By Päivi Juvonen, Maria Koptjevskaja-Tamm (eds.)
The quantity specializes in semantic shifts and motivation styles within the lexicon. Its key characteristic is its lexico-typological orientation, i.e. a heavy emphasis on systematic cross-linguistic comparability. The ebook provides present theoretical and methodological traits within the research of semantic shifts and motivational patters according to an abundance of empirical findings throughout genetically, areally and typologically varied languages.
Read or Download The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts PDF
Similar linguistics books
Ever had a Hitchcockian adventure (in the bathe maybe? !) ormet an individual with a particularly Ortonesque outlook on existence? There arehundreds of phrases derived from genuine those people who are recognized - or notorious- sufficient to offer their stamp to a flow, a fashion of considering oracting, a mode or perhaps a temper. identify losing?
- Catalogo de sellos tematicos Escultismo Domfil Thematic Stamp Catalog Scouting English Spanish
- Focus on Advanced English: Cae Grammar Practice: With Pull-out Key
- The Indigenous Languages of South America: A Comprehensive Guide (World of Linguistics)
- Master the AP English Language & Composition, 1st Edition
- Language and Mind
- Hard-Science Linguistics (Open Linguistics)
Extra resources for The Lexical Typology of Semantic Shifts
G. Bybee 2006; Barlow and Kemmer 2000; Winter-Froemel 2014). Where inferences, implicatures and relevance play a significant role at the level of current discourse, this gives us an important interface between diachronic semantics and pragmatic approaches (for example, Grice 1975; Sperber and Wilson 1995; Levinson 2000). For instance, according to the invited inferencing theory of semantic change (cf. ), the process of conventionalization presented above corresponds to the development from pragmatically colored utterance-token meanings through utterance-type meanings to coded meanings in the semantics of the language system.
29) Engl. bar ‘counter in a public house’ → ‘public house’ (cf. v. ). (30) CLat. focus ‘fireplace’ → Fr. feu, Sp. fuego, It. fuoco, etc. ‘fire’ (cf. v. v. v. fuoco). Notwithstanding the sharp external distinction from the other conceptual organizing principles and relations dealt with above, the terms frame and contiguity are – internally – still broad enough to encompass a wide variety of relation types. 42 Peter Koch Traditional rhetoric had already recognized the distinctions between various types of semantic relations within metonymy hinted at earlier (cf.
G. (26), (27); according to Ullmann 1957: 232 f. previously in Gombocz’s work; cf. now in particular Blank 1999b). A compromise between unity and diversity is represented by the attempt made to not simply list the subtypes of metonymy, but to classify them in a three-dimensional prototypical structure (cf. Peirsman and Geeraerts 2006; Geeraerts 2010: 217–220). Traditional rhetoric had also already recognized the problem of whether cognitive relations corresponding to the meronomic schema part-whole (31) or whole-part (32) were to be considered the basis of metonymy.