otherwise i will do an extra recording afterwards um okay so um if you
don't mind uh juan carlos i'm going to since now it started recording i'm
going to go through quickly again to the introduction and just i was just
saying because it didn't record first that um thank you that the in this
session we are going to go through the main concepts and the main ideas of
unit two of the book uh and of the course book you also have this unit as
you know in the in the course available uh of the course aplicaciones
semánticas de la lengua inglesa i am the lecturer of this course anna
iváñez moreno a teacher of the faculty of philology of uned uh and the in
this session we will deal with words and word boundaries basically we will
deal with morphology and the basic morphology concepts of morphology that
are involved in the building up of databases lexical lexicological
databases etc so we will see basic notions about the different levels of
linguistic analysis the interaction of morphology and semantics and these
morphological notions that are important to understand word formation
phenomena i was saying that this is important because nowadays there is
such an incredible amount of corpora lexical and conceptual databases
terminological databases all types of corpus analysis applications that we
would need 100 a year like lives and 100 to live 100 times to to get to
know all this so what do we do in this course um we give the basic notions
and the basic tools the basic concepts that you can need to have a
criterion to understand how this uh databases work when you research you
choose for one for instance for to do your master's thesis or your bachelor
thesis or a phd or maybe in your in a future job at least to have these
notions i was saying the metaphor of the recursivity of languages that with
a limited number of elements which is the letters we can create an
unlimited number of sentences in a language this is what the uh mentioned
uh and also also in the beginning of the 20th century this is what we try
to do here okay so in this unit we go through especially morphology but
also as i said the interconnection between morphology and other areas the
basic names of these i was saying that you don't need to to learn by heart
all these there are many many names in linguistics but there are some basic
names that as linguists or as philologists we need to know for instance
everybody has heard of chomsky everybody has heard of uh van veiling dick
uh sosue uh coserio and in morphology and especially related to old english
we have martian and kastowski from the 70s which are who are let's say the
fathers of the studies of morphology and the uh the ones who started with
the idea of zero derivation and they are the fathers of morphological
analysis because they analyze word formation phenomena in a synchronic uh
way there are two ways of analyzing uh the evolution of a language the
diachronic methods which you will see in other courses of this degree as
you know and then it is easy to see okay this item this lexical item has
become within 100 years later it is mentioned as this so we see the
evolution through analyzing the dictionaries and the old sources and we can
see how they evolve the other way is the synchronic method synchronic
methods it means that we analyze a word without looking back in time this
synchronic analysis of word formation has to do with several strategies and
several phenomena we can analyze the easy the easy ones which are the most
common and the most common are the word formation phenomena uh you here you
have the typical example of drive from drive we have driver driving so here
we have a clear uh derivation phenomena derivational phenomena with
suffixes right so this is a transparent word formation phenomena because we
can clearly see a suffix that is added to a base and then another word is
created but we also have zero derivation which is the same as
non-transparent derivation phenomena or what is which is also called opaque
word formation phenomena for instance nowadays an example would be bus bus
is a noun but it has also become a verb english is a very typical language
where they make verbs out of everything so for instance they can say i pass
the kids to school um this is a verbalization of a noun sometimes we do the
opposite we we have nominalizations but we can say i pass the kids to
school this is a verbalization of a noun sometimes we do the opposite we we
have nominalizations but um in general there is a tendency in english to
make verbs out of everything it is a very interesting phenomenon in which
um in order to understand what formation phenomena in in a synchronic way a
martian developed already in the 60s two types of criteria content
dependent criteria and form dependent criteria content dependent criteria
means that he pays attention of the of the items and from related criteria
have to do more with the morphology the pronunciation etc so first we will
go to the content dependent criteria there he designed two principles uh
the principle of semantic dependency uh where he says the word if we have
two words that have the same shape for instance so as a noun and so as a
verb this is an example we have in the book uh we have two words that have
the same shape for instance so as a noun and so as a verb this is an
example we have in the book uh then the word that is dependent on the
content of the other for its definition is the derived word for instance uh
so in this case it's a verb which is to cut uh it has to do with cutting a
source with what with the soul so we need the idea of the concept of a so
as a noun of the object so to understand that what we are doing the same as
bus example uh i pass the kids to school is i take the kids to school by
bus right so buzz as a verb is obviously derived in this case if we are if
we focus on this semantic dependency principle uh buzz as a verb is derived
from us as a noun other examples for instance would be with drink um what
what is more uh what where is the derived here's uh what is良 What is the
derived word here? The drink as a noun or the verb drink? This is a bit
more difficult because both verb and noun are very general. Sometimes when
it is difficult to distinguish, we can go to the second principle because
not all principles need to abide. Sometimes, in some words, one of the
principles is not applicable. With drink, I would not have really a clear
idea of which one is, as in bus. I pass the kids to school, obviously it
comes from bus. Also because bus as a verb is much more recent than drink
as a verb because drink as a verb already existed in Old English, which was
drinkan, one type of English verb. Diachronically, I can't give you the
answer. It is a verb. The verb, the derived of the noun. But if we don't
want to look at the history of that word, the verb and the noun are not so
clear here. So what do we do? We go to the principle of semantic range.
