Analogous thoughts are also displayed by some foreign authors. Tyshler points that words produced by means of conversion are not lexical-grammatical homonyms as in this case there is no semantic gap between them Tyshlerp. Consistent application of these definitions to each concrete case of material identity of lexemes will answer the question whether the word identity is preserved or torn.
Katsnelson Katsnelsonp. As far as semantic criterion is concerned, it is universal and may Integral theory of polysemy applied to all cases Integral theory of polysemy it is necessary to establish the difference between polysemy and homonymy.
The very fact of acquiring by a sememe a new part-of-speech seme can not necessarily lead to homonymy. Kovalevskaya speaks about a possibility for a word to function as two parts of speech Kovalevskayap.
Morphological indicators of part-of-speech status are additional, secondary, supplementary. Such definitions reveal the very essence of polysemy — coexistence in the semantic structure of a word of several meanings which relations with each other are those of semantic derivation.
The main and the only! Schematically it may be illustrated as follows: The existence of polysemy is due to the law of asymmetric duality of a language sign, opened by S.
The difference is in the grammatical or functional meaning, the part played in the sentence pattern. The reason of considering sememes with different part-of-speech semes belonging to one and the same lexeme in case of lexical-grammatical variation is the identity of lexical meanings, in case of lexical-grammatical polysemy — their semantic derivation.
The problem of differentiation between polysemy and homonymy has become traditional. One can assume that in case of a unit functioning as different parts of speech we deal not with homonyms and not with word-formation, but with a special type of polysemy — the polysemy at the part-of-speech level or lexical-grammatical polysemy.
In case of lexical-grammatical polysemy both criteria are observed as the very notion of polysemy presupposes both the existence of one lexeme and semantic derivation of its sememes. It should be pointed out that the definitions of homonymy, like those of polysemy, do not differ greatly.
Two-level hierarchical description of polysemy allows us to raise the question of creation of Integral Theory of Polysemy encompassing all levels and all cases of polysemy. Some authors use the terms substantivation,adverbialisation, adjectivation, prepositionalisation, etc.
Lexical-grammatical variation together with lexical polysemy, each of which realizes only one type of polysemy out of the two possible, will constitute the lower level in this hierarchy while lexical-grammatical polysemy realizing both possible types of derivation — lexical and lexical-grammatical will form its upper level.
This centre of coordination may be expressed in the sentence explicitly or may be left implicit. The first of these terms was used by prof.
Katsnelson applies this term not to all cases of polysemy at the part-of-speech level, but only to a special type of such polysemy. This lexical meaning presupposes indication of a certain centre of spatial coordination relative to which location or direction is determined.
We have already stated that the definitions of both polysemy and homonymy are of semantic character. In case of absence of strict definitions no additional criteria would save the situation Apresyanp. They just confirm functioning of the word in a new lexical-grammatical meaning but not determine it.
The reasons of all kinds of polysemy mentioned are also common and are due to the asymmetric duality of a language sign and the language tendency to economy.
The notion of polysemy in this theory is essentially extended and is applied to both lexical and grammatical language levels.
Besides, as it will be shown below, S. Sememes possessing different part-of-speech semes have as a rule different orphological indication.Integral Theory of Polysemy Essay INTEGRAL THEORY OF POLYSEMY Integral Theory of Polysemy is agued which represents the most general view on the problem of polysemy.
The notion of polysemy is essentially extended and is applied to both lexical and grammatical language levels.
Integral Theory is a meta-theory developed initially by the contemporary American philosopher Ken Wilber. A "meta"-theory because it is a theory about theories., about human knowledge itself, the goal being of integrating all current human knowled.
Integral Theory of Polysemy is agued which represents the most general view on the problem of polysemy. The notion of polysemy is essentially extended and is applied to both lexical and grammatical language levels. Integral theory of polysemy is agued which represents the most general view on the problem of polysemy.
The notion of polysemy is essentially extended and is applied to both lexical and. Integral theory is Ken Wilber's attempt to place a wide diversity of theories and thinkers into one single framework.
It is portrayed as a "theory of everything" ("the living Totality of matter, body, mind, soul, and spirit"). Integral Theory also recognizes that people have access to a variety of states of consciousness that are available at any stage of development. These include waking, dreaming, and deep sleep as well as phenomenal emotional states, meditative states, and drug-induced states.Download