Lexical Pairs Research Articles

Lexical choices of gender identity in Greek genres

This paper examines the role of the lexical pairs άνδρας/άντρας ‘man’ vs. γυναίκα ‘woman’ and αγόρι ‘boy’ vs. κορίτσι ‘girl’ in the construction of gender identity. We use corpus methodology to study the frequency, meanings and collocations of the noun pairs in five different genres of Greek, namely news and opinion articles from newspapers, and general interest, male and female magazines (2,4 million words in total). Our findings point to a fundamental asymmetry in the treatment of the two genders. Furthermore, genre and audience design are found to be prominent in gender construction: In general, male identity is viewed in similar ways in all genres, whereas female identity is constructed in a less uniform way, since texts addressed to women significantly diverge from other genres. Thus, lexical choices are affected by the positioning of the text producer as a member of an in-group, especially in genres in which gender is foregrounded.

Cultural ingredients in Arabic lexical pairs (Binomials)

“Irreversible binomials” or “lexical pairs” are word pairs that occur always or almost always in a specific order: bread and butter, to and fro. Such pairs exist in Arabic, and a typological characteristic can be identified: positive before negative. The article largely provides a contrastive analysis with English practice.

Authentic Models and Usage Norms? Gender Marking in First‐Year Textbooks

Our study of seven first‐year college‐level German textbooks surveys how these texts deal with the challenge of representing gender‐inclusive language. Specifically, we look at gender marking in human nouns to see whether they occur as single‐gender forms (e.g., Student), as morphological pairs in either full form (e.g., Student/Studentin) or orthographically‐reduced form (Student/in, StudentIn), as lexical pairs (e.g., Großmutter/Großvater) or as gender‐neutral forms (e.g., Studierende, plural). All textbooks surveyed show a strong tendency to avoid gender‐exclusive forms but none introduces students to orthographically‐reduced pairs.

Zur sprachlichen Realisierung des Konzepts des Führers im Russischen und Deutschen - ausgewählte Beispiele

The present article is intended as a contribution to the research on the concept leader and its linguistic conversion in Russian and German. Starting out from the question which lexical elements are being used for the realization of this concept, the reasons are shown why the use of particular words is restricted (e. g. in case of words like the Russian Φlpep or the German Radelsfuhrer). These explanations are followed by a contrastive analysis of the lexical pairs eΦ - ?Chef, δocc - Boss and aBTOTeT - Autoritat, showing similarities and differences in the semantic structure of these words and in their application in current language usage as well.

Representational specificity of lexical form in the perception of spoken words

In previous research using the long-term repetition-priming paradigm, we demonstrated that flapped intervocalic alveolar stops in American English may be mapped onto underlying representations of /t/ and /d/ during spoken word processing. More specifically, we found that casually articulated, flapped stimuli primed their carefully articulated counterparts (e.g., casually articulated atom primed carefully articulated atom and Adam) and vice versa. We argued that form-based or phonological ambiguity (present in our flapped stimuli) is one of the conditions leading to the activation of underlying representations. However, our flapped items were also lexically ambiguous (e.g., our casually articulated atom was ambiguous between Adam and atom). Is the long-term priming effect we observed for flapped and carefully articulated words lexically or sublexically mediated? In the present research we attempt to answer this question by examining form-based ambiguity in the absence of lexical ambiguity. Long-term repetition priming experiments were conducted with nonword stimuli that preserve form-based ambiguity (e.g., oytem, oydem) and flapped stimuli without lexical pairs (e.g., pretty). The results provide further insights into the conditions under which underlying representations are activated during spoken word processing.

Saber and Conocer

In the study of a foreign language, the mastery of distinctions between lexical pairs (two words with a common translation in another language) can be quite difficult. For English speakers learning Spanish, saber and conocer presents such a problem.' Though in many cases the domain of each of these verbs is well defined, there are contexts which cause confusion and disagreement, even among native speakers. Textbooks, grammars and dictionaries seem compound the problem, which is, I believe, twofold. In the first place, comprehensive but concise definitions of these verbs are lacking. Secondly, assuming that native speakers possess some common langue, or linguistic competence, there is a variance in actual usage which must be explained. After a preliminary search establish the nature and extent of the problem, I consulted a wide range of authorities, including a survey of native speakers, in an effort come up with broader, more viable definitions. In this paper I will attempt redefine these verbs in light of my findings, as well as explore some possible extra-linguistic factors affecting their usage. Most texts for beginning or intermediate students state the distinctions between saber and conocer simplistically. In one college elementary Spanish text, for example, the authors state, Saber means have knowledge of facts or information about something or someone. Conocer means know or be acquainted with a person or thing.2 In teaching with this text I have found such definitions inadequate even for the exercises provided. For example, the sentence Nosotros la historia de este pais leaves students confused as whether saber or conocer should be supplied. In a review grammar for second year students, saber is defined as to indicate something factual, used express the idea of 'to know how' or 'to know about' something. Conocer is defined as to indicate knowing in the sense of being acquainted with.3 In teaching with this book, I again met with confusion on the part of the students in dealing with the exercises immediately following the explanations. The exercise sentence El profesor las obras de Gald6s, for example, makes sense with either verb. The ideal explanation of the saber/conocer contrast would be simple enough for beginning students but broad enough cover all real linguistic situations. The key clarifying this confusion lies, I believe, in establishing the relationship between conocer and saber In this paper I will attempt show that conocer is a subset of saber and might be conceived as a tool or building block of saber In order elaborate on this theory, I will first contrast definitions of the two verbs, focusing on their essential differences. I will then attempt clarify contexts in which the definitions seem overlap, including in this discussion some ways in which philosophical theories of knowledge support the distinctions inherent in the meanings of the verbs saber and conocer Finally, I will present a summary of a survey of native speakers designed test the efficacy of standard definitions of saber and conocer in certain problematical areas of actual usage. A check of dictionary definitions reveals some confusion in the semantic boundaries of these two verbs. There are vague areas of overlap in which the same synonyms are used for each verb, and in some cases saber and conocer are used as synonyms for each other. This becomes especially apparent in a cross check of English-Spanish and Spanish-English *Articles for this section may be sent Prof. Yolanda R. Sol1, Dept. of Spanish and Portuguese, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712. Please send a typed original and copy for each paper submitted. Maximum length is 20 double-spaced pages.

On Sahaptian-Klamath Linguistic Affiliations

Previous articleNext article No AccessOn Sahaptian-Klamath Linguistic AffiliationsHaruo AokiHaruo Aoki Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUS Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditEmail SectionsMoreDetailsFiguresReferencesCited by International Journal of American Linguistics Volume 29, Number 2Apr., 1963 Article DOIhttps://doi.org/10.1086/464724 Views: 6Total views on this site Citations: 2Citations are reported from Crossref PDF download Crossref reports the following articles citing this article:Sharon Hargus, Virginia Beavert Northwest Sahaptin, Journal of the International Phonetic Association 44, no.33 (Nov 2014): 319–342.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0025100314000218Mary R. Haas American Indian Linguistic Prehistory, (Jan 1976): 23–58.https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-1559-0_2