Comments for Words and their meaning http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics Just another Blogs.uww.edu weblog Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:59:11 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 Comment on Function and Meaning (Continued) by Pete Zigo http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/11/function-and-meaning-continued/comment-page-1/#comment-459 Pete Zigo Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:59:11 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/11/function-and-meaning-continued/#comment-459 Well, sooo many approaches, yet almost all the same. Why not to look at such matter from the social side, not trying to analyze it linguistically. In my opinion, the author wasn't trying to analyze his writings, choosing the most appropriate and suitable words...just had one person in mind, probably being shy to express them orally. Still we need to do the oposite "analysis", from the reader's point-of-view. In such (meaning Slovakian) society, too little passers-by give such expression a particular meaning, leaving them just readers of the text. The one, it may be adressed to, is most likely aware of the message, or if not, remains another passer-by amongst others. Nothing more, nothing less :o) Well, sooo many approaches, yet almost all the same. Why not to look at such matter from the social side, not trying to analyze it linguistically. In my opinion, the author wasn’t trying to analyze his writings, choosing the most appropriate and suitable words…just had one person in mind, probably being shy to express them orally. Still we need to do the oposite “analysis”, from the reader’s point-of-view. In such (meaning Slovakian) society, too little passers-by give such expression a particular meaning, leaving them just readers of the text. The one, it may be adressed to, is most likely aware of the message, or if not, remains another passer-by amongst others. Nothing more, nothing less :o )

]]> Comment on Attractive Opposites by Zuzana Ulicna http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/28/attractive-opposites/comment-page-1/#comment-258 Zuzana Ulicna Tue, 26 Dec 2006 12:44:20 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/28/attractive-opposites/#comment-258 Hi Mark, to write about antonyms is something similar than to write about synonyms...however we consider words from the point of view of differences, not similarities. Antonyms form mostly pairs, not groups like synonyms. Have a nice day:-) Which words can have opposite meaning? Very frequent are qualitative adjectives,based on semantic polarity, when something is 'good',there should be also something 'bad'. e. g. strong-weak, pretty-ugly, ashamed-proud relational antonyms is another category in which we differenciate family,social,space or time relations e.g. sister-brother, husband-wife,single-married, doctor-patient, above-below, day-night. The words in these antonyms are different in relations, which one of them lucks. It seems easy to recognize antonyms. However,there is the question whether we can treat also these pairs as antonyms. Word+ negative component-not little-not big, little- not little, impolite-not polite What about words having the same root but usually negative affixes possible-impossible, like-dislike, happy-unhappy Are words(of opposite meaning) which serve in a language as expressive means such as in idioms classified as antonyms? in black and white, far and near, from first to last, here and there, life or death I think that all of them are antonyms because they are constructed of the contrast in their meanings. Hi Mark,
to write about antonyms is something similar than to write about synonyms…however we consider words from the point of view of differences, not similarities. Antonyms form mostly pairs, not groups like synonyms.
Have a nice day:-)
Which words can have opposite meaning?
Very frequent are qualitative adjectives,based on semantic polarity, when something is ‘good’,there should be also something ‘bad’. e. g. strong-weak, pretty-ugly, ashamed-proud
relational antonyms is another category in which we differenciate family,social,space or time relations e.g. sister-brother, husband-wife,single-married, doctor-patient, above-below, day-night.
The words in these antonyms are different in relations, which one of them lucks.
It seems easy to recognize antonyms.
However,there is the question whether we can treat also these pairs as antonyms.
Word+ negative component-not
little-not big, little- not little, impolite-not polite
What about words having the same root but usually negative affixes
possible-impossible, like-dislike, happy-unhappy
Are words(of opposite meaning) which serve in a language as expressive means such as in idioms classified as antonyms?
in black and white, far and near, from first to last, here and there, life or death
I think that all of them are antonyms because they are constructed of the contrast in their meanings.

