شما می توانید تکه های دیگری از این مطلب را با جستجو در همین سایت بخوانید

 
 
To my kind family
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgments
I owe tremendous thanks to God, who provided me the opportunity to think, and the conditions to undertake the study. I am really grateful to Dr. khodabandeloo, the supervisor for all his kind, support and guidance, encouragement and assistance during completing this research project. I am also truly grateful to Dr. jahandar the advisor for his cooperation and insightful comments. I like to express my special thanks to all students who willingly participated in this study.
Last but not the least, I would like to express my warmest appreciation and thanks to my father for his kindness, encouragement and tolerance.  
Table of Content
 
Title                                                                                                         Page
 
 

CHAPTER 1: Introduction
1.0. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………2
1.1TheoreticalFramework………………………………………………………………..……….3
1.2 Significance and purpose of thestudy…………………………………………………..….…5
1.3. Statement of theProblem…………………………………………………………………..…6
1.4. Research Question of thestudy…………………………………………………………….…6
1.5. Hypothesis of the study………………………………………………………………..……..7
1.6. Definitions of Key Terms………………………………………………………………….…7
1.7. Summary……………………………………………………………………………….……..7
 
 
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIW
2.0. Semantics…………………………………………………………………………….…….…9
2.1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………….…..….….24
2.2. Trends in lexicology………………………………………………………………..…..……28
2.3. Vocabulary knowledge in L2………………………………………………………………..33
2.4. Experiments on vocabulary issues……………………………………………………..….…39
2.5. Experiments on English cognate words………………………………………………….….42
2.6. Experiments on Iranian EFL learners’ knowledge of English vocabulary………………..…47
2.7. Summary…………………………………………………………………………………..…52
 
 
CHAPTER3: METHODOLOGY
3.0. Introduction…………………………………………………………………………….……57
3.1. The design of the study………………………………………………………….………..…57
3.2. Participants………………………………………………………………………..……..….59
3.3. Materials………………………………………………………………………………….…60
3.4. Procedure……………………………………………………………………………………60
3.5. Methods of Analyzing Data…………………………………………………………………60
3.6. Summary……………………………………………………………………………..………61
 
 
CHAPTER4: RESULTS AND DATA ANALYSIS
4.0)Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….…62
4.1) Descriptive Statistics……………………………………………………………….………..62
4.3) Inferential Statistics…………………………………………………………………..….…..64
4. 4) Summary…………………………………………………………………………………….69
 
 
CHAPTER5: DISCUSSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
5.0. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………….70
5.1. General Discussion………………………………………………………………………….70
5.2. Implications of the study………………………………………………………….………….71
5.3. Limitations of the study…………………………………………………………….………..71
5.4. Suggestions for further Research…………………………………………………………….72
 
REFRENCES …………………………………………………………..…………………..…..73
 
LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………………………………….76
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Tables
Title  Page
Table (4.1) .Descriptive statistics for the proficiency test………………….……………………..63
Table (4.2) . Number of students participated in pre-test and post-test case………………….….63
Table (4.3) .Descriptive statistics for the pre-test and post-test………………………………..….64
Table (4.4) Levine’s Test of Equality of Error Variances…………………………….……………66
Table (4.5) Tests of Between-Subjects Effects …………………………………………………..66
Table (4.6) Mean and corrected Mean of lexical knowledge ……………………..……….….…67
Table (4.7) Sum of Analysis of covariance ………………………………………………………68
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Graphs
Title  Page
 
Graph (4.1) Lexical knowledge in control and experimental group from pre-test to post-test ………………………………………………………………………………………….….………65
Graph (4.2) Means of post-test of experimental and control group………………………69
 
 
 
