2.2 “Relatedness” Because Seen By Historic Semantics

You can rest assured, along with — and especially — certainly masters, which our rational words is highly organized. There are a lot of connections involving the unmarried conditions from a words and significance of them words, respectively. Certainly linguists, this type of relations are called “semantic connections”, “sense relationships” otherwise “lexical affairs”. This type of semantic jak používat loveaholics connections shall be analysed and you may described for the most part, plus the second, 1st of those of them affairs can be demonstrated.

So you’re able to promote an initial, vital description of high tech, it must be asserted that there are lots of research projects on this material. not, that it report can simply is some of them. Books which had been used exists less than section half a dozen, “List of Performs Cited”. Endeavor delimitations only have come made in terms of detail are alarmed. Since this report is just a very short little bit of research, brand new article authors possess restricted by themselves to not ever enter way too much outline, but instead make an effort to bring a great survey of one’s material.

2.step one Polysemy And Homonymy

Polysemy can be described as “an expression utilized in semantic data to refer in order to an excellent lexical items which has a range of other definitions” (Amazingly 1997, 297). Crystal gives while the analogy to own polysemy the fresh lexical product “plain”, which includes the different significance “clear”, “unadorned”, “obvious”, etc.(ibid. Crystal).

Now, the problem one to arises having linguists is how to identify polysemy out of an alternate ambiguity, from homonymy. Amazingly represent homonymy since “a term found in semantic data to refer so you can [two or more] lexical things that [accidentally] have the same form, however, differ into the meaning” (Crystal 1997, 185). Crystal’s instances listed here are “bear” and “ear”. “Bear” is define a pet otherwise can have the definition regarding “to take”, “ear” normally refer to the body or to corn (ibid. Crystal).

Throughout these advice, homonymy talks about both verbal and you can created models, however it is and additionally possible that the newest title away from a couple lexemes is during a single average, in which particular case linguists create talk about partial homonymy or heteronymy (ibid. Crystal). One can possibly distinguish two types of limited homonymy:

— Homography: one or two lexical facts have the same created function, but disagree in the enunciation (an illustration will be the one or two lexical pieces of “lead”, you to noticable [li:d] and you can meaning “to be in front”, the other noticable [led] and you can defining yet another particular steel). — Homophony: a couple of lexical affairs have the same pronunciation, but disagree in the spelling

(elizabeth.grams. the two lexical situations “led” and you will “lead”, all of which can be obvious [led], the original as the earlier in the day demanding of “to guide”, the latter once again defining a different sorts of metal).

two types Regarding Ambiguity

For this reason, polysemy and you will homonymy will likely be recognized regarding each other because of the current or lost relatedness amongst the significance and that’s designated to at least one phonological setting. What’s the core of the number, ‘s the matter to what the amount this idea regarding “relatedness” is going to be specified. Simply put: how can “relatedness” getting outlined? In the event that an obvious and perfect definition could well be given, the entire state could be fixed, having then the technology out of phonological forms whose relatedness can be turned out might be entitled “homonymy”, whoever relatedness can not be turned-out might possibly be titled “polysemy”. Yet not, as the goes so frequently in the field of semantics, one cannot simply provide a definite and you may indisputable concept of the phrase “relatedness”. There are two main basic answers to this issue, one to provided by historic semantics, one other because of the synchronic semantics.

Historic semantics interprets the notion “relatedness” generally naturally hence talks from polysemy in the event that a lexeme that have additional definitions holds the same etymological roots (Kastovsky 1982, 121). Examples is “game” to the a few meanings “wild animals” and “playful hobby” otherwise “funny” definition sometimes “strange” otherwise “amusing”. Both examples reveal lexemes whoever some other definitions have the same etymological roots and therefore are thus interpreted since polysemy by historic semantics.