]]> Comment on Parts and Pieces by Lucia Balazova http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/14/parts-and-pieces/comment-page-1/#comment-210 Lucia Balazova Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:48:20 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/14/parts-and-pieces/#comment-210 If we want to consider the meaning of a word, it would be useful to break it down into isolated parts-semantic features. We can also find out that there are meaning relationships between words which results into these technical term-hyponymy, synonymy homonymy, and antonyms. The question which was raised in the seminar was whether we are born with semantic features or not. Because it is evident that little kids are able to understand much more as they were explained. Some people may argue that these abilities are of an inborn character but I can’t agree with this view. I think that we can consider something as being inborn only if we don’t have to learn it, or to perceive or see it and we just know. Here belongs the strength to survive- therefore we eat, drink, cry when we are cold etc., inborn in also sex, it is something we don’t need to see and still would know it, But we have to be exposed to the language so that we would get images of things into our heads and first then we can distinguish different semantic features. If we want to consider the meaning of a word, it would be useful to break it down into isolated parts-semantic features. We can also find out that there are meaning relationships between words which results into these technical term-hyponymy, synonymy homonymy, and antonyms. The question which was raised in the seminar was whether we are born with semantic features or not. Because it is evident that little kids are able to understand much more as they were explained. Some people may argue that these abilities are of an inborn character but I can’t agree with this view. I think that we can consider something as being inborn only if we don’t have to learn it, or to perceive or see it and we just know. Here belongs the strength to survive- therefore we eat, drink, cry when we are cold etc., inborn in also sex, it is something we don’t need to see and still would know it,
But we have to be exposed to the language so that we would get images of things into our heads and first then we can distinguish different semantic features.

]]> Comment on Sameness and Difference by Lucia Balazova http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/21/sameness-and-difference/comment-page-1/#comment-235 Lucia Balazova Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:47:32 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/21/sameness-and-difference/#comment-235 Many linguists are concerned with the questions whether the ABSOLUTE synonyms exists or not. Let us look at the definition of absolute synonyms- two lexical items are identical in all their contextual relations. So this basically means that 2 lexical items would have to have the very same meaning and semantic features in every context. If we go through the pairs of synonyms we find out that they always differ in some way like: breast-boobs, they look identical BUT there is a difference in +, - of formality., boy-lad ( we can say Oh boy but not oh lad), and so on. So to sum up absolute synonyms are impossible to find because absolute relations are also impossible. Since the language changes constantly, the number of words of our vocabulary keep expanding and the use of words is constently modified. Therefore each word it’s needed and has its role, and it would be a waste two have word pairs which carry the exactly same meaning in all contexts and situations. Many linguists are concerned with the questions whether the ABSOLUTE synonyms exists or not. Let us look at the definition of absolute synonyms- two lexical items are identical in all their contextual relations. So this basically means that 2 lexical items would have to have the very same meaning and semantic features in every context. If we go through the pairs of synonyms we find out that they always differ in some way like: breast-boobs, they look identical BUT there is a difference in +, – of formality., boy-lad ( we can say Oh boy but not oh lad), and so on. So to sum up absolute synonyms are impossible to find because absolute relations are also impossible. Since the language changes constantly, the number of words of our vocabulary keep expanding and the use of words is constently modified. Therefore each word it’s needed and has its role, and it would be a waste two have word pairs which carry the exactly same meaning in all contexts and situations.

]]> Comment on Argument Structure by Lucia Balazova http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/24/argument-structure/comment-page-1/#comment-151 Lucia Balazova Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:46:28 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/24/argument-structure/#comment-151 We distinguish 7 argument structures in English. 1. Agent, 2. Causer, 3. Agent-Theme verbs, 4. Agent Verbs and Theme Verbs, 5. Experiencer-Theme verbs , 6. Experiencer Proposition verns, 7. Agent –Proposition Verb. Theme- is someone/something undergoing the action Agent- someone who is doing the action We distinguish 7 argument structures in English. 1. Agent, 2. Causer, 3. Agent-Theme verbs, 4. Agent Verbs and Theme Verbs, 5. Experiencer-Theme verbs , 6. Experiencer Proposition verns, 7. Agent –Proposition Verb.
Theme- is someone/something undergoing the action
Agent- someone who is doing the action

