Connotative vs. Denotative Vocabulary

Oleh Imam Husnul Hatimah
Words are not limited to one single meaning. Most words have multiple meanings, which are categorized as either denotative or connotative. The denotation of a word is its explicit definition as listed in a dictionary. Let’s use the word “home” as an example. The denotative or literal meaning of “home” is “ a place where one lives; a residence.” Hint: Denotation, denotative, definition, and dictionary all start with the letter ‘D.

The expressiveness of language, however, comes from the other type of word meaning—connotation, or the association or set of associations that a word usually brings to mind . The connotative meaning of “home” is a place of security, comfort, and family. When Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz says, “There’s no place like home,” she’s not referring to its denotation, but the emotions “home” evokes for her and most people.

Connotation Determines Use
The connotative anddenotativemeanings of words are both correct, but a word’s connotation determines when it is used. By definition, synonyms have the same denotation or literal meaning, but almost always have different connotations, or shades of meaning. For example, the synonyms of “boat” include ship, yacht, dinghy, and ferry. All these words refer to the same thing, but each elicits a different association in the reader's mind.

Connotative and Denotative Vocabulary Exercises
Connotative anddenotativevocabulary exercises test your understanding of how word choice affects the meaning of what you say and write. A quiz may ask you to select words or write sentences that convey positive, neutral, or negative connotations. For example, notice how the sentence meaning shifts when the underlined word is changed:
 Positive: Sally was an enthusiastic member her sorority.
 Neutral: Sally was an active member of her sorority.
 Negative: Sally was a fanatical member of her sorority.

Shades of Meaning Activities
Create your own connotative, or shades if meaning, activity worksheet. Make three columns on a sheet of paper with the headings “positive,” “neutral,” and “negative.” Select a paragraph from a reading assignment and record words of differing connotation. Next, rewrite sentences from the paragraph, substituting synonyms that have different connotations. Observe how the intent of each sentence changes.
You can also try this site’s Slang game. It shows you expressions using connotations and you have to guess the denotation, or literal definition, of the phrase.

Political Correctness
The main lesson: Always consider a word’s denotation and connotation if you want to avoid misinterpretation. In recent years, “political correctness” has swept through the English language, due to our increased sensitivity to negative connotations. While some ridicule it as being “PC,” expressions such as “differently-abled” (instead of “crippled”) have had a positive effect on society.
Play one of our free games for more word exercises! We suggest you start with Crosswords, Slang, or SAT Vocabulary. Try a game now and let us know what you think!
DENOTATIVE AND CONNOTATIVE MEANING
Now we’re going to explain the difference between the denotative and connotative meaning of words. This is a bit similar to what we learned about in our last Instruction: the difference between words’ literal and figurative meanings.
The denotative meaning of a word is its literal meaning – the definition you’d find in the dictionary. Take the word “mother,” for example. The dictionary would define mother as “a female parent.” OK, but the word “mother” probably creates emotions and feelings in you: it paints a picture in your mind. You may think of love and security or you may think of your own mother. The emotions and feelings that a word creates are called its connotative meaning.
Let us give you another example, the word “cat.” The denotative meaning (how the dictionary defines “cat”) is: “a carnivorous mammal, domesticated as a rat catcher or pet.” But what is its connotative meaning? It depends. If you like cats, the word “cat” may suggest graceful motion, affectionate playfulness, noble reserve and admirable self sufficiency. If you don’t, the word might suggest stealthiness, spitefulness, coldness and haughty disdain.
This brings up an important point about connotation, because there are two different kinds of it -- personal connotation and general connotation. Personal connotation is what we’ve just described with the word “cat.” It’s the emotions or feelings a word creates in you or in any one individual.
General connotation is different – it’s what a word means to a large group of people; a mind picture that is shared. Take a man’s beard, for example. In Victorian times, the image of a bearded man was that of a proper older gentleman – a grandfather, perhaps. But in the1960’s, a bearded man came to mean “unshaven hippie.” General connotation doesn’t mean that everybody in the world thinks the same way about something, just that large groups of people do.
When many words with strong connotations appear in the same news report, that news report is said to be “slanted” or “loaded.” This means that the words have been chosen to create either a favorable or unfavorable impression. Professor Vosovic of Stanford University has written two different accounts of the same event:
A. Five teenagers were loitering on the corner. As their raucous laughter cut through the air, we noticed their sloppy black leather jackets and their greasy dyed hair. They slouched against a building with cigarettes dangling contemptuously from their mouths.

