Lingua Inglesa - Aspectos Sintáticos e Semânticos

Prévia do material em texto

Tema 2 - Relações Entre as Palavras Semântica do Léxico
· Léxico: o acervo de palavras pertencentes a determinada língua
· Semântica: o estudo do significado das palavras
· Semântica lexical: é a área da linguística que estuda o significado das palavras e a relação entre elas e a sintaxe.
· Sintaxe: é uma área da gramática que estuda a função e a relação entre as palavras e as orações. Frase, oração e período.
1. Semantics: Definitions, Approaches and Basic Concepts
Semantics: definitions, theoretical approaches, and subareas
Semantics
Chierchia (2003, p. 7) defines Semantics as “the study of the meaning of the natural languages’ expressions”. This view is a simplified and more straightforward version of the seminal definition presented by Lyons (1997, p. 49), picturing Semantics as “the study of meaning in the way it is systematically encoded in the lexicon and grammar of natural languages”.
Semantics shares the role of studying meanings with other theoretical areas.
Pragmatics approaches meaning with a focus on how it is interpreted and perceived in context. Semiotics, on the other hand, adopts a more general stance, studying meaning not only in linguistic items but also in all sorts of communicative signs.
As well as many other areas of science, Semantics is also formed by different theoretical perspectives. Those schools of thought share some of the basic principles and interests of the field while disagree in some of the methods and theories employed in scientific research. A brief overview of the most important subareas of Semantics is presented below:
· Generative semantics: Based on the ideas of Chomsky’s Generative Grammar (1956 1975), this line of inquiry understands linguistic semantic structure as a derivation of the system of principles and rules that organize language.
· Cognitive semantics: Based on the works of thinkers such as Lakoff and Ross, Cognitive Semantics sees the process of meaning-making as a product of our mind. Therefore, meaning is not a property of the words themselves, but the result of the work performed by human beings transforming our experiences with the things in the world into language-inscribable (inscritiveis) categories.
· Lexical semantics: Lexical Semantics has its focus on the study of the meaning of the words in their relationships within sentences and within the entire lexicon.
Lexical Semantics
Lexical Semantics can be defined as the area of Semantics occupied with the study of the way meanings are encoded in words and in the lexicon of a language. However, as this definition may suggest, Lexical Semantics is not only an application of Semantics to a more specialized study of words. The area has its own specific objectives and theoretical guidelines (diretrizes).
Lexical Semantics studies the role played by words in the making of larger verbal entities through syntagmatic combination (creating phrases, sentences, and texts) and the meaning conveyed by those words in their possible combinations.
Lexical semanticists, thus, are occupied with a series of analytical and theoretical tasks:
· investigation of word meaning;
· contextual variation;
· sense relations;
· syntactic properties of combinations;
· and the structures of the lexicon.
The study of word meaning developed by Lexical Semantics is based on two theoretical tenets:
· Principle of compositionality (composicionalidade): The first of the cornerstones (pilares) is the principle of compositionality, which states that the meaning of any linguistic entity is determined by the meaning of its constituent parts and their rules of combination. Therefore, the meaning of a sentence can be seen as the meaning of the phrases and words it contains and the syntactic rules that organize them. By the same token, the meaning of a word can be understood as the meaning of the morphemes that build it up as well as the morphological rules that govern the binding of those morphemes.
· Principle of conventional conception: The second theoretical tenet to be highlighted is the fact that Lexical Semantics studies the meaning of words in the way they are conventionally conceived, instead of the way they are used in one specific interactional situation. Therefore, Lexical Semantics has as its object of study word types (conventional abstractions of the word) rather than word tokens (idiosyncratic employment of the word in a certain context). This theoretical stance allows lexical semanticists to establish a continuum between a word (type) and the entire lexicon (the words of a language), presenting conclusions about the latter (último) based on the analysis of the former (primeiro).
· Idiossincrático/ idiosyncratic - que possui ou revela características distintivas dos demais.
Linguistic Sign
Definition of Sign
Saussure defines the linguistic sign as a two-faced mental entity, composed of two elements:
· Signified (significado): A conceptual image of the thing in the world conceived by the word or group of words. Is an abstract and conventional representation of the entity of the world that is denominated by the lexical item. In a word such as house, it is the conventionalized image of a house one has in mind when he/she conveys the word. It is not the different real houses we have in the world, but a socially shared representation of it.
· Signifier (significante): A graphic/acoustic image of the sound/writing that expresses the word. It is the socially shared and conventional representation of it. Everyone has his/her own particular and unique way of saying/ writing each specific word. However, in order to make communication achievable, all speakers of a language must share a set of Signifiers, that is, a set of shared images of how pronouncing/graphing words. The lack of this social asset means the impossibility of linguistic exchange.
In Saussure’s theory, language is coined as a system of signs. Therefore, in order to understand the meaning of a sign, one must know not only how its components (Signifier and Signifier) relate to each other, but also how the different signs interact systematically at different levels.
Arbitrariness of the Linguistic Sign
This feature means that the relationship between the components of the sign (Signified and Signifier) does not follow any rule or obey any criteria.
Therefore, the image of the sound/writing of a word such as horse has nothing to do with the conventional image of the four-legged animal used by knights. The most persuading proof of the truth of this theory lies in the fact that the same Signified is expressed by numerous different Signifiers in other languages (Cavalo, Chaval, Caballo, etc.).
Meaning-Making Processes
Meaning and language are two closely intertwined notions.
· Without meaning, language is empty. Without language, meaning is ineffable.
Numerous are the ways language conveys meaning, that is, shares one’s experience in a socially conventional form. This expression occurs through meaning-making processes that are rendered possible by linguistic communication.
Reference
Referencing consists of pointing at or making allusion to some entity of the world through language.
It tends to be seen as the most basic meaning-making process because common sense pictures language as a means to refer symbolically to the things in reality. One may describe the referencing process as a selection performed by the linguistic item. The word selects the object in the world, that is transformed into the referent of that linguistic expression.
Besides the more general kind of reference (the one that relates the word and the thing/concept), there is another type of linguistic reference that occurs when language is used to explicitly point at something.
This form of explicit referencing can be exophoric or endophoric.
· Exophoric references are the ones that point overtly (abertamente) to something within one’s reach (alcance) or sight in the material world:
· Endophoric references, on the other hand, are the ones that refer explicitly to another lexical item or elementwithin a text or an utterance.
Predication
Predication can be defined as the attribution of one word’s meaning to another word or group of words. The predicate is a semantic property that is ascribed to another lexical item. Ultimately, every text or utterance stands out as a network of predications because it is formed by many chains of meanings.
Words, phrases, and sentences transfer meanings to succeeding elements through semantic and syntactic links, creating a sense of unity in the entire text/utterance.