]]> Comment on Border Patrol by Lucia Balazova http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/18/border-patrol/comment-page-1/#comment-128 Lucia Balazova Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:45:20 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/18/border-patrol/#comment-128 We’ve defined the content listemes as- something we build upon that carry the meaning, they carry the main point of the message we want to send and functional listemes- they restrict and organize the meaning, providing the structure, that helps us to communicate better the message. Let’s talk about the “Milujem ta” It is thru that Slovak has a great number of related words, that all contain –mil. We forgot to mansion- milion, miliarda, milenium- which might also have the positive connotation. But I’ve also found 1 word, with rather negative connotation- mílka (mistake), míla (mile) And because of the great number of related –mil words, I would also divide Milujem ta in to 1. content list. mil, 2. functional listm ujem, 3. functional listem ta We’ve defined the content listemes as- something we build upon that carry the meaning, they carry the main point of the message we want to send
and functional listemes- they restrict and organize the meaning, providing the structure, that helps us to communicate better the message.
Let’s talk about the “Milujem ta”
It is thru that Slovak has a great number of related words, that all contain –mil. We forgot to mansion- milion, miliarda, milenium- which might also have the positive connotation. But I’ve also found 1 word, with rather negative connotation- mílka (mistake), míla (mile)
And because of the great number of related –mil words, I would also divide Milujem ta in to 1. content list. mil, 2. functional listm ujem, 3. functional listem ta

]]> Comment on Function and Content by Lucia Balazova http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/03/function-and-content/comment-page-1/#comment-60 Lucia Balazova Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:44:17 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/10/03/function-and-content/#comment-60 We may take a look on the similar Slovak sentences us you suggested in your blog. 1. John je zalubeny DO Mary. 2. *John bol najdeny OD Mary. The word by word translation of the English- by- is the Slovak DO, even if the sentence isn’t corret. But I think that the idea of function words can be understood also on this Slovak example. Do-means IN TO and therefore even if we don’t know the meaning of a word zalubeny, we should be able to understand that: John je do (in to) Mary- and therefore, he is in love. You maybe know the song: Do teba, do teba, do teba, zalubil sa chlapec (from ELAN), or Som do teba- used to be also used when I was younger :-) OD- word by word translation is FROM, so then John od (from) Mary , significates that John got something from Mary, or that they belong somehow together. So I think the definition for function words- that they organize the flow of information of the expression in which they occur, fits this term perfectly. They provide us with the little something that helps us to get the message of an utterance. We may take a look on the similar Slovak sentences us you suggested in your blog.
1. John je zalubeny DO Mary.
2. *John bol najdeny OD Mary.
The word by word translation of the English- by- is the Slovak DO, even if the sentence isn’t corret. But I think that the idea of function words can be understood also on this Slovak example. Do-means IN TO and therefore even if we don’t know the meaning of a word zalubeny, we should be able to understand that: John je do (in to) Mary- and therefore, he is in love. You maybe know the song: Do teba, do teba, do teba, zalubil sa chlapec (from ELAN), or Som do teba- used to be also used when I was younger :-)
OD- word by word translation is FROM, so then John od (from) Mary , significates that John got something from Mary, or that they belong somehow together.

So I think the definition for function words- that they organize the flow of information of the expression in which they occur, fits this term perfectly. They provide us with the little something that helps us to get the message of an utterance.

