Prace komisji nauk.pdf - Instytut Filologii Angielskiej Uniwersytetu ...
Prace komisji nauk.pdf - Instytut Filologii Angielskiej Uniwersytetu ... Prace komisji nauk.pdf - Instytut Filologii Angielskiej Uniwersytetu ...
Material and method I will first review the definitions of the noun dor given in Romanian dictionaries and which equivalents the English dictionaries assign to this noun. Then, an investigation of its place in the Romanian society will be performed. This will be done by means of the Internet search and the model provided by Goddard’s research on key words in several languages (2002). To investigate the place of dor in Romanian literature, a corpus was constructed, made up of authors and works covering Romanian literature from its beginning up to the present. Finally, the noun dor will be defined in NSM terms. The method employed to define this key word in terms of semantic primes is the method of reductive paraphrase, as described by Goddard (2002: 5). Previous research The scientific background for the present study is provided by Anna Wierzbicka and Cliff Goddard’s approach on semantics, i.e. Natural Semantic Metalanguage. As described in Wierzbicka (1996 and 1997) and Goddard (2002), Natural Semantic Metalanguage tries to avoid the limitations of the previous approaches on language, especially their reluctance against including meaning in the study of language. Language is used to express meaning, but meaning does not belong to language only. Hence the 20th century linguists’ dilemma: to have or not to have meaning as an object of linguistics. Linguists as Bloomfield, Chomsky or Montague tried to study language as much as possible separated from semantics, the most common reason being the fact that meaning does not only belong to language but also to philosophy, and that it is extremely difficult to define meaning in linguistic terms only. Bloomfield (1935) went so far as approaching and defining meaning in an entirely behaviouristic manner. 94
Unlike them, Wierzbicka and Goddard start from the premise that meaning cannot be separated from language, and therefore the linguist has to include meaning in the linguistic study. Thus, they reject the formal approach on language, and consider language study to necessarily include word and expression meaning. In other words: no linguistic without semantics. The NSM approach on language established first a set of so-called “primitives”, or “semantic primes”, by means of which all words should be defined. The semantic primes are seen as universal across languages, indefinable and nonethnocentric. In other words, they make up the semantic core of all languages and even if they are expressed in a particular language, their meaning must not depend on that language. The set of semantic primes has been constantly checked and updated. The set of so-called old primitives include “substantives” (I, YOU, SOMEONE, SOMETHING, PEOPLE), “determiners” (THIS, THE SAME, OTHER), “quantifiers” (ONE, TWO, MANY (MUCH), all), “mental predicates” (THINK, KNOW, WANT, FEEL), “speech” (SAY), “actions and events” (DO, HAPPEN), “evaluators” (GOOD, BAD), “descriptors” (BIG, SMALL), “time” (WHEN, BEFORE, AFTER), “space” (WHERE, UNDER, ABOVE), “partonomy and taxonomy” (PART (OF), KIND (OF)), “metapredicates” (NOT, CAN, VERY) and “interclausal linkers” (IF, BECAUSE, LIKE) (Wierzbicka 1996: 35). To this set, the “new primitives” were added later: SOME to the “determiners”, the “augmentor” MORE to the “quantifiers”, SEE and HEAR to the “mental predicates”, FAR, NEAR, SIDE, INSIDE and HERE to the “space”, and A LONG TIME, A SHORT TIME and NOW to “time”. In addition, three new groups were defined: “non-mental predicates”, consisting of MOVE, THERE IS and (BE) ALIVE, “imagination and possibility”, made up of IF…WOULD and MAYBE, and “words” consisting of WORD (Wierzbicka 1996: 73-74). Wierzbicka also argued that word meaning is culturally dependent. Quoting Sapir (Wierzbicka 1997: 1), she states that “language [is] a symbolic 95
- Page 43 and 44: feature constituting the hunting so
- Page 45 and 46: great ignorance and an improper att
- Page 47 and 48: 61. leśniczy forester der Förster
- Page 49 and 50: 123. samura (dzik) ----------------
- Page 51 and 52: appears to be a fashionable hobby.
