Sabtu, 26 Maret 2016

Ambigulity

Ambiguity occurs when something is open to more than one interpretation. Ambiguity is possible in literature, ideas, statements, arts, music, and math. At times, ambiguity is reliant on context; something can be ambiguous in one situation while unambiguous in another. For example, consider the short phrase, “I read the book.” This sentence alone could refer to the present or the past, as the word “read” in English is spelled the same way in the present and past tenses. However, if we change the sentence to “I read the book when I was 7,” that clears up the ambiguity and places the context in the past tense.

Examples of Ambiguity

We experience ambiguity on a daily basis, whether in ordinary language and conversation, or while watching politicians or comedians. Here are some simple sentences that have more than one possible interpretation:
  • The bark was painful. (Could mean a tree’s bark was rough or a dog’s bark communicated pain or hurt the listener’s ears).
  • You should bring wine or beer and dessert. (Could mean that you must bring just wine, wine and dessert, or beer and dessert).
  • Harry isn’t coming to the party. Tell Joe that we’ll see him next week. (The “him” could refer either to Harry or to Joe).
Reference :
http://www.literarydevices.com/ambiguity/

Denotation, connotation, and implicature

1. Denotation
    The denotation of a word is the actual definition of the word rather than the nuances of its meaning or the feelings it implies.

Examples of Denotation
Every word has a denotation. Here are more examples of the differences between the denotations and connotations of common words to illustrate what denotation means:
  • Pants versus trousers: In American English, pants and trousers have the same denotation. They both refer to the clothing that one wears on one’s legs. However, “trousers” sound like a much more formal item of clothing than “pants” (note that in British English “pants” actually refers to underwear and therefore has a different denotation than trousers).
  • Boss versus leader: While “boss” is not necessarily negative it still separates this person more definitively from his or her underlings than the word “leader.” “Leader” generally sounds more inspiring. Compare also the difference between “bossy” and “demanding.” Neither sounds particularly appealing, but “bossy” connotes more of an attitude that someone tells others what to do without reason, whereas a “demanding” person asks much of others but for a good reason.
  • Burden versus obligation: Both “burden” and “obligation” refer to something that a person must do. However, a burden is more onerous. A burden makes life difficult for the person who shoulders it, while an obligation may be simply what a person is required to do without resenting it.
2. Connotation

    The connotation of a word refers to the emotional or cultural association with that word rather than its dictionary definition. The connotation definition is therefore not the explicit meaning of the word, but rather the meaning that the word implies.

Examples of Connotation in Common Speech
There are many words that can be understood as synonyms with the same definition, yet their connotations are notable different. For example:
  • “House” versus “Home”: Both words refer to the structure in which a person lives, yet “home” connotes more warmth and comfort, whereas “house” sounds colder and more distant.
  • “Cheap” versus “Affordable”: While both words mean that something does not cost a lot, “cheap” can also connote something that it not well-made or of low value, while “affordable” can refer to a quality item or service that happens to be well-priced.
  • “Riots” versus “Protests”: The difference between these two words is that “riots” connotes a violent gathering of people who are not necessarily in the right, while “protests” can have a more peaceful connotation and is often used when there is sympathy with the protesters.
 3. Implicature
    “Implicature” denotes either (i) the act of meaning or implying one thing by saying something else, or (ii) the object of that act. Implicatures can be part of sentence meaning or dependent on conversational context, and can be conventional (in different senses) or unconventional. Figures of speech such as metaphor, irony, and understatement provide familiar examples. Implicature serves a variety of goals beyond communication: maintaining good social relations, misleading without lying, style, and verbal efficiency. Knowledge of common forms of implicature is acquired along with one's native language at an early age. Conversational implicatures have become one of the principal subjects of pragmatics. An important conceptual and methodological issue in semantics is how to distinguish senses and entailments from conventional conversational implicatures. A related issue is the degree to which sentence meaning determines what is said. Implicature has been invoked for a variety of purposes, from defending controversial semantic claims in philosophy to explaining lexical gaps in linguistics. H. P. Grice, who coined the term “implicature,” and classified the phenomenon, developed an influential theory to explain and predict conversational implicatures, and describe how they arise and are understood. The Cooperative Principle and associated maxims play a central role. Neo-Gricean theories have modified Grice's principles to some extent, and Relevance theories replace them with a principle of communicative efficiency. The problems for such principle-based theories include overgeneration, lack of determinacy, clashes, and the fact that speakers often have other goals. An alternative approach emphasizes that implicatures can be explained and predicted in all the ways intentions and conventions can be.