B. Five youngsters stood on the corner. As the joy of their laughter filled the air, we noticed their smooth loose-fitting jackets and the gleam of their colorful hair. They relaxed against a building smoking evenly on cigarettes that seemed almost natural in their serious
young mouths.
The same event, yes. But two very different accounts of it. How does each report make you feel?
Since there are many words with negative connotations, people often use a form of speech called a euphemism to try and say the same thing in a more positive or pleasant way. Instead of saying “you’re fired,” they say “we’re downsizing.” Instead of talking about a corpse, they use the word “remains.” Instead of calling somebody “short,” they say “vertically challenged.” Since many people try not to offend, which of course is good, we end up with some pretty weird euphemisms – many coined in the name of Political Correctness and some made up just to be funny or have fun.
Translations from one language to another are often subject to great debate, since the connotative meaning of a word can be quite different from one language to another. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew. In English, the Sixth Commandment has been translated as “Thou shalt not kill.” This Commandment has been invoked against everything from killing in self defense to bearing arms in time of war. Scholars believe that the original Hebrew term for “to kill” actually meant “murder.” So the proper translation of the Commandment should actually be: “Thou shalt do no murder.”
Misunderstandings occur between people of different cultures every day just because a word or group of words means different things to them. If we are all sensitive to this and try learn about these cultural differences, we may be able to figure out better ways to get along.
Now let's do Practice Exercise 1-6 (top)

Summary
You have now completed Lesson 1 on Word Analysis, Fluency and Vocabulary Development and are ready to do the Problem and Test sections. You may wish to review any or all of the topics before answering the questions that follow. You may also wish to obtain additional material from the links below before answering the questions

MAKNA DENOTATIF, MAKNA KONOTATIF, DAN MAKNA AFEKTIF
A. MAKNA DENOTATIF
Makna denotatif adalah makna dalam alam wajar secara eksplisit. Makna wajar ini adalah makna yang sesuai dengan apa adanya. Denotatif adalah suatu pengertian yang dikandung sebuah kata secara objektif. Sering juga makna denotatif disebut maka konseptual, makna denotasional atau makna kognitif karena dilihat dari sudut yang lain. Pada dasarnya sama dengan makna referensial sebab makna denotasi ini lazim diberi penjelasan sebagai makna yang sesuai dengan hasil menurut penglihatan, penciuman, pendengaran, perasaan, atau pengalaman lainnya.
Denotasi adalah hubungan yang digunakan di dalam tingkat pertama pada sebuah kata yang secara bebas memegang peranan penting di dalam ujaran (Lyons, I, 1977:208). Dalam beberapa buku pelajaran, makna denotasi sering juga disebut makna dasar, makna asli, atau makna pusat.
Dari beberapa pengertian di atas dapat disimpulkan bahwa makna denotasi adalah makna sebenarnya yang apa adanya sesuai dengan indera manusia. Kata yang mengandung makna denotatif mudah dipahami karena tidak mengandung makna yang rancu walaupun masih bersifat umum. Makna yang bersifat umum ini maksudnya adalah makna yang telah diketahui secara jelas oleh semua orang. Berikut ini beberapa contoh kata yang mengandung makna denotatif:
1. Dia adalah wanita cantik
Kata cantik ini diucapkan oleh seorang pria terhadap wanita yang berkulit putih, berhidung mancung, mempunyai mata yang indah dan berambut hitam legam.
2. Tami sedang tidur di dalam kamarnya.
Kata tidur ini mengandung makna denotatif bahwa Tami sedang beristirahat dengan memejamkan matanya (tidur).
Masih banyak contoh kata-kata lain yang mengandung makna denotatif selama kata itu tidak disertai dengan kata lain yang dapat membentuk makna yang berbeda seperti contoh kata wanita yang makna denotasinya adalah seorang perempuan dan bukan laki-laki. Namun bila kata wanita disertai dengan kata malam (wanita malam) maka akan menghasilkan makna lain yaitu wanita yang dikonotasikan sebagai wanita nakal.
B. MAKNA KONOTATIF
makna konotatif adalah makna semua komponen pada kata ditambah beberapa nilai mendasar yang biasanya berfungsi menandai. Menurut Harimurti (1982:91) “aspek makna sebuah atau sekelompok kata yang didasrkan atas perasaan atau pikiran yang timbul atau ditimbulkan pada pembicara (penulis) dan pendengar (pembaca)”.
Sebuah kata disebut mempunyai makna konotatif apabila kata itu mempunyai “nilai rasa”, baik positif maupun negatif. Jika tidak memiliki nilai rasa maka dikatakan tidak memiliki konotasi, tetapi dapat juga disebut berkonotasi netral. Positif dan negatifnya nilai rasa sebuah kata seringkali juga terjadi sebagai akibat digunakannya referen kata itu sebagai sebuah perlambang. Jika digunakan sebagai lambang sesuatu yang positif maka akan bernilai rasa yang positif; dan jika digunakan sebagai lambang sesuatu yang negatif maka akan bernilai rasa negatif. Misalnya, burung garuda karena dijadikan lambang negara republik Indonesia maka menjadi bernilai rasa positif sedangkan makna konotasi yang bernilai rasa negatif seperti buaya yang dijadikan lambang kejahatan. Padahal binatang buaya itu sendiri tidak tahu menahu kalau dunia manusia Indonesia menjadikan mereka lambang yang tidak baik.
Makna konotasi sebuah kata dapat berbeda dari satu kelompok masyarakat yang satu dengan kelompok masyarakat yang lain, sesuai dengan pandangan hidup dan norma-norma penilaian kelompok masyarakat tersebut. Misalnya kata babi, di daerah-daerah yang penduduknya mayoritas beragama islam, memiliki konotasi negatif karena binatang tersebut menurut hukum islam adalah haram dan najis. Sedangkan di daerah-daerah yang penduduknya mayoritas bukan islam seperti di pulau Bali atau pedalama Irian Jaya, kata babi tidak berkonotasi negatif.
Makna konotatif dapat juga berubah dari waktu ke waktu. Misalnya kata ceramah dulu kata ini berkonotasi negatif karena berarti “cerewet” tetapi sekarang konotasinya positif. Sebaliknya kata perempuan dulu sebelum zaman Jepang berkonotasi netral, tetapi kini berkonotasi negatif.

