Synchronic and Diachronic Study of Vocabulary.
There are two principle approaches in linguistic science to the study of language material : synchronic & diachronic . With regard to Special lexicology the synchronic approachis concerned with the vocabulary of a language as it exists at a given time . Its Special Descriptive lexicology that deals with the vocabulary & vocabulary units of a particular language at a certain time . The diachronic approach in terms of Special lexicology deals with the changes & the development of vocabulary in the coarse of time . It is Special Historical lexicology that deals with the evaluation of the vocabulary units of a language as the time goes by . The two approaches shouldnt be set one against the other . In fact , they are interconnected & interrelated because every linguistic structure & system exists in a state of constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evaluation , of its historical development .
Paradigmatic and Syntagmatic Relations between Words.
Syntagmatics – linear (simultaneous) relationship of words in speech as distinct from associative (non-simultaneous) relationship of words in language.
Paradigmatics – 1) associative relationship of words in language as distinct from linear (simultaneous) relationship of words in speech (syntagmatics); relation of units in absentia (e.g. synonymic, antonymic relationships); 2) an approach to language when the elements of its system are regarded as associated units joined by oppositional relationship.
Basic linguistic relationships which describe the complex structure of a language system. Paradigmatic relationships between linguistic elements can be established by use of the substitution test at the vertical level. Thus the initial consonants in beer, deer, peer form a paradigmatic class, as well as words such as today and tomorrow in the sentence: She will arrive today/tomorrow. Syntagmatic relationships are defined by the ability of elements to be combined horizontally (linearly), e.g. the relationship between She will arrive and today. De Saussure (1916) called paradigmatic relationships ‘associative’ relationships, because they represent the relationship between individual elements in specific environments with such elements in the memory which can potentially replace them. Paradigmatic relationships are based on the criteria of selection and distribution of linguistic elements, and are, for example, the basis for establishing the phoneme inventory of a language through the construction of minimal pairs, the replacement of sounds in an otherwise constant environment that leads to a difference in meaning. Elements which are related to each other paradigmatically can potentially occur in the same context but are mutually exclusive in an actual concrete context because they stand in opposition to one another. The distinction between paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships is relevant to all levels of description; cf. in semantics the paradigmatic semantic relations (such as synonymy and antonymy) vs the syntagmatic relations between lexemes in selectional restrictions
|
|
|
Factors that Contribute to Shifts in Meaning
Semantic change in the context of words describes the gradual shift in the conventional meaning of words, as people use them in new types of contexts and these usages become normal. Often in the course of semantic change, a word shifts its meaning to the point that the modern meaning is radically different from the original usage. For example, awful originally meant 'awe-inspiring, filling (someone) with deep awe', as in the awful majesty of the Creator. At some point it came to 0mean 'breath-takingly bad; so bad that it fills (a person) with awe and amazement'. People began to use the word in contexts where the awe felt was due to something's extreme negative qualities, as in an awfully bad performance. But now the intensity of the expression has faded somewhat and an awful tasting medicine need not inspire any deep sense of awe. The word in informal usage now just means 'very bad'. Similar developments are found with terrible 'inspiring terror' and its onetime synonym terrific. The first kept its negative meaning, but lost some of its intensity; the second came to be associated with positive qualities and only then weakened its intensity. T he result is that the latter two words have gone from being synonyms to almost exact antonyms.
Дата добавления: 2018-05-12; просмотров: 4259; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!