     For example, the sentence "Mary had a baby and got married" strongly suggests that Mary had the baby before the wedding, but the sentence would still be strictly true if Mary had her baby after she got married. Further, if we add the qualification "— not necessarily in that order" to the original sentence, then the implicature is cancelled even though the meaning of the original sentence is not altered.

Types of implicature

Conversational implicature

Paul Grice identified three types of general conversational implicatures:
1. The speaker deliberately flouts a conversational maxim to convey an additional meaning not expressed literally. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "How did you like the guest lecturer?" with the following utterance:
Well, I’m sure he was speaking English.
If the speaker is assumed to be following the cooperative principle,[2] in spite of flouting the Maxim of Relevance, then the utterance must have an additional nonliteral meaning, such as: "The content of the lecturer's speech was confusing."
2. The speaker’s desire to fulfill two conflicting maxims results in his or her flouting one maxim to invoke the other. For instance, a speaker responds to the question "Where is John?" with the following utterance:
He’s either in the cafeteria or in his office.
In this case, the Maxim of Quantity and the Maxim of Quality are in conflict. A cooperative speaker does not want to be ambiguous but also does not want to give false information by giving a specific answer in spite of his uncertainty. By flouting the Maxim of Quantity, the speaker invokes the Maxim of Quality, leading to the implicature that the speaker does not have the evidence to give a specific location where he believes John is.
3. The speaker invokes a maxim as a basis for interpreting the utterance. In the following exchange:
Do you know where I can get some gas?
There’s a gas station around the corner.
The second speaker invokes the Maxim of Relevance, resulting in the implicature that “the gas station is open and one can probably get gas there”.

Scalar implicature

According to Grice (1975), another form of conversational implicature is also known as a scalar implicature. This concerns the conventional uses of words like "all" or "some" in conversation.
I ate some of the pie.
This sentence implies "I did not eat all of the pie." While the statement "I ate some pie" is still true if the entire pie was eaten, the conventional meaning of the word "some" and the implicature generated by the statement is "not all".

Conventional implicature

Conventional implicature is independent of the cooperative principle and its four maxims. A statement always carries its conventional implicature.
Donovan is poor but happy.
This sentence implies poverty and happiness are not compatible but in spite of this Donovan is still happy. The conventional interpretation of the word "but" will always create the implicature of a sense of contrast. So Donovan is poor but happy will always necessarily imply "Surprisingly Donovan is happy in spite of being poor".

References :


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicature



Euphemism


Euphemism


Euphemism Definition

The term euphemism refers to polite, indirect expressions which replace words and phrases considered harsh and impolite or which suggest something unpleasant.
Euphemism is an idiomatic expression which loses its literal meanings and refers to something else in order to hide its unpleasantness. For example, “kick the bucket” is a euphemism that describes the death of a person. In addition, many organizations use the term “downsizing” for the distressing act of “firing” its employees.
Euphemism depends largely on the social context of the speakers and writers where they feel the need to replace certain words which may prove embarrassing for particular listeners or readers in a particular situation.

Techniques for Creating Euphemism

Euphemism masks a rude or impolite expression but conveys the concept clearly and politely. Several techniques are employed to create euphemism.
  • It may be in the form of abbreviations e.g. B.O. (body odor), W.C. (toilet) etc.
  • Foreign words may be used to replace an impolite expression e.g. faux (fake), or faux pas (foolish error) etc.
  • Sometimes, they are abstractions e.g. before I go (before I die).
  • They may also be indirect expressions replacing direct ones which may sound offensive e.g. rear-end, unmentionables etc.
  • Using longer words or phrases can also mask unpleasant words e.g. flatulence for farting, perspiration for sweat, mentally challenged for stupid etc.
  • Using technical terms may reduce the rudeness exhibited by words e.g. gluteus maximus.
  • Deliberately mispronouncing an offensive word may reduce its severity e.g. darn, shoot etc.

