How to make linguistics enjoyable?

one. However, among natives or on a certain level of language acquisition behind, it should really take effect without any problems, regardless of regional dialects. (explanatory adequacy, nobody cares about which dialect is being used in this current dialog - the question on this level might not be like which tool is better: Swiss army knife or an ax?)

The next example would not seem to be corroborative example for the first look. However, I was an ear witness of this conversation among American youngsters, out of whom one is on the very edge to get around a girl in a club:

Guy: Polar bear.

Girl: What? Guy: I say polar bear. Girl: What? Guy: I don' know but it hit the ice. Girl: (smiling) Guy: wanna drink something? Girl: sure, yeah....

Rarely would this dialog take effect in the mind of a Granny (a woman ages between 60 and death, secondary school Russian re-trained so-called English teacher in Hungary). She would only understand the words separately, but would never ever know that this guy was extremely lucky that evening. It is not enough to understand the words, or look for grammatical structure (the language itself is extremely simple here - simplification). Even if there was any grammar in it to satisfy the hunger of Grannies (Present Perfect preferably), without social as well as cultural integration, this conversation would not take effect. Therefore, the arbitrariness and creativity of the language users play a very significant role here. Not mentioning the fact that it would not even take effect on different social levels in English speaking countries either. However, a native would much more easily figure out the essence of this dialog than a non-native, since he is really living in that surrounding and performing the language on a higher level (Chomsky's explanatory adequacy?). Why should we not use a more perfect and acceptable version of this dialogue? (it would be again a question what is acceptable or not?). Probably because we like using idioms, or because this guyeven though he was eager to get around the girl - was too shy to propose directly with the following:

I like you. (= it hit the ice).Do you want to drink anything?

At last, I should ask: would we have the same reaction (consent of the girl) if she had heard this “normal” question? It is worth pondering about.....

The next example might be the top cream of our cake. It is a joke again, easily digestible, still very smart.

A small boy is sent to bed by his father.

Five minutes later... "Da-ad..." "What?"

"I'm thirsty. Can you bring me a drink of water?" "No. You had your chance. Lights out." Five minutes later: "Da-aaaad..." "WHAT?"

"I'm THIRSTY. Can I have a drink of water??" "I told you NO! If you ask again, I'll have to spank you!!"

2

Five minutes later... "Daaaa-aaaad..." "WHAT??!!"

"When you come in to spank me, can you bring me a drink of water?"

I hope I do not have to take any efforts to explain the punchline of the joke. What we actually can see here from linguistic or semantic point of view is that how creatively a five year old kid could use the language, how he could take advantage of a sudden situation. I have picked on this joke because I wanted to present a joke that could take effect in Hungarian too. The punchline and the meaning of this dialog could easily be converted into Hungarian language, and it would really take effect without any discrepancy.

In this first Unit I have been dealing with basic linguistic approaches (if we can name them like this), some features like duality of patterning, creativity, arbitrariness, equality, tacitness. We could get a bit of taste from these via practical jokes, all taken from real life and real English - letting behind deeper linguistic science.

Forms, words, morphemes

It is extremely interesting part of linguistics. Morphemes are the smallest units conveying meaning in a language, or changing meaning if attached to each other (free or bound). The types of morphemes and many examples are given for us, therefore explaining them again is really inevitable now. My task was, however, to collect examples for cranberry morphemes and I cannot apart from defining them. Cranberry morphemes are those of which one part is not conveying direct meaning. It means if you divide the two or more parts, one of the parts has not automatically understandable meaning: cran + berry, for instance, we know what berry is, but it is not determinable what the word “cran” is derived from. Or at least, for the first look. So if you compare this to “blackberry”, for example, we all know that this will convey the meaning of a kind of berry which is black, and consequently black has an easily recognizable meaning. For all these, after a deeper research we might get to the origin of “cran”, which is actually crane (like the bird), and due to the fact that these berries were liked by those beautiful birds, hence the name. I have collected some Hungarian cranberries, upon which we may lay our eyes for a while. Before I tried to investigate the wonder of Hungarian cranberries, I turned to my colleagues for some help. They let me know that there are no real cranberry morphemes in Hungarian, or not of those which properly match the analogy. Therefore, I have decided on naming them semi-cranberries, and treating them like real ones.