This says, of two homophonous words exhibiting similar sets of semantic
features, the one with the smaller field of reference, so the most
hyponymic will be the more specific word, will be the derivative. So in
this case, we would have to see which one is more specific. Drink as a verb
or drink as a drink. Drink as a drink is very general because it has to do
with all kinds of drinks, right? A beverage would be even more hyperonymic.
But with the idea of drinking, which has to do with drinking a drink,
taking a drink is a bit more, it's also quite general in this case. I think
we would have to go to the diachronic analysis. Although we can say, I
drink a drink, right? And we want to go to the semantic dependency
principle. With the principle of the semantic range, both are... They are
quite general in this case. So this was a difficult example. With drive,
for instance, it is not so difficult because, for instance, when we have
this, the series in the United States, Mulholland Drive, for instance. A
drive is a type of pavement, a paveway, let's say. We have a road, a
street, different types of pedestrian areas or driving areas, and drive is
a specific type of area where you can drive a car, actually. So in this
case, we could say that drive as a noun is more specific than drive as a
verb. In this case, we would say that according to the principle of
semantic range, drive as a noun is derived from drive as a verb. This
content-dependent criteria, as I say, and these two principles are not
always 100% useful because sometimes as we devolve drink and the noun
drink, it is difficult to see only with this principle. So then we have to
record to the form-related criteria. Although form-related criteria have
more to do with compounds, not with zero derivation, then we need to
resource to history, to the diachronic analysis. But it is true that when
we don't... don't have diachronic analysis at hand, they can be very, very
helpful. Form-related criteria, they are mentioned in Stechauer, who is a
big analyst of morphology. There are three main principles. One is the
principle of phonetic shape, which says that a certain phonetic shape may
put a word into a definite word class. This is a very simple criteria. But
that works only for very exceptional words. Sorry, for instance, the suffix
"-ment". I didn't even include an example that is not mentioned by him
because it was very difficult for me to find. For instance, "-ment is a
typical noun suffix. Then the principle says the very few verbs ending in
"-ment will be derived from noun, from the noun. For instance, ferment or
torment. When you look up a word in English, in an English thesaurus or in
a lexicological database, and you look for a word that finishes in "-ment,
that is not a verb, I think these ones are the very few ones that are
verbs. So in this case, we can say that this is a verbalization,
lexicalization of a noun. This would be the principle of phonetic shape.
The principle of morphological type, and the stress criterion, which are
the other two, are more for compounds. They work for compounds. So in
compounds, sometimes we have exceptions. Normally, the base of the word
will be always the right word, the word on the right. But sometimes it
turns out that it's the left one. So this principle of morphological type,
helps to identify the head of this compound. The head means the original
head, because in compounds, how do you know which one comes first? If they
are compounds, they are not derivatives, by identifying the head, the head
semantically and morphologically. So in this case, sometimes, as I said, we
have these principles to make this distinction. For instance, we have
average compounds such as snowball, or blacklist, where the head is the
second word, the word on the right, and it is a noun. So the base, the
compound, is a noun as a category, and the base is also a noun, such as
blacklist or snowball. In compounds, mostly the noun is the base, but we
have exceptions such as babysit. In babysit, the base, sorry, the exception
is that in compounds, as I was saying, basically, the head of the compound
is on the right. But there are exceptions. The exception is, for instance,
in babysit or in lunch break. In babysit or lunch break, the base is on the
left. And this principle of morphological type justifies this by saying
that, normally, the primary, normally, the base will be a noun. So in
babysit, the whole word, the compound is a verb as a whole, but the noun is
baby. So they will say, this principle would say, okay, then the base is
not sit, it's baby. You understand what I mean? Because it's getting a bit
complicated for me to explain, but I hope I can manage to express my idea.