Pengertian Makna Denotatif, Konotatif, Lugas, Kias, Leksikal, Gramatikal, Umum dan Khusus

1. Pengertian Makna Denotasi

Makna denotasi adalah makna yang sebenarnya yang sama dengan makna lugas untuk menyampaikan sesuatu yang bersifat faktual. Makna pada kalimat yang denotatif tidak mengalami perubahan makna.

Contoh :
- Mas parto membeli susu sapi
- Dokter bedah itu sering berpartisipasi dalam sunatan masal

2. Pengertian Makna Konotasi

Makna konotasi adalah makna yang bukan sebenarnya yang umumnya bersifat sindiran dan merupakan makna denotasi yang mengalami penambahan.

Contoh :
- Para petugas gabungan merazia kupu-kupu malam tadi malam (kupu-kupu malam = wts)
- Bu Marcella sangat sedih karena terjerat hutang lintah darat (lintah darat = rentenir)

3. Arti Definisi / Pengertian Makna Lugas

Makna lugas adalah makna yang sesungguhnya dan mirip dengan makna denotatif.

Contoh :
- Olahragawan itu senang memelihara codot hitam
- Pak Kimung minum teh sisri di pematang sawah

4. Arti Definisi / Pengertian Makna Kias

Makna kias adalah makna yang bukan sebenarnya yang sama dengan makna konotatif.

Contoh :
- Pegawai yang malas itu makan gaji buta (makan = menerima)
- Si Kadut senang terbang bersama miras oplosan beracun (terbang = mabok)

5. Arti Definisi / Pengertian Makna Leksikal

Makna leksikal adalah makna yang tetap tidak berubah-ubah sesuai dengan makna yang ada di kamus.

Contoh :
- toko
- obat
- mandi

6. Arti Definisi / Pengertian Makna Gramatikal

Makna gramatikal adalah makna yang dapat berubah sesuai dengan konteks pemakaian. Kata tersebut mengalami proses gramatikalisasi pada pemajemukan, imbuhan dan pengulangan.

Contoh :
- Bersentuhan = saling bersentuhan
- Berduka = dama keadaan duka
- Berenam = sekumpulan enam orang
- Berjalan = melakukan kegiatan / aktivitas jalan

7. Arti Definisi / Pengertian Makna Umum

Makna umum adalah makna yang memiliki ruang lingkup cakupan yang luas dari kata yang lain.

Contoh :
- Masykur senang makan buah-buahan segar
- Tukang palak itu sering memalak kendaraan umum yang lewat
- Anak yang cacat fisik dan mental itu tidak punya harta

8. Arti Definisi / Pengertian Makna Khusus

Makna umum adalah makna yang memiliki ruang lingkup cakupan yang sempit dari kata yang lain.

Contoh :
- Masykur senang makan jamblang segar
- Tukang palak itu sering memalak bis kopaja yang lewat
- Anak yang cacat fisik dan mental itu tidak punya ruma

Read More...... Read more...

SYNONYM and ANTONYM

Idris PBI
Synonymy is the relationship between two predicates that have the same sense.
Example : In most dialects of English, stubborn and obstinate are synonym.
In many dialects, brigand and bandit are synonyms.
In many dialects, mercury and quicksilver are synonyms.