Verification
Verification is a meaning-making process in which a certain element or aspect of the ideas being conveyed is verified, that is, stressed, focused, highlighted, relativized, included, excluded, etc. Different from predication, no new meaning is being ascribed to another linguistic item nor new references are being coined.
Inference
The production of sense is not only performed through the construction of overt (evidente) meanings but also through the interpretation of implied ideas, that can be deducted from explicit utterances in a text. This process, called inference, consists of a dialogical movement of meaning-making since a great deal of the semantic work is performed by the interlocutor.
There are two types of inference:
· Deductive: A type of interpretation that is based only on logical thinking.
· Argumentative: It is a product of the previous knowledge summoned by the interactants during the conversation
Metaphor
Metaphor is a figure of speech based on the analogical relationship between concepts and ideas. As with any analogical operation, secondary and collateral elements of a notion are highlighted, creating new forms of understanding a conceptual entity.
Meaning-Making Problems
Ambiguity
When one linguistic form or expression carries more than one meaning, we have the phenomenon of ambiguity. The different understandings of a linguistic item are called readings, thus the most important criterion for the existence of ambiguity is the presence of more than one reading to a certain language unity.
The difference between ambiguity and polysemy (notion presented in the next section) is that the plurality of meanings in the former causes confusion, uncertainty and disturb to communication.
Lack of Cohesion
Misunderstandings regarding meaning do not occur only within words and expressions. They also happen in the relationship of those elements with others. Syntactically well-formed sentences can become nebulous or senseless due to lack of cohesion.
2. Monosemy, polysemy and the Polysemous Nature of Language
Monosemy and Polysemy
This diversity of meanings does not have to be always generative of ambiguity. It can present different but complementary perspectives of the same Signified, being characterized as polysemy.
Monosemy, on the other hand, characterizes a situation of linear and unitary relationship between the Signifier and the Signifier, that is, a situation in which each word is filled with only one respective meaning.
Since natural languages have a tendency towards polysemy, it is adequate to say that languages tend to become progressively more polysemous. Many are the vectors pushing for the semantic dilatation of the words in natural linguistic environments. Some of them are highlighted below:
· Semantic ramification: It occurs when a certain word is used in reference to a new thing in the world or integrated in a new context of application. A good example of this type of polysemous move can be seen in slang, in which a certain word or expression gains a new meaning by being appropriated by a particular semantic universe.
· Specialization: The employment of a certain lexical entity in a more specialized environment. This adaptation can result in the transformation of the old word into a technical term, a scientific concept, a bureaucratic terminology, or an esoteric mantra. A good example of this phenomenon is the word “face”, that was turned into a scientific concept by many different areas of research.
· Connotative sense: Some words can gain extra meanings by being applied in a metaphoric, poetic, or connotative sense. A good example of this phenomenon is the word "underdog". Originally having a zoological sense, this word was appropriated by the semantic realm of sports to denominate a competitor with small chances of winning. Finally, the meaning of the same word was stretched to also encompass people with low social and economic status.
· Influence of foreign languages: The import of words and expressions from foreign languages can sometimes create a situation of coexistence of two parallel forms of Signifier for the same Signified.
Lexical Relations
Synonymy and Antonymy
The commonsensical and most popular definition of synonymy and antonymy is:
· Synonymy: A word whose meaning is equal to another word. It is pictured as a kind of semantic equality.
· Antonymy: A relationship between two words in which one has the exact contrary meaning of the other. Therefore, it would be a perfect opposition between two terms.
In some cases, we may have terms that refer to the same object in the world but from different perspectives.
If we accept the commonsensical view of synonymy, it makes sense to talk about the existence of parasynonymy. The forementioned notion characterizes the relationship of two words that have almost the same meaning or meanings that in some specific contexts can be equated. They are quasi-synonyms. However, if we presume that it is impossible to conceive a perfect synonymy, all synonyms become automatically parasynonyms. In this case, instead of a true synonymy or antonymy, we should talk about degrees of parasynonymy, in which different words can be more or less similar or opposed.
Hyponymy and Hypernymy
Hyponymy and hypernymy are closely linked converse notions.
Hyponymy portrays a relationship of abstractive hierarchy between two or more elements: if X is less general than Y or if the category of X belongs to the category of Y, therefore X is a Hyponym of Y.
· Belonging to something or being a more particular concept of something means being a hyponym of something.
Examples
1. Brazilian -> man -> human being
Brazilian is a hyponym of man, which, by its turn, is a hyponym of human being. In syllogistic terms, Brazilian and man can also be considered a hyponym of human being.
2. Cat -> animal -> living creature
Hypernymy, conversely, marks a relationship of higher generality between two or more elements. It is the opposite of hyponym: if X is more general than Y or if the category of Y belongs to X, therefore X is a hypernym of Y.
· Human being is a hypernym of Brazilian and man while man is a hypernym of Brazilian.
Functioning within a similar dynamic as the pair hyponym-hypernym, we have the dyad meronym-holonym. The difference between both types of sense relation is:
· Meronym: This one establishes a scale of abstraction (from the most general to the most specific).
· Holonym: This one portrays a whole-part articulation.
Therefore, engine and gears are meronyms of car while car is the holonym of engine and gears.
Homonymy, Homography, and Homophony
Homonyms are words that are written or pronounced in the same way but have distinct meanings.
Therefore, we can have homonym words that are homophones (same sounding) or homographs (same spelling).
· examples of homophone homonyms: Reel – real 
 Road – rode 
 Ring – wring 
 Right – write
· examples of homographs homonyms: Bear (animal) – bear (take) 
 Fair (just) – fair (event) 
 Date (day) – date (fruit)
Semantic Field and Semantic Network
Semantic Field
In a nutshell, the concept of semantic field of a word/expression refers to the semantic area of this entity in a certain utterance, establishing the set of words/expressions with which this lexical item can be associated or opposed to.
The bond among the meanings constituting the semantic field can be formed based on a certain area of knowledge in which this word is applied, the real-life situationsin which this word tends to occur or even the formal structure of those lexical items. Some examples of semantic fields:
· Football: Goal, goalie, attacker, ball, referee, cup, defender, middle-fielder, FIFA, etc.
· Car: Engine, wheel, gas pedal, gasoline, etc.
· Bear: Pear, tear, fear, ear, year, near, dear, etc.
· As stated by the Swiss linguist Saussure, each sign plays the role of a star that is linked to others by some sort of semantic similitude. Those links based on shared semantic aspects allow the group of stars to expand until reaching the point of creating an entire constellation, that is, a semantic field.
The notion of semantic field interacts very closely with the homologous idea of lexical field. Although many authors consider both concepts as interchangeable, in theoretical terms, semantic and lexical fields can be taken as two sides of the same coin.
The notion of lexical field refers to the structure that is composed by association between words semantically connected. Therefore, lexical field has its focus on the Signifier side of the Saussure’s scheme. Semantic field, on the other hand, is formed by meanings, that is, the underlying semantic structure that fills the words with senses. In Saussure’s terminology, the semantic field is formed by pieces of Signified.
