英语语义学论文
英语毕业论文：语义学在英语教学中的应用
Teaching English as a Second LanguageTo Non-English Majors from Semantic PerspectiveA ThesisFor the MA. Degree in Chinese摘要大家都知道中国人学习英语特别难，有的人花十几年的时间来学习它，结果是时间没少用，精力没少费，效果却不尽如人意。
问题主要是学校单方面地强调机械模仿，死记硬背，而忽视了语言理论在语言习得方面的指导应用。
本文通过对中国学生在英语学习中常犯错误的分析分类，用语言学的分支学科语义学来指导教学活动，使课堂教学上升到新的理论高度，从而改进大学英语教学，使大学生少花时间和精力，更好地掌握英语这一武器，投入更多的精力学习其它科学知识。
本文将语义学在英语教学中的应用归纳为以下几点:1、语义学与词汇教学，运用语义学的上下意关系、同义词关系、反义词关系、语义场理论来指导词汇教学。
2、语义学的并置理论与英语教学，并置分为不合语法规则和不合语义规则两种，并置语义与搭配的关系、搭配的根本问题、语言中的非常规搭配、搭配理论与语言教学在本部分也有详细论述。
关键词:语义学英语教学并置理论词汇教学AbstractIt is well known that it is very difficult for Chinese to learn English. Some people spend years learning it, but the result is disappointing. Mainly because mechanical emulation and learning by heart are emphasized while the application of syntactic in the acquisition of a language is ignored. This article guides the teaching activities in classroom with this theory by analyzing and classifying mistakes of Chinese college students to improve teaching and learning, leaving them more time to develop their own interests. This article classifies the applications of syntactic theory in language acquisition as follows:1 .Syntactic and vocabulary learning involve superordinate, hyponym,synonym antonym and semantic field.2. Relationship of English teaching and collocation of the semantic theory dealswith regular and irregular collocation.Key Words: teaching English teaching vocabulary语义学是研究语言的意义的学科，它主要研究语义的各种性质、类型、语义关系、语义的结构和功能，以及语义的形成和演变等。
英语语义学论文
西南大学研究生课程考试答卷纸考试科目语义学院、所、中心外国语学院专业或专业领域英语语言文学研究方向认知语言学级别2011级学年2011—2012学期第一学期姓名翟蕾学号112011310000924类别全日制硕士（①全日制博士②全日制硕士③教育硕士④高师硕士⑤工程硕士⑥农推硕士⑦兽医硕士⑧进修)年月日研究生院(筹)制备注：成绩评定以百分制或等级制评分，每份试卷均应标明课程类别（①必修课②选修课③同等学力补修课）与考核方式（①闭卷笔试②口试③开卷笔试④课程论文）。
课程论文应给出评语。
Abstract：As we all know, preposition is one of the most active word classes with vital significance in both the English and Chinese languages. “C ong” is used frequently in modern Chinese; and in English, “from” is used frequently, too. Having a good master of the respective semantic functions and making cognitive semantic studies of the symmetries and asymmetries of their respective semantic functions without no doubt enable English learners to apply theory into practice and acquire the English usage well.Key words: English preposition “from”, Chinese preposition “cong”, cognitive, semantic function摘要：总所周知，英汉两种语言中，介词均属于最重要的虚词之一。
基于语义学理论的英语词汇学习
基于语义学理论的英语词汇学习摘要：词汇学习在外语学习中的重要性不言而喻。
现在，词汇学习已经成为了所有语言学习的一个非常重要的部分。
语义学是一门崭新的学科，把语义学用于英语学习更是一个全新的内容。
本论文主要试图从语义学中两个重要理论，即语义场理论和语义成分分析出发把语义学理论引入英语学习之中，用语义学的原理认识词汇，从而运用更加科学有效的方法提高词汇学习，并从中总结和找出一定的规律，这对提高我们学生学习英语的兴趣，提高掌握英语词汇的能力，进而更好地、恰当地并且得体地使用词汇，都有重要的现实意义。
这种理论与实践的结合是很有意义的。
关键词：英语词汇学习；语义学；语义场理论；语义成分分析CONTENTSIntroduction (1)1. Background of Vocabulary Learning in English Study (2)1.1 The Importance of V ocabulary in English Learning ........... 错误！未定义书签。
1.1.1 The Definition and Function of V ocabulary (2)1.1.2 The Important Status of V ocabulary in Learning English (2)1.2 The Present Situation of V ocabulary Learning in China .... 错误！未定义书签。
1.2.1 Some Research about V ocabulary Learning ................ 错误！未定义书签。
1.2.2 The Main Problems in Learning V ocabulary (3)1.3 Some Traditional Methodologies about How to Learn V ocabulary 错误！未定义书签。
关于英语语言学论文免费参考例文
关于英语语言学论文免费参考例文随着信息全球化的快速发展，英语已经成为了国际通用语言，英语语言学是高校英语专业学生的一门必修课程。
下文是店铺为大家整理的英语语言学论文的内容，欢迎大家阅读参考!英语语言学论文篇1浅析英语语言学的课程教学摘要：短短二三十年时间，语言学教学研究分类越来越细、分工越来越明确，正如王宗炎(1988：15)形象地比喻：过去的语言学只是一家小商店，如今已发展成为一家百货公司。
对于林林总总的学科分类和研究流派，结合教学大纲和英专学生本科阶段知识体系的形成，对该课程定位是必要的。
白郁(2007)认为语言学目标是宽泛的而非具体的，即培养学生的理论修养和对语言的热爱。
而本文则认为既应有宽泛目标，也应有具体目标。
学习理论知识时，学习和应用研究方法也是很重要的。
语言学基础理论，尤其是微观方面的理论成果，对英专学生语言技能的提高有检验作用;在跨学科或横向方面，将语言学相关理论用到英美文学和英汉翻译中，提高文学作品鉴赏能力，提升英汉对译技巧，形成论文即为具体目标。
诚然，理论与实践结合非一朝一夕之事，但撰写论文乃一种尝试。
故在介绍理论时，必要补充对理论的应用与研究，适当抛砖引玉，可有效激发学生探索兴趣。
故，具体目标使学生看到学习成效，宽泛目标锻炼了学生理性思维，既调动心灵又提高素质，教学效果也就不同了。
关键词：语言学语用学语篇分析1、教学内容传统课本基本上以微观语言学为主，按结构语言学思路编排内容，从语音学、音系学、形式学、句法、语义学，一直到语用学和语篇分析。
教学内容的改革是大多数学者的主张，如白郁(2007)认为应以语言哲学意义、语言与大脑及认知关系、语言学发展简史、宏观把握语言学真正意义等四方面为重。
还有学者认为增加课外阅读材料以改进教学内容，如王扬(2004)和吴格奇(2005)主张选用有助于学生理解基本理论、概念的材料、辅之以拓宽视野的补充材料。
还有以宏观还是微观语言学内容作为教学重点的争论：“微观”派认为语言内部分支是语言学的基础内容，课时分配比重要大;“宏观”派认为基础部分简单，学生可自学，重点应是宏观介绍;“中间”派是既注重基础又考虑涉猎面。
语言学家Leech的语义七分法-英语论文-语言学论文
语言学家Leech的语义七分法-英语论文-语言学论文——文章均为WORD文档，下载后可直接编辑使用亦可打印——随着国际交流的日益频繁，英文作为一种国际语言，已经被广泛运用，其中，口语表达又是交流中一种非常重要的形式，如外交活动、大型国际会议、商务谈判，等等。
不过直到今天，大学生们还是做不到英语口头表达的熟练和地道。
我们的口语教学哪里出问题了，口语学习过程中哪里不对了？笔者认为，口语学习不单单只是像李阳疯狂英语所崇尚的大声说，大声喊，还有国内许多名师认为的多说多练习。
一、语义学定义语义学（Semantics），也作语意学，是一个涉及到语言学、逻辑学、计算机科学、自然语言处理、认知科学、心理学等诸多领域的一个学科。
虽然各个学科之间对语义学的研究有一定的共同性，但是具体的研究方法和内容大相径庭。
语义学的研究对象是自然语言的意义，这里的自然语言可以是词，短语（词组），句子，篇章等等不同级别的语言单位。
二、Leech 的语义七分法其中语言学家Leech 将语义分成了七种，分别为概念意义、伴随意义、社会意义、情感意义、联想意义、搭配以及主题意义。
（一）概念意义概念义是语言系统里最核心的意义，语言的其他意义都必须以此为参照。
在词汇输入时，对其概念意义片面的、局限的理解，才造成如此大的误差和错误。
那么也就注定很难讲出地道的、正确的英文。
因此，作为英语学习者查阅英英词典，彻底了解词语的语义，输入正确的英文信息，才能在运用时候，表达出正确的概念和语义，才能够进行顺畅的、良好的交流，从而达到学习语言的目标。
（二）伴随意义伴随意义或者内涵意义，又叫伴随意义：一个词语的内涵意义是通过该词的所指表达出的交际价值，即建立在概念意义之上的一种附加的、非标准性的意义，如：附着在词汇男人之上的伴随义是豪爽、健壮、义气，附着在女人之上的伴随义是温柔、体贴、。
也比如说owl 对西方人来说它伴随的意义是聪明与智慧，对我们来说却并非如此，它代表着、、神秘。
语义学(原创-本科 文学院&外国语学院 期末论文)
语义学专业年级XX学号：XXXXXXXX 语义学语义学实际上是跨学科的交叉性学科。
语义学（Semantics），也作“语意学”，是一个涉及到语言学、逻辑学、计算机科学、自然语言处理、认知科学、心理学等诸多领域的一个术语。
语义学是一门既古老又年轻的学科。
中国有很悠久的语义学研究传统，从最早的《尔雅》、《方言》，到后来的《说文解字》等等都是对词汇和汉字的意义的研究。
还有中国的注疏训诂学的研究实际上涉及到词汇学以及历史词汇学的很多内容。
王力先生的巨著《汉语史》中就有词汇意义发展变化的一个专门部分。
20世纪50年代，以义素分析和语义场理论的产生为标志，语义学才成为一门相对独立的学科。
语义学是研究语言单位和话语的意义的科学，是语言学的分支学科。
主要研究语义的各种性质、类型、语义关系、语义的结构和功能，以及语义的形成和演变等等。
语义学的研究对象是自然语言的意义，这里的自然语言可以是词汇，句子，篇章等等不同级别的语言单位。
但是各个领域里对语言的意义的研究目的不同。
语义学主要有三大分支：一是语言学的语义学，即狭义语义学。
二是哲学的语义学，即语义哲学。
三是逻辑学的语义学，即逻辑语义学。
作为语言学分支的语义学，大体上可以分为语汇语义学和句法语义学两大分支。
语言学的语义学语言学的语义学研究目的在于找出语义表达的规律性、内在解释、不同语言在语义表达方面的个性以及共性。
若从严格意义上的语言学研究来分类，在现代语言学的语义学中，可以分为结构主义的语义学研究和生成语言学的语义学研究。
结构主义语义学是从20世纪上半叶以美国为主的结构主义语言学发展而来的，研究的内容主要在于词汇的意义和结构，比如说义素分析，语义场，词义之间的结构关系等等。
这样的语义学研究也可以称为词汇语义学，词和词之间的各种关系是词汇语义学研究的一个方面，例如同义词、反义词，同音词等，找出词语之间的细微差别。
生成语义学是20世纪六七十年代流行于生成语言学内部的一个语义学分支，是介于早期的结构主义语言学和后来的形式语义学之间的一个理论阵营。
【英语】自考论文论英语词义的变化
文档来源为:从网络收集整理.word版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持. 【关键字】英语毕业论文题目：论英语词义的变化准考证号：学生姓名：指导老师：武汉大学外语学院制On the Meaning Change of English Words文档来源为:从网络收集整理.word版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持.论文摘要语义学是关于意义的学问，它旨在研究语言单位，特别是单词和句子的意义。
词是语言中具有意义的，最小的能够独立运用的单位，所以关于词的意义（即词汇语义学）在语言学中占用重要的位置。
单词一直处在不断的变化过程当中，形式上的或是内容上的，常常是后者发生变化。
正像Quirk在1963年指出的那样，“…几乎我们现在使用的每一个词与其在一个世纪以前的意义稍有不同,而一个世纪以前的单词又和它在一个世纪之前的意义稍有差别” 。
广泛的讲，意义的变化指的是现行词义的变化，或是对现行词语添加新的义项。
这种变化随着时间的流逝而产生。
本论文探究了英语词义变化的方式、类型及原因。
希望本论文可以帮助英语专业的学生更好地学习英语词义。
关键词：词义; 变化; 方式; 类型; 原因文档来源为:从网络收集整理.word版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持.AbstractThe subject concerning the study of meaning is called semantics, which targets at the study of the meanings of linguistics units, such as words and sentences. A word is the minimum free form with certain meaning, thus the study of word meaning (lexical semantics) occupies an important position in linguistics study. Word has been constantly undergoing the process of changes，either in forms or in meanings, with the latter being more frequent. Just as Quirk said in 1963, “… almost every word we use today has a different meaning from the one it had a century ago, and a century ago it had a slight different meaning from the one it had a century bef ore that”. Broadly speaking, meaning change refers to the alternation of the meaning of existing words, as well as the addition of new meaning to established words. This change occurs along with time. This thesis explores the approaches, modes, causes of word meaning change. Hopefully, it may help us English majors study English word meaning better.Keywords: meaning；change；approach; mode; cause文档来源为:从网络收集整理.word版本可编辑.