In this paper, I propose a definition of the term word that can be applied to all languages using the same criteria. Roughly, a word is defined as a free morph or a clitic or a root plus affixes or a compound plus affixes. The paper relies on earlier definitions of the terms free, morph, affix, clitic, root, and compound, which are summarized here. I briefly compare the proposed definition with Bloomfield’s, I note that it is a shared-core definition, and I say how word-forms differ from lexemes. In the final section, I explain why I think that an unnatural-seeming definition is better than a prototype definition or other options.

Grammar and meaning, form and function, are two linguistic levels intrinsic and indispensable to reading and rendering the Qur’an, the Divine Word of Islamic Scripture, in a foreign tongue. Nida and de Waard’s (1986) ‘functional equivalence’, an amalgamation of formal equivalence and dynamic equivalence, posits that emphasis in translation activity and practice must also be laid on SL form which must be retained and maintained in TL where possible as long as it performs discourse functions and conciliates SL fidelity and TL legibility. The present study argues that the syntactic frames that host noncanonical oppositions in the Qur’an trigger distinct discourse functions that must be transposed as lexicosyntactic and lexicosemantic translation units into Qur’an translation. Building on a typological analysis of a representative dataset retrieved from Qur’anic Arabic Corpus (QAC), the study reveals remarkable variations among the translators in their renditions of noncanonical opposition frames and functions owing to explicitation and domestication. This study recommends revival and reuse of the grammar-translation method in Qur’an translation when SL meaning and function are based on SL grammar and form.

This study explores the semantic and the syntactic status of ba in the Chinese ba-construction from a systemic functional perspective. At the level of meaning, ba functions as the Process element in the transitivity structure of the overall construction, and delivers an influential meaning. This means that the ba-construction involves a dominant and a dependent process. The dominant process is a configuration of a Participant Role (PR, hereafter), the influential Process element and another PR, and the influential Process element is expressed in the word ba. At the level of form, ba is the Predicator element in the syntactic structure of the overall construction. It indicates that the ba-construction involves a ranking and an embedded clause at the primary and the secondary level, respectively. The ranking clause is composed of the Subject, Predicator and Complement elements, and the Predicator element is expounded by the word ba.

This article aims to perform a comparative analysis of the word-building category with the person meaning in the Russian and Bashkir languages. The research was conducted on the material of Russian-Bashkir dictionaries. The structural-functional research method made it possible to determine the morphemic affixal composition of the compared languages, the types of a functional connection between the morphological components of the suffix base and the special morphological relations developed between the components under the influence of sociolinguistic factors. The results of the study showed that the development of agricultural terminology is determined primarily by internal language factors. In borrowed words from the Russian language, the Bashkir language mainly adds the affixes -сы, -се, -со, -сө (-sy, - sə, - so, - sɜː); there are also less productive suffixes: -даш, -дәш, -таш, -тәш, -ҙаш, -ҙәш (- dash, -dæsh, -tash, -tæsh, -ðash, - ðæsh). Both languages are an example of the expansion of English names that retain their form in these different languages. The results obtained are significant for language education and lexicography; they can serve as a basis for continuing research in the cognitive and functional areas.

This paper is a study of the use of four adverbs of high perceivability, manifestly, noticeably, patently and visibly (MNP&V), with expressions loaded with evaluative meanings belonging to the Appraisal category of Attitude. The paper starts with a characterization of MNP&V in terms of their meanings of manner and evidentiality and also as devices of Engagement within the Appraisal framework. Next, an analysis is carried out of the occurrences of the adverbs in the British National Corpus, in terms of the Attitude meanings present in the linguistic units of which MNP&V are constituents. The results show that these stretches of language often express Attitude, and that the distribution of the subtypes of Attitude varies across the individual adverbs. All the adverbs except noticeably are strongly associated with negative evaluation, which shows their frequent use for justifying high commitment to the truth of an undesirable proposition on the grounds that this truth is highly perceivable.

