LINGUISTIC STRUCTURE AND LITERARY MEANING

1972 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
DAVID H. HIRSCH
Keyword(s):  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Literary Meaning

Linguistic Structure, Stylistic Value, and Translation Strategy: Introducing Thomas Mann's Aschenbach in English

2010 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-71
Author(s):  
David Horton
Keyword(s):  
Literary Texts ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Syntactic Structures ◽  
Translation Strategy ◽  
Complex Syntax ◽  
Literary Meaning ◽  
Information Focus

By analysing closely two English versions of the opening passage of Der Tod in Venedig, this discussion addresses implications arising from the interlingual transfer of syntactic structures in literary texts. Even the most cursory glance at a translation corpus shows that prose translators - subject to language-typological constraints in syntactic possibilities - are generally concerned to mirror the sentence structures of the SLT in the syntactic composition of their TL versions. Here the contention is that, on the contrary, translation solutions cannot be ‘equivalent’ to the original at the level of complex syntax. Rather, translators inevitably make changes which significantly alter the information focus, agency patterns, and cohesion of the original, impacting on the literary meaning in subtle ways.

scholarly journals Comparability of signed and spoken languages: Absolute and relative modality effects in cross-modal typology

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 527-562
Author(s):  
Ulrike Zeshan ◽  
Nick Palfreyman
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Sensory Perception ◽  
Sound Symbolism ◽  
The Other ◽  
Sign Languages ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Modality Effects ◽  
Inductive Approach

AbstractThis article sets out a conceptual framework and typology of modality effects in the comparison of signed and spoken languages. This is essential for a theory of cross-modal typology. We distinguish between relative modality effects, where a linguistic structure is markedly more common in one modality than in the other, and absolute modality effects, where a structure does not occur in one of the modalities at all. Using examples from a wide variety of sign languages, we discuss examples at the levels of phonology, morphology (including numerals, negation, and aspect) and semantics. At the phonological level, the issue of iconically motivated sub-lexical components in signs, and parallels with sound symbolism in spoken languages, is particularly pertinent. Sensory perception metaphors serve as an example for semantic comparison across modalities. Advocating an inductive approach to cross-modal comparison, we discuss analytical challenges in defining what is comparable across the signed and spoken modalities, and in carrying out such comparisons in a rigorous and empirically substantiated way.

Optimization of morpheme length: a cross-linguistic assessment of Zipf’s and Menzerath’s laws

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (s3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Stave ◽  
Ludger Paschen ◽  
François Pellegrino ◽  
Frank Seifart
Keyword(s):  
Structural Information ◽  
Unit Length ◽  
Zipf’S Law ◽  
Zipf's Law ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Morphological Complexity ◽  
Linguistic Assessment ◽  
Linguistic Units

Abstract Zipf’s Law of Abbreviation and Menzerath’s Law both make predictions about the length of linguistic units, based on corpus frequency and the length of the carrier unit. Each contributes to the efficiency of languages: for Zipf, units are more likely to be reduced when they are highly predictable, due to their frequency; for Menzerath, units are more likely to be reduced when there are more sub-units to contribute to the structural information of the carrier unit. However, it remains unclear how the two laws work together in determining unit length at a given level of linguistic structure. We examine this question regarding the length of morphemes in spoken corpora of nine typologically diverse languages drawn from the DoReCo corpus, showing that Zipf’s Law is a stronger predictor, but that the two laws interact with one another. We also explore how this is affected by specific typological characteristics, such as morphological complexity.

scholarly journals A Reflection of Thai Culture in Thai Plant Names

MANUSYA ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 79-97
Author(s):  
Unchalee Singnoi
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Linguistics ◽  
Plant Taxonomy ◽  
Folk Taxonomy ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Thai Language ◽  
Plant Names ◽  
Traditional Societies ◽  
Cognition And Culture ◽  
Printed Materials ◽  
Thai Culture

The present study focuses on the plant naming system in the Thai language based on 1) Brent Berlin’s general principles of categorization of plants and animals in traditional societies (Berlin, 1974, 1992) which suggest that it is worthwhile to think about a plant taxonomy system on the basis of plant names since the names provide the valid key to folk taxonomy and 2) Lakoff’s central guiding principles of cognitive linguistics (Lakoff and Johnson, 2003 and Lakoff 1987). Data on plant names collected from printed materials are selectively analyzed. The study examines the linguistic structure, folk taxonomy and conceptualization of plant terms in the Thai language. It is found that there exists in the Thai language a complex and practical plant naming system establishing a relationship between language, cognition and culture.

scholarly journals Speech rhythm: a metaphor?

2014 ◽  
Vol 369 (1658) ◽  
pp. 20130396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis Nolan ◽  
Hae-Sung Jeon
Keyword(s):  
Traditional View ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Speech Rhythm ◽  
Linguistic Structure ◽  
Regular Time ◽  
Linguistic Functions ◽  
Absence Of Evidence ◽  
Metaphorical Extension ◽  
Analogical Process

Is speech rhythmic? In the absence of evidence for a traditional view that languages strive to coordinate either syllables or stress-feet with regular time intervals, we consider the alternative that languages exhibit contrastive rhythm subsisting merely in the alternation of stronger and weaker elements. This is initially plausible, particularly for languages with a steep ‘prominence gradient’, i.e. a large disparity between stronger and weaker elements; but we point out that alternation is poorly achieved even by a ‘stress-timed’ language such as English, and, historically, languages have conspicuously failed to adopt simple phonological remedies that would ensure alternation. Languages seem more concerned to allow ‘syntagmatic contrast’ between successive units and to use durational effects to support linguistic functions than to facilitate rhythm. Furthermore, some languages (e.g. Tamil, Korean) lack the lexical prominence which would most straightforwardly underpin prominence of alternation. We conclude that speech is not incontestibly rhythmic, and may even be antirhythmic. However, its linguistic structure and patterning allow the metaphorical extension of rhythm in varying degrees and in different ways depending on the language, and it is this analogical process which allows speech to be matched to external rhythms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document