Euphemism Examples in Everyday Life

Euphemism is frequently used in everyday life. Let us look at some common euphemism examples:
  • You are becoming a little thin on top (bald).
  • Our teacher is in the family way (pregnant).
  • He is always tired and emotional (drunk).
  • We do not hire mentally challenged (stupid) people.
  • He is a special child (disabled or retarded).

Function of Euphemism


Euphemism helps writers to convey those ideas which have become a social taboo and are too embarrassing to mention directly. Writers skillfully choose appropriate words to refer to and discuss a subject indirectly which otherwise are not published due to strict social censorship e.g. religious fanaticism, political theories, sexuality, death etc. Thus, euphemism is a useful tool that allows writers to write figuratively about the libelous issues.

References :
http://literarydevices.net/euphemism/


Sabtu, 12 Maret 2016

Symbol and Referent



Symbol
A symbol is a person or a concept that represents, stands for or suggests another idea, visual image, belief, action or material entity. Symbols take the form of words, sounds, gestures, ideas or visual images and are used to convey other ideas and beliefs. For example, a red octagon may be a symbol for "STOP". On a map, a blue line might represent a river. Numerals are symbols for numbers. Alphabetic letters may be symbols for sounds. Personal names are symbols representing individuals. A red rose may symbolize love and compassion. The variable x in a mathematical equation may symbolize the position of a particle in space. In cartography, an organized collection of symbols forms a legend for a map.
Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, who studied archetypes, proposed an alternative definition of symbol, distinguishing it from the term sign. In Jung's view, a sign stands for something known, as a word stands for its referent. He contrasted this with symbol, which he used to stand for something that is unknown and that cannot be made clear or precise. An example of a symbol in this sense is Christ as a symbol of the archetype called self. For example, written languages are composed of a variety of different symbols that create words. Through these written words humans communicate with each other. Kenneth Burke described Homo sapiens as a "symbol-using, symbol making, and symbol misusing animal" to suggest that a person creates symbols as well as misuses them. One example he uses to indicate what he means by the misuse of symbol is the story of a man who, when told that a particular food item was whale blubber, could barely keep from throwing it up. Later, his friend discovered it was actually just a dumpling. But the man's reaction was a direct consequence of the symbol of "blubber" representing something inedible in his mind. In addition, the symbol of "blubber" was created by the man through various kinds of learning.
Burke goes on to describe symbols as also being derived from Sigmund Freud's work on condensation and displacement, further stating that symbols are not just relevant to the theory of dreams but also to "normal symbol systems". He says they[clarification needed] are related through "substitution", where one word, phrase, or symbol is substituted for another in order to change the meaning[clarification needed]. In other words, if one person does not understand a certain word or phrase, another person may substitute a synonym or symbol in order to get the meaning across. However, upon learning the new way of interpreting a specific symbol, the person may change his or her already-formed ideas to incorporate the new information
Jean Dalby Clift says that people not only add their own interpretations to symbols, they also create personal symbols that represent their own understanding of their lives: what she calls "core images" of the person. She argues that symbolic work with these personal symbols or core images can be as useful as working with dream symbols in psychoanalysis or counseling.
William Indick suggests that the symbols that are commonly found in myth, legend, and fantasy fulfill psychological functions and hence are why archetypes such as "the hero," "the princess" and "the witch" have remained popular for centuries.
Referent
A referent /ˈrɛfərənt/ is a person or thing to which a linguistic expression or other symbol refers. For example, in the sentence Mary saw me, the referent of the word Mary is the particular person called Mary who is being spoken of, while the referent of the word me is the person uttering the sentence.
Two expressions which have the same referent are said to be co-referential. In the sentence John had his dog with him, for instance, the noun John and the pronoun him are co-referential, since they both refer to the same person (John).
In fields such as semantics and semiotics, a distinction is made between a referent and a reference. Reference is a relationship in which a symbol or sign (a word, for example) signifies something; the referent is the thing signified. The referent may be an actual person or object, or may be something more abstract, such as a set of actions.[3][4]
Reference and referents were considered at length in the 1923 book The Meaning of Meaning by the Cambridge scholars C. K. Ogden and I. A. Richards. Ogden has pointed out that reference is a psychological process, and that referents themselves may be psychological – existing in the imagination of the referrer, and not necessarily in the real world.[5] For further ideas related to this observation, see absent referent and failure to refer.

References:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referent

Jumat, 11 Maret 2016

Morpho-Syntax



1.   Morphology
In linguistics, morphology  is the identification, analysis and description of the structure of a given language's morphemes and other linguistic units, such as root words, affixes, parts of speech, intonations and stresses, or implied context. In contrast, morphological typology is the classification of languages according to their use of morphemes, while lexicology is the study of those words forming a language's wordstock.
While words, along with clitics, are generally accepted as being the smallest units of syntax, in most languages, if not all, many words can be related to other words by rules that collectively describe the grammar for that language. For example, English speakers recognize that the words dog and dogs are closely related, differentiated only by the plurality morpheme "-s", only found bound to nouns. Speakers of English, a fusional language, recognize these relations from their tacit knowledge of English's rules of word formation. They infer intuitively that dog is to dogs as cat is to cats; and, in similar fashion, dog is to dog catcher as dish is to dishwasher. By contrast, Classical Chinese has very little morphology, using almost exclusively unbound morphemes ("free" morphemes) and depending on word order to convey meaning. (Most words in modern Standard Chinese ("Mandarin"), however, are compounds and most roots are bound.) These are understood as grammars that represent the morphology of the language. The rules understood by a speaker reflect specific patterns or regularities in the way words are formed from smaller units in the language they are using and how those smaller units interact in speech. In this way, morphology is the branch of linguistics that studies patterns of word formation within and across languages and attempts to formulate rules that model the knowledge of the speakers of those languages.
A morpheme is roughly defined as the smallest linguistic unit that has semantic meaning. For example, the word boy cannot be broken down into any further unit of meaning. We can have:
·       b;
·       o;
·       y;
·       bo;
·       by and
·       oy – none of which mean anything. We say that boy is made of only one morpheme.
But the word antigovernment can be broken down into:
·       anti- = against
·       govern = to rule/administrate
·       -ment = noun suffix
Therefore, we say that antigovernment is made of three morphemes.
One should be careful not to break a single morpheme into multiple constituent morphemes. This is a common error in the analysis of some languages, such as Chinese. The word youyu (猶豫), meaning hesitate is a notorious example. As most Chinese characters represent a single morpheme, linguists before the Qing Dynasty believed that all characters represented a single morpheme. As a result, the word youyu has become the subject of much nonsensical speculation. One scholar during the Tang Dynasty believed that it originated from the description of a deer-like monkey that would look left and right before climbing a tree. Later generations discovered that youyu was, in fact, a single disyllabic morpheme, disproving these odd claims.
Classifying Morphemes
Morphemes are categorised thus:
·       Bound morphemes: They cannot stand alone, i.e. they are affixes.
o   Derivational morphemes: We change the grammatical category or the meaning of the word. Examples are re-, de-, un-, -ness, -ly and so on.
o   Inflectional morphemes: We do not change the meaning or grammatical category of the word with these. We use them to mark plurality, tense, agreement, case and so on.
·       Free morphemes. They can be used alone.
o   Lexical morphemes: They represent the concepts of the message we wish to bring across. Ship, orange and president are some examples. They are an open set of words in a language.
o   Functional morphemes: They are functional words, like determiners, pronouns, conjunctions and so on. Whatever, because and against are some examples.
Affixation
Affixes are our workhorse morphemes—the tools we use again and again to assemble new words. There are several kinds of affixes:
  • Suffixes Suffixes are morphemes that attach to the end of a word. Examples are -ion in motion and -ate in investigate. Suffixes are written with an initial hyphen.