Example of perfect synonymy are hard to find, perhaps because there is little point in a dialect having two predicates with exactly the same sense. Note that our definition of synonymy requires identify of sense. This is a stricter definition than is sometimes given : sometimes synonymy is defined as similarity of meaning, a definition which is vaguer than ours. The price we pay for our rather strict definition is that very view examples of synonymy, so defined, can be found.
Clearly the notions of synonymy and sense are interdependent. You can’t understand one without understanding the other. These concepts are best communicated by a range of example. In general, when dealing with sense relations, we shall stick to clear cases. (We admit the existence of many genuinely unclear, borderline cases). In considering the sense of the word, we abstract away from any stylistic, social, or dialectal association the word may have. We concentrate on what has been called the cognitive or conceptual meaning of the word.
Example : How many kids have you got ?
How many children have you got ?
Here we would say that kids and children have the same sense, although clearly they differ in style, or formality.
Synonym is a relation between predicates, and not between words (i.e. word forms). Recall that a word may have many different senses, each distinct sense of a word (of the kind we are dealing with) is a predicate. When necessary, we distinguish between predicates by giving them subscript number. For example, hide¹ could be the intransitive verb, as in let’s hide from Mummy, hide² could be transitive verb, as in Hide your sweeties under the pillow, hide³ could be the noun, as in We watched the bird from a hide, and hide4 could be the noun, as in The hide of an ox weighs 200 lbs. The first three senses here (the first three predicates) are clearly related to each other in meaning, whereas the fourth is related. It is because of the ambiguity of most words that we had formulate practice questions about synonym in terms of sentences. The sentence The thief tried to hide the evidence, for example, make is clear that one is dealing with the predicate hide² (the transitive verb). Hide² is a synonym of conceal.

The definition of synonymi as relationship between the sense of words requires a clear separation of all the different senses of a words, even though some of these sense may be quite closely related, as with hide¹, hide², and hide³.
All of the examples so far have been of synonymy between predicates realized grammatically by a word of the same part of speech, for example between adjective and adjective, as with deep and profound. But the notion of synonymy can be extended to hold between words of different part of speech, for example between the verb sleeping and the adjective asleep. Example like these are not the kind usually given of synonymy, but they help to make the point that the sense of a word does not depend entirely on it’s part of speech. Grammar and meaning are separate though closely of language.
ANTONYMY

A traditional view of antonymy is that it is simply ‘oppositeness’ of meaning’. This view is not adequate, as word may be opposite in meaning in different ways, and some words have no real opposites.
Hot is not the opposite of cold in the same way as borrow is the opposite of lend. Thick is not the opposite of thin in the same way as dead is the opposite of alive.

Basic types of antonymy :
a. Binary antonymy
Binary antonyms are predicates which come in pairs and between them exhaust all the relevant possibilities. If the one predicate is applicable, than the other cannot be, and vice versa.
Example : true and false
If a sentence is true, it cannot be false. If it is false, it cannot be true.
Sometimes two different binary antonym can combine in a set of predicates to produce a four-way contrast.
Example : The word man, woman, girl can be placed appropriately in the following chart.

male female
Adult man woman
Non-adult boy girl

We see that combination of binary antonyms produce more complicated (e.g. four-way) system of contrast, but then within such systems the most natural way to pairs of antonyms is along the same dimension, e.g. man vs. woman (along the male/female dimension), but not man vs. girl (cutting across both dimension).



b. Converses
If a predicates describes a relationship between two things (or people) and some other predicate describes the relationship when the two things (or people) are mentioned in the opposite order, then the two predicates are converses of each other.

Example : parent and child are converses, because X is the parent of Y (one order) describes the same situation (relationship) as Y is the child of X (opposite order).

The notation of converseness can be applied to example in which three things (or people) are mentioned. The case of buy and sell in one such example.
In both types of antonymy discussed so far, binary antonymy and converseness, the antonym come in pairs. Between them, the members of a pair of binary antonym fully fill the area in which they can be applied. Such areas can be thought of as miniature semantic system. Thus, for example, male and female between them constitute the English sex system, true and false are the member of the truth system etc. Other such system can have three, or four, or any number of members.
What these system have in common is that (a) all the terms is a given system cover all the relevant area. For instance, a playing card cannot belong to both the hearts suit and the spade suit. And beside hearts, clubs, diamonds, and spades, there are no other suits. System such as there are called system of multiple incapability.


c. Gradable Antonyms
Two predicates are gradable antonyms if they are at opposite ends of a continuous scale of values (a scale which typically varies according to the context of use).
Example : Hot and Cold are gradable antonyms.
Between hot and cold is a continuous scale of values, which may be given names such as warm, cool, or tepid. What is called hot in one context (e.g. of even temperatures in a recipe book) could well be classed as cold in another context (e.g. the temperatures of stars.)