欢迎下载支持.ContentsI. Introduction (1)II. Approaches to meaning change of English words (2)2.1 extension approach (2)2.2 figurative approach (3)2.3 merger approach (3)III. Modes of meaning change of English words (4)3.1generalization (5)3.2 specialization (6)3.3 elevation (7)3.4 degradation (7)IV. Causes of meaning change of English words (8)4.1 extra –linguistics factors (8)4.2 linguistics factors (10)V. Conclusion (11)Bibliography (12)On the Meaning Change of English WordsI. IntroductionAs a branch of semantic study, the lexical semantics has been long regarded as the focal point. And the question as to what is the meaning of word becomes the first inquiry for language leaners. The objective matters, which exclude human mind, including all the living creatures, unanimated objects, events and their behavior, state and characteristics, etc. are reflected, thus sensation, perception, representation are produced first. Human mind then will generate the abstract preliminary products into concepts. Then man fixes the concepts in the vehicle of language, enabling us human beings to exchange our thoughts through these signs with certain meaning individually. Thus, words come into being. In other words, the meaning of words is endowed by men. As British linguist Eric Partridge once pointed out, “words have no meanings, p eople have meaning for them”. This process is generally agreed upon by all linguists. However, different people may hold different opinions on the sub-structure of word meaning.One difficulty in the study of meaning is that the word “meaning” itself has different meanings. In their book The meaning of meaning written in 1923, C.K Odgen and I.A Richards presented “a representative list of the main definition which reputable students of meaning have favored” (Odgen & Richards, 2003: 186). There are 16 majo r categories of them, with sub-categories totaling up to 22.The edifice of any language could be observed as a grand project composed of three elements: sound, lexicon, and grammar, among which sound is the physical shell of a language; lexicon serves as the “brick” and “concrete”; while grammar functions as the ways and principles by which linguistic elements are organized and oprate. So word meaning above all can be divided into two big categories: grammatical meaning and lexical meaning.Grammatical meaning corresponding with grammar signifies the grammatical aspect of a word. For example, “girl” is a single form, while “girls” represents the plural form in meaning.Lexical meaning, on the other hand, is the study of word meaning at its content level. For example, in the group of words “go, goes, gone, went, going”, each word has different grammatical meaning obviously, but their lexical meaning is the same, namely “to move or travel from one place to another” (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, 1998:746). Foreign linguists have different classifications on word meaning. Geoffrey Leech, a world famous Britishlinguist, categorizes seven types of meaning, as follows: conceptual meaning, connotative meaning, social meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning, collocative meaning, thematic meaning, with conceptual meaning being the center of word meaning. And connotative meaning, social meaning, affective meaning, reflected meaning, and collocative meaning and thematic meaning can be brought together under the heading associative meaning(Leech.,1981).In the following sections, we are going to explore the approaches to meaning change, the modes of meaning change and the causes accounting for the meaning change. And with some basic knowledge of word meaning change in the thesis, it may cast light on how to gasp word meaning and help us English majors study English language better.II. Approaches to meaning change of English wordsThe change of word meaning refers to the process in which the existing word has some changes either in number of its meaning items or its content in its application or development. In this section we will take a glimpse at the trace of changes in word meaning. There are mainly three types as follows：2.1 Extension approachExtension refers to a way a word derived from a new through certain connections based on its original meaning, or its existing meaning items. For example, the word “hoe”（noun）meant “ a garden tool with a handle and a blade ,used for breaking up soil and re moving weds” and then a related meaning was produced , “to break up soil, remove plants, etc, with a hoe”, such as in the phrase “ to hoe a flowers”(Oxford Advanced Learner’ s English-Chinese Dictionary, 1997: 838), so “hoe” here is used as a verb. Howev er, we can easily see the close connection in meaning between the noun “hoe” and the verb “hoe”. Some words can create new meaning through extending or narrowing the scope of reference, which is also very common. For example, the word “journal” originally meant “a written record that you make of the things that happen to you each day (diary) (Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary, 1997: 775). Let us look at another example, the word “wedge” (noun) originally meant “a piece of wood, robber, me tal, etc, with one thick end and a thin pointed end that you use to keep a door open, to keep two things apart, or to split wood or rock”, then its verbal meaning came into being, namely “ to put or squeeze something tightly into a narrow space, so that it can not move easily”(ibid).2.2 Figurative approachWhether the scope of reference extends or narrows, the type of object a word denotes has not changed. However, when a word has changed its literal meaning to its figurative meaning, the type of object is utterly different, and then semantic shift has occurred in word meaning. This is also a very important style of meaning changes.Abundant examples can serve as the illustrations of the figurative approach. For example, the word “burden” originally meant“a heavy load that is difficult to carry” and then people tended to use it for referring to “ a duty ,responsibility ,etc, that causes worry, difficulty or hard work”, for example, in the sentence “The main burden of caring for old people falls on the state”. This abstract sense of “burden” is very vivid and concise in the effect of expression, which will certainly leave a deep impression on the listener’s mind.2.3 Merger approachThis way of change in word meaning refers to another way of change in word meaning, reflecting the relationship between two words under certain circumstances. When one word’s scope of reference expands into that of another related word, meaning may then be annexed, making the latter one lose its status of independence. Comparatively speaking, this approach is less in frequency in word meaning change than the previous two approaches, which however should not be ignored by us English learners. In the study of antonyms, we come to know the concept of “gradable antonyms” first, the co mmonest type of antonyms. That is, the members of a pair differ in terms of degree. The denial of one is not necessarily the assertion of the other, and there is no absolute criterion of judgments by which we may say something is good or bad, long or short, big or small. Usually, the term of the higher degree serves as the “cover term”. For example, we ask somebody “how old are you?” and the person asked may not be old in any sense. He may be as young as twenty or three. The word “old” is used here to cover both old and young. The sentence above means the same as “what is your age?”. Technically, the “cover term” is called “unmarked”, i.e. usual; and the covered “marked”, or unusual. That means, in general, it is the “cover term” that is more often used. If the covered is used, then it suggests that is something odd, unusual here. The speaker may already know that something or somebody is young, small, near, and he wants to know the extent in greater detail. This characteristic is also reflected in the corresponding nouns, such as length, height, width, and depth.Because of the differences, a lot of word meanings are different. For example, in CambridgeInternational Dictionary of English, the word ‘individual’ is defined as ‘the idea that freedom of thought and action for each person is the most important quality of a society, rather than shared effort and responsibility’. It is positive. However, in The English-Chinese Dictionary, there is a sentence ‘These poets were individualists, wanting to explore their own thoughts and feelings, not content with the general truth’. Obviously, the meaning of ‘individualists’ is negative.III. Modes of meaning change of English wordsGenerally speaking, the development and change of word meaning is ever-increasing in number of meaning items almost in every language system, due to social development and word meaning development itself. However it becomes complicated as each individual word is concerned. For some, the number of meaning item may increase, and for others, just the reverse. And some words’ meaning may disappear, or reduce to morphemic meaning, etc.3.1 GeneralizationThe generalization of meaning is a process by which a word originally having a specialized meaning has now extended to cover a broader and often less definite concept.A large proportion of polysemic words of modern