]]> Comment on Finding a Simple Place to Start by Lucia Balazova http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/09/24/finding-a-simple-place-to-start/comment-page-1/#comment-19 Lucia Balazova Wed, 20 Dec 2006 00:43:00 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/09/24/finding-a-simple-place-to-start/#comment-19 We’ve discussed the problem with NO, and all of it’s possible meanings and connotation. I would like to rise a question on whether No should be considered to be a word or a listeme. If we look at the definitions of both: Word- is a combination of vocal sounds, used in language to express an idea, it is a minimal unit of speech , which has a meaning as such. Listeme- is smaller than a word, here belong affixes and idioms. It doesn’t seem that easy to define NO either as a word or as a listme. No is kind of tricky. It could carry a meaning as such but it also doesn’t have to. Like: Ex: No do kelu- no doesn’t carry any meaning but EX: Si chory? No – here no carries a meaning of a confirmation. So we have to come to a conclusion that NO is not a clear word – in some cases, but with the use of a different intonation while speaking we make NO into a word, since it can carry many different meanings. So it is up to the speaker how he/she usees-misuses :-) No and what meaning will it carry. We’ve discussed the problem with NO, and all of it’s possible meanings and connotation. I would like to rise a question on whether No should be considered to be a word or a listeme. If we look at the definitions of both: Word- is a combination of vocal sounds, used in language to express an idea, it is a minimal unit of speech , which has a meaning as such.
Listeme- is smaller than a word, here belong affixes and idioms. It doesn’t seem that easy to define NO either as a word or as a listme. No is kind of tricky. It could carry a meaning as such but it also doesn’t have to. Like: Ex: No do kelu- no doesn’t carry any meaning but EX: Si chory? No – here no carries a meaning of a confirmation. So we have to come to a conclusion that NO is not a clear word – in some cases, but with the use of a different intonation while speaking we make NO into a word, since it can carry many different meanings. So it is up to the speaker how he/she usees-misuses :-) No and what meaning will it carry.

]]> Comment on Sameness and Difference by Mirka Odlevakova http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/21/sameness-and-difference/comment-page-1/#comment-234 Mirka Odlevakova Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:56:35 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/21/sameness-and-difference/#comment-234 We know that semantic features of synonyms are identical but it is very rare to find total synonyms. There is a question, however, concerning the number of semantic features..e. g. the word "miss" must have more semantic features /than just that is is a human and not a male,/so that we could compare this word with semantic features of some other word to decide if they are synonymous or not. Is the use of a word "miss" /e. g. to get a girl´s attention/ the only thing that makes this word different /or similar?/ from the word "a girl"? We know that semantic features of synonyms are identical but it is very rare to find total synonyms. There is a question, however, concerning the number of semantic features..e. g. the word “miss” must have more semantic features /than just that is is a human and not a male,/so that we could compare this word with semantic features of some other word to decide if they are synonymous or not. Is the use of a word “miss” /e. g. to get a girl´s attention/ the only thing that makes this word different /or similar?/ from the word “a girl”?

