Synonymous Groups Research Articles

Johann Joachim Becher (1635–1682), a little known opponent of Comenius’ Theory of Language and Language Learning

Summary Concerning the methods of language teaching, Johann Joachim Becher (1635–1682), one of the encyclopedic philosophers of the 17th century, stood in opposition to Jan Amos Comenius (1592–1670), the pedagogue of Europewide influence. He published Methodus didactica (1668) and Novum organon (1672), the latter being a universal nomenclator as they were popular in the 17th century. This nomenclator is organised according to Aristotelian categories which Becher saw expressed in word-classes. It assembles groups of synonyms in Latin and German under headwords which were taken as the simple notions, i.e., the building-blocks, of the human mind. Becher demanded didactic principles to be developed out of these linguistic assumptions. Whereas Comenius shaped his teaching methods according to the situational learning abilities of the individual, Becher regarded them as being dominated by the structures of language seen as structures of the mind, thus foreshadowing Cartesian thinking.

Complimentary DNA sequence data analysis of prokaryotic systems

Complimentary DNA sequence data of Φ × 174, fd, f1, G4, Ml3, MS2, λ and T7 phages ofEscherichia coli are analysed at mono-, di-, tri- and tetranucleotide levels. Our analysis shows that, (i) mononucleotides have certain preferences to occur at specific positions X1, X2, X3 of codon, (ii) These nucleotides interact nonlinearly to form dinucleotide and this dinucleotide also interacts nonlinearely with a third nucleotide to form codon, (iii) However, nonlinear interactions are negligible at tetranucleotide level suggesting that, coding regions of complimentary DNA are Markov chains of order two. Trinucleotide potential values in three frames have suggested that, at least thirteen different trinucleotides can be used as a marker to locate coding regions in DNA of prokaryotes. (iv) Parallel paired codons are expressed in such a way that one of the codons in the pair expresses with high frequency while the other with low frequency. On the other hand the complimentary codon pairs express with small frequency difference, (v) In the synonymous codon groups, codon ending with T are found to express with more frequency

The Chart Method in Definitology

THE CHART METHOD IN DEFINITOLOGY Alfred E. Karpovich Born in symbolic logic1 and developed by the American engineer E. Veitch,2 the chart method has subsequently been employed in automatic relay theory3 and eventually extrapolated to linguistics. In the 1960s and 1970s, when the era of structuralism reached Russia—although in the Soviet context it was not destined to develop —the chart method was used in the works of several Russian scholars (e.g., I. Arnold, L. Malakhovsky, N. Romanova and D. Doktorevich4). All of them seem to have followed the same direction in their endeavors to combine some element of symbolic logic with opposition theory as articulated for phonology by N. Trubetskoy and other Prague School structuralists.5 The Russian linguistic analysts of the Leningrad State University were commonly concerned with lexical semantics, the domain of linguistics unrelated to phonology. It was, however, a time of imitation and semasiologists spared no effort to become as rigorous in their methodology as phonologists had become. Some ofthem have obtained interesting data, particularly in the semantic exploration of the English noun, despite hostility of their more conservative colleagues.6 My first attempt to use some elements of symbolic logic and the opposition theory in my monolingual lexicographic research was made in the mid-70s when I was seeking an effective approach to the problem of dictionary definitions. I was interested in knowing what specific factors might determine and motivate the lexicographer 's choice of definition types or, in other words, if the choice is assumed as intuitive, what the items were that constituted and realized lexicographic intuition. In particular, I was concerned with the lexicographer's expe58 Alfred E. Karpovich59 rience, language skills, and linguistic expertise. Although intuition most likely begins in a mysterious way, its explanation must not rest upon mysticism but on the lexicographic matter itself. The following procedure has been constructed upon the afore-mentioned assumptions. For simplification, I worked with such English dictionaries for learners as M. West's or A. S. Hornby's from Great Britain and C. Barnhart's (with Thorndike or Lorge) in the United States.7 In the dictionaries ofthis type, definitions are actually clear-cut sentences containing brief and essential information about entry-words. The results of the research might also hold true for comprehensive dictionaries if certain modifications are introduced. Regardless of diverse individual systems, depending generally on the researcher's approach to the subject, the number of basic techniques involved in the defining operations almost never exceeds four or five. These are (a) transformations ofkernel patterns, viz. ofentry-words, e.g., "understandable—which (that) can be understood" or "comprehensible—that (which) can be understood or comprehended" (with the replacement of one of the structural components); (b) a synonym or a synonymous group, e.g., opulent explained through rich, or magnificent through splendid, excellent; (c) an antonym supplied with the NOT-particle or other negation, e.g., stupid—not clever; and (d) varied combinations of transformational depictions with synonyms, or a synonym with a notantonym , or a transform with a ???-antonym. Intuition seems to be almost the only tool in working out dictionary definitions. At the beginning of any research, intuition is an indispensable tool but later, during the operational procedure, it has to be replaced by some more objective means of a scientific value. There is another goal in view, too: I want to trace the operations of lexicographers in order to check their intuitive solutions. Although only adjectives were chosen for the procedure , I have some grounds to assume that it is quite pos- 60The Chart Method in Definitology sible to perform the same kind of operations on other classes (e.g., nouns and verbs). With the other classes, there would only be a different set ofdifferential features. The English adjective has no number-case-gender paradigms, and it is changed by the degrees of comparison only. Nonetheless, adjectives vary in their stylistic values , their morphological structures, and in their semantic characteristics (qualitative, relative, numerical). As their usage frequencies come into effect, their quantitative differences also become apparent. Thus, despite their poor explicit properties, the adjectives do alter, at least, by four variable characteristics. All operations, provided by the chart...

Semantiniai daiktavardžio poslinkiai subordinacinio bilingvizmo sąlygomis

Semantic shift, or loanshift extension (in Haugen’s terminology) of the noun is studied under conditions of subordinate bilingualism. The linguistic corpus elicited from Lithuanian periodicals in the USA and Canada as well as from the speech of immigrants whose primary language, Lithuanian (L1), has for several decades been in contact with American English (L2) yields the following generalizations: (1) In the case of multiple lexical units (i. e. derivative and compound nouns), an identical inner form (i. e. an identical arrangement of synonymous morphemes) may also be a point of contact which together with synonymy works in creating the extension of meaning. (2) Interlingual identification of lexemes may also be convergent or divergent (as in diaphonic identification), but in either case it leads to the adjustment of whole synonymic groups of nouns of the two languages. (3) For a big group of Lithuanian nouns, semantic shift is accompanied by transfers “mass noun count noun”. (4) Semantic interference of the L2 noun sometimes manifests itself only by removing some combinatorial semantic restrictions which apply to the synonymous noun in L1. (5) Some nouns in L1 acquire metaphoric and metonymic meanings of L2 nouns. (6) Homologous extension of meaning is more intensive and extensive than synonymous extension of meaning.