Semantic Network
Semantic networks are graphic representations composed of interconnected concepts. Although similar, the notions of semantic networks and semantic field have one crucial difference: while semantic field has its focus on the lexical item that generates the entire field, the semantic networks is focused on the semantic structure constituted by the network.
Semantic networks have two key components: a certain type of hierarchy that organizes the words and the element of meaning that links them. This scheme is pictured graphically by nodes and arches. Inside a semantic network, the nodes represent the concepts. The arches, on the other hand, represent the hierarchical association structuring the nodes and the relationship established among them.
we have an example of a very simple semantic network, formed by five nodes and six arches, connecting four ideas with the core notion of Mammal.
Types of Semantic Networks
Mind Maps
Mind map is a common type of semantic network structured hierarchically, usually with the nodes and arches coming from a core point in the center of the map.
Taxonomies
Taxonomy is a type of semantic network in which concepts or ideas are schematized in hierarchically related groups or types. Taxonomies are employed in the work of cataloguing information in a logical way, rationalizing the data in different types of interconnected categories.
Typologies
Typology is a form of semantic network in which all types of data are divided and organized into different categories and types. The main distinctive trait of typologies, when compared with taxonomies, is that while the focus of the latter is on the hierarchical structuring of the network, the focus of the former is on the division of the types. 
3. Interfaces of Lexical Semantics
The interface between Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics
Collocation
Pragmatics is defined as the study of meaning in use. Thus, linguists working in this field observe the way language plays social roles and does things within some specific contexts.
Those are the main tenets of Pragmatics: the notions of context, actions performed by language, and the way meaning changes according to a series of non-linguistic varieties.
Many are the possible interfaces to be constructed between Lexical Semantics and Pragmatics. One of the concepts that best represents this theoretical dialogue is the idea of collocation.
Collocation has a long history within the field of Linguistics, being traditionally approached by the English linguist Firth as the company kept by a word. Many are the definitions presented for this concept. Scholars in the branch of Functional Linguistics tend to conceive collocations as a means to achieve lexical cohesion.
Grammarians tend to approach the concept as chunks of words that come together with some degree of probability.
Synthesizing those views, we can conclude that collocations are combinations of words forming a lexical structure that is likely to appear together in order to perform semantic and pragmatic functions.
· Have a break
· Have a drink
· Take a seat
· Do me a favor
Types of Collocations
Collocations are classified according to their openness to change in their structure. Based on this criterion, there are three types of collocation:
1. Strong collocations
2. Weak collocations
3. Fixed collocations
In strong collocations, the words forming the sentence/phrase are intimately associated with each other. The link between the words is not necessary, but there is a great semantic tendency for the words to appear in an articulated manner.
· He shrugged his shoulders
· She has frowned the forehead
Weak collocation represents words that, although tend to be used in certain kinds of lexical constructions, have more flexibility to compose different sentences.
· Small town
· Little sister
· Big boy
· Broad avenue
Fixed collocations are also known as idioms. Idioms are phrases or expressions that, when combined, convey a metaphorical meaning.
Idioms are also fixed in syntagmatic and paradigmatic terms, that is, the words that compose them cannot have their order changed (syntagmatic) nor be replaced by a synonym (paradigmatic).
· Sweating bullets
· Hit the road
· Beat around the bush
The Interface Between Lexical Semantics and Syntax
The most didactic way of presenting the idea of colligations is by comparing them to collocations. While the latter has to do with fixed or likely groupings of words based on semantic relationships or preferences, the former is based on syntactic articulations and links among words.
In a nutshell, colligations are the syntactic or grammatical structure in which a word is employed.
· I have waited for her
In the expression have waited, the word have does not imply any change in meaning on the word waited. The influence of the former on the latter is exclusively grammatical: it establishes the tense of the verb.
· I am interested in traveling next month
We have a type of lexical relationship that is conditioned by the grammatical form of the words involved in it. First of all, the word interested asks for the preposition in as a complement. On top of that, the colligation interested in asks for a verb in the gerund form after it: traveling.
· The British linguist conceived colligations as the syntagmatic attraction the grammatical categories have among each other.
Nowadays, the theorization coined by Firth was expanded. One of the most influential scholars doing research on this topic, Hoey, developed a full-fledged theory of lexical priming in which the notion of colligations plays a key role. According to the author (HOEY, 2005), colligations not only establish the pattern of linking between grammatical categories, but organize three different dimensions of lexical distribution:
1. The relationship between a certain lexical item and its grammatical context.
2. The relationship between a certain lexical item and one of its syntactic functions in a specific utterance.
3. The relationship between the lexical item and its position within the phrase or sentence.
Examples of the three types of colligative links are presented below:
· A professional journalist only works with good information.
In the first phrase (a professional journalist), the head of the expression is a countable word, therefore, allowing the complementation of an article. In the next phrase (good information), the word information is uncountable, prescinding of the article. In this case, we have an instance of colligation in which the highlighted lexical items have their structure influenced by the grammatical categorization of one of its elements.
· The import of magnesium will be high while we still import potassium from ChinaIn the first of them (the import of), the word import plays the syntactic role of the head of the subject. In this situation, this word is colligated with the article the and the preposition of. In the second phrase that was highlighted, the word import plays another syntactic role: verb. In this syntactic position, the word import is colligated with the subject of the sentence (we).
· Neither do I.
The verb do and the pronoun I are preceded by the word neither. In such a position, the verb do colligates with a pronoun or noun, demanding this type of complement in order to play its syntactic role.
The interface between lexical Semantics and Prosody
At first glance, semantic prosody can be easily described as the meaning that is determined by the way one pronounces a word or a series of words. Although superficially correct, the characterization of this phenomenon is more profound.
A seminal definition of Semantic prosody presents this concept as the “consistent aura of meaning with which a form is imbued by its collocates” (LOUW, 1993) “when the usage of a word gives an impression of an attitudinal meaning” (SINCLAIR, 2004). Three elements demand extra clarification in this conceptualization.
1. Firstly, the notion of “consistent aura of meaning” refers to a subtended layer of meaning that belongs to the whole meaningful content of the utterance.
2. Secondly, the word “imbued by its collocates” means that semantic prosody is not a property of the word itself, but one of its aspects that is conveyed through the combinations of words.
3. Finally, it expresses some sort of value (good or bad) through the form a word (group of words) is pronounced within the co-text of this element.
Therefore, in a nutshell, semantic prosody can be understood as the veil of meaning that is incorporated by a word based on the way it is pronounced in the lexical setting to which it is integrated and that expresses value about the element that is being influenced by the melodic meaning of the pronunciation.
An example can make this notion more palpable. Think about the words good and bad. They are usually pronounced with a type of melody and pitch that denotes a semantic value of positiveness and negativity.