This works for exceptions, as I said, because in general, the base is the
right word. But in exceptions such as this, when there is a doubt, we say,
okay, normally in compounds, the base is a noun. In this case, lunch is the
noun. In lunch break, so the base of the compound is lunch. It is not
break. In babysit, the base is baby. So it is, baby is the base. For
instance, in lunch break, we can say that break could be a verb. In this
case, we know that it is a noun. The break as a part of the compound also.
And as a compound itself, lunch break would be a noun. But in this case,
the base is on the left. And finally, we have the stress criterion. So
here, we abide by all the principles, phonetics, prosody, and morphology.
The stress criterion, which also works for compounds, can also indicate
what is first, what came first. It can indicate the relationship between a
substantive and a verb. This is between a noun and a verb, or a prefix and
a verb, or in this case, a preposition. For instance, we have underestimate
is a preposition, where we have a secondary stress, which is under, and
then the strong stress, which would be estimate or interact, where we have
secondary stress and the strong action, the higher stress, the strong
stress, primary stress, which is in act. In compound nouns, the heavy
stress is on the first elements. For instance, in some compounds known as
outhouse, underwear, undercurrent, this principle says that verbs carrying
this pattern are derived from nouns, which means that in outhouse, it is
house, the base. In undercurrent, current is the base. In underwear, wear
would be the, well, in this case, underwear, the base, in this case,
wouldn't, this principle wouldn't abide because wear is a noun, it's a
verb, sorry. So in this case, it would be under. Okay. So from these
principles that I say, as I said, not all of them have to work. Sometimes
it is difficult to have words that abide by all the principles, but as long
as there is one or two principles that works, we can find some
justification. So with all these principles, what you can do is to put them
into practice. And how do we put them into practice? Analyzing the
derivative or derivational change of words. We have the example in the
book, outgoing, and we would need to analyze, for instance, the practice in
the book says, okay, let's analyze outgoing. Outgoing, what is first? In
this case, the derivative is first. The derivative chain works is a way of
seeing visually the derivational process of a word. So that's how we
represent it. We would write the first, the stem, let's say go, would be
the stem of going, and then the stem of going would be the stem of
outgoing. This is the derivative chain I would propose. In this case, the
principle of phonetic shape would say, that ing is a typical ending of
adjectives. So if this word is an adjective, the prefix out has probably
been added secondly to outgoing because the adjective is still outgoing,
it's an adjective. Let's say so, out is probably added afterwards. This is
what this principle would say. The stress criterion would say that the
heavy action, would be in going, in this case, this is how it works.
Instead of out, which would be the weak stress, the heavy stress would be
ongoing. So this principle would apply also for, according to the stress
criterion. But for the morphological criterion, which says that most
compound forms come from nouns, in this case, it does not apply. So we have
two principles that apply for these derivative chains. We could try another
derivative chain, which would be from go, there is outgo and then from
outgo, outgoing was created. Could this happen according to linguistic
rules? Yes. Did it happen? We don't know. How do we check? Through these
principles and also, we can check also through the most frequent item. The
frequency. The frequency of the item, which is more related to the
content-dependent criteria. The content-dependent criteria was saying, if
you remember what we said, that the more specific a word is, the more
derivative it is. This has to do with frequency of occurrence also. And a
very common trick, a very simple trick is just check for these words in
Google. You just type the word in Google and then it says, for instance,
one million, it gives you the results. The amount of times this item
appears on their database. Why do I always suggest Google? Because Google
is the biggest knowledge database in the world. You can also check in other
search engines, of course, but Google, they have their own projects also
for language data such as Ngram, etc. So it is just simple. But you can
also use other search engines. You just click on the word and then you say,
okay, what is more common? Outgoing or outgo? Does outgo appear? Probably
it doesn't almost appear, but outgoing is much more frequent than outgo. So
according to this, outgo cannot be the base of outgoing. It has to be the
other way around. Other examples, for instance, that we could put it into
practice. For instance, breathtaking, heartbreaking, heartbreaker. These
are examples I invite you to think about. For instance, for breathtaking or
heartbreaking or heartbreaker, for instance. There because I included both
inflectional, well, derivational suffixes with ing or with er, which
implies more, as you know, an action or a quality. With heartbreaking, we
have both. A compound and a derivational suffix. So heart and then we have
break and then breaking. If we check for the word, for instance, heartbreak
in Google, it exists. We look it up in the dictionary. It exists, but what
is more common? To say heartbreaking or heartbreak? Heartbreaking.
