This paper seeks to describe and analyze typical strategies employed for explaining unknown words. The empirical component is based on a small video-corpus comprising 4x6 interviews with native as well as non-native speakers of English, transcripts are included in the Appendix. The material is analyzed by means of a theoretical apparatus taken from lexical semantics and pragmatics.
Table of Content
1. INTRODUCTION
2. PRELIMINARIES: THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY
3. RETRIEVING DATA FOR A COLLECTION OF STRATEGIES
4. ISOLATING STRATEGIES, ESTABLISHING RELATIONS
4.1 Strategies involving intension
a) giving a synonym
b) giving a hyperonym
c) naming the part of speech
d) syntagmatic or grammatical proximity
4.2 Strategies of Reference
a) giving an example
b) appealing to imagination
c) miming
d) telling an anecdote
5. CONCLUSION
Research Objectives and Core Themes
The primary objective of this study is to analyze the linguistic and cognitive strategies employed by speakers of varying competence levels when explaining the meaning of specific lexical items. By moving away from written dictionary definitions and focusing on oral, interactive word-explanations, the research investigates how speakers construct meaning through contextual, intensional, and referential frameworks.
- Analysis of intensional strategies including synonymy and hyponymy.
- Examination of referential strategies such as illustrative examples and imagery.
- Application of Relevance Theory to explain semantic choices in discourse.
- Comparison of oral explanation strategies versus static dictionary definitions.
- Investigation of nonsense words and descriptive verbs in verbal communication.
Excerpt from the Book
4.1 Strategies involving intension
Strategies involving synonymy, sometimes by consciously using the technical term (B1, E3), seems to be of greatest importance. We observed that in four of six interviews on “liberty”, we could find the synonymous item “freedom.” Synonyms are given by speakers on all competence levels, and we can relate this to the explanatory value of intensional relations for word meaning. By subjects on the basic level, we are told that “liberty […] is an idea […] that contains such idols [sic!] like free will, freedom of the press and these things.” (F1) E1 claims that “Liberty is pretty much equal to freedom […].” And two of three lecturers start out by asserting that the two are “equivalent” or “synonymous.” Both lecturers, however, in the course of unfolding their explanations, later dwell on more subtle intensional relationships: they seem to relativize and partly reject this equivalence.
A1 starts explaining, “[…] liberty, equivalent to freedom” (A1), but soon adds that there is also a meaning of liberty synonymous with “privilege” “[…] which is often the opposite of freedom” (A1). Perceiving a logical inconsistency (liberty=freedom, liberty=privilege, privilege≠freedom) the speaker concludes that „it is an odd construction, liberty“ (A1) and that „[that] concept of liberty isn’t utterly to be equated with the abstract notion of freedom” (A1). A2 pursues a much different train of thought. He also starts out with the hypothesis “[…] let’s say “liberty” is the synonym for freedom.” (A2) He goes on to talk about what it means for an individual to possess freedom. But then he likewise revises his first hypothesis, and in fact contrasts liberty and freedom:
Now, liberty is a politically charged word, you could say, “give me freedom or give me death”, but people might think that all you want to do is to overdose on chocolate. As soon as you say “give me liberty or give me death”, people understand that you’re making a political point […]. We can say that liberty is a political cry, freedom is a personal cry.
Summary of Chapters
1. INTRODUCTION: This chapter introduces the theoretical scope of lexical semantics and outlines the study's focus on oral word-explanation strategies as opposed to written dictionary entries.
2. PRELIMINARIES: THEORY AND TERMINOLOGY: The author establishes the necessary linguistic apparatus, discussing concepts like sense, denotation, and relevance theory to frame the subsequent analysis.
3. RETRIEVING DATA FOR A COLLECTION OF STRATEGIES: This section describes the empirical methodology, including the creation of a video-corpus featuring interviews with speakers of different language competence levels.
4. ISOLATING STRATEGIES, ESTABLISHING RELATIONS: This central chapter categorizes and examines the specific linguistic strategies identified in the interviews, divided into intensional and referential approaches.
5. CONCLUSION: The author summarizes the findings, reflecting on the difficulty of maintaining strict borders between denotation and other meaning components, and suggesting future directions for empirical research.
Keywords
Lexical Semantics, Word-Explanation, Denotation, Intensional Relations, Referential Strategies, Relevance Theory, Componential Analysis, Language Competence, Synonyms, Hyponymy, Utterance-Meaning, Communicative Competence, Semantic Field, Descriptive Verbs, Pragmatics
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The work investigates the various strategies that speakers use when asked to explain the meaning of specific words in an oral, informal setting, comparing these methods against formal semantic theory.
Which linguistic fields are central to this study?
The study primarily draws upon lexical semantics, pragmatics, and Relevance Theory to analyze how meaning is constructed and communicated.
What is the primary research goal?
The goal is to name, categorize, and describe the most salient strategies used in word-explanation and to evaluate how these strategies align with or deviate from theoretical semantic models.
Which methodology was employed?
The author conducted a series of video-recorded interviews with language professionals, bilinguals, and basic-level students, asking them to explain specific words, and then analyzed these transcripts.
What does the main body cover?
The main body identifies two superordinate categories: strategies involving intension (like giving synonyms or naming parts of speech) and strategies of reference (like giving examples or appealing to imagination).
Which keywords define this study?
Key terms include Lexical Semantics, Denotation, Relevance Theory, Intensional Relations, and Communicative Competence.
Why were "Jabberwocky" and "brillig" included in the word list?
These "nonsense words" were included to study how speakers navigate the process of reflection and meaning-making when faced with items that lack traditional denotation or clear "real-world" referents.
How does the author distinguish between "liberty" and "freedom"?
The author observes that while speakers initially equate them, they often differentiate between the two by characterizing "liberty" as a political term and "freedom" as a personal or individual state during their explanations.
- Quote paper
- Andreas Glombitza (Author), 2006, Explaining the Meaning of Words: A Descriptive Study on Strategies, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/73152