· Therefore, semantic prosody can be seen not only as the prosody that is a reflection of the value ascribed to a certain word, but also as the value that “contaminates” the surrounding lexical setting.
Semantic prosody has been traditionally studied by different areas of Language Studies (Prosody, Linguistics, Semantics, Corpus Linguistics), specially through the use of computational methods and tools. This preference is due to the fact that the melody of the words pronunciation as well as the meaning assumed by them can only be properly apprehended and understood through the analysis of large chunks of language.
The investigation of the semantic prosody of words can be helpful to the understanding of a series of linguistic phenomena. In genre studies, for example, semantic prosody reveals that some particular genres have specific prosodic patterns in certain utterances.
Tema 3 - O Significado Nas Sentenças: Semântica da Frase
1. Semantic Phenomena: Paraphrase and Ambiguity
Paraphrase
Usually, paraphrasing happens when one wants to convey the same ideas expressed previously by another person but wants to do it with his/her own style and words.
one may stress roughly three main functions that are usually realized by paraphrastic texts.
1. the recognition of someone else’s “ownership” over the message being uttered.
2. to organize, clarify and summarize a message in order to make it fit better in a specific discursive context.
3. may be used to change the level of abstraction of a certain line of thought. one’s personal observations about the weather or the nature in his/her neighborhood may be enlarged to the level of the underlying principles that determine the biological organization of life.
Paraphrase, Polysemy and Polyphony
Paraphrase and Polysemy
The concept of polysemy stands for the presence of multiple different meanings within a certain word or linguistic expression (RIEMER, 2015). It is forged to break the assumption of a one-to-one correspondence between meaning and word. Just like homologous meanings may be expressed by different words (synonymy), the same linguistic form may carry a set of related but not completely homologous meanings.
Since words that seem equivalent may be polysemic and through polysemy express different ideas, the notion of paraphrase as a “mirroring” of another meaning becomes problematic.
· Nightly birds are fit to fly in the darkness.
· Nocturnal birds are biologically prepared to perform their displacement in low-visibility conditions.
Ex: Although understandable by people that master this type of genre, the second sentence may be somehow unclear to some people, not so acquainted with this type of vocabulary. On the other hand, the first sentence may appear generic and loose to ornithologists, who would expect a more precise way of conveying the behavior of nocturnal birds.
A simple exchange of terms may not capture exactly what was said before — or even create new ambiguities.
Paraphrase and Polyphony
Studied by the Russian thinker Mikhail Bakhtin, the notion of polyphony, in a nutshell, can be seen as the ever-existing presence of multiple voices and discourses in a certain utterance.
Polyphony is the integration of a certain piece of discourse in a chain of related voicings and ideas: it is the historicization of language.
Polifonia é quando seu discurso traz ecos de outras vozes e pensamentos, mostrando que a linguagem sempre carrega um pouco da história por trás das palavras.
The notion of polyphony raises doubt over the main assumption that sustains paraphrase. If all utterances dialogue and trace back to previous voices and discourses, every piece of linguistic construction is, in this sense, paraphrastic.
Polyphonic thinking urges us to grade utterances in different levels of paraphrase: from an explicit and deliberate reconstruction of one’s previous utterance to a piece of discourse that vaguely and unconsciously brings about other ideas and voices.
Defining Ambiguity
Ambiguity can be defined as the presence of more than one conventional meaning in the same word or linguistic form, hindering or creating hurdles to the understanding of the message (RIEMER, 2015).
The different ways of grasping a certain linguistic item are called readings in the field of Linguistics.
Ambiguity x Polysemy
The main difference between ambiguity and polysemy is that the semantic plurality in the latter is seen as a natural feature of language while, in ambiguity, it is understood as a linguistic problem, causing confusion and disturbing communication.
· Ambiguity: A vice in language use, caused either by the conventionalization of shocking meanings within the same word/expression or by unclear syntactic constructions.
· Polysemy: One of the semantic properties of words and linguistic structures: the coexistence of numerous meanings within the same linguistic unity.
Ambiguity x Vagueness
Vagueness is itself a vague term. In the sense it is meant here, it could be replaced by terms such as imprecision or indefiniteness.
In this sense, a vague message paves the way for different forms of interpretation of the same utterance, being this the reason why ambiguity and vagueness tend to be used as interchangeable concepts by some people.
However, there are important differences between both notions. While ambiguity refers to a specific type of linguistic phenomenon, vagueness is just a general expression that can be applied in a myriad of situations, describing a lack of precision in a certain utterance without any effort to specify the source of unclarity.
Ambiguous sentences can also be somehow vague and vague sentences can also be ambiguous. We are talking about two concepts that dwell in two different dimensions: ambiguity is a technical notion applied to areas of science while vaguenessis a commonsensical adjective that describes a feeling towards some forms of language.
Types of Ambiguity
1. Lexical (Polysemic or Homonymic)
2. Syntactic (Attachment and Coordination ambiguity)
3. Semantic (Scope and Anaphoric)
4. Pragmatic (change of context)
Lexical Ambiguity
Lexical ambiguity happens when the plurality of meanings conveyed by the same word/expression somehow hinders the grasping of the message, establishing a situation of vagueness, imprecision or confusion within the sentence.
Lexical ambiguity can be either polysemic or homonymic.
In polysemic ambiguity, this phenomenon is due to the presence in a sentence of a polysemic term, whose meaning is unclear. 
· The events of that night destroyed the football club.
In homonymic cases, on the other hand, ambiguity results from the presence of a word that has a homonymic pair in a context that makes it uncertain which of the pairs is being employed. The meanings being confused, in this case, differ in terms of reference: they refer to different things in the world. 
· The golf club was destroyed by your father.
Polissemia envolve um único termo com vários sentidos relacionados entre si, uma relação semântica entre os sentidos — como no caso de "cabeça" (parte do corpo, líder de um grupo, topo de algo).
Homonímia envolve palavras diferentes que só parecem iguais mas têm origens diferentes e seus significados não estão conectados.
Syntactic Ambiguity
This type of ambiguity occurs in utterances formed by complex and somehow ill-composed syntactic structures. In sentences constructed with many phrases and syntactic elements, the link among those items can become fuzzy, creating a sense of ambiguity within the message.
Syntactic ambiguity can be divided into two categories:
· Attachment ambiguity – This type of ambiguous construction results from a poor attachment (má vinculação) of a clause or a phrase to the entire structure of the sentence, allowing for multiple and confusing interpretations about the utterance’s meaning.
· “The man saw his wife with the telescope.”
· Coordination ambiguity: Another type of syntactic ambiguity occurs with the use of coordinators, especially and/or. This kind of ambiguous structure usually consists of a confusing or cumbersome interaction between both clauses coordinated within one sentence.
· “She never watched a romantic movie and didn’t cry.”