LEKVÁR (eng. marmalade)

I do think LEK- collaborates with CRAN, since it has no real meaning, whereas VÁR is a free morpheme. However, semantically the compound of these two words ends up in a new word, which has nothing to do with the original meaning of VÁR. The word LEK could be, analogically, considered a bound morpheme. In addition VÁR can carry LOVAG-, FELLEG- in front, thus forming a totally different but semantically perfect word. Here our analogy suffers a bit of failure, but this does not make us frustrated to go on.

PAPSAJT

This is an interesting case. I am not quiet sure that it is a cranberry morpheme. However, the two words like PAP and SAJT (priest+cheese) has nothing in common with the combined word typed above, since it is nor a dairy nor a cleric but a plant growing on the streets.

3

CSOMAG (eng. parcel)

Just in accordance with the things considering LEKVÁR, this word could also carry a bound cranberry morpheme CSO-, which surely has no real meaning. On the contrary, if you put TÖK- in from for example, you may get another word conveying the original meaning of MAG (core), as the core of pumpkin. I do think these examples lack two important things: first, the meaning of the original free morpheme and the meaning of the compound word has nothing in common, while in the case of cranberry, BERRY is always something of a round-shaped fruit. VÁR, however, in the case of LEKVÁR means CASTLE if standing alone, while it ends up in MARMALDE. Second important difference is that cranberry morphemes seem to be compound words, whereas LEKVÁR is originally not a compound word in Hungarian grammar.

An interesting and funny word would be HULLAHOP in Hungarian, compounded by HULLA + HOP. It is rather exciting. HULLA is actually a dead human body, while HOP has no meaning. It probably had a meaning of JUMP, since in some nursery rhymes you might come across it.(“hop Juliska, hop Mariska” = “jump Julie, jump Mary”) However, a jumping dead body has no adequate meaning, yet HULLAHOP means a a spinning colored plastic hoop around children's waist - it is a beloved game by kids. Probably, the Hungarian HOP is a remaining of the English HOOP, but I am not sure about this origin either.

Compound (endocentric, exocentric and so on

In this section we are supposed to analyze certain compounds from the aspects of certain aspect such as compounding, endocentric, exocentric features and so on. I will finally draw tree structures by hand and scan them.

BILLBOARD

Actually, in American English it is BULLETINBOARD and I do suppose that would make an analogy here. It is, therefore, worth being analyzed too not just because of my being a devoted US English speaker, but also for its being a very interesting phenomenon. But first let me glance at BILLBOARD, which might stand for a BILL + BOARD; this would convey a direct message, therefore I do consider it an endocentric compound. It is a board where people put or pin bills or other small strips of paper. I am not quiet sure of its origin; however, as far as I know the unique meaning of bill was a kind of written form of contract in which someone declares that he owes money (he got it as a deposit or loan). There was a list in the lord's court or king's court on which the name of these people who were not able to pay the money back was written. This was called “BILL”, and it was pinned on a wooden “BOARD” so that everyone could see the name of these humiliated people. Today, if the parliament decides upon an important matter in Britain, the written form of this decision is also called BILL as a token for the parliament's reliability. The American term, BULLETIN will definitely express this endocentricity, since the original as well as the everyday meaning of bulletin is “notice”, which is usually pinned on a board. Just in accordance with its British synonym, a BULLETIN is also related to the decision of the congress. I am not really sure that BLACKBOARD as a new example would be considered endocentric compound any more, since BLACKBOARD is not really painted black any longer. Therefore, the only thing which is true in this compound (not always, especially in the case of plastic interactive boards) that it has something in common with a wooden board which teachers can write on if using a chalk.

4

FAST FOOD

I would not really use a hyphen here to join the words. I assume this is again an endocentric compound, since it inevitable suggest a food which is eaten in a fast way, probably because they consumer has no time to ponder over some meal. On the contrary, this might refer to a kind of food which is prepared in a fast way, and probably eaten slowly. Insert RESTAURANT in the compound: FAST FOOD RESTAURANT. In this connotation we do not know whether the food is made in a fast way (FAST-FOOD RESTAURANT) so it could hint at the method of cooking instead of the method of consumption. or the service is fast (FAST FOOD-RESTAURANT). This or that, it would not faint the original meaning of this compound. In order to verify this from another aspect, I would try to look at JUNK FOOD, which might be worth a mass. If you divide the two words, JUNK would not collaborate with food for the first not even for the second glance. The reason for this is that JUNK was originally used for something absolutely unusable stuff, especially in automobile market (see junk-yard). Consequently, everyone should think of inedible food, which is again not true. When a native hears JUNK FOOD he will think of FAST FOOD, which can surely be eaten, so it stands as a synonym of FAST FOOD, with one piece of small additive information: some people think the fast food is not healthy.