]]> Comment on Parts and Pieces by alena bobos http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/14/parts-and-pieces/comment-page-1/#comment-209 alena bobos Mon, 18 Dec 2006 15:11:48 +0000 http://blogs.uww.edu/lexicalsemantics/2006/11/14/parts-and-pieces/#comment-209 For starters, I must admit that I was rather surprised to see that there is a possibility of observing words and their meaning according to some fixed table of their characteristics, and comparing them out of the context, when isolated (because this is what this blog was about, wasn’t it? – about [+] and [-] of some quality when talking about specific term). I cannot grasp the idea of such a poor, shallow and “impersonal” comparison of words. It seemed to me, for a moment, as if we have forgotten about the fact that words would not exist as such, had they not been used in various interactions among people. Their meaning would be of no importance for certain society if they couldn’t be used inside of some more complex construction that would have its primary function in sending a clear, comprehensible message. There would be no sense for words to bear a meaning if this meaning wasn’t to be somehow “installed” into a certain structure, which would be communicating its wholeness, its overall meaning hidden behind the right combination of selected words, not the meaning of a single term, or a word pulled out of the inside of this creation. If you hear someone say “umbrella”, for you it will be of no importance, unless you knew the context in which it was used. It has to become a logical part of some organized sequence of lexemes, which then is strong enough a concept to bear a certain sense. Words are like cells. They have to cooperate in order to create more complex tissues, organs, system of organs, etc. that would be able to move, talk, create….they are building material, bricks. One cannot make a five-star hotel that will attract tourists (read: nicely compounded sentence well received by the target audience), with nothing more but a brick. The same thing we have with talking and writing. Do you think that Christopher Paolini would have written such a successful fantasy novel about amazing dragon Saphira and her little soul mate, if there wasn’t for his talent to combine, mix and transform words according to the message he was to send? He had to see them as means of connecting, transmitting, but also dividing and isolating when necessary, but all had to be done inside of some frame of logically chained language elements. There are so many factors that model words and posit them into a certain lingual arrangement (such are: situation, context, personality, sex and age of the speaker, as well as characteristics of the receiver). Girl is not only a girl: 1. “Hello there, little girl, are you lost?” – it is probably a small child. 2. “Come on girl, let’s get wild; we must get ourselves some men tonight.” – I honestly hope that she is more than 18. 3. “So girls, what are we going to watch today?” – a 27-year-old doctor is asking his 70-year-old female patients about the TV program for that afternoon siesta. 4. “Girl, you’ll be a woman soon…” – Pulp Fiction track. 5. “I wonder who that girl is. She has gorgeous body.” – this is a mature female person, can be even 30. 6. “It’s a girl!” – it is a 5 minute old baby. However, I have to admit that I am, in a strange sort of way, fascinated by man’s capability of dissecting words (and so many other things) into their smallest particles, and keeping them alive outside their “body”. But, this makes me wonder: Just how far can we go in this slicing up the word before we loose the right spirit of its core, of its true root? Sometimes, too much analyzing can bring one to the crossroads where none of the possible choices will lead to satisfying answers, or at least the ones that one would know what to do with. For starters, I must admit that I was rather surprised to see that there is a possibility of observing words and their meaning according to some fixed table of their characteristics, and comparing them out of the context, when isolated (because this is what this blog was about, wasn’t it? – about [+] and [-] of some quality when talking about specific term). I cannot grasp the idea of such a poor, shallow and “impersonal” comparison of words. It seemed to me, for a moment, as if we have forgotten about the fact that words would not exist as such, had they not been used in various interactions among people. Their meaning would be of no importance for certain society if they couldn’t be used inside of some more complex construction that would have its primary function in sending a clear, comprehensible message.
There would be no sense for words to bear a meaning if this meaning wasn’t to be somehow “installed” into a certain structure, which would be communicating its wholeness, its overall meaning hidden behind the right combination of selected words, not the meaning of a single term, or a word pulled out of the inside of this creation. If you hear someone say “umbrella”, for you it will be of no importance, unless you knew the context in which it was used. It has to become a logical part of some organized sequence of lexemes, which then is strong enough a concept to bear a certain sense. Words are like cells. They have to cooperate in order to create more complex tissues, organs, system of organs, etc. that would be able to move, talk, create….they are building material, bricks. One cannot make a five-star hotel that will attract tourists (read: nicely compounded sentence well received by the target audience), with nothing more but a brick. The same thing we have with talking and writing. Do you think that Christopher Paolini would have written such a successful fantasy novel about amazing dragon Saphira and her little soul mate, if there wasn’t for his talent to combine, mix and transform words according to the message he was to send? He had to see them as means of connecting, transmitting, but also dividing and isolating when necessary, but all had to be done inside of some frame of logically chained language elements.
There are so many factors that model words and posit them into a certain lingual arrangement (such are: situation, context, personality, sex and age of the speaker, as well as characteristics of the receiver).
Girl is not only a girl: 1. “Hello there, little girl, are you lost?” – it is probably a small child.
2. “Come on girl, let’s get wild; we must get ourselves some men tonight.” – I honestly hope that she is more than 18.
3. “So girls, what are we going to watch today?” – a 27-year-old doctor is asking his 70-year-old female patients about the TV program for that afternoon siesta.
4. “Girl, you’ll be a woman soon…” – Pulp Fiction track.
5. “I wonder who that girl is. She has gorgeous body.” – this is a mature female person, can be even 30.
6. “It’s a girl!” – it is a 5 minute old baby.
However, I have to admit that I am, in a strange sort of way, fascinated by man’s capability of dissecting words (and so many other things) into their smallest particles, and keeping them alive outside their “body”. But, this makes me wonder: Just how far can we go in this slicing up the word before we loose the right spirit of its core, of its true root? Sometimes, too much analyzing can bring one to the crossroads where none of the possible choices will lead to satisfying answers, or at least the ones that one would know what to do with.

]]>