Abstract
This study aimed at investigatingThe Effect of bilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English) on Iranian upper intermediate EFL learners’ knowledge of Lexical development. For this purpose,100subjects participated in this studyout of which 40 learners were selected for this study and they were assigned into two groups, control and experimental.
Cross-language cognates (words with similar form and meaning in different languages) are of special interest for designing a model in TEFL, since they help teacher make the teaching of English vocabularies a joyful and lasting effect for Persian students. True cognates are the result of kinship relations across languages, or borrowings. False and true cognates might be found in nearly all languages with any kind of relation to other languages. There are still some “real” cognates found in the lexicon of Persian and English.
Then the datawas analyzed statistically through ANCOVA. The results of the study showed that the learners’ lexical knowledge was improved when they are presented with bilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English).
The conclusions of this study will provide new insights into the linguistic and the communication problems derived from a misuse of these lexical items. The study of false friends and true Cognates has several implications for contrastive analysts, error analysts, translators, foreign language teachers and learners, curriculum designers, as well as lexicographers and lexicologists.
Key words: cognate word, EFL students, Lexical development
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chapter one
Introduction
 
 
 
 
1.0.Introduction
Cross-language cognates (words with similar form and meaning in different languages) are of special interest for designing a model of the bilingual lexicon because there is a possibility that they may have overlapping representations between the two languages of a bilingual. Among other effects related to cognates, the cognate facilitation effect was discovered: bilinguals produce and recognize cognates faster than non-cognates. One possibility to explain the cognate facilitation effect is through shared/overlapping representations of cognates and the word frequency effect. Since using a pair of cognates in two languages requires accessing (almost) the same phonological form in connection to (almost) the same concept, the overall frequency of a cognate increases.
Research in first-language reading has repeatedly documented a strong correlational relationshipbetween students’ vocabulary knowledge and their ability to comprehend text (Anderson &Freebody, 1981).
Research in second-language reading has tended to focus more on morphology and syntax than onvocabulary (Weber, 1991).
One of the underlying assumptions in bilingual education is that students who are literate in their firstlanguage can transfer some of their knowledge and skills in first-language reading to second-languagereading (Grabe, 1988). There is some empirical evidence for this claim (Hudelson, 1981;Langer, Bartolom6, Vasquez, & Lucas, 1990). For example, we know that students’ readingperformance in their first language tends to correlate with that in their second language (Tregar&Wong, 1984), and that proficient readers in both languages, as compared to less proficient readers, arebetter at using “meaning making” strategies in the two languages (Langer et al., 1990). However, we do not know much about the specific types of knowledge and strategies that transfer, nor do we knowthe conditions under which such transference might occur.
The purpose of our study was to examine the extent to which bilingual Persian students in the intermediate grades in Iran are able to transfer vocabulary knowledge in their first languageto reading in their second language through the use of cognates. Many words in English, especially inacademic and technical English, have close Iranian cognates. That is, Persian words with obviousorthographic similarity and closely related meaningsIn many cases, words in the two languages arealmost identical both in spelling and meaning (e.g., balcony, and buss, mother). Sometimes there are onlyminor, predictable changes in spelling (e.g., orange/نارنج, paradise/پردیس, and damp/دم).Because much of English academic vocabulary is derived from Latin, many words that are academic orrare words in English have cognates that are relatively common words in Persian. For example, the English word “parsang” is taken from the Latin word “Parsanga” which is the same as ancient Persian word “Fra-sanga” or “فرسنگ”. If Persian bilingual students know the Persian words, and recognize the cognate relationships, their Persian knowledge should provide them with substantial help in English vocabulary, especially difficultreading vocabulary.
 
