Webster's Third: A Critique of Its Semantics

Wèinreich, Uriel; Webster,

doi:10.1086/464799

Cited by 50 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Concerning the distinction of lexical ambiguity, Weinreich's (1964) distinction between contrastive lexical ambiguity and complementary ambiguity was illustrative to this point. Concerning the distinction of lexical ambiguity, Weinreich's (1964) distinction between contrastive lexical ambiguity and complementary ambiguity was illustrative to this point.…”

Section: Lexical Ambiguitymentioning

confidence: 95%

“…In Pustejovsky's (1995) generative lexicon study, especially, he discussed the logical problem of polysemy and pointed out two types of ambiguity-contrastive ambiguity and complementary polysemy-by following Weinreich (1964). Concerning contrastive ambiguity, Pustejovsky mentioned that given the current representational techniques and strategies for differentiating word senses, there would appear to be no reason to make a logical distinction between these two types of ambiguity.…”

Section: Review Of Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Verb Sense Discovery in Mandarin Chinese—A Corpus based Knowledge-Intensive Approach

Hong

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Lexical Ambiguitymentioning

confidence: 95%

Section: Review Of Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Verb Sense Discovery in Mandarin Chinese—A Corpus based Knowledge-Intensive Approach

Hong

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These phenomena, known as regular, systematic, or logical polysemy (see Weinreich 1964, 1972, Apresjan 1973, Nunberg 1979, Ostler and Atkins 1992, Pustejovsky 1991), appear to be qualitatively different from the cases mentioned above, and involve sense modulations and perspectival shifts over the meanings of words. For example, nouns such as newspaper, book, lunch, and exam are logically polysemous between different aspects or facets of the noun's meaning.…”

Section: Generative Lexicon Theory and Knowledge Of Languagementioning

confidence: 95%

Generativity and Explanation in Semantics: A Reply to Fodor and Lepore

Pustejovsky

1998

Linguistic Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I address the remarks made in Fodor and Lepore's article, “The Emptiness of the Lexicon: Reflections on James Pustejovsky's The Generative Lexicon,” regarding the research program outlined in Pustejovsky 1995. My response focuses on two themes, FL's misreadings and misinterpretations of the substance as well as the details of the theory, and the generally negative and unconstructive view of the study of semantics and natural language meaning inherent in their approach.

show abstract

“…Lexical ambiguity is an inherent problem of language because humans are impelled to assign to a finite resource of meaningful items an unlimited set of applications (Pustejovsky 1995;Sinclair 1998). According to Pustejovsky (1995: 27), Weinreich (1964) distinguishes two types of lexical ambiguity. The first type is that of contrastive ambiguity where, synchronically speaking, there is no relation between the different meanings of a word, i.e.…”

Section: Lexical Ambiguity Homonymy and Polysemymentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Complementary Polysemy and the Arabic Translations of the Noun Destruction in EAPCOUNT

Salhi

2014

meta

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Le présent article aborde un sujet à la croisée de la traductologie, de la sémantique lexicale et de la linguistique de corpus. Son objectif général est de montrer comment la traductologie peut tirer profit de la sémantique lexicale et de la linguistique de corpus. Plus spécifiquement, il vise à capturer le comportement sémantique et pragmatique du substantif destruction et de ses différentes traductions en arabe. Les données sont extraites d’un corpus parallèle anglais-arabe, constitué de textes de l’ONU et de leurs traductions (EAPCOUNT). L’analyse les données recueillies met en relief la polysémie du mot destruction dans la mesure où un certain nombre d’alternances sémantiques et pragmatiques peuvent être saisies. Ces résultats sont discutés dans le cadre de la théorie du Lexique Génératif (LG) de James Pustejovsky. L’article se conclut sur certaines propositions concrètes pour améliorer la relation et la coopération mutuelle entre linguistes et traducteurs.This article investigates a topic at the intersection of translation studies, lexical semantics and corpus linguistics. Its general aim is to show how translation studies can benefit from both lexical semantics and corpus linguistics. The specific objective is to capture the semantic and pragmatic behavior of the noun destruction and its different translations into Arabic. The data are obtained from an English-Arabic parallel corpus made from UN texts and their translations (EAPCOUNT). The analysis of the data shows the polysemy of the word destruction as a number of semantic and pragmatic alternations can be captured. These findings are discussed in the frame of the Generative Lexicon (GL) theory developed by James Pustejovsky. The paper concludes with some concrete suggestions on how to enhance the relationship between linguists and translators and their mutual cooperation

show abstract

Webster's Third: A Critique of Its Semantics

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Verb Sense Discovery in Mandarin Chinese—A Corpus based Knowledge-Intensive Approach

Verb Sense Discovery in Mandarin Chinese—A Corpus based Knowledge-Intensive Approach

Generativity and Explanation in Semantics: A Reply to Fodor and Lepore

Investigating the Complementary Polysemy and the Arabic Translations of the Noun Destruction in EAPCOUNT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About