A good test for grad ability, (i.e. having a value on some continuous scale, as gradable antonyms do, is to see whether a word can combine with very, or very much, or how? Or how much? For example, How tall is he? Is acceptable, but How top is that self ? Is not generally acceptable.

d. Contradictories
A proposition is a contradictory of another proposition if it is impossible for them both to be true at the same time and of the same circumstances. The definition can be naturally be extended to sentences, thus a sentences expressing one proposition is a contradictory of a sentence expressing another proposition if it is impossible for both propositions to be true at the same time and of the same circumstances. Alternatively (and equivalently) a sentence contradicts another sentence if it entails the negation of the other sentence.
Example : this beetle is alive is contradictory of This beetle is dead.

Read More...... Read more...

SOME SIMPLE LOGIC

Idris PBI
Logic is a word that means many things to different people. Many everyday uses of the words logic and logical could be replaced by expressions such us reasonable behavior. For instance, “Sue acted logically in locking the door”, meaning that Sue had good, well-thought- out reasons for doing what she did. We shall use the words logic and logical in a narrower sense, familiar to semanticists. We give a partial definition of our sense of logic below.

Logic deals with meaning in a language system, not with actual behavior of any sort. Logic deals most centrally with proposition. The term “logic” and “logical” do not apply directly to utterances (which are instance of behavior).
There is an important connection between logic (even in our narrow sense) and rational action, but it is wrong to equate the two. Logic is just one contributing factor in rational behavior. Rational behavior involves :
1) Goals, assumption and knowledge about existing states of affairs
2) Calculations, base on these assumptions and knowledge, leading to ways of achieving of the goals.
Example :
Goal : to alleviate my hunger
Assumption and knowledge : a). Hunger is alleviated by eating food.
b). Cheese is food.
c). There is a piece of cheese in front of me.
d). I am able to eat this piece of cheese.
Word such as and, or, and note are not predicates and cannot be use as referring expressions. Logic calls such words connectives. The kind of meaning that is involved is structural, i.e. it deals with the whole structures, rather than with individual items within proposition, such as names and predicates. It is possible to talk of the extensions (or, more loosely, the denotation) of names and predicates take in isolation but it is not possible to imagine extensions or denotations for words such as and, or, if, and not taken isolation. It follow from the special structural nature of the meaning of connectives that they are topic-Free and hence more basic, or general. A topic free meaning is one that can be involved in discourse or conversation on any topic whatever, without restriction.
Generic sentence have a different a logical form from non generic sentences. The two sentence type express logically different types of proposition. They would therefore be represented by different types of formula in logical notation and the logical rules of inference working on these formula would arrive at different conclusion in the two cases, as is appropriate.
A system of logic, like a system of arithmetic, consist of two things , (1) a notation (in effect, a definition of all possible proper formulae in the system) and (2) a set of rules (for calculation with the formulae in various ways).
We will give some informal examples of the kind of rules of calculation that is necessary (or to exclude) in a logical system which captures the essence of rational human thought.
The case of valid argument here are example of basic rules of logical inference. The case of invalid argument example of some well-known logical fallacies. Obviously, a logical system should not permit any fallacious argument. The first example make use of a logical rule generally known by the Latin name modus ponens.
Modus ponens is a rule of stating that if a proposition P entails a proposition Q, and P is true, than Q is true. Put in the form of a diagram, modus ponens look like this :
P Q
P
Q

The formulae above the line in this diagram represent the proppsition which are the premise of the argument, and the letter below the line represent the proposition which is the conclusion of the argument. Note that is logical rule only mentions whole proposition. It is does not go into details concerning the various parts of proposition, e.g. it is does not mention name of predicates. It is a very simple rule.