1. Theoretical Framework
Research with bilingual students who are expert readers in English suggests that such students do makeuse of their knowledge of cognate relationships (Jim6nez, 1992; Jim6nez, Garcia, & Pearson). On the other hand, there is some anecdotal evidence (Garcfa, 1988) that upperelementary Hispanic bilingual students sometimes overlook even obvious parallels between Spanish andEnglish, and hence do not fully utilize the potential help offered by cognates.
The specific objectives of the current study are twofold: First, we want to determine whether there is transfer of lexical knowledge from students’ first language to reading in a second language–that is, arestudents able to apply their knowledge of words and concepts in Persian when reading English text?Second, we want to know the extent to which this transfer of lexical knowledge is mediated by awarenessof cognate relationships between English and Persian.
Are there shared representations in the bilingual lexicon? Cross-language cognates are of special interest for understanding the structure of the bilingual lexicon, because there is a possibility that representations of cognates can be shared between two languages of a bilingual.
Cross-language cognates are words, which have similar meaning and similar phonological (and sometimes orthographical) form in two languages. They may have common origin (historically -for related languages), or be borrowed either from one of the two languages or from the same third language. In English and Persian, obvious cognates are usually borrowings from each other and from other languages, especially French, Greek and Latin; and some of these cognates are words of Indo-European origin.
A variety of studies has demonstrated that bilinguals process highly formsimilar cognates differently from other words (Sherkina, 2003).One such finding is the cognate facilitation effect: bilinguals produce and recognize cognates faster than non-cognates (Costa et al, 2000. Dijkstra et al, 1999. Schelletter, 2002.).
 
 
 
 
1.2. Significance and purpose of the study
According to Resla (2006), Cognate words in two or more languages have a common origin because of their diachronic relationship and, as a result, they share some sort of formal and/or semantic affinity. Cognate words can facilitate the foreign language learning process; they have similar meanings and, therefore, they can support the acquisition and/or learning of a non-native language. However, these words can also have a deceptive meaning as a result of semantic change and dissimilar development in two languages, i.e., they may be deceptive cognate words or false friends. False friends are especially problematic for language learners as they tend to overgeneralize and assume they know the meaning of these words, which are actually misleading.
As far as reading comprehension is concerned, Ringbom (1992), indicates that if the L2 is closely related to the L1, the language learner will benefit from the existence of cognate words, given the fact that both, recognition and understanding of these words is less demanding than completely alien words. In fact, many of these words are not eventually learned but the formal similarity, especially in writing, helps the language learner to understand the text and to accomplish a smooth reading but, conversely, there is little psycholinguistic processing. Rather, unconsciously, the language learner tends to consider cognate words as a help for his reading, which do not require special attention. So, Ringbom (1992), introduces the idea of potential knowledge to refer to the learners’ knowledge or familiarity with a word or grammar construction which, in fact, has not been seen before in the L2. It goes without saying that the closer the typological proximity between languages, the more chances the language learner has to find instances of this potential knowledge, at least as far as receptive skills are concerned, i.e., listening and, especially, reading. Whereas the absence of cognate words between the L1 and the L2 considerably reduces the amount of‘familiar’ vocabulary that the language learner has access to, and the range between ‘active’ and ‘passive’ vocabulary diminishes considerably (Ringbom,  1992). Ringbom’s research centers on two languages, which are rather close from a morpho-syntactic point of view, i.e. English and French.The primary motivation for writing this thesiswas the hope that it mayfoster a greater appreciation of the variances among different languages andcultures, and ultimately nurture a greater understanding among those who speakapparently different languages.  After all, we have all come from the same“home”, have gathered around the same “fire” and share the same innate “HumanLanguage.”
 
1.3. Statement of the Problem
Surveys on the false friendship phenomenon are rather scarce (Chacón, 2006).Studies show that almost all language users of IE languages are bored and confused in comprehending those languages which share common features inversely. Moreover, they are less likely to learn. For increasing learner engagement and deeply understanding of materials it is better to eradicate the sources of miscomprehension. There might be also false friends in two or many IE languages that make the comprehension doubly difficult. The learner may assume that since the source and target language have the same form, they can also have the same meaning or stylistic features.
Unfortunately, the superficial differences in our colorful words havedisguised our oneness. The intolerance of differences has penetrated so deeplythat, throughout history, many nations have attempted to use the differences inlanguages as a means to subjugate or humiliate others.  For example, the word“barbarian,” which literally means “people who speak a different language,” hasbeen so widely abused that today its meaning is all inclusive to mean wild anduncivilized. (Nourai, 1998)
 
1.4. Research Question of the study
Research question is about the effects that these cognate words have on Iranian EFL learners:
RQ: Doesbilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English) have any effect onIranian EFL learners’ knowledge of Lexical development?
 