SOFTWARE

Had I been asked this question 40 years ago, I would have answered that it was an endocentric compound (if linguistic experts had already come up with these terms - I do not know) conveying the meaning of light metal or other tools especially for kitchen. . However, today I would say that it is an exocentric compound. If you were told to inquire the people on the streets right now, eleven out of ten guys would say that this word refers to computer science. If you look it up in a dictionary, the first meaning will definitely be computer program, or programme (in British English). Therefore, the original meaning has all gone. I suppose it was like “keeping /waring soft metal things”. As an evidence, I am surely supposed to list HARDWARE here. I think the situation is the same, probably HARDWARE as metal stuff for whatever (building, tooling, etc) would be remembered by older British citizens, but youngsters or even middle-aged generations would inevitably associate it with computer hardwares like hard disk driver, floppy disk driver, etc.

CITY CENTER

This nominal compound expresses the center of the city, therefore it does really convey the original meaning. I would therefore call it endometric compound. In order to present an evidence I should list SHOPPING CENTER here. What does CENTER represents here? Is this shopping mall in the center of the city? Is SHOPPING a noun or and adjective (N+N or A+N)? Why do we have to shop in the center of something? Can we apply the possessive relation here: CENTER OF SHOPPING? Is that an adverbial phrase of location? Or is it a stable noun? Could we substitute this with one single noun like STORE for instance? The answer might be yes, thus I do not consider it to be endocentric compound On the contrary, CITY CENTER is an endocentric compound since it really tells us about the center of the city whereas our other examples do not comprehend here.

AIR BAG

Unlike the previously discusses nominal compound, this one is an interesting case. Today it is absolutely clear for everyone (expect for no-brain long-nailed blondies) that AIR BAG is in the car saving our life in case of collision. However, being so skeptic I would easily bring up my questions here: what does AIR refer to? Why is it not SACK just like its equivalents in Hungarian? We know from our cars the practical meaning of this word and we would surely associate it with a bag or sack which is filled up with air in no time in case of head-on-head crash. Therefore, nobody would think

5

of a bag (school bag, for instance) which contains nothing but air. I should, eventually, place it among the endocentric compounds. The counter example could be AIRPORT, which is obviously neither situated in the air nor is it the port of airs or something. It should have been PLANE PORT or FLIGHT PORT, therefore it is an exocentric compound in theory but it could be inevitably handled as endocentric in practice. Nobody would think of a port in the air, or something. But I wonder what we will call the ports really situated in the air in some hundred years' time. It should be worthing living - only for this - at that time as well. FLOWER-POWER

It is an exocentric compound which travels a different meaning like we would first think of. If you separated these two words they would carry a totally irrelevant meanings. Moreover, unlike in the case of AIR BAG where an average English speaking person would inevitably know what if is about, FLOWER-POWER comes into effect only if we get to know the historical background. In addition, we can point at an interesting fact here. This compound would be clear only for those who had any personal experience with the FLOWER-CHILDREN in the 1960s. Therefore, a longer explanation of the words would as well be effective only if the listeners might have had personla experience. If we were to categorize the exocentric compounds this would be the furthest in meaning. Semantically, these compounds are rather of idioms. (see also CAMP FLOWER, SURVIVING CAMP, etc)

BLUEPRINT

There is no doubt about its being an exocentric compound. It is a A+N nominal compound, since BLUE is an adjective. We should associate anything with a color; however, this compound has nothing in common with colors. It is a PLAN, DESIGN or COPY of something, usually used in printing and architecture, but no other collaborations with BLUE. The counter example could be FOOT-PRINT, FINGER-PRINT, which technically as well as theoretically represent endocentric compounds. Unlike in the case of BILLLBOARD, for example, where we can trace the root back, hereby it would be very hard to find the original roots of this word. An average English speaker would never associate it with a kind of cyanotype (ferrocyanide is colored blue - hence the name) printing method developed in 1842. For many decades it was the only available process for copying drawings. On the contrary, when hearing this word, everybody would think of a printing method or architecture designing, so the primer association and the original method do have something in common. It would not, however, make this word an endocentric compound since no one would associate it with a color or blue colored printings for the first look; it would rather be collaborated with PLAN or COPY.

