Homonymy: definition and classification
Homonyms – words identical in their spelling or/and sound form but different in their meaning. When analyzing homonymy, we see that some words are homonyms in all their forms, i.e. we observe full homonymy of the paradigms of two or more different words, e.g., in seal1 — ‘a sea animal’ and seal2 — ‘a design printed on paper by means of a stamp’. The paradigm “seal, seal’s, seals, seals’ ” is identical for both of them and gives no indication of whether it is seal1 or seal2, that we are analysing. In other cases, e.g. seal1 — ‘a sea animal’ and (to) seal, — ‘to close tightly’, we see that although some individual word - forms are homonymous, the whole of the paradigm is not identical.
It is easily observed that only some of the word-forms (e.g. seal, seals, etc.) are homonymous, whereas others (e.g. sealed, sealing) are not. In such cases we cannot speak of homonymous words but only of homonymy of individual word-forms or of partial homonymy. This is true of a number of other cases, e.g. comparefind[faind], found [faund], found[faund], and found[faund], founded['faundid], founded['faundid]; know[nou], knows[nouz], knew[nju:], and no[nou];nose[nouz], noses ['nouzis]; new[nju:] in which partial homonymy is observed.
Walter Skeat classified homonyms into: 1) perfect homonyms (they have different meaning, but the same sound form & spelling: school - school); 2) homographs(Homographs are words identical in spelling, but different both in their sound-form and meaning, e.g. tearn [tia] — ‘a drop of water that comes from the eye’ and tearv[tea] — ‘to pull apart by force’.3) homophones are words identical in sound-form but different both in spelling and in meaning, e.g. sean and seev; son n and sunn.
Smirnitsky classified perfect homonyms into: 1) full homonyms (identical in spelling, sound form, grammatical meaning but different in lexical meaning: spring); 2)homoforms (the same sound form & spelling but different lexical and grammatical meaning: “reading” – gerund, particle 1, verbal noun).
Arnold classified perfect homonyms by 4 criteria (lexical meaning, grammatical meaning, basic forms, paradigms) into 4 groups: 1) different only in lexical meaning(board - board); 2) different in lexical meaning & paradigms (to lie/lied/lied – lie/lay/lain); 3) identical only in basic forms (light /adj./- light /noun/); 4) identical only in one of their paradigms (a bit – bit /to bite/).
The Natural Approach
|
|
|
The natural approach is a method of language teaching developed by Stephen Krashen and Tracy Terrell in the late 1970s and early 1980s. It aims to foster naturalistic language acquisition in a classroom setting, and to this end it emphasises communication, and places decreased importance on conscious grammar study and explicit correction of student errors. Efforts are also made to make the learning environment as stress-free as possible. In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input.
Although Terrell originally created the natural approach without relying on a particular theoretical model, his subsequent collaboration with Krashen has meant that the method is often seen as an application to language teaching of Krashen's monitor model.[4] Krashen outlined five hypotheses in his model:
1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis. This states that there is a strict separation between conscious learning of language and subconscious acquisition of language, and that only acquisition can lead to fluent language use.[4]
2. The monitor hypothesis. This states that language knowledge that is consciously learned can only be used to monitor output, not to generate new language. Monitoring output requires learners to be focused on the rule and to have time to apply it.[4]
3. The input hypothesis. This states that language is acquired by exposure to comprehensible input at a level a little higher than that the learner can already understand. Krashen names this kind of input "i+1".[4]
4. The natural order hypothesis. This states that learners acquire the grammatical features of a language in a fixed order, and that this is not affected by instruction.[4]
5. The affective filter hypothesis. This states that learners must be relaxed and open to learning in order for language to be acquired. Learners who are nervous or distressed may not learn features in the input that more relaxed learners would pick up with little effort.
Terrell outlines four categories of classroom activities that can facilitate language acquisition (as opposed to language learning):
|
|
|
· "Content (culture, subject matter, new information, reading, e.g. teacher tells interesting anecdote involving contrast between target and native culture.)"[11]
· "Affective-humanistic (students' own ideas, opinions, experiences, e.g. students are asked to share personal preferences as to music, places to live, clothes, hair styles, etc.)"[11]
· "Games [focus on using language to participate in the game, e.g. 20 questions: I, the teacher, am thinking of an object in this room. You, students, have twenty questions to guess the object. Typical questions: is it clothing? (yes) is it for a man or a woman? (woman) is it a skirt? (yes) is it brown? (yes) is it Ellen's skirt? (yes)]"[11]
· "Problem solving (focus on using language to locate information, use information, etc., e.g. looking at this listing of films in the newspaper, and considering the different tastes and schedule needs in the group, which film would be appropriate for all of us to attend, and when?)".
№ 8 Билет
Дата добавления: 2018-04-04; просмотров: 543; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!