Heartbreaking is more common. So it is difficult that heartbreak can be the
derivative of heartbreaking. Probably from breaking, that later on has been
added. This if we take a look at the frequency or the content-dependent
criteria. But if we look at the stress criterion or the phonetic shape, we
would say that the ing is a typical ending of adjectives. So the prefix
heartbreak. Heart in this case is probably added after having added
breaking. These are some examples that we can apply. In this case, break is
also a verb. The base would be heart or would it be break? In this case,
the base would be heart probably because the content of the whole compound
has to do with breaking the heart. But we can also say that for
heartbreaking, the concept, the idea of morphological type does not apply.
If we want to say, okay, if the base, we consider the base to be break,
break is not a noun. So then it does not apply. When there are doubts
between which one is the base, break or heart, we just check for
frequencies in Google, which is the other trick as I said. So these are
just some little examples on how to analyze derivations through synchronic
methods. But of course, you can always record to etymological dictionaries.
Later on I will show you a very interesting database that I found where you
can just look for the word in Old English and then diachronically, check
whether your derivative chain complies with the past. Okay, so going to the
next point. Now we have in the book, in the unit, we have basic concepts
for this unit, which is just very briefly, I'm going to go through it very
briefly. And if you have any doubts, please ask. There are two types of
analysis of linguistics. Semantics, lexical semantics and truth conditional
semantics, which is the one we are using here. Obviously, lexical semantics
because lexical semantics analyzes the lexicon. Lexical semantics uses the
word as their unit of study and considers words to have meaning on their
own, obviously. This is different from truth conditional semantics, which
is called formal semantics, where the unit of study is the sentences. So
the content of words is defined in terms of their contribution to the
sentence. And this type of formal semantics is very interesting and it has
also been applied to many ontological databases, etc. But this is not what
we are going to analyze here in this unit. In this unit we are going to see
the relationship of morphology with lexical semantics, because that's where
there is an interconnection. Morphology deals with word meaning, sorry,
word grammar. And lexical semantics deals with word meaning. So lexical
semantics is very interconnected with morphology because both of them
analyze words and they use the word that is the lexicon as their unit of
study and that's why they can work together in the development process.
Development of lexicological databases, lexicographical works, thesauri,
all types of instruments, terminological databases. And formal semantics
would be more related to other types of linguistic tools such as
ontologies, for instance. Although ontologies are also part of the study of
lexical semantics. We will see this more in detail in further units. Truth
conditional semantics is more related to formal logic and philosophy and
with the notion of truth. And they use a lot more the metalanguage that we
saw in unit 1 that is adopted from mathematics or logics. And something
important of these basic concepts is the following concepts that we have
here. Lexim, stem and lemma. First of all, we will start with the most
basic concepts. The most basic one, which is word. A word is a lexical
item. So a word is very simple. A lexical unit. It is a concrete unit of
morphological analysis. A word is what we see. Everything we see is a word.
With this space between one word and another. This is a word. Car, driver,
sun, sunny. Doesn't matter whether it is derived or not. This is a word.
Lexim, however, is a basic lexical unit of language which can be also
composed of several words. For instance, compound words that are not joined
together. Acronyms. Lexim is an abstract unit of morphological analysis.
And why is it abstract? Because it is used to represent a whole system of
morphological inflections and derivations of a certain concept. A lexical
unit, for instance, drive. The idea of drive, the lexical unit of drive, is
not composed of only the word drive. It's composed of all the words that
compose the inflections and the derivations of drive. Such as driver,
driving, drives, drove. So in this case, drive is more than one word. And
the lexim comprises of two words. All of them. A lexim normally is
represented with capital letters as we see here. So in order to distinguish
a lexim from a lemma, which is also something very confusing sometimes, we
can say that a lemma is in normal letters and a lexim is in capital
letters. A lemma is the canonical form or a dictionary form or a citation
form of a set of words. So why is it different from a lexim? Because a
lexim contains... It's an abstract lexical unit, first of all. And the
lemma is a representation. It's the word, the only form that represents
this lexim and that is used to organize this lexim in, for instance, a
dictionary or in a terminology. So when we determine a lexim, we determine
which lemma, lemma, citation form, it is what we are going to refer to, for
instance, with driver, drive, driving, etc. Drive will be the lemma for the
whole lexim and that's what we will find in the dictionary. But, for
instance, driver can also be a lemma. It will be a driver of other
inflective forms such as drivers. Driver can also be a lemma because it
will appear on the dictionary. Okay? So that's why a lemma and a lexim do
not always coincide because within a lexim we can have different lemmas. A
lemma is, let's say, the head of a family of words that are inflected, the
inflected word forms of a given root, let's say. So from a root we have
several inflections. They are all the word forms that are inflected from
this root and they contain all this family, all these inflections are in a
dictionary within an entry and this entry is represented by one of these
forms. The form that we use to represent all these inflected word forms is
going to be the lemma. So here we have another concept that appears, which
is root. And root tends to be confounded with stem. Stem and root are
different. Why? Because the root is really the base of a form, of a word.