Notation for Simple Proposition
Logic provides a notation for ambiguously representing the essential of proposition. Logic has in fact beeb extremely selective in the part of language it has dealt with have been treated in great depth.
The notation we adopt here is closer to English, and therefore easier for beginners to handle, than the rather more technical notation found in some logic books and generally in the advanced literature of logic.
We assume that simple proposition, like simple sentences, have just one predicator, which we write in CAPITAL LETTERS. The arguments of the predicator we presented by single lowercase letters, putting one of these letters before the predicator ( like the subject of an English subject) and the others (if there are others) after the predicator, usually in the preferred English word order. Anything that is not a predicator or of referring expression is simply omitted.
Example : Abraham died would be represented by the formula a DIE.
Fido is a dog by f DOG
Idris loves Aisyah by i LOVE a
Irfun introduced Khmaerah to Idris by i INTRODUCE k i.
These formulae are very bare stripped down to nothing but names and predicators. The reasons for eliminating elements such as forms of the verb be, articles (a, the, tense markers (past, present), and certain proposition are partly a matter of convenience. These most serious principle involved is the traditional concentration of logic of truth.
Logic, then, tell us nothing about goals, or assumptions, or action in themselves. It simply provides rules (or calculation which may be used to get a rational being from goals and assumption to action. There is a close analogy between logic and arithmetic (which why we have used the word calculations).
‘arithmetical fact’ does not mean just fact involving numbers in some way, but rather fact arising from the system of rules defining addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. A similarity between arithmetic and logic is the unthinkability of alternatives.
Example : ‘2 + 2 = 5’ is unthinkable. We can say the word easily enough, there is no way that we can put together the concepts behind ‘2’, ‘+’, ‘=’, and ‘5’ so that they fit what ‘2 + 2 =5’ seem to mean. This is an a arithmetical contradiction.
The concept of contradiction and analyticity are fundamental in logic, so that logic and the study of sense relations to a large extent share the same outlook and goals. But there is a small different of emphasis. The above example are all centered around a small set of words, namely and, or, not, and some. It is the concepts behind these words the logician have singled out of special attention. These words are thought of as belonging to a small set constituting the logical vocabulary.
Although one may, of course, take a legitimate interest in the meaning of individual predicates such as red, round, or ruthless (as linguists and dictionary writers do), and understanding of the meaning of such as basic words as and, if, or, and not is more central to the enterprise of semantics, the study of meaning. An early book on logic was called The Lows of Thought, and thi is the view we take of the subject. Logic analyzes the basis of so-called logical thought. (Proposition can be grasped by the mind, i.e. they can be the object of thought). Thought are notoriously difficult things to talk about, since we can physically experience them, correspondingly, it is difficult to talk clearly and systematically about proposition, as the logician tries to do.
In the units the follow, we will introduce a logical notation, a specially developed way of representing proposition unambiguously. The notation will include a few special symbols, for example, &, V, ~ , and will learn some rules for putting logical formulae together correctly, using these symbols.
Example : Idris Abdullahi and Inayah Khumaerah are married is ambiguous, being paraphrasable either as :
Idris Abdullahi and Inayah Khumaerah is married to someone
In logical notation, the first interpretation (proposition) here could be represented by the formula:
( I MARRIED TO I ) & ( I MARRIED TO I)

In addition to providing a means for representing the various meaning of ambiguous sentences, logical notation brings another advantage, that is formulae can be used much more systematically than ordinary language sentences for making the calculations that we mentioned at the beginning of this unit. We illustrate below some of the difficulties that arise when trying to state the rules for logical calculations in terms of ordinary language sentences.
The problem is that pairs of sentences with similar or identical grammatical forms may sometimes have different logical forms. In order to state rules of calculations, or ‘rules inference’ completely systematically, these rules have to work on representation of the logical form of sentences, rather than on the grammatical form of the sentences themselves. Here are some examples :
1. A plant normally gives off oxygen
A geranium is plant therefore
A geranium normally gives off oxygen
The truth of the third sentence follows necessarily from the truth of the first two.
2. A plant suddenly fell off the window-sill
A geranium is a plant therefore
A geranium suddenly fell of the window sill
The truth of the third sentence above does not follow the truth of the first two.
The two trios of sentence above are of similar grammatical form.
The crucial difference between the two cases above lies in their first sentences. A plant gives off oxygen is a generic sentence and A plant fell off the window sill is neither a generic nor an equities sentence.

Generic sentence have a different logical form from non-generic sentences. The two sentence types express logically different types of proposition. They would there be represented by different types of formulae in formulae in logical notation and the logical rules of inference working on these formulae would arrive at different conclusions in the two cases, as is appropriate.
An analogy may again be made between logic and arithmetic. The Arabic notation used in arithmetic is simple, useful, and familiar. Logical notation is equally simple, equally useful in its own sphere, and can become equally familiar with relatively little effort or difficulty. As with arithmetic, learning to use the system sharpens up the mind. In particular, learning to translate ordinary language sentences into appropriate logical formulae is a very good exercise to develop precise thinking about the meanings of sentences. (Of course, logic does not involve any specific numerical ability).
A system logic, like a system of arithmetic, consist of two things: a notation (in effect, a definition of all possible proper formulae in various ways). To conclude this unit, we will give some informal examples of the kind f rules of calculation that it is necessary to include (or to exclude) in a logical system which captures the essence of rational thought.
The cases valid of argument here are examples of logical inference. The cases of invalid argument are examples of some well-known logical fallacies. Obviously, a logical system should not permit any fallacious arguments.
Rule : Modus Ponens is a rule stating that if a proposition P entails a proposition Q, and P is true, then Q is true. Put in the form a the diagram, Modus Ponens looks like this:
P Q
P
---------------
Q

Read More...... Read more...