Semantic Ambiguity
Semantic ambiguity occurs when the meaning of a word, phrase, clause or sentence gets blurred by confusion caused by an unclear reference within the sentence. This type of ambiguity can be divided into:
· Scope ambiguity: scope relations are semantic relations in which the interpretation of a term depends on the interpretation of another. Scope ambiguity, by its turn, occurs when this “meaning transmission” faces problems due to a lack of clarity within the sentence.
· Anaphoric ambiguity: the confusion happens because of the impossibility to determine which of the previous words is the correct reference of the anaphoric term.
Termo anafórico é um termo que remete à um termo já mencionado na frase ou no texto.
Pragmatic ambiguity
Pragmatic ambiguity occurs when the literal meaning of the sentence is changed by the context in which it occurs. In many cases, this tension between literal meaning and contextualized meaning is resolved by common sense and intuition.
2. Semantic conflicts: scope relations and figurative language
Scope Relations
Scope relations are traditionally defined as types of semantic relations in which the interpretation of a specific element of the utterance relies on the interpretation given to another element (RIEMER, 2015).
Scope relations, therefore, establish a relationship of interdependence among two or more constituents within a sentence.
The notion of scope relations is closely linked (intimamente ligada) with the wider (mais ampla) idea of semantic scope: the semantic object influenced or modified by a certain semantic operation.
· My mother does not eat meat, but she does eat eggs.
the scope of the negation conveyed by the item not comprises the construction eat meat. On the other hand, the structure does eat eggs is not affected by the negation, thus, not belonging to its scope.
One key characteristic of scope relations is that, since they presuppose the existence of more than one possible interpretation of the same item, they tend to be mingled with the notion of ambiguity. Scope ambiguity is the type of ambiguity caused by the interpretative interdependence that characterizes scope relations.
Types of Scope Relations
Each language may have its own ways of manifesting this phenomenon. However, some types of linguistic items tend to foster (fomentar) certain kinds of scope relations across different languages.
Quantifiers
May be the most common and prolific source of scope relations in English. This is due to their tendency of generating scope ambiguity, especially when more than one quantifier is used in the same sentence. Take a look at the example below:
· Six girls have eaten ten apple pies.
The interpretation of how many apple pies each girl has eaten depends on the way we understand the meaning of the quantifier ten.
Through a distributive view, each specific girl has eaten ten apple pies, summing up a total of sixty dishes. On the other hand, through a generalizing perspective, all girls together have eaten the total of ten apple pies, not being clear then how many pies each girl has devoured.
Negation
It’s another common source of scope relations in English. In most of the cases, the interdependence of meaning lies in the fact that it is unclear which of the elements being negated falls within the scope of the negative item.
· All students in my class were not approved.
In the interpretation of the sentence demands a clarification about the scope of the negation or, more precisely, whether the phrase not approved modifies the phrase all students in an integrative way (the entire class failed) or in an excluding way (all students in my class were not approved because some of them failed). As highlighted before, if the interpretation of a certain element depends on the clarification of another item (in this case, the negation), there is a scope relation being realized.
Modals 
· In this game, he may win or lose.
In two different interpretations for the sentence are possible depending on whether we see the modal may modifying the following elements in an alternative (he may win or he may lose) or in an integrative way (this is a game in which he may just win or lose, and other options, like a tie, are ruled out).
Generalizers
· All kids have won all the medals.
The only way of sorting out which of those interpretations is correct is determining the scope of the generalizer all in the sentence, clarifying the kind of scope relation it performs.
Figurative Language
Figurative language stands for any use of language in which the literal and conventional meaning of the word/expression is replaced by a non-literal reading. Many are the functions of figurative language: from making an utterance more aesthetically appealing to conveying ideas in a smooth way.
Figurative language usually manifests in real discourse in three different forms:
1. The combination of different words into an expression that has a non-literal meaning (sayings, proverbs, idioms and formulaic expressions).
2. The articulation of different ideas in one sentence (simile and metaphor).
3. The formation of compound words whose meaning may be more or less unattached from the individual words’ meaning (binomials and phrasal verbs).
Sayings
Sayings are sentences or groups of sentences that shed supposedly wise ideas on any aspect of human life and human experience in the world. Therefore, sayings are understood as messages of knowledge that are shared in a condensate form. Sometimes, the greatness of a saying may also be due to its stylistic form, portraying in a memorable way a bit of wisdom (sabedoria).
· Beggars can’t be choosers- Mendigos não podem escolher.
· Blood is thicker than water - Sangue é mais espesso que água.
· Better safe than sorry - Melhor prevenir do que remediar.
· All that glitters is not gold - Nem tudo que reluz é ouro.
Their bits of life wisdom are expressed in a way that is, at the same time, memorable (due to its concise form) and dense (due to the volume of reflections condensed in it).
Proverbs
In its essence, proverbs could be seen as specific types of saying – or the other way around. They are both short discursive units of wisdom about human life presented in a memorable style. The main difference between both forms of figurative language lies in the cultural profoundness and embodiment (personificação) of the proverbs.
Proverbs are linguistic expressions of a certain ethnos.
· A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step (Chinese proverb)
· There is no hand to catch time (Indian proverb)
Tournure idioms (Expressões idiomáticas de Tournure)
Idioms are a string of two or more words for which meaning is not derived from the meaning of the individual words comprising that string.
Tournure idioms, therefore, are a specific kind of idioms, composed of a particular kind of repeating structure. Grammatically, tournure idioms work as verbs, expressing a certain type of action or state of things. Their default form is “to X a/the Y” in which X stands for the verb and Y for the object of this verb.
1. To do a guy/girl (to have a quick love affair with someone).
2. To sweat bullets (to be extremely nervous or angry about something).
3. To build + castles + in the air (to make impossible plans).
To + verb + object + prepositional phrase
4. To dance + on air (to be extremely happy).
To + verb + prepositional phrase
Formulaic Expressions
Formulaic expressions are crystalized forms whose meaning and unity are not a product of individual spontaneous combinations. Formulaic expressions make up a traditional piece of discourse within a community, therefore having its structure turned into canon.
Formulaic expressions share some important properties:
1. Formulaic expressions present a non-literal meaning, derived metaphorically from the elements comprising it.
2. This type of linguistic structure usually projects intrinsically a certain type of attitude or emotional stance, being, in this sense, different from spontaneous constructions.
3. Formulaic expressions have a determined and unchangeable internal coherence and semantic color. Their lexical order is fixed and their prosodic pronunciation tends to be standardized.
Examples
· Let’s call it a day.
· I wouldn’t want to be in his shoes.
Similes (comparações) and Metaphors
Metaphors and similes can be seen as mental operations of analogy that manifest in language through the construction of semantic links between elements more or less unrelated.
Metaphor
Hurford, Heasley and Smith (2007, p. 331) define metaphors as “conceptual operations reflected in human language that enable speakers to structure and construe areas of knowledge and experience in more concrete and experimental terms”.