The root is the smallest unit of analysis in morphology together with a
prefix or a suffix but we have roots, prefixes and affixes but a root is, A
morphine, sorry, is the smallest unit of lexical analysis and morphine can
be a suffix, an affix or a root. What is the difference? Normally it is
represented with a hyphen. For instance you have here down at the end of
the slide you have the root of driver is drive with a hyphen. This is the
root. Stem is not represented with a hyphen because stem is a portion of
the word where we can add more inflections. So it is a form to which more
affixes can be added. So for instance we take the word drivers. In drivers,
the lemma is driver. Not drive but driver because drivers derives from
driver. The stem is also driver because from driver, drivers stem. And the
root is drive, drift with a hyphen because from there we have driving,
driver, drives, drove. So the root is one but there can be many stems. For
instance from the stem driver we have drivers. From drivers the stem is
drive but driver, sorry. But if we take driver and we analyze this word
this is also a derived word where er, the suffix is er and drive in this
case is the stem. So driver also has a stem. So a word can have several
stems it will start to demount it, decompose it. It could be a bit as the
compositional sentence analysis we can also decompose words into different
stems. So I hope this is clear because I saw that in the book although for
future editions we will revise this we include lexim, stem and lemma but
then we don't talk about the stem sorry, stem not stem or root but this is
important also to establish a difference between stem and root. And this is
a web page I cannot click now lexilogos that I highly recommend you you
will have it in the powerpoint lexilogos is created by a French author but
you can find it also in English in this web page you have anything you want
to do you want to see about dictionaries of in different languages in
English in French there are three or four more languages you have also
etymologies you have etymological dictionaries you have for instance for
all English the wordsworth and toller you have thesauri glossaries so I
really recommend you to check this this database and because the developer
is French he also has a lot a lot of collection of specific dialects from
France so it is a really, really an interesting language web page sorry and
finally in this section of the of the course we have two concepts that are
interesting so that if you read them in the future you know what they are
they are quoted by Brandy who says that the lexicon of natural languages
contains two kinds of concepts endocentric concepts or exocentric concepts
what is the difference between them endocentric concepts are the ones whose
identity are more dependent on specific lexical structures so they are more
language specific and these endocentric concepts will be normally the basis
for the development of a specialized lexicon or of terminological databases
of terminological research exocentric concepts are more independent from
lexicalization and from categorization and they are more cross linguistics
for instance an exocentric concept would be the concept of mother this is
what we would call a universal concept and in fact these concepts are
surprisingly very similar in shape in general not always but in shape in
this case for instance because they all come from Indo-European but we can
have other concepts that are very cross linguistic not only because they
come from Indo-European but because of this but because they are more
exocentric concepts such as the universal concept of mother all the
concepts related to the family father also mother have very similar
expressions the form so we can say that in this case the lexical structure
will be more independent from a specific language and they will be more
related to universal categorizations so for instance a terminological
research or terminological database will be more focused in general on
language-specific concepts which will develop specific terms but exocentric
concepts are also very important for instance in the standardization or in
the development of different types of ontologies okay so in point five we
have a small introduction to something that can be the basis the base for
everything you do in linguistics which is establishing units of analysis
and levels of language so here is a representation Dick in 1997 when he
wrote functional and introduction to functional grammar which you will
probably have seen in other courses of the degree designed a representation
of the levels of language but he forgot to include morphology so this is an
adaptation of his own device of his own drawing let's say and what is
interesting in here is that we have different levels of analysis different
levels in language and the more to the center we go the more to the point
to the core of language the more universal the features of this analysis or
this the more universal these features of language are so the more cross
linguistic and the more outside we go the more culturally dependent they
are or more idiosyncratic as we call them so for instance phonology means
the study of phonology in phonology we study sounds all languages have
sounds all languages have vowels we have we make use of our mouths we all
have the same instruments to talk which is our vocal cords how then we
apply this to a language or another is different but we have a specific and
very limited amount of sounds available in all languages and some languages
make use of more sounds than others but it is true that phonology and the
rules of phonology abide for all languages so we can say that phonology is
universal then we have the level that dick didn't include of morphology he