English have their meaning extended sometime in the course of development. Let us refer to some example as illustrations. The word “manuscript” today means “an author’s writing whether by hand or typed with a type writer or a word-procession”. But its old meaning referred to “handwriting”(written by hand)only. The word “fabulous” originally meant “resembling a fable” or “based on a fable”, but then it meant “incredible” or “marvelous”, since as we all knew that something incredible or marvelous often only existsd in fables, not in reality. Another example is the word “barn”. It meant “a place for stor ing only barley”, but now its meaning extends to “storeroom”. More examples are available here to cast light on the generalization of meaning.Word Old meaning Extended meaningbutcher one who kills goats one who kills animalsbonfire fire on bones a fire in the open madeby burning anything What is more, “thing” is often associated with “any”, “some”, and “no”, namely “anything”, “something”, and “nothing” respec tively. The frequency of these three words is high in both written and spoken form, the latter one especially. I have oncecounted and amazed at the high frequency one tend to employ “something” when he or she tries to introduce or explain a certain object, event, idea, etc. Other words like business, concern, matter, article, and circumstance have undergone similar process of meaning generalization.3.2 SpecializationSpecialization of language is a process by which a word which is used to have a more general sense becomes restricted in its application and conveys a special concept in present-day English. A typical example is the word “ deer”, which was used to refer to all kinds of animals, for example in Shakespeare’s sentence “ rats a nd mice and such small dear”; i n British English, “corn” was once used as “grain”, but in present-day American English, it only refers to “maize”; w hen “garage” was first borrowed from French, it meant more other than “any safe place”, but at present “garage” narrows down to “ a place for storing cars”—a shelter for cars only. Here are more examples:Word Old meaning Specialized meaning girl young person of either sex female young person wife woman married womanaccident event unfortunate eventChange of meaning is frequently brought about by two tendencies in a language system: toward ellipsis and toward analogy. Ellipse as a cause of semantic change often occurs in habitual collocations, such as adj + n. or attributive + n, in which the noun is often deleted and only the first element(the attributive) is left, but retaining the sense of the whole phrase.For example, “a gener al” comes f ro m “ a general officer”, “bugle” from “ bugle horn”, “gold” from “gold me t al”, “uniform” f ro m “uniform dress”, “ transistor” f rom “transistor radio”, “daily” f ro m “ daily newspaper”, etc.Another case of specialization occurs when a common noun changes into a proper one, and its meaning specializes correspondingly. For example, the City refers to “London business center”; The Peninsula refers to “Iberian Peninsula” only; and the word “Prophet” refers to Muhammad, who founded the religion of Islam.3.3 ElevationElevation of meaning is a process by which words rise from humble beginning to a position of importance. In other words, some words in their early history signified something low or humble, but as time goes by, the meaning changed to designate something agreeable or pleasant. A typical case in point is the word “nice”. It originally meant “ignorant”, then “foolish”, but later it was dramatically eleva ted to“delightful, pleasant”;Marshal(high—ranking army officer) and Constable(police man) were both once referred to “keeper of horses”. More relevant examples are also provided here：Word Old meaning Elevated meaningknight servant rank below baronetangel messenger messenger of Godminister servant head of ministryNobody nowadays is reluctant to be described as “shrewd” perhaps, or “nimble”. However, for some time these two words are rather derogatory in meaning.A shrewd man was once often associated with “evil” or “wickedness”, while a nimble man is considered as someone taking something without certain permission; and the word “success”, a desirabl e destination for anyone to reach, was once only a simply neutral “result”.3.4 DegradationContrary to elevation, degradation of word meaning is a process whereby words of good origin or affective neutrality fall into ill reputation or come to be used in a derogatory sense. An interesting fact is that many addresses for common people have taken on derogatory color. For example, “churl”which used to refer to “peasant” or “free man” has changed into “uncultivated or mean person”;“wench” once referred to “country girl”, but now it has degraded into “prostitute”;“villain”once referring to “person who worked in a villa”has now changed into “evil or wi cked person or scoundrel”. The following words have also undergone similar changes: Word Old meaning Degraded meaningknave boy dishonest personlust pleasure sexual desirelewd ignorant lecherousAs statistics shows that it is much more common for word meaning to change in denotation from neutral to pejorative than it is for them to go to the other way.The above-mentioned four types are the main types of word meaning changes, excluding transference, comparatively taking a small percentage in word meaning change, which thus is not within the framework of the present thesis discussion. IV. Causes of meaning change of English wordsWith the ever-changing human society, language as the vehicle of communication is also in the process of change and development. Both linguistic and extra-linguistic factors are exerting influence on word meaning changes. We can find out certain rules beneath the surface of meaning variations, which will deeper our understanding of word meaning.4.1Extra-linguistic factorsMeaning has always been a centre topic in human scholarship, though the term “semantics” has only a history of a little over a hundred years, let alone lexical semantics. There were discussions of meaning in the works of the Greek philosopher Plato as early as in the fifth century before Christ. In China, Lao Zi had discussed similar question even earlier. The fact that over the years numerous dictionaries have been produced with a view to explaining the meaning of words also bears witness to its long tradition. The research on word meaning has been drawing attention from linguists, philosophers and anthropologists, psychologists, and so on. This also exemplifies the fact that many extra-linguistic factors contribute to the change of word meaning.1.Historical reason. It often happens that a word is retained for a name though the meaning has changed because the referent has changed. The famous linguist Ullman once said “language should be more conservative than either material or spiritual civilization. Objects, styles, points of view and scientific concept have all changed in the course of time. But in many cases, the names were retained which helpto ensure that the tradition and continuity of a language.”(Zhou, 2007: 198). Take “pen” as a example. “Pen” in the beginning refer red to “feather”, since people in the West used feather to make a “pen”. Nowadays, we have already said farewell to the age of using a feather pen, and we prefer to use ball pen or fountain pen. But we still stick to employ the name “pen”; “car”once referred to “two-wheel cart drawn by horses and used in war”. With the development of modern automobile technology, “car” has changed to refer to “automobile”; similarly, “computer” originally mean t “person who computes”, but now it is another case. When we talk about computer, the first image jumping into our minds is definitely “a electric machine” instead of“a person”.Increased scientific knowledge and discovery are also important factors that account for the change of word meaning. For example, people believed in ancient times that the sun was one of the seven planets revolving the earth. And this meaning could still be seen in the sentence “The sun rises and sets”, although people nowadays have alread y accepted Copernicus’ theory that “sun is a star around which the earth and other planets revolve”.2.Class reason. Language is a mirror perfectly, reflecting everything in the human society, which records speeches and attitudes of people from all walks of life. And various social variants have then come into being. The attitudes