Metaphors are, thus, analogies inscribed in language.
Their function may be to ease the understanding of a phenomenon of the world by equating it to a known element or to establish a non-literal and poetic connection among different elements.
Many are the tentative models used to typify metaphors based on a variety of criteria: from the type of cognitive skill used to produce it to the semantic nature of the verbs employed in the metaphorical utterance. The most meaningful of those typologies is the one founded on the linguistic structure of metaphors. Based on this framework, there are three different types of metaphor:
1. Standard: occurs when the basic metaphorical structure (notion + is + notion) is maintained.
· My girlfriend is a flower.
2. Implied: takes place when a metaphorical relationship between two heterogeneous notions is established, but the canonical structure is somehow violated.
· The wind roared in my corridor.
3. Mixed: happens when more than one metaphorical relationship is coined within the same sentence.
· She dived with her soul through the walls of fire.
Similes
While metaphors establish a figurative relationship of identity or belonging between unlike terms, similes project a comparison between the same type of elements.
Therefore, the existence of the phenomenon of simile depends on the use within the utterance of certain comparison-making words, such as like and as.
Binomials and Phrasal Verbs
Binomials
A sequence of two words pertaining to the same form-class, placed on an identical level of syntactic hierarchy, and ordinarily connected by some kind of lexical link. The canonic form of the binomials is X + X, in which two similar words are bound by a conjugative element (usually, the conjunction and or the preposition to).
Binomials can be of two types:
1. Fixed Binomials: are compound expressions whose meaning and use became crystalized, being odd to try to make changes to the original structure.
· Face to face
· Head to toes
· Odds and ends
2. Varying Binomials: are compound expressions that become popular and commonly used in a certain discourse community, but whose structure is still vulnerable to suffer eventual changes during the interaction.
· Tears for fears
· Scream and shout
Phrasal Verbs
Phrasal verbs are compound terms formed by combinations of verb-particle in which the meaning of the compound is not the literal sum of its elements. This is the figurative nature of the phrasal verb, since its meaning is a non-literal production of the encounter of a group of words.
In many cases, the meaning of the phrasal verb is similar to the meaning of the main verb in the unity.
· Slow down
· Make up
In some cases, however, the phrasal verb has few or no resemblance whatsoever with any of its original constitutive elements
· Beef up
· Clam up
Although, in most of cases, phrasal verbs are formed by a combination of a verb + a particle (usually a preposition or an adverb), phrasal verbs can also contain two particles.
· Look forward to
· Put up with
· Come up with
Topic 4 – Semantic and Syntactic Functions
1. Sentence (frases) Typology
Verbs
A verb is “a word that denotes an action or state of being”.
Another definition of a verb is that it “is a variable word that expresses what is going on, that is, something that is represented in time”. It is a variable word because it changes according to tense, aspect, number, person, etc.
Subject
Subject is the entity about whom (what) a statement -declaração- is done. You should not consider the position to determine which element is the subject.
Dynamicity and Stativity
Simple sentences contain, at least, a subject and a verb. The verb is the central part of the sentence.
In the verb there are cohesive elements that are necessary for the organization and understanding of the sentence. In this regard, verbs may establish dynamic or static relations with the other elements that are part of the sentence.
Sentences are then divided into two major types:
· Dynamic sentences 
· Stative sentences
Dynamic Sentences
Concerning the relationship between verbs and participants in different contexts, verbs that are [+dynamic] construct sentences that are deeper divided into three groups: active, processive, and active-processive.
According to the author, dynamic – or nonstate – sentences answer questions like “what happened?” or “what is happening?”.
Therefore, if we come back to the definition of a verb in the first item of this study, dynamic sentences would be the ones related to actions, movements, doings, events, happenings, etc.
Active Sentences
Active sentences are composed of action verbs. Consequently, they require an agent subject, in other words, a subject that does something. Chafe (1970) shows that a way to distinguish this type of sentence from processive sentences is that it is a sentence that answers a question like “what did the SUBJECT do?”.
· Peter ran. What did Peter (subject)do? He ran.
Processive Sentences
Processive sentences, as the name suggests, are composed of process verbs. According to Chafe (1970), in processes, the subject is said “to have changed its state or condition”. Therefore, processes involve relations between subjects and states, which means that the subject is the patient of the verb. In this case, the sentence is an answer to a question like “what happened to the SUBJECT?”
· Peter died. What happened to Peter (subject)? He died.
This example show that it is not the subject that does something, as in active sentences. Actually, something happens to the subject, which means that it receives or suffers the effects of what is expressed by the verb.
Active-Processive Sentences
This type mixes features of active and processive sentences. The verb in these sentences is both an action and a process. It simultaneously changes the condition of a noun - the patient - and expresses something that the subject - the agent - does.
In other words, there is an agent that does something to (or with) a patient.
To check if a sentence is active-processive, we can ask the previous questions: “what did SUBJECT do?” and “what happened to the NOUN?”.
· Mariah broke the pencil. What did Mariah (subject) do? She broke the pencil. What happened to the pencil (noun)? It broke.
Stative Sentences
Sentences that are constructed by [-dynamic] verbs, or state verbs, do not imply actions or events. In this type of sentence, the subject is said to be in a state or condition, which is specified by the state verb.
Stative sentences can answer questions related to the state or condition of the subject.
· The pencil was broken. What was the condition/state of the pencil (subject)? It was broken.
2. Semantic Functions of Subjects
Semantic features
The subject of a sentence may function in different ways according to the verb of the sentence. Some semantic features that define each of these functions.
· Volition: when you do something with the intention of doing it.
· Peter kissed Mary.
· Cause: If any participant presents this feature, it means that this participant is the cause of something that happens, with or without its effort for the action to happen.
· The rain postponed the party.
· Animacy: it is a living being.
· My dog sleeps in my bedroom.
· Manipulation: it means that the participant has the power of choosing if he/she wants to start – or not - the verbal action.
· Bob bought a book.
· Activity: It is related to the doing of something.
· Suzan walks in the forest.
· Passiveness: suffers or receives the effects of an action.
· Mary was kissed by Peter.
Roles Played by Subjects
The semantic nature of the subject is related to the verb concerning its dynamic or non-dynamic feature. As the head of a sentence, the verb determines the elements that are part of the sentence. According to Morilas (1998), the subject plays a central role in determining if the verb is +/- dynamic. Moreover, each type of verb (action, process, action-process, or state) can occur with a different semantic type of subject, but also two types of verbs can occur with the same type of subject.
There are seven semantic functions that the subject may perform: agent, patient, experiencer, instrumental, causative, objective, and locative.
Agent
The agent is the subject that causes and controls the verbal action. This semantic function is associated with verbs that express actions or action processes. This type of verb presents features like [+cause], [+volition], [+animacy], [+activity], [+control] and [-passiveness].
· John ate a delicious hamburger.