 
 
1.5. Hypothesis of the study
The hypothesis of the study is as follow:
H0: Bilingual Teaching of Cognate Words (Persian-English) does not have any effect onIranian EFL learners’ knowledge of Lexical development
 
1.6. Definitions of Key Terms
True cognate word: cognate words are, by dictionary definition, the related words in different languages which come from a common source or which are the result of borrowings cross-linguistically.
 
False cognate: false cognates are defined as terms that denote word pairs from different languages that, in spite of their formal similarities, may have different meanings cross-linguistically. In other words, they resemble each other in the form, but express different meanings in each of the two languages.
 
EFL students: EFL is usually learned in environments where the language of the community and the school is not English. EFL teachers have the difficult task of finding access to and providing English models for their students.
 
Lexical development: Lexical development at a dynamical systems level, in which words not as individualized items, but as a system, are acquired and organized and their phonological and semantic representations continuously interact, compete, and evolve. (Bloom, 2000; Regier, 2003)
 
 
 
1.7. Summary
Many benefits result from having word power: the ability to better comprehend what is read, the ability to express oneself well when speaking or writing, and, of great interest in today’s political climate, the ability to score well on standardized and criterion-referenced tests of many kinds.
          It is also clear that acquiring knowledge in all realms of learning – the natural and social sciences, the arts, and mathematics – requires one to master the meanings of the related technical vocabulary terms for that field. (Chris, 2004).
       Words are the most central elements in the social system of communication (Labov, 1973). Words are tools of thought, and one will often find that one is thinking badly because he is using the wrong tools (Aitchison, 1989).
Students whose their first language is one of Indo-European descendants, can often call on their knowledge of cognates in their native language to determine the meanings of the words in their second language. The number of cognates they will encounter tends to increase with the grades as they encounter increasing numbers of words with Latinate roots, especially in their science and social studies courses.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Chaptertwo
Review of the Literature
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.0. Semantics
Semantics (from Ancient Greek: σημαντικόςsēmantikós)1is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relationbetween signifiers, like words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they standfor, their denotation.
       Linguistic semantics is the study of meaning that is used for understanding human expression through language. Other forms of semantics include the semantics of programming languages, formal logics, and semiotics.
       The word semantics itself denotes a range of ideas, from the popular to the highly technical. It is often used in ordinary language for denoting a problem of understanding that comes down to word selection or connotation. This problem of understanding has been the subject of many formal enquiries, over a long period of time, most notably in the field of formal semantics. In linguistics, it is the study of interpretation of signs or symbols used in agents or communities within particular circumstances and contexts.(Neurath, et al, 1995). Within this view, sounds, facial expressions, body language, and proxemics have semantic (meaningful) content, and each comprises several branches of study. In written language, things like paragraph structure and punctuation bear semantic content; other forms of language bear other semantic content. (Neurath, et al, 1995).
       The formal study of semantics intersects with many other fields of inquiry, including lexicology, syntax, pragmatics, etymology and others, although semantics is a well-defined field in its own right, often with synthetic properties. (Cruse, 2004). In philosophy of language, semantics and reference are closely connected. Further related fields include philology, communication, and semiotics. The formal study of semantics is therefore complex.
       Semantics contrasts with syntax, the study of the combinatory of units of a language (without reference to their meaning), and pragmatics, the study of the relationships between the symbols of a language, their meaning, and the users of the language.(Kitcher, 1989). In international scientific vocabulary semantics is also called semasiology.
       In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units and compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, paronyms. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.
 