went directly to syntax morphology and syntax have to do with the structure
of language the only difference is that morphology deals with the structure
of words and syntax deals with the structure of sentences but they also
analyze the underlying structure and the underlying mechanisms of language
and language development and language change so that's why i included these
arrows because they are interconnected in fact when you study grammar you
also we have a discipline which is called morpho syntax exactly because of
this because we are doing dealing with structures underlying structures and
structures words and the grammar words we realize that it can be analyzed
with the same devices as when we analyze the syntax of words in morphology
we have in words we have a base form uh we have sub forms that depend on
the base um these sub forms or it's like having a sentence with a
subordinate clause and a main clause and the subordinate clause modifies
the main clause by adding i don't know which modality so in morphology is
more is the same but with words this is also more cross linguistic than
semantics so uh of course here we start to see differences we have for
instance subject object verb languages or subject verb object languages uh
we have inflectional languages uh derivational languages uh ideographic
languages uh languages that use um to understand the grammar we need to
focus on word order or uh languages that are very highly inflected in the
language uh in the we can use the language express this on the surface okay
um but this is still let's say as chomsky declared the underlying
structures are universal idiosyncratic okay uh but now when we continue to
semantics is actually what shows that language is a conceptual phenomenon
semantics is much more connected to the reality of the speakers it has to
do with concepts and the reality that surrounds us will give us the
concepts that we will later on want to represent right so that's what we
were saying for instance on the first day about the amount of words uh that
exist in france to uh mention to refer to bread or an example we have on
the second on these communities from the book a mandatory book for
linguists which is from lake of women fire and dangerous things i don't
know if you read that book it is very interesting uh it's from the eighties
and he was saying like of he gave an example for instance of a language
where i don't remember which language where there are only three colors
black red and white because the speakers of that language probably don't
need any more colors so they they didn't create the term to name other
colors and the reality is shaped through three only three colors so this is
really interesting to see how cultures uh define reality and design reality
through language and here comes the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis or the uh the
dilemma in in in language what is first the concept or language this is
something that has been studied by now and i i wrote in the book in the in
the course book that for me this is this mystery is still unsolved although
we have another some linguists think that the concept is first and that in
fact language is a conceptual phenomenon as the as leikoff was defending
and all the cognitivist theorists and others that think that language can
also shape reality um i think it can be maybe just for any of them hundred
percent because um it is for instance with choministic language um this is
just a personal example but for instance i uh for me it's very interesting
as a linguist to see how in spain we are creating words uh to avoid gender
differences between a and o because o is the collective ending for
masculine and feminine so we say muchos amigos when we refer to amigas and
amigos and then we say muches amigues but semantically we keep on saying
que coñazo or esto es cojonudo so we don't realize that coñazo comes from
the woman and cojonudo comes from the man and there are many items many
examples in our language uh that we should change first uh that have to do
with the lexicon and not with the grammar uh um for instance so in this
case for instance we see that society is changing but to which point if we
don't change the lexicon is society going to change and also there are
societies where there is no gender where gender is not grammatical for
instance in english and this does not mean that english speaking countries
have less chauvinistic societies than spanish speaking countries even if um
their syntax and their morphology does not express gender so okay i went a
bit sideways um but i would like to hear your opinion about this because it
has to do with these levels and you can write them now or in the forum if
you want i would it would be very interesting to raise a discussion on this
and uh finally what is a um completely related to the culture of a language
and this very idiosyncratic is pragmatics is the study in language that has
to do with the intentions of the speakers so obviously it is the most
connected to the external world to the speakers and in this case the
pragmatics is totally related to the speakers semantics also reflects
idiosyncratic features of languages and syntax and morphology also as we
see for instance in the example i just gave you but in let's say a less
strong way and it is more difficult to adapt uh to change a language uh
through changing syntax and morphology this these structures of language
have more to do with the linguistic evolution uh with other rules that are
part of language change such as the principle of minimum effort phonetic
rules which you will see in other units of the degree um my idea my point
is if we want to change a society let's go first to for the easy part which