Patient
When the subject has the function of a patient, it receives or suffers an action, experiences something, or is in a specific state or condition.
It is the subject of a process or state verb. Its features are [-cause], [-volition], [-manipulation], [-activity] and [+passiveness].
· The hamburger was eaten.
Experiencer
As the name suggests, an experiencer is someone that experiments a psychological or physical process. This subject also suffers the effects of an event. It may be the subject of process or state verbs. That is why they are called experiencers. The features of this semantic type are [-volition], [-manipulation], [+animacy] and [+passiveness].
· The man died.
· I fear spiders.
Although the subjects are not acting, they experiment the effects of dying or fearing.
Instrumental
There is an instrumental subject when the process expressed by the verb occurs through material means. In this case, it is mediated by an agent. When this agent is erased from the sentence, it is the instrument that plays the role of a subject. It can be the subject of an action-process verb. Its features are [-volition], [-animacy], [-manipulation], and [-activity].
· The pen signed the document.
· Alcohol cleans hands.
The subjects “the pen” and “alcohol” are materials that someone uses to sign documents or clean hands. Therefore, we can infer the existence of an agent that is not written in the sentence.
Causative
Also related to action-process verbs, this type of subject is the causer of an action or process. It is similar to the instrumental subject but, in this case, it is not necessary to have an agent to manipulate the action. This subject causes the action or process in the verb to happen. In general, it is related to weather phenomena. Its main features are [+cause] and [-animacy].
· The sun boiled the water.
· The noise annoyed the child.
Objective
It is an object or a reference about what a statement is made. It is something neutral and not affected by the verb. It only occurs with state verbs.
· The flavor of this cake is chocolate.
· This hypothesis reconciles science and religion.
Locative
When the subject is locative, it also occurs with state verbs. It is a place that is the reference for a stative sentence
· Rio de Janeiro houses 7 million people.
Tema 5 - Implicações Para o Ensino de EFL
1. Lexical Relativity
What is syntax?
The term “syntax” comes from the Latin word “syntaxis” and it means “to arrange together and in sequence”.
So, when we talk about Syntax in Linguistics, we are referring to the rules that dictate HOW words have to be put together to make phrases, sentences and clauses. They are responsible for all the possibilities we have for making statements, utterances and asking questions. Syntax is also responsible for the grammar use behind all the options mentioned above because it is what makes people understand when a sentence begins, when it ends, when it is a question and so on.
In English, the order adjectives must be used is quite particular and requires constant use to become natural by the ESL learner. They must follow the order:
1st. opinion;
2nd. size;
3rd. physical quality;
4th. shape;
5th. age;
6th. colour;
7th. origin;
8th. material;
9th. type;
10th. purpose.
· We bought a nice big rough round old gray wooden house.
What is semantics?
Differently from syntax, semantics is concerned with the meaning of the words and its changes, focusing on its literal sense, helping understand human expression through language.
It was first studied by Bréal (1924) and defined as an aspect that analyzes the meaning of words and their characteristics, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form; or, as later explained, it is the study of meaning communicated through language, concentrated on its literality without the interlocutor’s interference.
Linguistic relativity
Sapir-Whorf
Around the 1930s, the authors (Edward Sapir and Benjamin Lee Whorf) developed the idea that made a difference in many other studies of other scholars: their proposal, which later became a hypothesis, was that the language the person speaks will influence the way they think about reality.
This hypothesis became later known as the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis and it has a connection with semiotics, how we develop language and thought, meaning that each language incorporates a view of the world. Therefore, different languages incorporate differentviews.
One of the most common examples of this hypothesis was brought by Boas in his book is Handbook of American Indian Languages (1911) concerning how Eskimos call “snow”.
According to the author, they have dozens of different names for “snow” because Eskimos categorize it considering its shape, that is, depending on the kind of “snowstorm” they have, they visualize it differently, making it necessary for them to call it differently as well. That does not happen in places like Rio de Janeiro, for example, because “snow” is not part of Rio’s reality, therefore, the population of Rio would not understand so many different names.
Sapir said in The Status of Language and Science (1929):
“Human beings do not live in the objective world alone, nor alone in the world of social activity as ordinarily understood, but are very much at the mercy of the particular language which has become the medium of expression for their society. It is quite an illusion to imagine that one adjusts to reality essentially without the use of language and that language is merely an incidental means of solving specific problems of communication or reflection.”
That emphasizes the idea that thought and language are roughly linked together, the world (culture and society) does influence how we perceive language and use it.
Culture and Anthropology
Boas (1911) was an anthropologist who studied different cultures and that is how he was able to understand the way language was used in different societies. His book was first received with doubt from the anthropological and linguistic society, especially the latter, who considered his findings untrue, the result of disorganized and sloppy academic work. Some linguists even got to the point of calling it “The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax”, a name which they would later regret. Boas (1911) studied two families of languages:
1) Inuit
2) Yupik
These are two dialects that originated from the same language and which applied a big quantity of information in one word just by adding a suffix to the base word.
Example
· In Siberian Yupik, the word boat (angyagh) when adding a suffix and making it “angyaghllangyugtuqlu” becomes “what’s more, he wants a bigger boat”.
The problem found here is that creating a dictionary based on these features is quite a difficult task. However, the anthropologist Igor Krupnik agreed that Boas (1911) did create a fine dictionary of those languages with the basic words and their differences, and it was he who helped Boas (1911) perpetuate the idea that Eskimos have more words for “snow” than the English language does.
Teaching EFL to Academic Students
Knowing only one meaning of a word can be limiting, since they have conceptual, connotative, collocative, affective, stylistic, and other meanings:
· Conceptual meaning: How and when the way we think can affect the way we learn a new language.
· Connotative meaning: It varies according to age, culture, or individual experience and emotions related to the world.
· Stylistic meaning: It reflects the social situation.
· Affective meaning: It conveys the individual feelings and attitude of the speaker.
· Collocative meaning: It conveys to word “partnerships” that always co-occur together and must remain the same.
2. Lexical Transfer
What is Lexical Transfer?
When we discuss lexical transfer, we are talking about:
L 1: The native tongue.
L 2: The target language.
So it all comes down to language acquisition and how learning a second language is affected by the learner’s mother tongue.
One of the aspects that is important in this point happens as the learner transfers to L2 vocabulary that which is similar to what is available in L1 (KELLERMAN, 1977: 96). This is called psychotypological perspective.
Now, we have always heard people say “after you have learnt one language, it is easier to learn another”, and that is not wrong. A person who has decided to learn a third language will not try to transfer from L1 to L3 as they did when they learnt L2, that is, they will not move back to L1 before moving on to L3. That means they are more typologically closer to L3 or L4 and so on. That is known as a cross-linguistic influence.
there are three types of transfer that may occur:
1) Positive transfer: cognates, lexical selection etc.