Montague grammar
In the late 1960s, Richard Montague proposed a system for defining semantic entries in the lexicon in terms of the lambda calculus. In these terms, the syntactic parse of the sentence John ate every bagel would consist of a subject (John) and a predicate (ate every bagel); Montague demonstrated that the meaning of the sentence altogether could be decomposed into the meanings of its parts and in relatively few rules of combination. The logical predicate thus obtained would be elaborated further, e.g. using truth theory models, which ultimately relate meanings to a set of Tarskiian universals, which may lie outside the logic. The notion of such meaning atoms or primitives is basic to the language of thought hypothesis from the 1970s.
Despite its elegance, Montague grammar was limited by the context-dependent variability in word sense, and led to several attempts at incorporating context, such as:
•Situation semantics (1980s): truth-values are incomplete, they get assigned based on context
•Generative lexicon (1990s): categories (types) are incomplete, and get assigned based on context
 
Dynamic turn in semantics
InChomskyan linguistics there was no mechanism for the learning of semantic relations, and the nativist view considered all semantic notions as inborn. Thus, even novel concepts were proposed to have been dormant in some sense. This view was also thought unable to address many issues such as metaphor or associative meanings, and semantic change, where meanings within a linguistic community change over time, and qualia or subjective experience. Another issue not addressed by the nativist model was how perceptual cues are combined in thought, e.g. in mental rotation. (Barsalou, 1999).
This view of semantics, as an innate finite meaning inherent in a lexical unit that can be composed to generate meanings for larger chunks of discourse, is now being fiercely debated in the emerging domain of cognitive linguistics. (Langacker, 1999). And also in the non-Fodorian camp in philosophy of language.(Peregrin, 2003).  The challenge is motivated by:
• Factors internal to language, such as the problem of resolving indexical or anaphora (e.g. This x, him, last week). In these situations context serves as the input, but the interpreted utterance also modifies the context, so it is also the output. Thus, the interpretation is necessarily dynamic and the meaning of sentences is viewed as context change potentials instead of propositions.
• Factors external to language, i.e. Language is not a set of labels stuck on things, but “a toolbox, the importance of whose elements lie in the way they function rather than their attachments to things.”(Peregrin, 2003). This view reflects the position of the later Wittgenstein and his famous game example, and is related to the positions of Quine, Davidson, and others.
A concrete example of the latter phenomenon is semantic under specification – meanings are not complete without some elements of context. To take an example of one word, red, its meaning in a phrase such as red book is similar to many other usages, and can be viewed as compositional. (Gärdenfors, 2000).  However, the colors implied in phrases such as red wine (very dark), and red hair (coppery), or red soil, or red skin are very different. Indeed, these colors by themselves would not be called red by native speakers. These instances are contrastive, so red wine is so called only in comparison with the other kind of wine (which also is not white for the same reasons). This view goes back to de Saussure:
Each of a set of synonyms like redouter (‘to dread’), craindre (‘to fear’), avoirpeur (‘to be afraid’) has its particular value only because they stand in contrast with one another. No word has a value that can be identified independently of what else is in its vicinity. (Saussure, 1916).
And may go back to earlier Indian views on language, especially the Nyaya view of words as indicators and not carriers of meaning. (Matilal, 1990).

در این سایت فقط تکه هایی از این مطلب(به صورت کاملا تصادفی و به صورت نمونه) با شماره بندی انتهای صفحه درج می شود که ممکن است هنگام انتقال از فایل ورد به داخل سایت کلمات به هم بریزد یا شکل ها درج نشود-این مطالب صرفا برای دمو می باشد

ولی برای دانلود فایل اصلی با فرمت ورد حاوی تمامی قسمت ها با منابع کامل

اینجا کلیک کنید

An attempt to defend a system based on propositional meaning for semantic underspecification can be found in the generative lexicon model of James Pustejovsky, who extends contextual operations (based on type shifting) into the lexicon. Thus meanings are generated “on the fly” (as you go), based on finite context.
 
