x
هدف البحث
بحث في العناوين
بحث في المحتوى
بحث في اسماء الكتب
بحث في اسماء المؤلفين
اختر القسم
موافق
Grammar
Tenses
Present
Present Simple
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Past
Past Continuous
Past Perfect
Past Perfect Continuous
Past Simple
Future
Future Simple
Future Continuous
Future Perfect
Future Perfect Continuous
Passive and Active
Parts Of Speech
Nouns
Countable and uncountable nouns
Verbal nouns
Singular and Plural nouns
Proper nouns
Nouns gender
Nouns definition
Concrete nouns
Abstract nouns
Common nouns
Collective nouns
Definition Of Nouns
Verbs
Stative and dynamic verbs
Finite and nonfinite verbs
To be verbs
Transitive and intransitive verbs
Auxiliary verbs
Modal verbs
Regular and irregular verbs
Action verbs
Adverbs
Relative adverbs
Interrogative adverbs
Adverbs of time
Adverbs of place
Adverbs of reason
Adverbs of quantity
Adverbs of manner
Adverbs of frequency
Adverbs of affirmation
Adjectives
Quantitative adjective
Proper adjective
Possessive adjective
Numeral adjective
Interrogative adjective
Distributive adjective
Descriptive adjective
Demonstrative adjective
Pronouns
Subject pronoun
Relative pronoun
Reflexive pronoun
Reciprocal pronoun
Possessive pronoun
Personal pronoun
Interrogative pronoun
Indefinite pronoun
Emphatic pronoun
Distributive pronoun
Demonstrative pronoun
Pre Position
Preposition by function
Time preposition
Reason preposition
Possession preposition
Place preposition
Phrases preposition
Origin preposition
Measure preposition
Direction preposition
Contrast preposition
Agent preposition
Preposition by construction
Simple preposition
Phrase preposition
Double preposition
Compound preposition
Conjunctions
Subordinating conjunction
Correlative conjunction
Coordinating conjunction
Conjunctive adverbs
Interjections
Express calling interjection
Grammar Rules
Preference
Requests and offers
wishes
Be used to
Some and any
Could have done
Describing people
Giving advices
Possession
Comparative and superlative
Giving Reason
Making Suggestions
Apologizing
Forming questions
Since and for
Directions
Obligation
Adverbials
invitation
Articles
Imaginary condition
Zero conditional
First conditional
Second conditional
Third conditional
Reported speech
Linguistics
Phonetics
Phonology
Semantics
Pragmatics
Linguistics fields
Syntax
Morphology
Semantics
pragmatics
History
Writing
Grammar
Reading Comprehension
Elementary
Intermediate
Advanced
LINGUISTICS
المؤلف:
HOWARD MACLAY
المصدر:
Semantics AN INTERDISCIPLINARY READER IN PHILOSOPHY, LINGUISTICS AND PSYCHOLOGY
الجزء والصفحة:
157-13
2024-07-17
212
It must seem perfectly obvious to the ordinary speaker of the language that meaning is a central and crucial element in his linguistic activity and that no account of his language which ignores this vital factor can possibly be adequate. While most scientific linguists also have acknowledged in passing the general importance of the semantic aspect of language, meaning has come to be widely regarded as a legitimate object of systematic linguistic interest only within the past decade. A collection of papers such as this one would have hardly been conceivable in the mid 1950s. In fact, most linguists of that period tended to regard a concern with meaning as evidence of a certain soft-headedness and lack of genuine scientific commitment. That this anthology is now available signals a significant shift in the prevailing conception of the goals and content of a valid linguistic description. In order to evaluate the essays which follow it is necessary to consider some of the attitudes toward meaning which have characterized the two dominant American schools of descriptive linguistics.1
Although all of the papers either proceed directly from the assumptions of generative-transformational grammar or have been markedly influenced by this approach, they represent different tendencies within this framework, and they also differ in some important respects both from earlier transformational work and from studies based on a structuralist approach. Table 1 is an attempt to summarize, along a number of relevant dimensions, the central tendencies with regard to semantics characteristic of American structural linguistics and of four varieties of generative-transformational linguists. Figures 1-5 present diagrammatic representations of the interrelations among the components of a linguistic description as defined by each of these five approaches. These should be regarded as visual aids for the discussion to follow rather than as any sort of definitive account of the views of these schools.2
I will first describe the general organization of the analysis and then consider in more detail the content of each position. The discussion will attempt to present a simplified description of each position, omitting many details. Readers may consult the references for a more complete and adequate account.
The entries of Table 1 are organized in chronological order with the numbers following each ofthe transformational positions indicating temporal order within this school (i.e. GT-3A and GT-3B are contemporaneous). A number of representative works are listed under each category and their dates provide a more precise index of the chronology involved. The fact that several of the items at the GT-3 level are included in this volume shows the very recent occurrence of this split in transformational theory.
The dimensions are presented in order of importance from left to right. They are at least partially independent in that a score on any one of them does not necessarily predict with complete accuracy the score on any other. Indeed, it is the various dependencies of fact and principle among dimensions that are most relevant in understanding these approaches to semantics. Dimension I simply asks whether or not meaning is to be regarded as a proper object of systematic linguistic analysis. If this is denied, on whatever grounds, then the score on Dimension II (Is syntax/ form independent of semantics?) is determined, since a grammar must be seen as confined to formal syntax (and, perhaps, phonology) which is, necessarily, independent of semantic considerations. If, however, it is argued that meaning is a proper part of a linguistic description, it is possible either to affirm or deny the independence of syntax. Dimension III (Is semantics interpretive?) is relevant only if a positive response has been given on Dimension 1. Given that meaning must be included and that syntax is independent of it, one can argue that semantics is interpretive (i.e. that the semantic component of a grammar must have syntactic information as input as in GT-2 and GT-3A) or, conversely, that the reverse condition exists. If the relevance of meaning i9 affirmed and the autonomy of syntax denied (GT-3B) then there is no reasonable sense in which one of the factors can be said to dominate the other. While the generative semanticists have surely moved semantics into a central role in linguistics this has involved the denial of a clear syntax/semantics distinction rather than an inversion of the relationship. Dimension IV (Is there an independent level of syntactic deep structure?) applies directly only to GT-2, GT-3A and GT-3B. It is factually redundant with respect to Dimension in for these theories, but there seems no necessary reason why one could not propose that the independent syntactic component of grammar be organized without this distinction. That the linguists of GT-3B would deny this division follows from their rejection of independent syntax and interpretive semantics. The final dimension (v) functions to distinguish between GT-2 and GT-3A and involves the question of which part or parts of the syntactic component provide the information necessary for semantic interpretation.
1 There seems little point in merely presenting a concise abstract of each paper in an introductory essay of this sort. Rather, an attempt will be made to provide a relevant context within which readers may arrive at their own evaluations.
2 Readers should be particularly wary of the directionality of the arrows in these diagrams as this is an issue of much dispute in linguistics at the present time. See the papers by Chomsky and Lakoff in this volume for further discussion. I believe the representations given here reflect accurately the practice of linguists at each period regardless of the ultimate logical relationship among the components of a grammar. In any case, most of them are based on published diagrams.