BRAIN DEAD

This coumpound might be considered both endocentric and exocentric ones. The reason for this explanation is that on one hand biologically it has a meaning of a patient whose brain is not functioning any more regardless of supported blood circulation. On the other hand, it could be an abstract expression when some one is exhausted and tired. He could say, “Don't disturb me, I'm totally brain dead now”. Still I would consider that this word is an endocentric compound. In order to prove it I would suggest glancing at BRAIN STORM or BRAIN STORMING, which should inevitably be regarded as exocentric ones.

BUST STOP

For the first look it seems to be an endocentric compund conveying the meaning of a place where buses stop to accept and transport passengers. Phonologically I would raise your attention to the following interesting thing: if you only pronounce this, you might get BUST UP instead of BUS

6

STOP which is not the same, is it? I hope my readers would also agree. For all this, the answer would obviously be that this word is an endocentric compound.

Chomsky makes me puzzle

I am still pondering about Chomsky's theory of universal grammar, as I noted it in my previous essay. I still believe that explanatory adequacy in itself includes grammatically as well as semantically high performance of the speaker, thus I cannot apart from different dialects and territorial divergences, cultures and subcultures where explanatory adequacy would mean a totally different wave of universal grammar. What I previously stated is that universal grammar could be different in certain circumstances, therefore it would mean different things on the above mentioned social levels. To what extend is a sentence acceptable as grammatically correct one? Grammar is also supposed to carry and transmit the speaker's information, is it not? However, if we say there is only one universal grammar, what could we consider the right one is? Which sentence might be correct then? “I have a nice car” or “I have got a nice car” or “I've a nice car” or “I got a nice car” or “I've got a nice car:” I wonder what universal grammar is in these sentences. And which sentence would meet the criteria of explanatory adequacy?

Before categorizing certain words in here, let me recite these definitions.

Synonyms are words or expressions that have the same meaning in some or all contexts.

Antonyms are lexical items that are opposites with respect to some component of meaning.

Polysemy occurs when a word has two or more related meanings(like style)

Homophony is where a given form has two or more unrelated meanings (like club, date, etc)

Hyponym is a word that names an entity belonging to the larger or more general category (like cutlery = fork, knife, spoon, etc)

The next words are categorized according to the groups above. Following categorization, I make some linguistic remarks on some of the examples.

As we can undoubtedly see it is possible to put a word into more categories. Just like in the case of revive or resuscitate, they can be synonyms of each other while they form antonyms with kill, destroy, etc.

It does not seem to be complicated to break these words down into groups. Sometimes some words could be polisemys and homophonys, just as in the case of reed or grass. (reed is actually could be the

homophone of read, and meaning a plant and musical instrument, just like in the case of grass, where it could be either a plant, a kind of drug and a person who always betrays his/her friends) However, let me once show a kind of differences in dialects: in some part of the States “aunt” is pronounced like “ant”, hence the joke:

“Why was the American kid scared when he was at the zoo? Because he saw an aunt (ant) eater.”

I could but list more of the jokes and witty anecdotes here; however I lack the time and opportunity. Closing up this section, however, I cannot regard from the following joke stretching its punchline when being spoken:

“Why were the middle ages so dark? Because there were so many nights (knights).

Hereby I am supposed to categorize the following words something like semantically, name whether they are central in meaning (close to the original ones just like when you say “animal” and not “dog”), or peripheral in meaning, when we consider “blood cell” being placed far behind the original meaning of “cell”. It is, however, not always simple to decide. There could be graded memberships (like in the case of certain auxiliaries or future times in English, not mentioning different adjectives /eg. Big, large, huge, giant, enormous, etc/); moreover, the concept might be fuzzy or non-fuzzy. Let me point at some of the features I have been talking about.

(I have opted for both British and American meanings, since I have been dealing with American English for more than 15 years now; consequently, I am really interested in the semantical, grammatical as well as structural differences in these two “dialects” (I know they are more than that); I do hope to write my thesis upon this phenomenon later.)

film star, hound, vehicle, blood cell, pencil, kitchen utensil, book, notebook, housewife, insulator

film start = a well-known cinema actor or actress 1

movie star = an actor or actress who is famous in movies 2

Well, for the first look we might consider these a little bit peripheral, since this compound word has nothing to the with the central meaning of “star”.Why do we call them stars? However, they do not concept fuzzily. We all know who these people are, “well-known” or “famous” (does this mean the same semantically?) actors or actresses. Why on Earth then do we not call them “well-known actors or famous actors?” What is the original concept of calling them “stars”? If it refers to the hight of the planets above, why do we compare them to those of celestial bodies? In addition, you may know that the word “star” functions as a verb as well, eg. “act in a movie”, where we are absolutely in despair to trace down the origins. (NB, some consider it a fuzzy concept, graded membership? Why graded? Does it have stages like junior or senior film star?However, if you consider that it is the highest among other actor and actresses, it might be graded; in contrast, we might question what makes a “star” star, if not only his/her being well-known /see examples above/.)

