Chapter 18 Lexical Functions: Description of Lexical Relations in a ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

—Chapter 18. Lexical Functions— 22 obvious where the line has to be drawn. The solution depends on the semantic description of the value expression: if its meaning includes the meaning of the keyword, we have a degenerate LF; otherwise, it is a normal LF. Thus, I think that LOOK daggers [at N], blind DATE, ruddy CHEEKS, purple PROSE, puppy LOVE and white LIE are normal non-standard LFs: the meaning of the collo- cate [daggers = (angrily or hatefully), blind = (with an unknown person), ruddy = (of reddish color), purple = (overornate and too elaborate), puppy = (occurring for the first time in very young people—quite innocent), white = (told so as not to hurt someone)] does not include an explicit mention of the keyword and therefore semantically it is applicable to other LUs. Because of their rather specific meanings, non-standard LFs are more closely related to par- ticular languages (than standard LFs); that is, they are not universal. Because of that: • non-standard LFs cannot be logically predicted and organized into an overall system; • non-standard LFs are very numerous, vary from language to language and extremely caprici- ous—they have to be discovered and collected empirically. The good news about non-standard LFs is, though, that they are very limited as to their domain; they concern, as a rule, highly specialized situations. This greatly facilitates their ana- lysis and description. This chapter deals with the standard LFs only. 2.5 Classification of Lexical Functions For a better surveyability of LFs, they can be classified according to different parameters; these classifications facilitate the task of the user and thus possess a pedagogical value. Five classification parameters of LFs will be considered here: • Paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic LFs. • Standard vs. non-standard LFs. • Simple vs. complex vs. mixed LFs. • Nominal vs. verbal vs. adjectival vs. adverbial LFs. • Semantic groupings of LFs. 1. Paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic LFs. The opposition ‘paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic LFs’ corresponds to to the opposition between paradigmatic and syntagmatic lexical correlates that has already been introduced above, so that here it is sufficient to concentrate on a formal complica- tion:
—Chapter 18. Lexical Functions— 23 An element of the value of any LF f can in principle come in two syntactic ‘varieties:’ 1) With some LU L1 the element L´1 ∈ f(L1) appears instead of L1; such an element is called a fused element of the value of f. 2) With some other LU L2 the element L´2 ∈ f(L2) appears together with L2; this is a non-fused element of the value of f. This particularity of the elements of the value of an LF is indicated in the lexicographic description of each Lí (that is, in the lexical entry of the keyword L); see 5.3, p. 00. As a result, we have to consider two logically independent oppositions: • paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic LFs; • non-fused vs. fused elements of the values of LFs. The fused elements are specified by the symbol “//” placed before them. Thus, in the subentry of the LF f in the dictionary, the non-fused elements of f are found to the left of //, and the fused elements to its right. The meaning of a fused element Lí of the value f(L) includes the meaning of f—(f); the meaning of a non-fused element Lí of f(L) may include or not include the meaning of L. The paradigmatic LFs have, as a rule, fused elements in their values, while the syntagmatic LFs tend to have non-fused elements of the values. Nevertheless, this correspondence is logically not necessary and can be violated: namely, both syntactic ‘varieties’ of value elements, fused and non-fused, are encountered for both types of LFs. For instance, the syntagmatic LFs Magn and Labreal ij both have non-fused and fused elements in their values: Magn(applause) = frenzied, thunderous [applause] //(standing) ovation or [(thunderous applause) ≈ (ovation)] Labreal 12(asphaltN) = cover [NY with asphalt] //asphaltV [NY] [(They covered the road with asphalt) = (They asphalted the road)]. Such ‘deviations’ do not undermine the inherent paradigmatic vs. syntagmatic nature of a given LF. If an LF f is supposed to help the user to select an LU in order to refer to a situation (L) or to a component thereof, that is, to name something, f is paradigmatic, no matter how its value elements behave (that is, independently of whether they are rather fused or non-fused). If f serves to select an LU in order to characterize L, to add something to it, it is syntagmatic, again independently of the fused or non-fused character of the elements in its value.
Page 1 and 2: Chapter 18 Lexical Functions: Descr
Page 3 and 4: —Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
Page 9 and 10: Means noun ((δ) = (means [for L]))
Page 13 and 14: Here are some examples of LFs. —C
Page 19 and 20: 2.3 Definition of Standard Lexical
Page 21: —Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
Page 43 and 44: Examples —Chapter 18. Lexical Fun
Page 49 and 50: ! ! 38. Loc temp in = localization
Page 51: Remarks —Chapter 18. Lexical Func
Page 61 and 62: NB: CausFin(P) means—by definitio
Page 69: —Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
Page 74 and 75:
—Chapter 18. Lexical Functions—
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
6.1.1 Lexical Functions Are Not Sem
Page 80 and 81:
Page 82 and 83:
6.1.3 Different Semantic ‘Facets
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
LF-Sem-Rule 3 (intensely) 1 ! —Ch
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Bibliographic Remarks —Chapter 18
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104:
show all

Chapter 18 Lexical Functions: Description of Lexical Relations in a ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?