  • Prefixes Prefixes attach to the beginning of a word. Examples are re- in redo and un- in unthinkable. Prefixes are written with a terminal hyphen.
  • Infixes. Although English generally does not have infixes, or morphemes that go "in the middle" of a word, other languages do. An exception in English might be -bloody- in the following:
Q: Are you going to the concert tonight?
A: Absobloodylutely.
Infixes are written with initial and terminal hyphens, as above.
  • Circumfixes. Circumfixes are affixes that "surround" the word, attaching to the beginning and end of the word. Although English has few examples of this type of affix, other languages use it. The circumfix is probably most widely known from the German past participle (ge- -t for regular verbs). Probably the only circumfixes in English are en- -en in enlighten and em- -en in embolden, which are essentially the same circumfix, as we will see below. In older usage, however, the present participle could be formed using the circumfix a- -ing: a- -ing in a-flying or a- -ing in a-caroling. Circumfixes are written with initial and terminal hyphens.
Sometimes, multiple affixations can take place. The original word, which is a free morpheme, is known as the stem or root. We can attach affixes to it in a continual manner:
anti- inter- govern -ment -al -ist
Here, govern is a root, anti- and inter- are prefixes, and -ment, -al and -ist are suffixes.
2.  Syntax
Syntax is that part of our linguistics knowledge which concerns the structure of sentences. Knowing a language also means being able to put words together to form sentences to express our thoughts. (Fromkin and Rodman,1983)
Basic idea of syntax
1.    Word ordering and meaning
The order of words in a sentences or phrases is connected to its literal meaning. The basic underlying word order in an English sentence is subject-verb-object (S-V-O). (Murcia and Freeman,1999). Consider the English sentences :
a.       Joe writes poetry
The factors determines the meaning of sentences: (1) the selection of words plays a role in determining the literal meaning of the sentences, (2) the orders of words play a role the literal meaning of the sentences. (Tserdanelis and Wong, 2004). See the two examples:
a.         The mat is on the cat
b.         The cat is on the mat
2.  Ambiguity
As we have studied before, there is factor determining what a sentence means. Consider the following examples:
a.       Can you tell me the time?
b.      We had the president for dinner.
c.       We need more intelligent administrators.           
d.      Pat shot the soldier with a telescope.
All three sentences are ambiguous-that is, they have more than one meaning. The first sentences is ambiguous because it can be used either as a straightforward question (“ are you able to tell me the time?”) . we  call this pragmatic ambiguity. The second  sentence is ambiguous because the expression have for dinner can mean either “ host for dinner” or “ have for dinner”. This type of ambiguity is called lexical ambiguity. The third sentence , this sentence also has two meaning. On one meaning, we need administrators who are more intelligent. On the other meaning, we need a grater number of intelligent administrators. The type of ambiguity is called structure ambiguity. (Tserdanelis and Wong, 2004)
3.            Phrase Structure
a.       Lexical categories
In English the main categories are Nouns(N), Verb(V), Adjectives(A), Prepositions(P), and Adverbs(Adv).
b.      Phrasal categories
The phrasal categories are built up from the lexical categories (their head) in the ways that we have already illustrated. The phrasal categories are NP(noun phrases), VP(verb phrases), AP(adjective phrases), PP(preposisition phrases) , AdvP(adverb phrase). (Tserdanelis and Wong, 2004)
a.       Noun phrases is any phrase which can act as a complete subject, object, etc. in a sentence; e.q.  “The big red block”, “ Most of the three coaches”.
b.      Verb phrases is basically a verb plus its complement (s); e.g. “ gave the parcel to the clerk”
c.       Prepositional phrases may be required (for instance, by a verb that it comes after) to contain a particular preposition.
d.      Adjective phrases usually consist of single adjectives, but it is possible for these to be accompanied by an indication of degree ad some number of adverb as modifier, as in “very commonly used”.



References


 

Intan Fadillah Harris Template by Ipietoon Cute Blog Design