hound = a type of dog used in hunting 3

hound = a dog (animal) that people often keep as pets and use for hunting or guarding 4

As we obviously see, this word refers to a type of dog that hunts, especially used by hunters in oder that it could chase and fetch the bird or other poor creatures being shot by the hunter. It is a

1 Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary,OUP, Oxford, 1989, 453

2 Longman Study Dictionary of American English, Pearson Education Ltd, Essex, UK, 2006, 443

3 Ibid1, 604

4 Ibid2, 190

8

subcategory of dogs, however, I cannot state that it is peripheral in meaning, since it is not very far from the original central word “dog”. (fuzzy concept, graded membership) Just imagine that sentence like “When I hunt I usually take my hound with me to chase and get the prey.” Nobody would think of other animal, would they not? We all would understand a “hunting dog”. (Originally, the basic meaning comes from German language, probably because German breeds of dogs were first initiated for hunting in Britain as well around the 16 ^th century; notably, HUND is equivalent to DOG in German.)

vehicle = conveyance such as cars, lorries, buses, etc used for transporting goods or passengers 5

vehicle = something such as cars, bus, etc that carries people or things 6

This is a central category, that must be sure. It cannot be considered subcategory for the first look. However, neither of the definitions sates the vehicle is “a means of transportation” or something like that. I know this question is hypothetical a bit, however, let me be picking on it. Could “means of transportation” be a higher category than “vehicle”? If you think that vehicle is just some transportation on wheels (I do not suppose anyone would think of airplanes or space shuttles upon hearing this word first), you might have the chance of considering “means of transportation” a higher category. Therefore, even if “vehicle” is a central category for the fist look, I do not state that is is the subcategory of “means of transportation”. Nevertheless, “means of transportation” (prototype) might embrace chairlifts, funicular trains, hotair balloons, space shuttles, ferries, liners and whatever cargo carriages including horse-pulled carts as well.

Blood cell = a round shaped part of blood (the red liquid flowing through bodies of humans and animals 7

Blood cell = part of the red liquid our heart pumps through our body. 8

The first component is very clear. The second one, however, hunches far from the original meaning of cell (eg. a very small room especially for a monk in a monastery or for a prisoner in jail). Therefore, it might be considered peripheral; on the contrary, when hearing “blood cell” noone would think of a place to live in, but of something really associated with human as well as animal body.

The use of the words “pencil” and “kitchen utensil” is very tricky here. “Pencil” is of “writing utensils”, whereas “kitchen utensil” is a general category of different kitchen tools. As a consequence, one is of a subcategory and the other is of central concept. (basic level terms,

On one hand “notebook” could be handled as a subcategory of book, where obviously “book” is a prototype. However, in our life “notebook” has recently been added a new meaning like “laptop computer”. It is now fashionable to use this term instead of computer, therefore it might ans isolated category.

housewife = a woman whose occupation is looking after the family and the house... 9

(Something like the same is noted in my other sources)

We surely cannot consider this a prototype or basic level concepts. However, place her is not as easy as it looks at first sight. She could be either a family member (fuzzy concept, graded membership) or one kind of job (eg. it is a job to stay at home ant take care of the family members).That might be the

5 Ibid1, 1414

6 Ibid2, 743

7 Ibid1, 116

8 Ibid2, 64

9 Ibid1, 605

9

reason I now let my readers decide.

insulator = a substance or device for insulating, especially used in electricity 10

It seems to be a basic level term in a way, due to its forming a main category; the central members could be wood, porcelain, nylon, or other stuff. Other subcategories might be imagined, since this word is not only used for electrical insulation, but also for heat or other separations. Therefore, other peripheral categories could be attached. Just like in the case of heat insulator, central members could be wall, panels, glass, fixing foam, wooden doors, bricks, prefabricated bricks, concrete...so I could make a list of a library here.

Hereby I am supposed to list some examples of paraphrases, contradictions and entailment.