of different classes have also made inroads into lexical meaning in the case of elevation or degradation. The so-called “King’s English”is a typical example. There are a considerable number of words of different professions, which often have derogatory meaning. Since in the eyes of the aristocrats, the working people are ignorant, stupid, and rude in behavior. For example, words “churl, hussy, wench, and villain” have all degrade d from neutral sense into “ill-mannered or bad people”. What is more, words like “democracy, revolution, liberation, human rights and communism” have quite different meanings to different people or in different society.3. Psychological reason. The associated transfers of meaning and euphemistic use of words are often due to psychological factors. For example, in American Civil War, Copperhead (a kind of poisonous snake) was used to refer to someone whosupported the Southerners secretly. As to the latter usage above (euphemistic), many humble and despised occupations often taking more appealing names is all due to psychological reasons. Americans are especially fond of using euphemistic expressions. For example, “garbage collector”is called “sanitation engineer”in America and “disposal” in Britain; “g ardener” changes into “landscape architect”; and “servant” changes into “domestic engineer”. As statistics shows, the so-called “engineer” is more than two hundred among respectful addresses in English.Besides, religious influence is another kind of psychological reason. As Cardinal Trench once said, “ange l”, “martyr” and “paradise” have their meanings elevated due to the influence of the Christianity.4.2 Linguistic factorsThere are exterior reasons for the change of word meaning, and also the interior reason, i.e. the development of language itself. Here as the follows.Firstly, a phrase is often be shortened to a word without losing the original entire meaning. For example, “gold” is used for “gold medal”, “gas” for “ coal gas”, “bulb” for “light bulb”, and “private” for “private soldier”. Under these circumstances, whatever is left, a noun or an adjective, is used as a noun to be the equivalent of the original expression.Secondly, the influx of borrowing words in great number has also resulted in the change of word meaning. For example, “deer” once referred to all kinds of animals. With the coming of Latin word “animal” and the French word “beast”, these three words were forced to re-identify their status as they all have the same denotation. As a result, “animal” kept its original sense, and “deer” shortened its meaning reference scope, while “beast” changed its semantic color into derogatory.At last, analogy can also bring about meaning changes. For example, the word “fortuitous” once meant “happening by chance, accidental”. But later it extend ed to have the meaning of “fortunate”. Is there a logical explanation for that? Perhaps, this is a process of the demonstration of “analogy”. “Fru ition” originally meant “a pleasure we obtain from using or possessing something” and ha d no relationship in meaning with “fruit”. However, one of its meaning items “the bearing of fruit” isprobably the result of association based on “fruit”.Besides, cultural psychology is the study of the way cultural traditions and social practices regulate, express, and transform the human psyche, resulting less in psychic unity for humankind than in ethnic divergences in mind, self, and emotion. When one learns a language, it is important to learn its cultural psychology. For example, when Chinese people observe a thing, they will start from the whole, but the westerners will start from the part.V. ConclusionThis thesis explores the approaches, modes, causes of word meaning change. Semantic change plays a very important role in widening the vocabulary of a language. Since language is symbolic, each word serves as a symbol in relation to a specific meaning. In this sense, we need infinite number of word or symbols to code the physical entities and our experiences, which will be ultimately proved impossible and obstruct the smooth operation of communication. So an old form is given a new concept, thus the meaning of a form is multiplied.The approaches in which word meaning changes represent the main types of changes and indicate both linguistic and extra-linguistic causes. After acquiring some basic knowledge of word meaning changes, one may could not help asking such a question “What measures can be adopted in daily study?”. Hopefully this thesis could cast new light on the study of English word meaning for us English majors and help us lay a solid foundation for the exploration of the wonders of the English language.BibliographyCambridge International Dictionary of English [D], Shanghai: ShanghaiForeign Language Education Press, 2008Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [Z], Beijing: The CommercialPress, 1998Leech, G, A, Semantics: the study of meaning, 2nd edition, Harmondsworth:Penguin, 1981Oxford Advanced Learner’s English-Chinese Dictionary[Z]. Beijing: TheCommercial Press, Oxford University Press, 1997Odgen,C,K,& Richards,I,A, The meaning of meaning, London: Routledge &Keganpaul, 2003The English-Chinese Dictionary[D], Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press, 2005Zhou, Ruiying, A study of teaching English word meaning[M], Changsha:Hunan Normal University, 2007池昌海, <<现代语言学导论>>, 浙江: 浙江大学出版社，2004胡壮麟主编, <<语言学教程>>(修订版), 北京: 北京大学出版社，2001胡壮麟、姜望琪主编, <<语言学高级教程>>, 北京: 北京大学出版社，2004 李赋宁, <<英语史>>, 北京: 商务印书馆，2008汪榕培、卢晓娟, <<英语词汇学教程>>, 上海: 上海外语教育出版社，2007 此文档是由网络收集并进行重新排版整理.word可编辑版本！。
英语双物构式语义论文
英语双及物构式的语义研究摘要:作为一种重要的语言现象,双及物结构一直是国内外语言学家们关注的焦点。
前人对双及物结构的研究大致可划分为三类:结构主义、生成语法和认知语言学,但均有缺点和不足。
本文试图以goldberg所倡导的构式语法理论为指导,采用定性的研究方法对双及物结构予以剖析,以揭示该构式的本质特征.本文在goldberg 构式语法的基本理论框架指引下,从双及物结构的基本语义”给予”义出发,根据动词本身”给予”义的强弱,将动词分为三类:动词本身有”给予”义;动词本身没有明显的给予义,在双及物构式里,通过转喻隐含”给予”义;动词本身没有”给予”义,只是在双及物构式里,使其潜在的”给予”义得以表达。
关键词:双及物构式;构式;”给予”义;转喻;语义空间一、理论依据构式语法(constructivegrammar)是以认知语言学为理论背景,由adelee. goldberg和paulkay等在20世纪90年代提出来的语法理论。
构式概念在语言学中源远流长。
传统语法学家发现特定构式在语言中起着重要作用。
语法中存在构式被认为是显而易见的事实。
在转换生成语法的早期阶段[1],构式在语法中占据中心地位,现在生成语法学家们把注意力集中于普遍原则,不像以前给予构式那么多关注。
构式语法在很大程度上来源于框架语义学[2][3][4]和基于体验[5]的语言研究。
构式语法认为影响语言意义的因素不仅有词汇,而且有更大的语言单位, 即语法构式。
构式语法通常指goldberg[6]的观点,认为一个句子不是一堆句子成分的堆砌,而是一个”完形”。
每当动词出现在一个不同的构式中时,该表达式的语义因受限制而不同。
goldberg认为这些差别不必归结于不同的动词意义,把这些差别归结于构式本身更合理。
goldberg(1995 :4) 对构式的定义为:假如说c 是一个独立的句子,仅当且当c 是一个形式(fi) 和意义(si) 的对应体,而且无论是形式或是意义的某些特征都不能完全从c 这个构式的组成成分或另外的先前已有的句式推知构式语法的一个基本观点是形式和意义的结合体,即使在具体的词语缺席的情况下也具有与形式相应的意义和语用功能。
浅论语义学在英语词汇教学中的应用
浅论语义学在英语词汇教学中的应用［摘要］语义学是语言学的一个分支。
中国学生在进行英语词汇学习的过程中,常会犯如下语法错误,比如：误用英文词性、混用中文语义相近的英文单词、不正确的英文搭配等。
如果我们能把词汇语义学应用到我们的英语教学当中(比如实施语境词汇教学、同义词汇教学、反义词汇教学等),就能在实际教学当中取得更佳的教学效果。
［关键词］语义学；语言学；词汇学习；词汇语义学；英语教学1语义学概述语义学是语言学的一个分支,它是用以描述研究语言含义的专业术语。
它研究语言含义的性质、类型、关系、结构以及功能,此外还包括研究语言含义的形成和发展等。
它的研究范围涉及：命名、概念、意义和所指,单词还有句子。
本文主要探讨词汇语义学。
词汇语义学的研究领域主要涉及：聚合和组合、语义领域、搭配和习惯用法等。
它的语义关系包括：上下位、同义、反义、关系对立、一词多义和同音异义、合成等。
2学生在现今的英语学习中,存在的与语义学和词汇学相关的问题21误用英文词性在中文中,一个单词常可混用为verb(动词),noun(名词)以及adjective(形容词)而不需要任何形式上的改变。
它的词性通过它在句子当中所处的位置来判断,或者通过辅助词——“的、地、得”来实现。
举例而言,Example 1“学生抱怨作业太多。
”(here“抱怨”is a动词)Example 2“我不想再听你的抱怨。
”(here“抱怨”is a名词)Example 3“他是一位成功的商人。
”(here“成功”is an形容词)Example 4“他的成功是由于他的勤奋。
”(here“成功”is a名词)但是在英文当中,同含义的单词可能会以verb(动词),noun(名词),adjective(形容词)等的不同形式体现。
有时动词和名词可能会有同样的形式,但是大部分时候,它们都是不同的。
因此上述句子的英文翻译应为：Example 1The students complain that there is too much homework．(here “complain”是动词)Example 2I don t want to hear any of your complaint．(here “complaint”是名词)“complain” 与“complaint” 的词根均为“complai n 抱怨”。
从认知语义学角度看英语习语
论文导读:：认知语义学研究表明,大部分习语的构成有系统的概念上的动因。
本文从认知语义学的角度出发来揭示英语习语的本质,并运用概念隐喻。
论文关键词：习语，认知语义学，隐喻概念习语是现代英语的一个重要组成部分,因其结构紧凑、表达力强得到语言使用者和研究者的重视。
但是英语习语大多与英语民族的历史发展、地理环境、风俗习惯等有关,很难从它的组成成分推测出来它的意思,这就是英语习语很难理解和掌握原因。
认知语义学研究表明,大部分习语的构成有系统的概念上的动因。
本文从认知语义学的角度出发来揭示英语习语的本质,并运用概念隐喻隐喻概念，转喻与常规知识分析英语习语的语义,以加深对习语的理解。
一、习语意义观传统语言学家从习语的语义整体性来研究习语,认为一句习语的意义是不可分割的统一体,其语义不能由构成各词的单独语义组成,各个词在组合中也失去了它们原先在语义上的独立性。
Gibbs将习语分为三类:第一类是不可分析的习语,第二类是可正常分析的习语,第三类是不可正常分析的习语。
接下来本文要从认知语义学的角度探讨习语的意义与其各组成部分的意义之间的关系。
二、习语的语义理据分析习语是认知机制的作用物构成习语的各个词及其句法特征和意义，组成这个习语的形式和字面意义,形成一个或多个概念域。
这种概念域通过认知机制的作用与习语的特殊意义相联系。
在这里起作用的认知机制常常是隐喻、换喻和常规知识等。
2.1隐喻认知作用的习语美国心理学家Gibbs 发现,概念隐喻有心理现实性,正是概念隐喻促使产生了习语表达方式;人们对习语隐喻基础有着心照不宣的知识,人们对理解习语一致性就是概念隐喻作用的结果。
例如:LOVE IS FIRE ----- I amburning with love.概念隐喻在这里作用于两个不同的知识范围,使它们一致起来。
人们可以使用能够直接体验到的、熟悉的东西,来谈论另一个较为抽象的、不大熟悉的东西。
2.2 转喻认知和常规知识作用的习语与隐喻不同,转喻只涉及一个概念域,是人们用熟悉的事物去表征与其相关的事物或用熟悉的一个方面去表征整个事物的一种认知方式发表论文。
认知语言学视角下英语词汇的文化语义研究论文
