Unit three
Text One
红豆杉的功效与作用
Direction: The following text is about how to define “word” in Chine. Do you agree with the author? (J.L. Packard. The Morphology of Chine: A Linguistic and Cognitive Approach. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Rearch Press, 2001:18-20)
In this work, the syntactic definition of “word” will be ud as the basis for analyzing Chine words. We begin with the syntactic definition as a first step in isolating wordlike units for analysis, for veral reasons.
First, the syntactic definition is the one that mostly cloly comports with the intuitive notion of “word” among native speakers of Chine, as evidenced by the fact that the Chine technical term for “word” (ci词)is very clo to the notion as defined using the syntactic definition. Also, aside from expressions which derive from Classical Chine and different registers of u (such as literary vs. colloquial, standard vs. local dialect, individual variation,
etc.), there is a surprising degree of unanimity among Chine native speakers as to which entities are able to occupy a syntactic form class slot independently (e, e.g., Hu 1985:69, who cites s study that found over 85 per cent agreement on word boundaries). Where there is less than complete unanimity, it is likely that there are in fact two independent identities that coexist parately on a continuum in transition between, e.g., “bound and free” or “word and phra”.
Second, the syntactic definition of “word” motivates the concept in most other languages. It is the concept that Anderson refers to when speaking of the intuition of “something real about the organization of the ntence” (1985b:150), and saying that ntences em to be compod of such independent isolable entities. Third, some of the criteria for defining word discuss above—for example, the orthographic and lexical definitions, and the potential pau—are bad upon the syntactic word. Finally, it will make n for us to give a basic characterization of words using the syntactic definition becau, as we shall e below, in Chine the internal components of words are best understood and analyd within a framework that complements the notion of “syntactic word” as a basic d船务代理
伟人故事
efining concept.
The assumption of the existence of the syntactic word follows a universalist argument, which assumes that the word is biologically hard-wired and psychologically real, and has a tendency in natural language to “weaken” the status of individual component morphemes, undermining their ability to function as free forms. Since it is generally recognized that ntence syntax contains the rules by which we produce and comprehend meaningful language, we must presume that utterances are gmented into minimal units that the syntax can manipulate. The constituents that are moved about by rules of syntax are nouns, verbs, etc., and the smallest occupant of one of tho constituent slots is what we are theoretically defining as a “word”. In the ca of Chine, the constituents cannot be morphemes, becau morphemes are in no n the units that are manipulated by syntactic rules to produce a comprehensible ntence or utterance. The zi or morpheme rves as a subpart of tho entities that are the smallest things that can occupy a syntactic slot. Sometimes the zi can occupy that slot by itlf. But there are things that can minimally occupy tho slots, and we have given them a na
me: They are called words.
To summarize, this work critically assumes that the linguistic construct of the syntactic “word”, rather than being an artifact of western linguistic analysis, is real and fundamental to the nature of language, and therefore exists as a real linguistic construct universally ud in producing and understanding utterances. To believe otherwi for Chine, we would have to assume that the Chine language is not so much “word-bad” as bad on something el, with the most viable candidate being the morpheme.
Text Two
我的同学作文600字Direction: The following text is about word formation and name-giving. Can you deduce from this passage that word formation and name-giving are arbitrary? Which name, a cellular phone or mobile phone, do you prefer? Why?( R. Dirven and M. Verspoor. Cognitive Exploration of Language and Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1998:54-56)
性行为小说We have now en three different ways of forming new expressions for concepts: compounding, derivation, and syntactic grouping. This rais the question: Why is one name and not the other accepted in the language? There are veral possibilities available and it can never be predicted which one will eventually be generally accepted. Let us look at a recent example.
The engineering in a big electronic firm are sitting around the table to discuss a new type of telephone not fixed to a plug which can be carried around. They might find all sorts of names for it like mobile telephone, 叫的词语cellular telephone, 写有趣的事的作文pocket telephone, digital phone, portable phone, etc. Each name reflects a different construal and highlights one salient aspect of the phone. In American English the name which has been accepted is bad on the internal cellular system and it is called a cellular phone or just –in its reduced form—a cellular. In British English the emphasis is placed on the movable quality of such a phone and it is called a mobile phone or carphone. In German, the “uful and simple to u” aspect is stresd and the device is named by means of a pudo-English load-word, ein Handy. In French its movability is stresd and it is called un portable. In Dutch it is either
called een gsm (an acronym standing for “global system for mobile communication”) or een draagbare telefooon专升本实习周报 “a portable phone”. The word portable also exists as an older French loan-word in English, but it is nearly always associated with a television t as illustrated in (1).