is changing the concept the lexical representation the lexemes the words
the sentences the semantics it is for instance with vegans um the father of
my child is vegan and when i said oh madam we let's kill two birds in one
shot and he was saying oh careful and i was like now i became much more
aware of uh what we have in in our language and in other languages that are
not respectful with animals so now i try to use other but sometimes it
comes such as coger el toro por los cuernos this instead of coger la
sartén por el mango which is the same but without having to use an animal
um so let's say that this is what makes me more aware of my reality than
morphology and syntax because it is connected to our reality so here you
have it in the book in the course also so i'm not going to go very quickly
through it it is adapted from fernández in 1996 you have the reference
also in the book um the different subsystems of language under units of
analysis the what is interesting here is that both studied both by
morphology and by semantics so this unit of analysis uh is part of both
that's why um they are interconnected semantics and morphology and for
morphology in dictionaries you have a reference in the book that in future
editions we will update um here i included uh as an example and i encourage
you to to check further in the powerpoint you can access the link and you
have more information in the comments of the powerpoint that you can
download um this section for morphology in dictionaries um is very
interesting in wikipedia why do i include them a wikipedia entry because um
we have to start demonizing wikipedia as a bad source in academy what we
need is to have a good criterion to distinguish what is a good quality
information from bad quality information but wikipedia is a wonderful
source of knowledge in this case for instance the entry for morphology in
dictionaries is wonderful and i encourage you to read it it just talks
about different types of more dictionaries the ones where you have the
morphological analysis directly uh in the in the entries uh with specific
uh non-language dependent symbols uh which are called a morpheme aligned
dictionaries and then you have full form non-aligned dictionaries um full
form dictionaries would be dictionaries and morpheme aligned dictionaries
which are very complex and um these kind of dictionaries are used uh in the
divide in the development of um lexicological databases lexical
lexicological studies etc they can be used to analyze a part of a speech
gender number all types of morphological features okay um so go through it
and if you have any doubts just let me know and a very interesting also is
just to finish lexicological resources i included here a few more
lexicological resources that you have in the book because there are more
and more appearing day by day i include here the very incredibly amazing
website which is linguistic data consortium which is an american database
that is developed by many companies and universities um from the it started
in the university of pennsylvania but there are many contributors they want
the downside of it is that um many of the resources they have there are
with subscription but there are also many many other resources that are
free celex corpus is not free anymore unfortunately you can check the
information for the select corpus in the in this other link but i encourage
you to check the link to see um the amazing amount of databases they have a
lexical analysis lexical projects etc corpora are also um very basic tools
that we all need as linguists the traditional language which i added there
is this coca corpus the corpus of contemporary american english where as
you for instance when i have uh used corpora for me a very interesting
example a typical type of search in corpora to see uh what is the frequency
of occurrence of two items together for instance for with phrasal for
corpus uh something that corpora allow us to search for in a very
interesting way the lexicological database of all english that was
developed in the university of la rioja a few years ago which was called
nurses project and nurses was the name the original name of the corpus now
uh has changed to parallel corpus old english before in net you have a
complete analysis of the lexical items of the english language um verbs
adjectives nouns and adverbs under derivational features which is what i
did when i participated in this project as regards to old english verbs to
analyze all the suffixes of the english verbs and their derivative chain of
verb by verb imagine the word but it was very interesting um it was created
with a course book from martin javier arista who is the main developer of
this project from the university of la rioja where he talks about the
resources the technological resources that were used and the searches that
can be done and also the theoretical framework in which this is based
wordnet is a classic and in wordnet where you have a framework for the
analysis of words regarding concepts lexical we have an included also now
uh an interesting database that lists all the related projects um that have
to do with the analysis of words of lexical nets and frame frameworks um so
there you can where you have a very big database of all types of
dictionaries of different languages of different ages not only dictionaries
cesare glossaries conceptual databases terminological databases and finally
you they are carrying out it would be interesting for maybe in case uh you
want in the future to uh further research on the world of lexicology there
they have also publications on their where they talk about their um their
framework their methodology uh of work their working methodologies etc so
um i encourage you also to check it okay and uh in the forum of you need to
thank you