认知语言学视角下英语词汇的文化语义研究论文认知语言学视角下英语词汇的文化语义讨论论文英语词汇的文化语义在跨文化交际中起着重要作用，本讨论在对英语词汇文化语义的定义进行阐述的基础上，应用认知语言学的理论来分析英语词汇文化语义产生的根源和特征，最后对如何将英语词汇语义的相关理论运用到英语教学中进行了探讨。
词汇是构成语言不可缺少的基本材料，词汇知识是语言能力的重要组成部分。
词汇学习是任何语言学习者在习得语言时最重要的环节，大学生听、说、读、写、译各项英语语言技能的提高都与学生习得的词汇量息息相关。
另外，各项英语考试也对学生掌握的英语词汇量提出了较高的要求。
近年来，蓬勃进展起来的认知语言学理论在一定程度上为大学英语教学提供了一些非常重要的启示，对大学英语词汇教学产生了巨大影响。
一、英语词汇的文化语义英语词汇的文化语义内涵丰富，只有充分了解英语词汇的文化内涵，才能准确完整理解英语词义。
近年来，很多国内外学者对英语词汇的文化语义内涵从不同方面进行了讨论。
认知语言学以认知科学为依托，近年来获得了快速进展，讨论成果在教学讨论和实践领域获得了广泛的应用。
认知语言学认为，人们对客观世界的体验形成了认知范畴的知识，将知识概念存储在大脑中，就形成了语言中的词汇。
20世纪50年代，维特根斯坦在著名的家族相似性原理中指出，词汇具有多种意义，其中一个是中心意义(即原型)，其他意义依靠家族相似性与中心意义组成一个范畴。
人们掌握了中心意义后，即可以依据家族相似性的原则类推到其他实例中，从而可了解范畴的全部所指。
国内从认知语言学的角度对英语词汇的讨论与国外相比要晚一些。
从20xx年开始，才有相关的讨论成果出现。
梁晓波重点论述了认知语言学所关注的基本范畴词汇、词语语义理据、词语多义之间深层联系、词语隐喻义和认知语义学理论等方面对当前大学英语词汇教学的指导作用。
20xx年，朱亚夫结合英语和汉语的实例，对英国语言学家利奇提出的词语意义的七种类型做了简要的评述，从宏观上提出英语词汇学习应结合词语的社会文化背景知识进行，注重词汇的文化语义内涵挖掘。
语义学论文 comment
关于“语义的灵活性与核心意义”研究的总结“语义的灵活性与核心意义”是Lawrence M. Schoen 于1988年发表在Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 上的一篇文章。
文章阐释了一个非常普遍且简单易懂的语义学原理，即上下文的变化与词汇的核心意义之间的关系。
每个词汇的语义都不是唯一的，而是灵活变化的，在特定语言环境下每个词汇都有它突出的核心意义，但不是唯一意义，这就是语义的灵活性。
上下文的变化会引起语义的变化，这是日常生活中最常见的语义学现象之一。
在这篇文章中，作者借由名词属性的显著率saliance rating来证明上下文变化在语义变化中起到的作用，证明了上下文的变化会引起名词特性的显著率的变化，而名词特性的显著率的变化证明了该名词核心意义的变化。
从而证明了上下文的变化通过语义的灵活性对词汇核心意义造成的变化和影响。
为了更好的证明观点，作者首先着重阐述了语义学相关领域的研究历史与研究现状。
得出语义学研究是一个偌大的网络，涉及到其他各个语言领域之间的联系。
当今的语义学研究着重于语义记忆的比较宏观的部分，例如一个单独词汇的意义是如何储存的；它是以何种形式存在；它的构成部分有哪些；以及它要遵循哪些语义规则等等。
而作者的研究目的是检验上下文在语义灵活性中是如何发挥作用的。
如果在实际生活中，上下文的变化导致了语言意义的变化，则容易得出词汇的属性显著率也会随着上下文的变化而受到影响。
为了证明这个，作者做了两个实验。
为了更好的阐释实验，作者先给出了几个概念。
每个名词都有它的很多属性。
有的属性比较常用，而有的属性是在特定情形下才会出现。
例如篮球，它的属性就有很多种，如球体，圆形，有弹性，是一种运动器具等等。
作者将名词的多种属性分为两类：主要属性和次要属性。
主要属性，即central property，是指这个名词最常用的属性，即最明显最常见的特征。
通常和上下文没有关系（context-independent），就算是没有上下文，也能看出名词的这一属性。
谈英语语用学与语义学的应用
谈英语语用学与语义学的应用Language use and semantics are the twin pillars of effective communication. In the realm of English, these disciplines offer insights into how meaning is constructed and conveyed.The application of pragmatics in English teaching helps learners understand the context and intention behind spoken or written words. For instance, a simple "How are you?" can be a genuine inquiry or merely a social nicety.Semantics, on the other hand, delves into the meaning of words and phrases. It helps to clarify ambiguities and nuances that can often lead to misunderstandings, especially in a language as rich and complex as English.In business settings, the practical application of these fields is crucial. Contracts and agreements rely heavily on precise language to avoid misinterpretation, ensuring that the intended meaning is clear to all parties involved.For young learners, the integration of pragmatics and semantics in language education can make learning English more engaging. It teaches them not only the literal meaning of words but also how to interpret and respond appropriately in various social situations.In literature, the interplay between pragmatics andsemantics enriches the reading experience. Authors use these linguistic tools to create layered meanings and evoke emotions, inviting readers to explore the depths of the narrative.For non-native speakers, mastering the art of pragmatics and semantics can be a gateway to cultural understanding. It allows them to navigate social interactions with greater ease and sensitivity.In conclusion, the study of English pragmatics and semantics is not just about language proficiency; it's about enhancing our ability to connect, understand, and appreciate the subtleties of human communication.。
认知语义学在大学英语词汇教学中应用论文
认知语义学在大学英语词汇教学中的应用摘要：经验主义语义学主张语言意义并不是对外部客观世界的反映，而是人类对客观世界的主观认识的反映。
认知语义学在遵从人类认知规律的基础上侧重研究词语和概念结构之间的联系，注重学习者基本认知能力和其经验对习得新知识的影响。
认知语言学中的范畴观、原型理论和隐喻等对英语词汇习得和教学具有重要作用。
关键词：认知语义学；范畴观；原型理论；隐喻一、概述认知语言学出现于20世纪70年代，是新一代认知科学与语言学结合的一门新兴边缘学科。
认知语言学在承认客观世界在语言形成过程中所起的作用的基础上，强调人类的认知能力的参与作用，认为语言不能直接地反映客观世界，在语言和客观世界之间存在认知这一中间层次。
这种观点所强调的是存在于人类大脑中的概念是受到其经验(experiments)影响的，具有主观性。
对于浩瀚如大海的英语词汇体系，死记硬背早已被证明是一种拙劣的学习方法。
相比较而言，运用人类的一些基本的逻辑思维能力来加深学生对词汇的理解和强化对词汇的记忆却能起到事半功倍的效果。
根据认知语言学的观点，学习者在习得词汇时，应该超越语言的表面体系，深入到语言的深层概念体系中，充分利用已有的知识体系来理解和记忆新的词汇，最终构建一个更加完整和完善的知识体系。
认知语义学的焦点在于建构这些概念框架结构，以及语言的使用是如何反映它们的。
在建构概念框架的过程中，人们不得不将语言知识分门别类地归入到各个认知域和框架中，这就需要实体的范畴化。
因此，原型理论和隐喻理论被认为是我们思维过程中最基本的因素。
二、认知语义学在大学英语词汇教学中的运用１．范畴观与原型概念理论及其应用。
20世纪70年代，rosch提出了他的范畴观。
他提出了语义原型(prototype)这个概念。
rosch认为，范畴成员之间的关系并不是平等的，每个范畴往往是围绕一个具有典型特征的语义原型辐射而形成的，有时范畴与范畴之间的界限并不是明确的等。
英汉语义论文关于英汉语言的论文
英汉语义论文关于英汉语言的论文英汉运动类动词语义-句法界面对比研究①摘要：本文基于构式语法，研究英汉运动类动词的框架语义、构式论元选择及其语义—句法界面，以揭示英汉运动类动词的语义与句法异同点。
通过分析发现其相同点为：英汉运动类动词框架语义范畴一致，符合致使—移动构式“X cause Y/X to move Z path”，句法映射到主语、谓语、宾语、地点状语和结果补语上；差异为：汉语鲜有＜致事客体目标＞论元选择，借助“把”字等小品词调整语序完成构式的句法表现。
英汉运动类动词的词汇化程度以及句式表达的个性特征是造成其语义—句法界面差异的根本原因。
关键词：英汉运动类动词构式语法框架语义语义—句法界面一、引言“运动是物质的固有属性和存在方式”（张建映、张跃滨，2005），这不仅道出了运动是常态的客观事实，也反映了人类最基本的生活经验。
其折射在英汉语言层面便是英汉运动类动词。
近年来，学者主要从动词隐喻、词汇化与论元关系、词汇化模式等角度（如韩大伟，2007；李来发，2008；秦洪武、王克非，2010；李雪，2010），对英汉运动类动词进行了对比。
这些研究详细分析了动词词汇化的特征与类型，指出了英汉运动类动词在表层组织上的差异并合理解释了论元实现的差异性。
本文拟在Goldberg构式语法下，进一步分析英汉运动类动词的框架语义②、构式论元及其语义—句法界面，以揭示其语义—句法界面的异同。
二、英汉运动类动词的框架语义英汉运动类动词可归至“致使—移动构式”，其意义为“X cause Y to move Z path”（Goldberg、Casenhiser and Sethuraman，2004），表明该运动事件的基本框架语义。
致使实体、运动实体、致使力、运动、路径；由于动词对运动事件贡献部分语义，下文拟寻找动词与构式语义的相容性以及英汉运动类动词的框架语义。
（一）英语运动类动词框架语义特征Levin（1993）把245个英语运动类动词分七个次类：第一类，内驱导向类，如“advance，arrive”；第二类，他向类，如“abandon，leave”；第三类，方式类（包括无生命实体和生命实体的运动动词），如“drop，walk”；第四类，工具类③，如“balloon，drive”；第五类，舞步类，如“waltz，tapdance”；第六类，跟随类，如“chas e，trail”；第七类，陪伴类，如“accompany，lead”。
论语义学与语用学的关系(全英文)
On the Relationship between Semantics and PragmaticsAbstract: Both semantics and pragmatics are concerned with the study of meaning. The former studies the natural and static meanings of linguistic signs, while the latter deals with how language users mean by different signs in different speech events or contexts.The essay first deals with the theoretical discussions on the relationship between semantics and pragmatics, then provides some analysis about the complementary relations between these two branches of linguistics in terms of Grice's Cooperative Principle and Conversational Implicature. Keywords: semantics, pragmatics, complementary relations1. Debates on the relationship between semantics and pragmatics1.1 Leech’s ClassificationSemantics is the level of linguistics which has been greatly affected by pragmatics, but the relationship between semantics (in the sense of conceptual semantics) and pragmatics has remained a matter of fundamental disagreement. Three logically distinct positions in this debate can be distinguished (Leech, 1981):1)Pragmatics should be subsumed under semantic.2)Semantics should be subsumed under pragmatics.3) Semantics and pragmatics are distinct and complementary fields of study.As we can see, there are generally two theoretical positions: reductionism and complementarism. Within the former, we can make a distinction between pragmatic reductionism and semantic reductionism. The former holds the view that semantics is wholly included in pragmatics. On the other hand, the latter takes the view that pragmatics falls entirely under semantics.The reductionism approach runs counter into the fact that there are linguistic phenomena such as entailment which are relatively uncontroversially semantic, and there are also linguistic phenomena such as conversational implicature which are relatively uncontroversially pragmatic(Huang, 2007). Therefore, the complementarist viewpoint is more widely accepted in which semantics and pragmatics is considered as two independent and complementary components in language system.1.2 Postulates on the distinction between semantics and pragmaticsAs semantics come into being, many linguists come up with various semantic theories form different angles, such as referential theory, stimulus-and-response theory, truth-conditional semantics and ideational theory. Pragmatics used to be regarded as a convenient waste-bin to which to consign annoying facts which could not be explained by semantics. The rapid development in semantics has enhanced the development of pragmatics. It is the close relationship between semantics and pragmatics that have caused the problems in the relationship between the two. There are a set of postulates on the distinction between semantics and pragmatics.1.2.1 Morri s’ and Carnap's classificationPragmatics as a modern branch of linguistic inquiry has its origin in the philosophy of language. The modern use of the term pragmatics is attributable to philosopher Charles Morris, who made a threefold classification