Improving the Students’ Ability in Speaking through Using Sensations and Feelings at the Second Year of SMAN 1 of Sungguminasa Gowa

Oleh Nurmayanti (20401106196)
The students have been taught about English especially speaking, listening, writing and reading. Special for learning about listening, writing and reading, they should not be worry because there are many medias, facilities and the teacher has many great methods to teach them. The most difficult in learning English is speaking. This is one reason why many of us were shocked and disappointed when we used our second or foreign language for the first time in real interaction: we had not been prepared for spontaneous communication and could not cope with all of its simultaneous demands. That is, speaking is an “activity requiring the integration of many subsystems…. All these factors combine to make speaking a second or foreign language a formidable task for language learners….yet for many people, speaking is seen as the central skill” (Bailey and savage 199empat, p. vi-vii). (Anne Lazaraton, 2001 in Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 2001:103).

Speaking is the skill by which learners are most frequently judged and through which they make and lose friends. It is the vehicle par excellence of social solidarity, social ranking, of professional advancement and of business. It is also the medium through which much language is learnt. (bygate, 1987) .

Speaking is the productive skill in oral mode. There are many facilities, methods, medias in learning it, but how to produce the word is difficult. We need the high capability to express our opinion such as how to express our experience. There are many students feel difficult to retell their experience, but in fact, it is so easy because we have undergone, it means that we just need a few minutes to recall it in our mind.

Sensations and feelings will be helpful the students to express their sensation and feeling. Learners are asked to remember situations where they experienced certain physical sensations or emotions. It is more easily to speak.

B. Problem Statements

Based on the previous background above, the researcher formulated research question as a follows: how is to improve speaking through sensations and feelings to the students of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa?

C. Objective of the Research

The aim of the researcher is finding out the effectiveness of using sensations and feelings to improve the student’s Speaking Ability at the Second Year of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa.

D. The Significance of the Research

The result of the research is expected to be useful information for English teacher especially in speaking ability about the usage of sensations and feelings to increase their knowledge. It is hoped that it gives a meaningful contribution to the students to improve their speaking ability.

E. The Scope of the Research

This research is limited to the teaching English at the second year student of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa. The researcher focused on the effectiveness of using sensations and feelings especially in speaking class.

E. Definition of Terms

In this section, the writer would like to give the operational definition of the topics:

1. Speaking

Speaking is the skill by which learners are most frequently judged and through which they make and lose friends. It is the vehicle par excellence of social solidarity, social ranking, of professional advancement and of business. It is also the medium through which much language is learnt. (bygate, 1987).

Based on the definition above, the writer can conclude that speaking is a skill to do interaction by expressing our mind, idea, opinion for all of cases and matters in our surrounding through our sound system in our society solidarity to show our mutual understanding with each other.

2. Ability

Hornby (2000) defined ability is the mental or physical capacity, power or skill required to do something.

By seeing Hornby’s definition, the writer can conclude that ability is a mental capacity to express our mind in doing something.

3. Sensations and Feelings

Sensation is feeling, uproar. (id/146024/masaji/dictionary/m5r9-74930ca26). Sensation is sense, impression, perception, suspicion, presentiment, (id/197667/fxosyn/dictionary/m5r9-72ec806f4).

The definition of feeling are:

a. [C] something felt through the mind or the senses

b. [sing] belief; vague idea: a-thatsomething awful is going to happen

c. [U, C] attitude or an opinion

d. (feelings) [pl] sb’s emotions rather than thoughts

e. [U] ability to feel physically[IDM] bad/ill feeling anger between people, esp after an argument.

The relation of sensations and feelings in this matter is, the students are asked to get together with their couple and they ask each other like;

Student A: Can you remember a time when you felt really afraid?

Student B: Yes, I can.

Student A: When was it?

Student B: when I was in Bantimurung. I jumped when there was a frog nearby me. I was really afraid.

Student A: ….

Student B: ….

The sensation on the example above is expressed by the student B, “jumped”. And feeling expression is “afraid”.

Sensations and feelings focus on the learners experiences. It can be easy to be expressed by the learners because they just need to recall what they have undergone and they have felt

G. Method of the research

This research, the researcher presents the design of the research, population and sample, instrument of the research, procedures of collecting data and techniques of data analysis.

1. Research Design

The design is experimental design with pre test and post test design. The comparison between pre test and post test score depend on the success of the treatments. The design :

Pre-test


ttrTreatment


Post-test

O1


X


O2



Notes: O1= the result of the students pre test

X = the treatment by using sensations and feelings

O2= the result of the students post test

(Gay, 1980:177)

2. Population and Sample

a. Population

The population of the research will be the second year students of SMAN 1 Sungguminasa Gowa in the academic year of 2009-2010. This consists of nine classes, namely XI IPA-1 class consists of 35 students, XI IPA-2 class consists of 35 students, XIIPA-3 class consists of 35 studentS, XI IPA-4 class consists of 35 students, XI IPA-5 class consists of 35 students, and XI -6 class consists of 35 students, XI IPS-1 class consists of 35 students, XI IPS-2 class consist of 35 students, XI IPS-3 class consists of 35 students, so that the total number of population is 315 students.

b. Sample

Sample most of representatives of population in who are researched (Suharsimi Arikunto 2006). In this research the method of taking sample that is used random sampling and there are 6o students will become the sample of the researcher.