Existential sentences are noncanonical sentences that express the (non)existence of an entity. They have not received considerable attention in Standard Arabic (SA). This paper, thus, aims to propose a syntactic analysis of SA existential sentences. We first discuss the key grammatical properties of the four syntactic items, namely the copular verb, the expletive hunaaka, the pivot, and the coda phrase, that comprise the SA existential sentence. The expletive and the pivot are obligatory items in the structure, whereas the copular verb and the coda are optional. In our proposed analysis, we assume that the expletive is inserted in the Spec-TP to satisfy the EPP feature on T. We argue for the presence of a predicate phrase headed by Pred which hosts the pivot in its specifier and takes a null existential predicate as its complement. The fact that the expletive must precede the pivot and the locality requirement of the predication relation support locating the pivot in the Spec-PredP. We also assume that the coda is an adjunct, which is supported by its optionality and its inability to function as an NP. The conclusions reached may contribute to the ongoing discussion of existential constructions by presenting the perspective of SA.

This study investigates the acquisition of the three English spatial prepositions: ‘in’, ‘on’, and ‘at’ by 100 Saudi EFL students within the framework of the Markedness Theory. From the markedness point of view, marked/infrequent structures are more difficult in acquisition compared to their corresponding unmarked/frequent structures. English and Arabic differ in the way they express the semantic relations of these prepositions. This is assumed to pose difficulties in learning for EFL students where learners compare the English prepositional system to that of Arabic and resort to literal translation; thus, L1 transfer takes place. The study aims to provide insight into the challenges that Arab EFL learners encounter when learning English and to fill a gap in the literature of second language acquisition regarding the acquisition of prepositions by Arab EFL learners when semantic asymmetries are attested. Results show that the unmarked preposition ‘in’ is learned easily because its Arabic equivalent ‘fi’ covers more functions in the native language. As for the prepositions ‘on’ and ‘at’, results show that participants are struggling to learn them because only a few meanings correspond between ‘on’ and its Arabic equivalent ‘ʕala’, and that Arabic lacks an equivalent for ‘at’.

The use of etymology is an essential characteristic of the writing of Martin Heidegger. Believing that ordinary language had lost its power to express certain philosophical ideas, Heidegger often looked to earlier meanings of words or parsed derived words in order to analyze separate morphemes. An appreciation of this approach is central in understanding Heidegger’s work. He also believed that etymologizing was essential in interpreting the works of the writers to whom he felt most akin: Pre-Socratic philosophers such as Anaximander, Heraclitus, and Parmenides. These early Greek thinkers were clearly using language in a new way, and many of their works exist only in fragments. The meanings of particular words and phrases is thus often unclear, and it is possible that etymology could provide some indication of the writer’s intention. Many of Heidegger’s etymologies, however, are far from standard and are used to produce novel and often unusual interpretations. The present paper will review a number of Heidegger’s etymologies (of varying authenticity), the manner in which he arrived at them, and their import in the interpretation of certain texts. The general question will then be taken up concerning the legitimate uses and abuses of etymology in such interpretation.

The Journal des Sçavans and the Philosophical Transactions were the first two academic periodicals, and in their early years each frequently translated items taken from the other. In one such case, an item in the Journal des Sçavans which was a translation of a piece from the Philosophical Transactions, provoked a critical letter subsequently published in the French periodical. This letter produced a virulent response from the Philosophical Transactions’ editor, Henry Oldenburg. Study of a number of linguistic features, including process types and thematic structure shows that while there are a number of small differences between the source text and its translation, none of them are particularly significant. It is likely that Oldenburg’s riposte fits into a pattern of defending members of the Royal Society against foreign criticism.

Writing, both ancient and modern, originates de novo only when the language written is syllabically organized, because only there does the most salient unit of speech, the syllable, correspond with the most salient unit of language, the morpheme, thus bringing a sound sufficiently to consciousness that a pictograph for the item named by the morpheme can be recognized as also representing its sound – so that it can be transferred to represent the meaning of another morpheme of the same or similar sound (the “rebus principle”). Why is the syllable the most salient unit of speech? Phoneticians cannot agree on what people recognize when counting or manipulating syllables. Phoneticians can, though, specify what the speech organs do during speech production – the configurations of lips, tongue, larynx, pharynx, and airstream closures that result in the perceived sounds of speech (“consonants” and “vowels”). Phoneticians also recognize “features” whose durations do not necessarily correspond with those of the “segments” that constitute morphemes. Yet it is neither segments nor features that are recorded in earliest writing. An answer is found in the typology of writing systems, the ways the sounds of language are treated by grammarians and linguists ancient and modern, and the ways devised for children to learn to read.