Theories in semantics
Prototype theory
Another set of concepts related to fuzziness in semantics is based on prototypes. The work of Eleanor Rosch in the 1970s led to a view that natural categories are not characterizable in terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, but are graded (fuzzy at their boundaries) and inconsistent as to the status of their constituent members. One may compare it with Jung’s archetype, though the concept of archetype sticks to static concept. Some post-structuralists are against the fixed or static meaning of the words. Derrida, following Nietzsche, talked about slippages in fixed meanings.
Systems of categories are not objectively out there in the world but are rooted in people’s experience. These categories evolve as learned concepts of the world – meaning is not an objective truth, but a subjective construct, learned from experience, and language arises out of the “grounding of our conceptual systems in shared embodiment and bodily experience”. (Lakoff, et al, 1999).  A corollary of this is that the conceptual categories (i.e. the lexicon) will not be identical for different cultures, or indeed, for every individual in the same culture. This leads to another debate (see the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis or Eskimo words for snow).
Model theoretic semantics
Originates from Montague’s work (see above). A highly formalized theory of natural language semantics in which expressions are assigned denotations (meanings) such as individuals, truth values, or functions from one of these to another. The truth of a sentence, and more interestingly, its logical relation to other sentences, is then evaluated relative to a model.
Formal (or truth-conditional) semantics
Pioneered by the philosopher Donald Davidson, another formalized theory, which aims to associate each natural language sentence with a meta-language description of the conditions under which it is true, for example: `Snow is white’ is true if and only if snow is white. The challenge is to arrive at the truth conditions for any sentences from fixed meanings assigned to the individual words and fixed rules for how to combine them. In practice, truth-conditional semantics is similar to model-theoretic semantics; conceptually, however, they differ in that truth-conditional semantics seeks to connect language with statements about the real world (in the form of meta-language statements), rather than with abstract models.
Lexical and conceptual semantics
This theory is an effort to explain properties of argument structure. The assumption behind this theory is that syntactic properties of phrases reflect the meanings of the words that head them. With this theory, linguists can better deal with the fact that subtle differences in word meaning correlate with other differences in the syntactic structure that the word appears in.(Levin, et al, 1991). The way this is gone about is by looking at the internal structure of words. These small parts that make up the internal structure of words are termed semantic primitives. (Jackendoff, 1990).
Lexical semantics
A linguistic theory that investigates word meaning. This theory understands that the meaning of a word is fully reflected by its context. Here, the meaning of a word is constituted by its contextual relations. Therefore, distinctions between degrees of participation as well as modes of participation are made. In order to accomplish this distinction any part of a sentence that bears a meaning and combines with the meanings of other constituents is labeled as a semantic constituent. Semantic constituents that cannot be broken down into more elementary constituents are labeled minimal semantic constituents. (Cruse, 1998).
Computational semantics
Computational semantics is focused on the processing of linguistic meaning. In order to do this concrete algorithms and architectures are described. Within this framework the algorithms and architectures are also analyzed in terms of decidability, time/space complexity, data structures they require and communication protocols. (Nerbonne, 1996).
Semantic models
Terms such as semantic network and semantic data model are used to describe particular types of data models characterized by the use of directed graphs in which the vertices denote concepts or entities in the world, and the arcs denote relationships between them.
The Semantic Web refers to the extension of the World Wide Web via embedding added semantic metadata, using semantic data modeling techniques such as Resource Description Framework (RDF) and Web Ontology Language (OWL).
Psychology
In psychology, semantic memory is memory for meaning – in other words, the aspect of memory that preserves only the gist, the general significance, of remembered experience – while episodic memory is memory for the ephemeral details – the individual features, or the unique particulars of experience. Word meaning is measured by the company they keep, i.e. the relationships among words themselves in a semantic network. The memories may be transferred intergenerationally or isolated in one generation due to a cultural disruption. Different generations may have different experiences at similar points in their own time-lines. This may then create a vertically heterogeneous semantic net for certain words in an otherwise homogeneous culture.(Giannini, 1975).  In a network created by people analyzing their understanding of the word (such as Wordnet) the links and decomposition structures of the network are few in number and kind, and include part of, kind of, and similar links. In automated ontologies the links are computed vectors without explicit meaning. Various automated technologies are being developed to compute the meaning of words: latent semantic indexing and support vector machines as well as natural language processing, neural networks and predicate calculus techniques.
Ideasthesia is a rare psychological phenomenon that in certain individuals associates semantic and sensory representations. Activation of a concept (e.g., that of the letter A) evokes sensory-like experiences (e.g., of red color).
 