I would but cannot make a long account on each, so let me list some of the examples I have collected; afterwards I would comment upon some of them.

PARAPHRASES

1 We saw him yesterday. = We met yesterday.

2 His wife died a week ago. = He has become a widower.

3 I gave a one million dollar bill to Jack. = Jack was granted a one million dollar bill.

4 Sheila is our neighbor. = Sheila is the next door lodger.

5 All his hair is gone. = He went bald.

6 Monica comforted William. = William and Monica had a good time.

Let me stop here for a while. Based on the definitions we had in our course kit, I would say that different usage of different dialects might act as paraphrases. For instance, some say that the sentences like “I live in a flat” and “I live in an apartment.” correlate as paraphrases. If it is true, anyway, I could say the US English might form paraphrases with its UK brother. On the contrary, that would not be always effective. The reason for its inadequacy is that paraphrases have to take effect in the same listener or user: hence the sentence above is not a real paraphrase. The sentences like “She lost her husband” = “She is widowed.” do associate with paraphrases, since they convey the same information in the same listener or user. Just compare these.

I came here by streetcar. (tram?)

I just stuck the notice on the bulletin board. (bill?)

Where is your coach? (in US its a person; a British guy would be looking for a bus.)

What pants do you have on? (a British guy would be astonished at me having an X-ray eye and peeping her/his underwear? eg. in the US its simple trousers)

So you see, “dialect paraphrases” do not often take effect, that is for sure.

10 Ibid1, 650

10

CONTRADICTION

1 I live in a ranch house. - I live in an apartment. 2 I am a medical doctor. - I never attended a medical university. 3 I just kissed her. - She is expecting a baby now. 4 Mary is on the dole. - Mary makes a good deal of money. 5 I don't have a family. - I'm married with two kids. 6 My son doesn't speak yet. - My son said hello to me this morning. 7 Fish have gills. - Fish use their mouth to take a breath. 8 I was fired yesterday. - My job is fascinating.

Surely we could list many of these examples. As my being really engaged with dialect research, I would intend to show you contradictions in a funny way: we do not change anything in the sentence, however, they will mean a totally different (contradicting) things in the two dialects.

1. (telephone conversation) “I'll put you through” = I'll connect you. (UK) = I'll disconnect you. (US).

2. “Peter is so clever.” = “Peter is really intelligent and educated.” (UK) = “Peter is a freak and he is just showing off” (US)

3. He is so intimate to me. = He is too insinuative to me. (UK) = He is very close to me. (US)

Of course the list is endless, but this time it was just a bit of taste for you.

ENTAILMENT

1 Dairy products in bulk are not produced in Hungary. = Butter and cheese in bulk are not produced in Hungary

2 She loves mammals. - She reads a lot about tigers. 3 We have a pet. - We are dog owners.

4 Jake is my lover. = Jake is not my wife. (Okay, I'm just kidding.....) 5 I sell gums, lolly-pops and chocolate to kids in front of the school. = I'm a candy man. 6 I'm a meat eater. = I only eat pork and chicken.

You see, entailment is not always as clear as soup. We cannot get any further information about the marital statuses for instance in example 4. It is not sure if I have a wife or not, and it is not sure whether Jane will be my wife or not (still could be). So it is rather like paraphrasing things. Obviously, my examples were tricky, since “granny sentences” like “I like the fruit of the sea” and “I like eating salmon and shrimps” would have been simple as ABC.

11

Signs, symbols, signals and so on.

I carried out the following research in this field. I am aware of the fact that not the most perfect ones, but I hope they will do.

Graded signs Discreet signs

Iconic signs: scream,smile map (or smile here?), grin laughter, giggle "no smoking" or”wet paint” sign

Indexes: singing of birds indicator lights, flashes barking

animal's murmuring, growling

Symbolic signs: watch announcements (whatever) clock "Szolnok" road sign

Signals: cop instructing traffic "WC" light

I could have placed “grin” or “smile” into other categories, however, it depends on the circumstance how graded or discreet these signs would be. On one hand, ECG signs might be symbolic, when we take the ECG of a patients. The lines of the ECG could correlate to different cardiac syndromes and happenings. If there is a change in cardiac status of a transported patient, the ECG signals therefore helps me (the paramedic) to interfere if necessary. In this case, the ECG could be put into the category of “signals”. All figure-like characters in the Highway Code must be considered symbolic signs. However, definitions of the Code might not be considered signals. I hope this essay would meet the minimum requirements.

12