Cognates – words that are correctly transferred into L2 due to their similarity to L1; Lexical selection – it has to do with the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis: the learner is able to select or choose the correct translation of the word, among many others, and infer it in L2.
2) Negative transfer: lexical errors.
Lexical error - it is the incorrect translation from L1 to L2, which shows how, in language acquisition, the EFL student may be influenced by the similarity of the words in L1.
3) The Linguistic Aspect Affected by the Transfer
That is the influence the EFL learner lets themselves be led by L1 syntax, morphology and lexis, which makes them transfer L1 into L2 in an incorrect way due to lack of knowledge on lexical relativity.
Therefore, the knowledge of the world, the understanding that learning a language requires opening to new possibilities and accepting the different meanings of one single word is necessary. However, many aspects may cause problems in these transfers, such as:
· Age;
· Personality, motivation, language attitude;
· Social, educational, and cultural background;
· Language background, and many others.
Lexical Borrowing – Empréstimo Lexical
This aspect happens when the learner makes a “literal” translation of the word from L1 into L2. That may happen when words are too similar to the ones in L2, expressions, and false cognates, also known as false friends. These false cognates are words that have a similarity to the words in L1 but a completely distinct meaning.
Second Language Acquisition and Interference
In his work Languages in contact, when Weinreich (1953) first studied the effects of L1 on L2 for EFL learners he realized how one can interfere in the other. He called this “problem” faced especially by a beginner an “interference”, which was later called “transfer”. When an EFL learner is beginning to analyze L2, it is quite common to find them facing many difficulties due to their lack of knowledge of L2.
It is quite common to find L1 students complaining about how difficult the English language is, but that happens mainly because they are not ready to deal with these transfers and are expecting to deal with “fast food” English.
Because beginners are always looking for something that will not have to make them think or memorize something. They are looking for something always faster, they want to learn English in a fast way, and they want it ready.
Take into consideration what Odlin (1996) said about Weinreich’s point of view and what he added as his own:
“what Weinreich (1953) termed as an “interlingual identification” occurs anytime an individual judges structures (in the widest sense of the term) in two languages to be identical or at least similar. Such judgements may be conscious or unconscious, they may be accurate or inaccurate, and they may be made either by fully competent bilinguals or by learners still in the earlier stages of acquiring a new language.”
Transfer and Motivation
There is a dividing line here among scholars: some think that language acquisition is based on motivation; while others regard lexical usage as motivated only by the accomplishment of tasks, not being important to acquisition and proficiency. These scholars’ point of view say that motivation only creates good task performers, but not people who are able to communicate well when faced with different situations.
Types of Lexical Transfer
There are two types:
1) Transfer of form: The use of L1 producing L2, something that is called code-mixing.
· Ela gosta de mim – She likes me.
2) Transfer of meaning: Transfer of semantic patterns of L1 into the target language, such as calques and semantic expressions.
“Calques” are words or phrases that are translations of L2, but the L1 speakerdoes not worry about the real meaning of that word in L2. One example of this is what we now call “gerundismo”.
When “gerundismo” first started being used, it was very much criticized but, nowadays, more and more people have started using it without any problems. The problem of “gerundismo” is not that it does not exist in Brazilian Portuguese, but it has been used wrongfully and it is not as common as it is in the English language. In L2 (being English here), this type of semantic structure is used at specific times.
3. Regrouping Lexical Transfers Reconfiguration of Traces
Types of Calques
Some scholars consider them to be just another name for “loan translation”, and there are types of distinct calques that will also be aspects that affect acquiring a language. Let us have a look at the different types of calques and how they influence EFL.
Different types of calques and how they influence EFL:
· Phraseological calques: Idioms in L2 that are translated word for word.
· Ex.: Someone says “Have it your way!” (Faça como quiser) and they translate it as “Tenha-o do seu jeito”.
· Syntactic calque: Syntactic functions in L1 are directly transcribed into L2 but have no connection to the real meaning of that word in L2. This is something that is very commonly found in menus of restaurants that try to express that function into L2 without success.
· Ex.: A person wants to say “escondidinho de carne seca” and says “little hidden of dried meat”.
· Loan-translation: this one is only about words. It happens when words are translated literally.
· Semantic calques: This is used when words in L2 are adopted in L1 without change in meaning. One of the examples we have already mentioned earlier is the verb “to realise”. Brazilian Portuguese speakers have been using it as “perceber” for some time, now, when it used to mean only “realizar alguma coisa, fazer algo”.
· Morphological calques: These are used when the inflection of the word is expressed from L1 to L2. Unlike one-work calque, changes in meaning are not usually perceptible. It usually involves coining a new term on a foreign model. It has a lot in common with calquing phrases or sentences.
· catholic
3. Regrouping Lexical Transfers Reconfiguration of traces
Trace evidence and syntax
Empty Category Principle – ECP
First of all, “trace” is surrounded by what is called the Empty Category Principle (ECP), that is, it is an empty category that has a position in the syntactic structure.
Have you ever paid attention to the use of the contraction of “want to” which becomes “wanna", in American English? What happens is the disappearance of the letter “t”, making it null and, as something which is “null” in a word, it fits the ECP.
in "Who does Mary want to see?", we imagine that Mary wants to see someone so, "who" takes the place of the object, "Mary" changes place and, because the sentence is in third person singular, the trace of the "s" (Mary wants) is inaudible, but it is still there.
Traces and debates
Pollard and Sag (1994, p. 378-387) and Sag and Fodor (1995) do not even consider traces as a possibility for the explanation of the ECP words or movement and considered Natural Deduction to explain the elimination of logical connectives. And, among all the debate around traces, the COHORT came along, created by Marslen-Wilson in 1987.
The trace will work with phonemes (like the “t” sound”), physical acoustic features and words; whereas the COHORT is a “modular” model that will work with: acoustic information; context, semantics and frequency of use to narrow down the options; choosing the best options.
Imagine you hear the phonemes /p/ or /l/; acoustically, the candidates that come to your mind to complete this would be /n/, /k/, /ng/, /l/, /t/, /s/, /cture/, /ttance, etc. The COHORT model includes all possible endings to /p/, /l/.
After the word comes to your mind, then semantics comes along to play their role in the context of the COHORT you have created. You will look at the sentence where the COHORT should be included and choose the best candidate from the many options you found out with the modular model of COHORT.
The fact that some sentences do not use an auxiliary verb and use the verb in the third person singular confuses students, who usually believe all questions must have an auxiliary or should not have the "s" mark of third person singular since the answer might be plural. That is why the sentence "who wants to go to the playground?" would confuse EFL students. That happens because they do not understand the inaudible trace is there, but that replaces a subject, which might be singular or plural. "What do you want?"; "What do you think you see?" and "What does she know about it?" all follow a structure they are used to.
image5.jpeg
image1.jpeg
image2.jpeg
image3.jpeg
image4.jpeg