Types of meaning
Structural, or grammatical, meaning
First, one must recognize that the meaning of any sentence comprises two parts, the meanings of the words it contains and the structural or grammatical meaning carried by the sentence itself. In English the dog chased the cat and the boy chased the cat differ in meaning because dog and boy are different words with different word meanings; the same applies to equivalent sentences in other languages. The two sentences the dog chased the cat and the cat chased the dog, though containing exactly the same words, are different in meaning because the different word orders distinguish what are conventionally called subject and object. In Latin the two corresponding sentences would be distinguished not by word order, which is grammatically indifferent and largely a matter of style, but by different shapes in the lexical equivalents of dog and cat. In Japanese the grammatical distinction of subject and object, normally marked by the word order subject-object-verb (SOV), can be reinforced by a subject particle after the first word and an object particle after the second.
The formal resources of any language for making distinctions in the structural meanings of sentences are limited by two things: the linear (time) dimension of speaking and the limited memory span of the human brain. Writing copies the time stream of speech with the linear flow of scripts. Diagrams and pictures employ two dimensions, and models employ three; but writing is partially relieved of memory-span restrictions by the permanence of visual marks. Because written texts are almost entirely divorced from oral pronunciation, sentence length and sentence complexity can be carried to extremes, as may be observed in some legal and legislative documents that are virtually unintelligible if read aloud.
Within these linear restrictions, distinctions corresponding to the main uses of language can be made. All languages can employ different sentence structures to state facts (declarative), to ask questions (interrogative), and to enjoin or forbid some course of action (imperative). More delicate means exist to soften or modify these basic distinctions—e.g., its cold today, isn’t it? Isn’t it still raining? Shut the door, if you don’t mind; don’t be long, will you? Languages use their resources differently for these purposes, but, generally speaking, each seems to be equally flexible structurally. The principal resources are word order, word form, and, in speech, pitch and stress placement. In English, as an example, a word or phrase can be highlighted by being placed first in the sentence when it would not normally occur there: compare he can’t bear loud noises with loud noises he can’t bear or loud noises, he can’t bear them. The object noun or noun phrase can also be put first by making the sentence passive; this allows the original subject to be omitted if one does not know or does not want to refer to an agent: the town was destroyed (by the revolutionaries). Within and together with all these possibilities, almost any word can be made contrastively prominent by being stressed (spoken more loudly) or by being uttered on a higher pitch, and very often these two are combined: I asked you for RED roses (not yellow); I meant it for YOU (not her); HE knows nothing about it (someone else may). Prominence is especially associated with intonation, itself an important carrier of structural meaning in speech. One may state facts, ask questions, and give instructions with a variety of intonations indicating, along with visible gestures, different attitudes, feelings, and social and personal relations between speaker and hearer.
The possibilities of expressing structural meanings are a highly important part of any language. They are acquired along with the rest of one’s first language in childhood and are learned more slowly and with more difficulty in mastering a second or later language. Scholars are still only at the beginning of a full formal analysis of these resources, as far as most languages are concerned, and are still farther from an adequate understanding of all the semantic functions performed by means of these resources.
 
