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

Recommend


More recommend