2.dos “Relatedness” As the Viewed Of the Historic Semantics

There is no doubt, including — and especially — one of advantages, which our intellectual code is highly organized heated affairs seznamka. There are a lot of connections between the unmarried terms regarding a vocabulary therefore the significance of them terminology, respectively. Certainly one of linguists, these types of affairs are known as “semantic relations”, “experience relationships” otherwise “lexical interactions”. These types of semantic affairs can be analysed and demonstrated for the most part, plus the following, the initial of them of those connections should be shown.

To give a primary, important dysfunction of the state-of-the-art, it must be said that there are numerous research projects on this subject thing. not, so it report can simply were a number of them. Books which had been made use of exists lower than area half dozen, “List of Work Cited”. Endeavor delimitations have only become made in terms of detail is alarmed. Since this paper is only an incredibly short bit of lookup, the fresh experts provides restricted on their own to not ever enter a lot of outline, but instead make an effort to bring an excellent questionnaire of one’s point.

dos.step one Polysemy And you can Homonymy

Polysemy can be defined as “a term included in semantic studies to mention to help you an excellent lexical goods which has a variety of other significance” (Amazingly 1997, 297). Crystal offers just like the example having polysemy the fresh new lexical item “plain”, which includes the different meanings “clear”, “unadorned”, “obvious”, etc.(ibid. Crystal).

Now, the problem one appears to own linguists is how to distinguish polysemy regarding a special ambiguity, out of homonymy. Amazingly defines homonymy since “an expression found in semantic research to mention to [several] lexical items which [eventually] have a similar form, but differ during the definition” (Crystal 1997, 185). Crystal’s advice listed below are “bear” and you can “ear”. “Bear” can be define an animal otherwise might have this is away from “to bring”, “ear” is also relate to your body or perhaps to corn (ibid. Crystal).

Throughout these examples, homonymy talks about one another spoken and you can created models, but

it’s including likely that this new label away from a couple lexemes is actually a single typical, in which case linguists would discuss about it limited homonymy or heteronymy (ibid. Crystal). You can separate two types of partial homonymy:

— Homography: two lexical issues have the same written mode, however, differ within the pronunciation (an illustration will be the several lexical items of “lead”, one to pronounced [li:d] and you may definition “to settle front”, the other pronounced [led] and determining an alternate types of steel). — Homophony: two lexical things have a similar enunciation, but differ inside spelling

(age.g. both lexical factors “led” and you may “lead”, all of which are noticable [led], the original as the earlier stressful off “to lead”, the second once again defining a unique form of steel).

two sorts Out of Ambiguity

Therefore, polysemy and you may homonymy might be recognized of each other by present otherwise lost relatedness between your significance that will be designated to at least one phonological mode. What is the center of count, is the question as to the extent this notion away from “relatedness” is specified. Simply put: how do “relatedness” become outlined? In the event that a very clear and you may perfect meaning would-be given, the whole condition might be solved, getting then phenomenon away from phonological versions whose relatedness will likely be ended up might be entitled “homonymy”, whose relatedness can’t be turned out might possibly be entitled “polysemy”. However, because the goes so frequently in the area of semantics, one cannot simply bring a clear and you may indisputable definition of the phrase “relatedness”. There are two main first ways to this issue, one to provided by historical semantics, one other from the synchronic semantics.

Historical semantics interprets the idea “relatedness” mainly naturally which speaks regarding polysemy when the an excellent lexeme having different definitions holds a comparable etymological roots (Kastovsky 1982, 121). Examples is “game” toward several meanings “wild animals” and you may “playful pastime” or “funny” definition either “strange” otherwise “amusing”. One another examples show lexemes whose various other definitions have the same etymological sources and therefore are thus translated as polysemy by historical semantics.