- Page 53: Wilkoń, Aleksander (1987) Typologi
- Page 56 and 57: poniewaŜ w analizie jakościowej,
- Page 58 and 59: manipulacji. Van Leeuwen (2005) wsk
- Page 60 and 61: Van Dijk, Teun A. (1993) “Princip
- Page 62 and 63: which, as culturally bound linguist
- Page 64 and 65: undertakings. Thus Thore’s death
- Page 66 and 67: “intratextlinguistics”, this wo
- Page 68 and 69: actually a creative projection of a
- Page 70 and 71: Iversen, Mette (2000) From Rune-sto
- Page 72 and 73: 1. Słowa i czyny Jezusa, zwłaszcz
- Page 74 and 75: zapominać - jeśli chce się popra
- Page 76 and 77: Edward T. Hall (1971: 130) distingu
- Page 78 and 79: gazer, saying that one can never fi
- Page 80 and 81: have long chats while drinking some
- Page 82 and 83: this inn when the old AncuŃa lived
- Page 84 and 85: unwelcoming and mysterious space wh
- Page 86 and 87: The pub is another sociopetal space
- Page 88 and 89: much in spite of its shattered aspe
- Page 90 and 91: The domestic, intimate space become
- Page 92 and 93: The Dragon in Sadoveanu, Mihail (19
- Page 96 and 97: guide to culture”, “vocabulary
- Page 98 and 99: a-i fi dor de Ńară to be homesick
- Page 100 and 101: Dor is most commonly associated wit
- Page 102 and 103: The meaning of “pain” is in (4)
- Page 104 and 105: hierarchical perspective, this mean
- Page 106 and 107: also DO, SAY and MOVE, dor being, o
- Page 108 and 109: to define dor in NSM terms. The NSM
- Page 110 and 111: X feels something sometimes a perso
- Page 112 and 113: if I did this, I would feel somethi
- Page 114 and 115: 114
- Page 116 and 117: Rozpatrywana po prostu jako powieś
- Page 118 and 119: Słownictwo erotyczne w języku pol
- Page 120 and 121: PoŜądanie Kategoria ta tematyczni
- Page 122 and 123: Oryginał Przekład polski 1 Przek
- Page 124 and 125: she sat deep in an overstuffed bloo
- Page 126 and 127: A delinquent Występna nimfetka [wy
- Page 128 and 129: Dąbrowska, Anna (2002) „Stereoty
- Page 130 and 131: the language that the interactants
- Page 132 and 133: aforementioned conclusions could ha
- Page 134 and 135: upkeep the conversation in oppositi
- Page 136 and 137: Speaker Sex Nationality Age Educati
- Page 138 and 139: constitute, it becomes clear that t
- Page 140 and 141: specific one. Moreover, taking into
- Page 142 and 143: [C: No, Ajaks won’t be eating a g
Material and method<br />
I will first review the definitions of the noun dor given in Romanian dictionaries<br />
and which equivalents the English dictionaries assign to this noun. Then, an<br />
investigation of its place in the Romanian society will be performed. This will<br />
be done by means of the Internet search and the model provided by Goddard’s<br />
research on key words in several languages (2002). To investigate the place of<br />
dor in Romanian literature, a corpus was constructed, made up of authors and<br />
works covering Romanian literature from its beginning up to the present.<br />
Finally, the noun dor will be defined in NSM terms. The method employed to<br />
define this key word in terms of semantic primes is the method of reductive<br />
paraphrase, as described by Goddard (2002: 5).<br />
Previous research<br />
The scientific background for the present study is provided by Anna Wierzbicka<br />
and Cliff Goddard’s approach on semantics, i.e. Natural Semantic<br />
Metalanguage. As described in Wierzbicka (1996 and 1997) and Goddard<br />
(2002), Natural Semantic Metalanguage tries to avoid the limitations of the<br />
previous approaches on language, especially their reluctance against including<br />
meaning in the study of language. Language is used to express meaning, but<br />
meaning does not belong to language only. Hence the 20th century linguists’<br />
dilemma: to have or not to have meaning as an object of linguistics. Linguists as<br />
Bloomfield, Chomsky or Montague tried to study language as much as possible<br />
separated from semantics, the most common reason being the fact that meaning<br />
does not only belong to language but also to philosophy, and that it is extremely<br />
difficult to define meaning in linguistic terms only. Bloomfield (1935) went so<br />
far as approaching and defining meaning in an entirely behaviouristic manner.<br />
94
Change language