lexical typology lexical typology
play

LEXICAL TYPOLOGY LEXICAL TYPOLOGY Peter Koch (Part II) Department - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

LEXICAL TYPOLOGY LEXICAL TYPOLOGY Peter Koch (Part II) Department of Romance Studies, Tbingen University peter.koch@uni-tuebingen.de http://homepages.unituebingen.de/peter.koch/index.htm Koch, Lexical typology, 2010825 1 6. Lexical


  1. LEXICAL TYPOLOGY LEXICAL TYPOLOGY Peter Koch (Part II) Department of Romance Studies, Tübingen University peter.koch@uni-tuebingen.de http://homepages.uni�tuebingen.de/peter.koch/index.htm Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 1

  2. 6. Lexical motivation: basics Lexical ���������� (C.): ������� of the ������������� ����� ������ � signi� ������� ������� ������� ������� ���� ���� ���� ���� fied fied ������������� ������������� Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 2 Fig. 30

  3. 6. Lexical motivation: basics � concept ������������� ������������� ������������� ������������� � form = signifier Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 3 Fig. 31

  4. 6. Lexical motivation: basics � �������� �������� of of � � ����������� � � ����������� � � � � the sign relation the sign relation the sign relation the sign relation of signs of signs of signs of signs • Plato, Kratylos • Peirce 1902 • Saussure 1916 • Benveniste 1966 � • Ullmann 1966 • Keller 1998 • Ungerer 2002 • Radden/Panther 2004 Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 4 Fig. 32

  5. 6.1. Symbol, index, icon � � � ������ ������ � (cf. Peirce 1902 ) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 5 Fig. 36

  6. 6.1. Symbol, index, icon � ����� ����� contiguity type of ��� motivation � Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 6 Fig. 38

  7. 6.1. Symbol, index, icon � ���� ���� similarity type of ��� motivation � Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 7 Fig. 40

  8. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy Types of (relative) lexical motivation according to Saussure 1916 : • onomatopœia • word�formation Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 8

  9. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy YOUNG � � � � BULL BULL �������������� �������������� � � � � Sp. torito Sp. toro Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 9 Fig. 41

  10. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy � � � � �������������� �������������� type of ������� motivation � � � � Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 10 Fig. 42

  11. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy Types of (relative) lexical motivation according to Ullmann 1966 : • onomatopœia ( ‘phonetic’ motivation) • word�formation (‘morphological’ motivation ) • metaphor, metonymie (‘semantic’ motivation) • metaphor, metonymie (‘semantic’ motivation) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 11

  12. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy � � � � (metaphorical) SOFT SWEET similarity �������� type of ����� motivation motivation � ��� It. dolce Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 12 Fig. 43

  13. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy YOUNG � � � � taxonomic subordination BULL BULL �������������� �������������� � � � � Sp. torito Sp. toro suffixation Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 13 Fig. 44

  14. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy BULL� � � � � contiguity BULL FIGHTER �������������� �������������� � � � � Sp. torero Sp. toro suffixation Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 14 Fig. 45

  15. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy TRESTLE IN � � � � metaphorical BULL similarity THE FORM OF A BULL �������������� �������������� (in a broad sense) � � � � Sp. tora Sp. toro gender alternation Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 15 Fig. 46

  16. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy � � � � cognitive relation ������������� ������ ������ � � � � formal relation (cf. Koch 2001: 1156�1159; Koch/Marzo 2007: 260�265; also Radden/Panther 2004) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 16 Fig. 47

  17. 6.2. Onomatopœia – word�formation – polysemy � � � � cognitive relation ������������� �������� � � �������� � � � ��� (cf. Koch 2001: 1158; Koch/Marzo 2007: 265; also Radden/Panther 2004) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 17 Fig. 48

  18. 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension (MOTOR) IN � � � � contiguity CAR MOTION � � � � Arab. Arab. word�class alternation sajjāra sajjār (cf. Koch 2001: 1166f.) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 18 Fig. 52

  19. 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension (MOTOR) VEHI� � � � � taxonomic sub�/superordination CAR CLE �������� � ��� Hung. kocsi (cf. Koch 2001: 1166f.) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 19 Fig. 53

  20. 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension (MOTOR) � � CAR �������������� ������ ������ � � Swed. bil (cf. Koch 2001: 1166f.) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 20 Fig. 54

  21. 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension � set of different � � � � cognitive relations motivational square � set of different � � � � formal relations (cf. Koch 2001: 1157�1161; Koch/Marzo 2007: 268�271) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 21 Fig. 55

  22. 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension Two�dimensional grid con� conti� meta� taxon. taxonomic con� ceptual guity phorical simi� sub�/ superor� trast identi� similari� larity dination ty ty formal identity → polysemy gender gender alternation word�class alternation suffixation préfixation composition Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 22 ... Fig. 56

  23. 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension Two�dimensional grid con� conti� meta� taxon. taxonomic con� ceptual guity phorical simi� sub�/ superor� trast identi� similari� larity dination ty ty Fig. 50 formal identity Fig. 53 Fig. 43 It. cuc� Hung. kocsi It.. dolce → polysemy chiaio gender gender Fig. 46 Fig. 46 Sp. tora alternation word�class Fig. 52 Arab. sajjarā alternation Fig. 45 Fig. 44 suffixation Sp. torero Sp. torito préfixation composition Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 23 ... Fig. 56

  24. 7.1. The cognitive and the formal dimension Two�dimensional grid con� conti� meta� taxon. taxonomic con� ceptual guity phorical simi� sub�/ superor� trast identi� similari� larity dination ty ty formal identity → polysemy gender gender � Which of these combinations exist in � Which of these combinations exist in alternation human languages, which not? Why? word�class alternation suffixation � By which formal relations can a given cognitive relation be expressed in préfixation different languages? � 7.2. composition Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 24 ... Fig. 56

  25. 7.2. From meaning to form (case study V): RENT/LET Lexical ‘converses’ (cf. Fillmore 1977) (11) E. John rented this house from an agency. (12) E. The agency let this house to John. (same frame � very salient contiguity) � ������ � ����������������������� � � � (cf. also Russian, partly Hungarian) Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 25

  26. 7.2. From meaning to form (case study V): RENT/LET (cf. Koch: 2001: 1166f.) Formal relations for marking ‘converses’ in the domain RENT/LET Turk. kiralamak polysemy cf. Fr., Sp., It., (“auto� Port., Rom., conversion”) Mod.Gr. Anc.Gr. misthûsthai – misthûn voice alternation Arab. Arab. ’ista’ � ara (X) – ’ista’ � ara (X) – “stem” alternation “stem” alternation ’a �� ara (II) / ’ā � � � ara (IV) Germ. mieten – vermieten prefixation Swahili �panga / �kodi – suffixation �pangisha / �kodisha Swed. hyra – hyra ut phrasal verb cf. Amer.E. Chin. chū – chūzū serial verb Koch, Lexical typology, 2010�8�25 26 Hung. bérbe venni – bérbe adni idiom

Download Presentation
Download Policy: The content available on the website is offered to you 'AS IS' for your personal information and use only. It cannot be commercialized, licensed, or distributed on other websites without prior consent from the author. To download a presentation, simply click this link. If you encounter any difficulties during the download process, it's possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Recommend


More recommend