- governed than speaking. The last word on our list, non-contributory, is not a lexeme. Obviously, its meaning is predicted from its parts. Once we grasp the meaning of non and contributory, we could grasp the meaning of the expression and for this reason it is compositional. Furthermore, what we store in our minds is contributory alone, and not non-contributory, and in certain discourses we attach the prefix non to give the opposite of the word. Read More