The Linguistics Theory - Essay Example

Lexical fields Offspring, uncle, mother, son, relative, nephew, parent, father, brother, cousin, sister, aunt, daughter, niece, sibling The current linguistic theory review whishes to take a closer look at the issue of semantic fields. Based on the lexical relationships between terms belonging to the field, the study will try to capture a bird`s eye view of what links its components, by providing a lexical field diagram. In some systems of linguistics, language is viewed as consisting of three levels, lexis, grammar and phonology. In linguistics, lexis is the total bank of words and phrases of a particular language, the artifact of which is known as a lexicon. Lexis is the more technical synonym of vocabulary. Lexical semantics fits into linguistics curricula. A semantic field of a word is the set of distinct meanings expressed by the word. Within a lexicon, the meaning of a word is explained by dividing it into constituent parts, called semantic components. One or more components can be shared by several words belonging to the same language. This groups such words in so called semantic markers. In linguistic discourses, the term “conceptual level” refers to the cognitive structures with which a linguistic sign is said to be related by parts of its meaning. On the conceptual level, lexical signs of one or more natural languages are linked by their property of being instantiations of some concepts they share. In Cognitive Linguistics conceptual schemata are used as an abstract means of representing human cognitive structures around which linguistic meaning is said to be organized. The semantic marker is “Relative”, since it comprises all the other words as lexemes (components of its meaning). The definition of “relative”: A person connected by blood or affinity; strictly, one allied by blood; a relation; a kinsman or kinswoman. For explaining the way senses relate to each other, there are two possibilities. One would be creating attribute-value matrices (AVM), with lexemes as values of the matrices, featuring antonyms and synonyms. On the other hand, for determining the relations between the selected words, a thesaurus-type approach should be used. The Semantic Field Theory, promoted by Adrienne Lehrer (1974), allows us to illustrate the semantic components of the words. Interpretation: The rows illustrate contradictory lexemes. Lexemes placed on the same level (row) always contrast with each other. They represent hyponyms of the larger semantic field they belong to. In this case parent, sibling, aunt, cousin, uncle, niece and nephew contrast as hyponyms of “relative”. On the columns, the terms are hyponyms from the bottom up, as in this example Son is more specific than Offspring, which is in turn more specific than Parent. The two instances of the words “daughter” and “son” occurred due to the different meanings they can adopt: of being the offspring of either different or the same parents. Two lexemes in the same box indicate that they are synonyms. Although they are not perfect synonyms, daughter and sister, as well as son and brother are very similar to each other. There may sometimes be meanings of hyponyms that are placed on the same row, that partially coincide. In the Diagram, there is the possibility of “cousin” sometimes being also a niece or a nephew. Such terms create a partial synonymy. The extent of meaning of the two words is highlighted by a gray line between them. Blank boxes indicate that the hypernym of a group of words is not found in the lexic. In this case, the terms: aunt, uncle, nephew and niece lead us to the thought of a more distant type of family relationships, but there is no available lexeme with this meaning. 2. Types of antonyms a. knowledge/ignorance; b. foolish/wise; c. able/unable . Words that relate just by meaning, form lexical relations, can take various forms: synonymy is when all the semantic components of the words are similar; antonyms are created when one component of the meanings differs; and hyponymy is the case of an extra component is added to differentiate one word from the other. 1 The antonym is a lexical opposition. It was traditionally classified as a contrastive paradigmatic construction (meaning a complex lexical construction that unifies with other constructions, resulting in syntagmatic usage). Unlike other paradigmatic relations, antonymy is both a lexical and a semantic relationship2. Unlike synonyms and hyponyms, antonyms can only exist in binary form. Some lexicologists use the term opposite to refer to the semantic relation and antonym specifically for opposites that are also lexically related.3 It is also thought that, unlike synonyms and hyponyms, the antonym can only be a contrast set of only two words. But, depending on the meaning, words may have different antonyms. Besides the natural binarity of the antonym, there is also the possibility of a brighter spectrum of contrast. For instance, the antonym of happy would be: sad. But “angry” is also very different from happy and can easily be used to contradict it. I would first like to mention the main functions of the antonyms and their associated structures in for the English language. Functional categories of the antonym, associated also with specific syntactic frames, are: Coordinated Antonymy, a discourse –functional category – it indicate exhaustiveness of the scale involved. It neutralizes the difference between normally opposed categories, by considering them and all the instances in between, as being true. Negated Antonymy (not, instead, as opposed to) –Assertion of X and the negation of Y form a negated contrastive construction. This reinforces the X statement. Transitional Antonymy (i.e.: from X to Y; turning X into Y) – indicates a shift from one state, action or thing to its opposite. This function require semantically contrasting (i.e., non-identical) referents in the X and Y positions, but not necessarily opposite. Comparative Antonymy (i.e.: more X than Y) – measures one antonym against the other in a comparative frame. The most frequent antonym function, not related to lexico-syntactic frames: Ancillary Antonymy – One antonym pair creates or emphasizes a contrast between another pair of expressions, both standing in parallel positions within the sentence. It`s similar to contrastive constructions. Linguists identified the following subtypes of antonym relations: The occurrence of the so-called “minimally different” antonyms draws attention to the semantic point of view. Sometimes, two words that don`t seam completely opposite in meaning, could be more different after a simple component analysis. They might have fewer components in common than two natural antonyms. The contrary antonyms are words for which the negation of one does not necessarily imply the other, but the assertion of one necessarily demands the negation of the other (e.g. good and bad). Gradable antonyms are usually adjectival antonyms which operate on a continuum. They aren’t clearly categorized as being complementary or contrary. Even though they still contradict each other, a middle ground seems to exist. They can express either contrariety or complementarity. Complementary antonyms, also called contradictory, which express absolute opposites, an “either/or” relationship (dead or alive, male or female). These are words for which the negation of one necessarily implies the other (e.g. alive and dead). The directional antonyms, which also include converse, reversive and relational antonyms, expresses reciprocity of the word pairs (borrow or lend; buy or sell; wife or husband). Converse antonyms refer to different perspectives of the same situation. Meanwhile, reversive opposites involve the doing and undoing of actions, i.e. tie/untie. A. knowledge/ignorance This binary construction forms a gradable complementary antonym. The assertion of one entails the negation of the other, but the negation of one does not entail the assertion of the other. The terms aren’t seed (natural) antonyms. Ex.: They prove to have some knowledge of the conflict. – Their attitudes aren`t based on ignorance. They show no knowledge of the conflict. – Their attitudes are based on ignorance. This example shows that the two instances of knowledge highly demand an opposite instance from its antonym. By referring to abstract notions, the possibility of the two terms coexisting is very real. The strong tendency to co-occur suggests a high degree of antonymy. B. foolish/wise This language pair is also a gradable antonym. The two words are measurable. By not being wise doesn`t mean that one has to be foolish, so the foolishness or wisdom can be scaled. Ex.: You made some foolish remarks today. – You didn`t make any wise remarks. You didn`t make any foolish remarks today. – You actually made some wise remarks. / You didn`t make any wise remarks either. Regarding the last example reminds us that the two attributes can easily alternate in different proportions within a single personality. We’re able to determine their amount or duration, which makes it a gradable antonym. But since the they pertain to both contrary and complementary antonym classes, the pair should be approached from a different perspective, namely semantic. In such cases, the “minimally different” binarity applies, where antonyms that share all relevant properties except for one that causes them to be incompatible. With the help of componential analysis we can see that the two words have the field of human characteristics in common. The third level of hyponyms indicates the next difference between them: one term involves high intelligence, while the second, the opposite, namely naivety. Foolish Wise Stupid Human Human Human + ability + ability + ability - smart +smart - smart - extreme + extreme + extreme As proven in the component table above, the word pair “foolish/wise” is semantically more different than the natural antonym” wise/stupid”. Our given binary is therefore a minimally different antonym. C. able/unable Due to being a lexical and morphologic opposite construction, this pair forms a contrary relationship. The assertion of one demands the negation of the other, but the negation of one doesn’t need the assertion of the other. Ex.: "We were able to buy a car"– “We weren’t unable to buy a car” “We weren`t able to buy a car” – “We were unable to buy a car” In these examples it`s obvious that one instance excludes the other. There is no middle-alternative. The terms create a rigid “either/or” choice, typical for the complementary type of antonym. Conclusion: “Comparing canonical senses of antonym pairings to morphologically derived antonyms provides further evidence that the lexical (i.e., not morphologically derived) antonym pairs are directly represented in our language production faculties”4. People usually prefer lexical opposites in contrastive constructions, rather than morphologically derived antonyms (like natural / unnatural). Jones (2002) even tried to search for the word “natural” in various contrastive constructions that people would come up with. “Artificial” and “man-made” were the most frequent opposites found, while the morphologically derived antonym unnatural did not occur at all in most of Jones` investigation. So, while we have the ability to make predictable morphological opposites for many words, we often prefer to use morphologically unrelated words as opposites in contrastive constructions. Modern linguistics, the scientific study of language in all its aspects, began in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Although human beings have for millennia taken an intense interest in the languages they speak, modern linguistics has gradually developed as an independent discipline only quite recently. But it represents a fundamental element by which we can start measuring many different types of uncertainties concerning our thoughts and emotions, our identity and our influence. Read More