of semiotics (the study of signs):1) Syntax: the formal relation of signs to one another;2) Semantics: the relations of signs to the objects to which the signs are applicable;3) Pragmatics: the relation of signs to interpreters.Within each branch of semiotics, one could make the distinction between pure studies, concerned with the elaboration of the relevant metalanguage, and descriptive studies which applied the metalanguage to the description of specific signs and their usages (Levinson, 1983).This trichotomy was taken up by Carnap, who posed an order of degree of abstractness for the three branches of linguistics: syntax is the most abstract and pragmatics the least abstract, with semantics lying somewhere in between. Consequently, syntax provides input to semantics, which provides input to pragmatics.1.2.2 Leech’s analysis of semantics and pragmaticsIn the most general sense, pragmatics studies the relation between linguistic expressions and their users. The distinction between semantics and pragmatics, therefore, tends to go with the distinction between meaning and use, or more generally, that between competence and performance (Leech, 1983). In practice, the problem of distinguishing "language" (langue) and "language use" (parole) has centered on a boundary dispute between semantics and pragmatics. Both fields are concerned withmeaning, but the difference between them can be traced to the different uses of the verb” mean" in the following two sentence:①What does X mean?②What did you mean by X?Semantics traditionally deals with meaning as a bivalent relation, as in ①, while pragmatics deals with meaning as a trivalent relation, as in ②. That is to say, semantics talks about "X means Y", while pragmatics studies "the speaker S means Y by X". For example, a mother speaks to his son “Tom, shoes!” when the boy is entering the house from outside. In the sight of semantics, what the mother says has no clear meaning. However, in terms of pragmatics, what the woman means is to ask his son to take off his shoes before going into the room. Thus meaning in pragmatics is defined relative to a speaker or user of the language, whereas meaning in semantics is defined purely as a property of expressions in a given language, in the absence of particular situations, speakers, or hearers.1.2.3 Levinson’s definition of pragmaticsLevinson (1983) believes that the definition of pragmatics is by no means easy to provide, therefore he considers a set of possible definitions of pragmatics and finds that each of them has deficiencies or difficulties of a sort that would equally hinder definitions of other fields. One of his definitions for pragmatics is: Pragmatics is the study of all those aspects of meaning not captured in a semantic theory. This definition in fact makes a distinction between semantics and pragmatics.1.2.4 Huang’s criticism on the distinction between semantics and pragmaticsThe distinction between semantics and pragmatics has been formulated in a variety of ways. Of these formulations, three, according to Bach, are particularly influential. They are (i) truth-conditional versus non-truth-conditional meaning, (ii) conventional versus non-conventional meaning, and (iii) context independence versus context dependence (Huang, 2007).1)Truth-conditional versus non-truth-conditional meaningAccording to this formulation, semantics deals with truth-conditional meaning, or words-world relations; pragmatics has to do with non-truth-conditional meaning. There are, however, a number of problems at the very core of this approach to thesemantics-pragmatics division. First of all, there are linguistic forms that do not denote anything and therefore do no make any contribution to truth-conditional content. Secondly and more importantly, the linguistically coded meaning of a sentence does not always fully determine its truth conditions. Furthermore, there is often pragmatic intrusion into the truth-conditional content of a sentence uttered.2) Conventional versus non-conventional meaningOn this view, semantics studies the conventional aspects of meaning; pragmatics concerns the non-conventional aspects of meaning. It should be noted at this point that there are certain overlaps between pragmatics and semantics. One case in point is concerned with conventional implicature. Conventional or generalized implicature refers to an implicature whose meaning or meanings are inferable without putting it in specific contexts. In the utterance “John wen t into a house and found a dog in front of a door”, for instance, we may infer that John has gone into a house, which is not his. At least this is the implied meaning of the “a + noun” phrase.Conventional implicature can be argued to fall either in pragmatics or semantics, depending on how they are defined. If pragmatics is taken to deal with those inferences that can be cancelled, then conventional implicature falls outside its province and within that of semantics, since it is not defeasible in pragmatics. On the other hand, if semantics is taken to be concerned with those aspects of meaning that affect truth conditions, then the investigation of conventional implicature is part of pragmatics but not of semantics, since conventional implicature does not make any contribution to truth conditions in terms of semantics.3)Context independence and context dependenceThe semantics-pragmatics distinction has been equated with context independence and context dependence. This characterization of the semantics-pragmatics distinction, however, rests on a mistaken assumption that context has no role to play in semantics. Contrary to this assumption, according to Bach, in the case of deictics and demonstratives (such as this, that, these and those), especially what philosophers of language call pure indexicals, such as I, here, now, it is on the side of semantics that content varies with context. Consequently, Bach postulated two types of context: (i)narrow context and (ii) broad context. Narrow context denotes all contextual variables such as those concerning who speaks to whom, when, and where. In contrast, broad context is taken to be any contextual information that is relevant to the working out of what the speaker overtly intends to mean.2.The complementary relationship between semantics and pragmaticsPersonally, I am in favor of the radical pragmatic position within the complementarist camp, in the belief that this is the more promising approach. Pragmatics deals with meaning from the angle of the language user and serves as a complementation to the traditional semantics. The significance of the pragmatic study is reflected on the two basic functions of language. On one hand, language is used to encode the real-world information and to represent feelings and understanding of the world. In this process, linguistic signs have established a certain relationship with the outside world. The semantic study of meaning on this level is context-independent and only concerned with the literal meanings of linguistic signs. On the other hand, language serves as a communicational tool to guarantee successful communication between people in specific contexts. The pragmatic study of meaning at this point is no longer restricted to the literal meaning, but concerned more with many other complicated factors beyond language (such as social and cultural conditions).Thus, meaning in pragmatics is no longer static and stable as in semantics. It becomes an interaction in which the speaker and the listener together build up "meaning" on the basis of common knowledge.However, the traditional semantic study of meaning is still very important, due to the fact that language must be first used to express the conventional meaning before it can serve as the communicational tool. In fact, there is no such thing as "communication" without the fundamental conventional meaning. Thus, many pragmatic linguists place equal emphasis on both the pragmatic study of meaning and the study of the conventional meaning. For example, both "locutionary act" proposed by Austin and "locutionary meaning" stressed by Grice are almost the same as the conventional meaning discussed in semantics.3. The theory of conversational implicaturePragmatic linguists pay a great attention to two sets of concepts: sentence and utterance, sense of utterance and force of utterance. A sentence is considered as an abstract entity at the core of the semantic study, while an utterance in pragmatics