Semantic relations (meaning relations)
In the narrow sense are semantic relations between concepts or meanings. The concept [school] should be distinguished from the word ‘school’. [School] is a kind of [educational institution]. This indicates a hierarchical (or generic) relationship between two concepts or meanings, which is one kind among a long range of kinds of semantic relations.
The concept [School] may, for example, be expressed by the terms or expressions ‘school’, ‘schoolhouse’ and ‘place for teaching’. The relation between ‘school’ and ‘schoolhouse’ is a (synonym) relation between two words, while the relation between ‘school’ and ‘place for teaching’ is a relation between a word and an expression or phrase. The relations between words are termed lexical relations. ‘School’ also means [a group of people who share common characteristics of outlook, a school of thought]. This is a homonym relation: Two senses share the same word or expression: ‘school’.  Synonyms and homonyms are not relations between concepts, but are about concepts expressed with identical or with different signs.
Relations between concepts, senses or meanings should not be confused with relations between the terms, words, expressions or signs that are used to express the concepts. It is, however, common to mix both of these kinds of relations under the heading “semantic relations” (i.e., Cruse, 1986; Lyons, 1977; Malmkjær, 1995 & Murphy, 2003), why synonyms, homonyms etc. are considered under the label “semantic relations” in in a broader meaning of this term.
 
Some important kinds of semantic relations are:
• Active relation: A semantic relation between two concepts, one of which expresses the performance of an operation or process affecting the other.
• Antonym (A is the opposite of B; e.g. Cold is the opposite of warm)
• Associative relation: A relation which is defined psychologically: that (some) people associate concepts (A is mentally associated with B by somebody). Often are associative relations just unspecified relations.
• Causal relation: A is the cause of B. For example: Scurvy is caused by lack of vitamin C.
• Homonym. Two concepts, A and B, are expressed by the same symbol. Example: Both a financial institution and a edge of a river are expressed by the word bank (the word has two senses).
• Hyponymous relationships (“is a” relation or hyponym-hyperonym), generic relation, genus-species relation: a hierarchical subordinate relation. (A is kind of B; A is subordinate to B; A is narrower than B; B is broader than A). The “is a” relation denotes what class an object is a member of. For example, “CAR – is a – VEHICLE” and “CHICKEN – is a – BIRD”. It can be thought of as being a shorthand for “is a type of”. When all the relationships in a system are “is a”, is the system a taxonomy. The “generic of” option allows you to indicate all the particular types (species, hyponyms) of a concept. The “specific of” option allows you to indicate the common genus (hypernym) of all the particular types.
• Instance-of relation. (“Instance”, example relation) designates the semantic relations between a general concept and individual instances of that concept. A is an example of B. Example: Copenhagen is an instance of the general concept ‘capital’.
• Locative relation: A semantic relation in which a concept indicates a location of a thing designated by another concept. A is located in B; example: Minorities in Denmark.
• Meronymy, partitive relation (part-whole relation): a relationship between the whole and its parts (A is part of B) A meronym is the name of a constituent part of, the substance of, or a member of something. Meronymy is opposite to holonymy (B has A as part of itself). (A is narrower than B; B is broader than A).
• Passive relation:  A semantic relation between two concepts, one of which is affected by or subjected to an operation or process expressed by the other.
• Paradigmatic relation. Wellisch (2000, p. 50): “A semantic relation between two concepts that is considered to be either fixed by nature, self-evident, or established by convention. Examples: mother / child; fat /obesity; a state /its capital city”.
• Polysemy: A polysemous (or polysemantic) word is a word that has several sub-senses which are related with one another. (A1, A2 and A3 shares the same expression)
• Possessive: a relation between a possessor and what is possessed.
• Related term. A term that is semantically related to another term. In thesauri are related terms often coded RT and used for other kinds of semantic relations than synonymity (USE; UF), homonymity (separated by paranthetical qualifier), generic relations and partitative relations (BT; NT). Related terms may, for example express antagonistic relations, active/passive relations, causal relations, locative relations, paradigmatic relations.
• Synonymy (A denotes the same as B; A is equivalent with B).
• Temporal relation: A semantic relation in which a concept indicates a time or period of an event designated by another concept. Example: Second World War, 1939-1945.
• Troponymy is defined in WordNet 2 as: the semantic relation of being a manner of does something (or sense 2: “the place names of a region or a language considered collectively”). 
How many kinds of semantic relations exist?

دسته بندی : پایان نامه

پاسخ دهید