In the light of de Saussure’s definition of the linguistic sign and Chomskyan generative grammar, a great number of Linguists1 of the second half of the 20th century used to define language primarily in terms of an artificially constructed autonomous sign system. From this traditional point of view, the field of linguistics did not see beyond the construct it had created resulting in the deformation of the object of study, language-in-use.
The pragmatic turn of the 1960s brought along what one might call the ‘Copernican revolution’ in linguistics. In this connection, Martinet pointed at one of the most fundamental prerequisites of well-conducted scientific research, in that he rejected firmly any scientific proceeding that sacrifices the integrity of the object of study to methodological exigencies. On the contrary, the object itself, language in use, dictates to a great extent the methodology of the researcher.
In the course of this treatise, I discuss, in the context of the above-mentioned assumptions, the issue of the lexical unit. Thereby, I will concentrate on the two conflicting definitions given, on the one hand, in the form of the one-word lexical unit and, on the other, in the form the multi-word unit. During my argumentation, I attempt to provide sufficient evidence in favour of the multi-word lexical unit showing that the equation of the single word with a unit of meaning needs to be overcome ultimately.
This treatise comprises both a theoretical and an empirical part. The former lays the theoretical foundation for the empirical investigation put forward in the course of the methodological section. After the obligatory sketch of the research background, I introduce the reader to the basic assumptions of Weigand’s pragmatic model. Looking at lexical semantics, the universal level of contrastive studies is kept in the foreground. In this context, I primarily concentrate on the definition of predicating fields and meaning positions as well as the principle of meaning equivalence. In addition, the theoretical introduction will offer some preliminary remarks on the expression side.
Table of Contents
1. The aim of this work
2. The research background
3. The theoretical foundation
3.1. The ‘mixed game model’
3.2. The quasi-universal semantic structure
3.3. The principle of meaning equivalence
3.4. The expression side
4. Investigating language
4.1. Preliminary remarks on the methodology
4.1.1. How to compare ‘see’ and ‘sehen’?
4.1.1.1. The implementation of the contrastive semantic analysis
4.1.1.2. The predicating fields of the analysis
4.1.2. Searching the corpus
4.2. The semantic analysis of ‘see’ and ‘sehen’
4.2.1. The contrastive semantic analysis
4.2.1.1. Correlating the expression side with the meaning side
4.2.1.2. The problematic cases
4.2.2. A quick glance at ‘the complex’
4.2.2.1. What does the corpus tell us?
4.2.2.2. The problematic cases
5. Interpreting the results
5.1. Units in contrast
5.2. Meaning in ‘the complex’
6. Conclusion and outlook
7. List of works cited
Research Objectives and Topics
This work examines the issue of the lexical unit, challenging the traditional structuralist equation of the single word with a unit of meaning. Through a pragmatic-semantic lens, it investigates whether multi-word phrases serve as the communicatively relevant functional units in language use, using English and German verbs like 'see' and 'sehen' as primary examples.
- The transition from single-word lexical units to multi-word phrases.
- The application of Weigand’s ‘mixed game model’ in lexical semantics.
- Contrastive semantic analysis between English and German verb structures.
- The role of corpus linguistics in disambiguating lexical meaning.
- Functional criteria for defining the lexical unit within the utterance.
Auszug aus dem Buch
1. The aim of this work
In the light of de Saussure’s definition of the linguistic sign (2001: 76ff.) and Chomskyan generative grammar (e.g., Chomsky 1966, 1965, 1957), a great number of Linguists of the second half of the 20th century used to define language primarily in terms of an artificially constructed autonomous sign system. From this traditional point of view, the field of linguistics did not see beyond the construct it had created resulting in the deformation of the object of study, language-in-use.
The pragmatic turn of the 1960s brought along what one might call the ‘Copernican revolution’ in linguistics. In this connection, Martinet (1975: 10) pointed at one of the most fundamental prerequisites of well-conducted scientific research, in that he rejected firmly any scientific proceeding that sacrifices the integrity of the object of study to methodological exigencies. On the contrary, the object itself, language in use, dictates to a great extent the methodology of the researcher.
Summary of Chapters
1. The aim of this work: This chapter introduces the shift from traditional structuralist sign-based linguistics to a pragmatic focus on language-in-use.
2. The research background: This section reviews structuralist and decompositional semantic theories, highlighting their failure to account for actual language usage.
3. The theoretical foundation: This chapter details Weigand’s 'mixed game model' and establishes the quasi-universal semantic structure and principles of meaning equivalence.
4. Investigating language: This part outlines the methodology, including contrastive semantic analysis and corpus data, to identify functionally relevant multi-word units.
5. Interpreting the results: This chapter discusses findings from the analysis, emphasizing that meaning is defined by context and syntactically defined multi-word phrases.
6. Conclusion and outlook: This final chapter synthesizes the evidence, confirming the necessity of replacing the one-word lexical unit perspective with a multi-word phrase model.
7. List of works cited: This section provides a comprehensive bibliography of the theoretical sources and dictionaries used in the research.
Keywords
Lexical unit, Language-in-use, Multi-word phrases, Pragmatics, Contrastive semantics, Corpus linguistics, Dialogic action game, Predicating fields, Meaning equivalence, Structuralism, Idiom principle, Syntagmatic perspective, Weigand, Sinclair, Sense disambiguation.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental issue addressed in this work?
The work addresses the inadequacy of the traditional structuralist assumption that a single word equates to a unit of meaning, arguing instead for the recognition of multi-word phrases as the primary units of communication.
What are the central thematic fields?
The study centers on lexical semantics, pragmatic theories, contrastive analysis between English and German, and the importance of syntactical patterns in determining word meaning.
What is the primary goal of this research?
The primary goal is to provide evidence that lexical semantics must shift its perspective from isolated words to multi-word phrases to accurately reflect communicative functionality in language-in-use.
Which scientific methods are applied?
The author uses a combination of contrastive semantic analysis (drawing from dictionary entries) and corpus analysis (utilizing the British National Corpus) to verify the functional role of multi-word units.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It covers theoretical foundations (Weigand’s model), methodological remarks on comparing 'see' and 'sehen', detailed semantic mapping of these verbs into predicating fields, and corpus-based analysis of the phrase 'to see sth through'.
Which keywords define the work?
Key terms include lexical unit, multi-word phrases, language-in-use, pragmatics, contrastive semantics, idiomatic principle, and predicating fields.
How are the predicating fields established?
They are derived from fundamental human abilities and are treated as heuristic units to structure the vocabulary along the lines of functional use rather than ontological definitions.
What is the 'idiom principle' in this context?
It refers to the observation that language is extensively composed of complex, recurrent, and often fixed units (collocations) rather than being generated solely by open-choice selections.
Why are dictionary definitions considered problematic by the author?
The author argues that traditional dictionaries often neglect the surrounding co-text of a word, leading to polysemous entries that lack systematic connection to actual usage.
What conclusion does the author draw regarding language complexity?
The author concludes that language is a highly complex, capricious system that cannot be reduced to simple rules, and that effective lexicography must integrate co-text and situational context.
- Quote paper
- Sebastian Feller (Author), 2006, The Issue of the Lexical Unit - Using Selected Examples of English and German Verbs, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/72231