is the realization of a sentence in a specific context. Sense of utterance or locutionary meaning is the basic literal meaning of the utterance which is conveyed by the particular words and structures the utterance contains. Force of utterance or illocutionary force is the effect the utterance or written text has on the listener or read er. For instance, in “I’m thirsty" the locutionary meaning is what the utterance says about the speaker’s physical state. The illocutionary force is the effect the speaker wants the utterance to have on the listener. It may be intended as a request for something to drink. Based on the two pairs of concepts mentioned above, we can see the important role pragmatics plays in the complementation of semantics.The term “implicature" was first proposed by Grice in 1975, which is based on the disagreement between "locutionary meaning" and "illocutionary force". That is to say, what is said is different from what is actually meant. Let's look at this example: Mother (says to her son): Is that your coat on the floor?When the mother asks the question, what she wants is not a "Yes or No" answer, or, in other words, the understanding of the "locutionary meaning" of the utterance. The real intention here is the "illocutionary force" to show her dissatisfaction or order the son to pick the coat up.A conversational implicature is an inference, an additional message, which the hearer is able to work out from what is said by appealing to the rules governing successful conversational interaction. Thus, Grice comes up with the Co-operative Principle ( CP ), which is comprised of four maxims:(1) The maxim of quantity:a. Make your contribution as informative as required.b. Don’t make your contribution more informative than is required.(2) The maxim of qualitya. Don’t say what you believe to be false.b. Don’t say that for which you lack adequate evidence.(3) The maxim of relation: Say things that are relevant.(4) The maxim of manner: Be perspicuous.a. Avoid obscurity of expression.b. Avoid ambiguity.c. Be brief.d. Be orderly.According to the maxims, speakers should speak sincerely, relevantly, clearly, and should provide sufficient information.(Levinson,1983: 101-102)In our daily life, speakers and listeners involved in conversation are generally cooperating with each other. In other words, when people are talking with each other, they must try to converse smoothly and successfully. In accepting speakers’ presuppositions, listeners have to assume that a speaker is not trying to mislead them. However, there are more cases that speakers are not fully adhering to the principles. But the listener will assume that the speaker is observing the principles “in a deeper degree”. Here is an example:A: Where is Bill?B: There is a yellow car outside Sue’s house.In the dialogue, B seems to be violating the maxims of quantity and relevance, but we also assume that B is still observing the CP and think about the relationship between A’s question and the “yellow car” in B’s answer. If Bill has a yellow car, he may be in Sue’s house. In this example, we can see that only when the sense of utterance and the force of utterance are both considered, can we understand the real meaning of the answer.Sometimes, the speaker may “flout” one or more maxims obviously in order to get the listener to find out what is said beyond the literal meaning. For example: A: Where are you going with the dog?B: To the V-E-T.In this little dialogue, the dog is known to be able to recognize the word “vet” and to hate being taken there. Thus, A makes the word spelled out. Here he is “flouting” themaxim of manner, making the implicature that he does not want the dog to know the answer. From all the examples mentioned above, we can see that conversational implicature is based on conventional meaning and the latter may develop into the former. In a word, implicature lies in the content rather than the linguistic form. This is also a clear reflection of the relationship between semantics and pragmatics.4. ConclusionSemantics and pragmatics are distinct and complementary fields of study, both concerning the transmission of meaning through language. Drawing the line between the two fields is difficult and controversial. Lyons (1977:17) states that " the applicability of the distinction between syntax, semantics and pragmatics to the description of natural languages, in contrast to the description or construction of logical calculi, is, to say the least, uncertain”. Recanati concluded: It is futile to insist on providing an answer to the twin questions: What is the principle basis for the semantics/pragmatics distinction? Where does the boundary lie? Answers to these questions can still be given, but they have to rely on stipulation (Huang, 2007). Even though it is difficult to pinpoint the demarcation line between semantics and pragmatics, through the discussion on this we can have a much deeper understanding of the characteristics and the functions of language.References:[ 1 ] Austin, J. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.1962.[ 2 ] Blakemore, D.Understanding Utterances: An Introduction to Pragmatics. Oxford: Blackwell.1992.[ 3 ] Charles, W. K. Introducing English Semantics. Routledge.1998.[ 4 ] Davis, S. Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 1991.[ 5 ] Grice, H. P. “Logic and conversation”, in P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.) (1975): Syntaxand Semantics 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 1967.[ 6 ] Huang, Y. The Syntax and Pragmatics of Anaphora[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1994.[ 7 ] Leech, G. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman. 1983.[ 8 ] Levinson, S. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1983.[ 9 ] Morris, C. W. Writings on the General Theory of Signs. The Hague: Mouton.1971.。
语义学期末论文
The Relation and Difference between Semantics and Pragmatics in the Studyof MeaningY20100131邵晓巍Abstract: The trichotomy of syntax, semantics and pragmatics is one of the most popular ways of subdividing the study of human languages. It was originally suggested by Charles Morris in Morris (1938) and later again in a revised form in Morris (1946). Among the three subdisciplines of linguistics, semantics and pragmatics are so close in that they are both concerned with the study of meaning. Even so, they are different in the study of meaning. But their close relationship has made it difficult to set a clear boundary between them in the study of meaning and the distinction between them in this respect has puzzled and is still puzzling linguists and philosophers of language (Jef, 2000). This paper tries to explore preliminarily the relation and difference between semantics and pragmatics in the study of meaning.Key words: semantics; pragmatics; relation; distinction1 IntroductionIn the early 1970s, some linguists attempted to take semantics as the basisfor the study of linguistics to replace the central position of syntax. As a result, this movement enhances the rapid development of semantics, which focuses on the study of meaning in language. The further study into semantics made linguists realize the importance of context in the study of meaning. Once context was taken into consideration in semantics, the existence of pragmatics as an independent discipline had become inevitable.Discussion of the relationship between semantics and pragmatics can date back to Morris. Some scholars such as Leech, Levinson and Bach also tried to make a distinction between the two, but no consensus has been reached till today.2 The relation between semantics and pragmaticsSemantics is the study of meaning that is used to understand human expression through language. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such as words, phrases, signs, and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata.Pragmatics is a subfield of linguistics which studies the ways in which context contributes to meaning.Semantics is the level of linguistics which has been most affected by pragmatics, but the relation between semantics (in the sense of conceptual semantics) and pragmatics has remained a matter of fundamentaldisagreement. Three logically distinct positions in this debate can be distinguished (Leech, 1981):1) Pragmatics should be subsumed under semantics.2) Semantics should be subsumed under pragmatics.3) Semantics and pragmatics are distinct and complementary fields of study.For ease of reference, Leech distinguished these three positionsby using the terms :(1)SEMANTICISM,(2)PRAGMATICISM,(3)COMPLEMENTARISM.The complementarist viewpoint is more widely accepted in which semantics and pragmatics are considered as two different components in language system. They are independent and complementary. It is on the basis of complementary that there becomes the boundary between semantics and pragmatics.3 The difference between semantics and pragmaticsThe most common way of viewing the distinction between semantics and pragmatics is in terms of situation or context dependence of meaning. Semantics is supposed to be concerned with those aspects of meaning which are situation independent while pragmatics deals with those aspects of meaning which are dependent on situational factors.In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study ofmeaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and larger units of discourse (termed texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units and compounds: homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, paronyms. A key concern is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of sense and denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax.Pragmatics, however, studies how the transmission of meaning depends not only on the linguistic knowledge (e.g. grammar, lexicon etc.) of the speaker and listener, but also on the context of the utterance, knowledge about the status of those involved, the inferred intent of the speaker, and so on. In this respect, pragmatics explains how language users are able to overcome apparent ambiguity, since meaning relies on the manner, place, time etc. of an utterance. And areas of interest of pragmatics include: (1)The study of the speaker's meaning, not focusing on the phonetic or grammatical form of an utterance, but instead on what the speaker's intentions and beliefs are.(2)The study of the meaning in context, and the influence that a given context can have on the message. It requires knowledge of the speaker'sidentities, and the place and time of the utterance.(3)The study of implicatures, i.e. the things that are communicated even though they are not explicitly expressed.(4)The study of relative distance, both social and physical, between speakers in order to understand what determines the choice of what is said and what is not said.(5)The study of what is not meant, as opposed to the intended meaning,i.e. that which is unsaid and unintended, or unintentional.(6)Formal Pragmatics, the study of those aspects of meaning and use, for which context of use is an important factor, by using the methods and goals of formal semantics.4 ConclusionSemantics and pragmatics are complementary fields of study, both concerning the transmission of meaning through language. But they are distinct. Drawing the line between the two fields is difficult and controversial. Even though it is difficult to pinpoint the demarcation line between semantics and pragmatics, a study on this will deepen our understanding of the characteristics and function of language.And a distinction is more of a hindrance than an aid to clarity in the study of meaning in natural languages. Perhaps, it would in fact be better to abandon the distinction in favor of a semantico-pragmatic approachwhere linguistic meaning has as its primary function contextual adaptability, which would make such things as vagueness, metaphor and contextual determination of meaning central concerns rather than phenomena which are seen as exceptional and therefore safely left for another day.References:[1] Jasczolt K M. Semantics and Pragmatics [M].London: Longman, 1999[2] Leech G. Semantics [M].Penguin Books, 1981.[3] Leech G. Principles of Pragmatics [M].London: Longman, 1983.[4]袁玲玲On The Distinction between Semantics and Pragmatics[5] Jens Allwood On The Distinctions between Semantics and Pragmatics（注：可编辑下载，若有不当之处，请指正，谢谢!）[文档可能无法思考全面，请浏览后下载，另外祝您生活愉快，工作顺利，万事如意!]。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
西南大学研究生课程考试答卷纸考试科目语义学院、所、中心外国语学院专业或专业领域英语语言文学研究方向认知语言学级别2011级学年2011—2012学期第一学期姓名翟蕾学号112011310000924类别全日制硕士（①全日制博士②全日制硕士③教育硕士④高师硕士⑤工程硕士⑥农推硕士⑦兽医硕士⑧进修)年月日研究生院(筹)制备注：成绩评定以百分制或等级制评分，每份试卷均应标明课程类别（①必修课②选修课③同等学力补修课）与考核方式（①闭卷笔试②口试③开卷笔试④课程论文）。
课程论文应给出评语。
Abstract：As we all know, preposition is one of the most active word classes with vital significance in both the English and Chinese languages. “C ong” is used frequently in modern Chinese; and in English, “from” is used frequently, too. Having a good master of the respective semantic functions and making cognitive semantic studies of the symmetries and asymmetries of their respective semantic functions without no doubt enable English learners to apply theory into practice and acquire the English usage well.Key words: English preposition “from”, Chinese preposition “cong”, cognitive, semantic function摘要：总所周知，英汉两种语言中，介词均属于最重要的虚词之一。
“从”和“from”分别是英语与汉语中常用的高频介词。
分别对这两个介词语义功能的有效掌握和对它们语义功能的对称性以及非对称性的认知研究无疑能使英语学习者将理论运用到实际中，并很好掌握其用法。
关键词：英语介词“from”，中文介词“从”，认知，语义功能A Cognitive Semantic ComparativeStudy of Chinese Preposition “Cong” and English Preposition “from”1．IntroductionAccording to Quirk et al. (1985:657-659), in the most general terms, a preposition expresses a relation between two entities, one being that represented by the prepositional complement, the other by another part of the sentence. Dai Weidong and He Zhaoxiong(2002) state that the English prepositions have been referred to as being closed class words since brand-new words are not usually added to them so that all their members can be enumerated. It is also the same case with the Chinese prepositions. Curme(1931) tells us that the English language contains 286 prepositions in total, but in Chinese the frequently used prepositions are no more than 30. As is acclaimed by Svartvic (1998), almost in any English text, prepositions occur as often as in one word in every eight. Though small in number, English together with Chinese prepositions are of vital importance. The English preposition “from” and the Chinese preposition “cong”are two most commonly seen and frequently used prepositions in English and Chinese respectively. Having a better understanding of their dictionary meanings and making a comprehensive cognition of their differences never fail to enable learners to master the English language on a deeper level.2. The Respective Semantic Functions of English Preposition “from”and Chinese Preposition “Cong”2.1 The Semantic Functions of English Preposition “from”In accordance with the explanations of the entry “from” in the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary (Sally Wehmeier, 1997), the English preposition “from”possesses fourteen explanations which can be divided into the following seven semantic functions.The first and foremost function is to show where somebody or something starts. It can be the starting point of anything, such as a period of time, a place, a resource, a limitation, a range and a development. For example:(1)from adulthood （从成年起）(2)Has the train from Bristol arrived? （从布里斯托尔开来的火车到了没有？）(3)Bees are going from flower to flower.（蜜蜂正逐花飞行。
）(4)jump (down) from a wall（从墙上跳下）(5)Mary received a doll from her father. （玛丽从父亲那得到一个洋娃娃。
）(6)He comes from France.（他来自法国。
）(7)Things have gone from bad to worse. （事情愈来愈糟了。
）The second one is to show the reason for making a judgment. Attention should be given to the instance below.(8)You can tell a lot about a person from their handwriting. （根据一个人的笔迹可以了解很多关于他的情况。
）(9)judge from appearance （从外表判断）Thirdly, the English preposition “from” are capable of demonstrating the reason for something. Take the following sentence for example.(10) She felt sick from tiredness. （她累得浑身不对劲。
）Additionally, the English preposition “from” also enables the users to distinguish between two people or things. Pay attention.(11) Is Portuguese very different from Spanish? （葡萄牙语与西班牙语区别很大吗？）(12) I cannot tell one twin from the other. （我分辨不出双胞胎中谁是谁。
）Moreover, the meaning of indicating the material that something is made of is included in the English entry “from”. With the following instance one can efficiently understand it.(13) Steel is made from iron. （钢是由铁炼成的。
）The six function lies in that the English preposition “from” is able to express the meaning of exhibiting that something or somebody is separated or removed. Great importance should be attached to the instance concerned.(14) The party was outsted from power after eighteen years. （该党执政十八年后被赶下台。