3. Instrument of the Research

The researcher uses tests to asses and examines the students’ Speaking ability. The tests are pre test and post test. The pre test is given to asses and to examine the students’ speaking ability without applying sensations and feelings in the previous treatment while post-test is given after treatment of applying sensations and feelings to asses and examine the students’ speaking ability. Both pre test and post test are used to find out the improvement of the students’ speaking ability after the treatment by sensations and feelings.

4. Procedure of Collecting Data

a. Pre test

Before applying sensations and feelings or before doing the treatment, the students will be given pre test to know their achievement in speaking. The researcher will ask the students in a couple to express their sensation and feeling when they felt really afraid, hot, angry and sick.

b. Treatment

After giving the pretest, the students will be treated by using sensations and feelings. The treatment is administrated after the pretest and it takes place during8 meetings and spends 90 minutes in each meeting

Some steps of treatment are:

1) The researcher introduces the material and gives a short explanation about what the students are going to do in speaking class.

2) The researcher writes some vocabularies that related to the material that will be presented.

3) The researcher asks the students to take a note and write down what they hear that it has relation with the material.

4) The researcher repeats the material once again and asks the students to mention what they write.

5) After that, the researcher divides them in a couple.

6) The researcher repeats the material three times to give chance for the students to ask each other by applying the researcher’s method.

c. Post-test

After applying the treatment, the researcher gives post-test to students to obtain data, whether there is any progress or improvement of the student’s speaking ability after having treatment namely through sensations and feelings or not. The tests are same with the test is given in pre-test.

5. Technique of Data Analysis

The data is collected through the test, and they are analyzed quantitatively as follows:

a. Scoring the students’ answer of pre test and post test by using this formula:

Students’ correct answer

Score = x 100%

Total number of items

(Hasan Iqbal 1997)

b. Classifying the students’ score into five levels, which fall into five classifications:

No.


Classification


Score

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.


Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very poor


80- 100

69 – 79

56 – 68

45 – 55

0-45

(UIN’s standards)

c. Calculating the mean score of students by using the formula:

Read More...... Read more...

HOMONIMY, POLYSEMY, AND HYPONYMY

Oleh Mutiah Tri Putri (20401107148)
The branch of semantics that deals with the word meaning is called lexical semantics. It is the study of systematic, meaning related structures of words. Lexical semantics examines relationships among word meanings. It is the study of how the lexicon is organized and how the lexical meanings of lexical items are interrelated, and it’s principal goal is to build a model for the structure of the lexicon by categorizing the types of relationships between words.

MUTIAH TRI PUTRI

PBI 08

20401107148



HOMONIMY, POLYSEMY, AND HYPONYMY

The branch of semantics that deals with the word meaning is called lexical semantics. It is the study of systematic, meaning related structures of words. Lexical semantics examines relationships among word meanings. It is the study of how the lexicon is organized and how the lexical meanings of lexical items are interrelated, and it’s principal goal is to build a model for the structure of the lexicon by categorizing the types of relationships between words.
Hyponymy , homonymy, polysemy, synonymy, antonymy and metonymy are different types of lexical relations.



A. Definition of Homonymy



The word Homonym has been derived from Greek term 'Homoios' which means identical and 'onoma' means name. So, Homonymy is a relation that holds between two lexemes that have the same form but unrelated meanings. Homonyms are the words that have same phonetic form (homophones) or orthographic form (homographs) but different unrelated meanings. The ambiguous word whose different senses are far apart from each other and are not obviously related to each other in any way is called as Homonymy. Words like tale and tail are homonyms. There is no conceptual connection between its two meanings.
For example the word ‘bear’, as a verb means ‘to carry’ and as a noun it means ‘large animal’.


An example of homonym which is both homophone and homograph is the word ‘fluke’. Fluke is a fish as well as a flatworm. Other examples are bank, an anchor, and so on.


Homophony - Homophony is the case where two words are pronounced identically but they have different written forms. They sound alike but are written differently and often have different meanings. For example: no-know, led-lead, would-wood.



Homograph - Homograph is a word which is spelled the same as another word and might be pronounced the same or differently but which has a different. For example, Bear-bear ; Read-read.

When homonyms are spelled the same they are homographs but not all homonyms are homographs.





B. Definition of Hyponymy



Hyponymy is a sense relation in semantics that serves to relate word concepts in a hierarchical fashion. Hyponymy is a relation between two words in which the meaning of one of the words includes the meaning of the other word. The lexical relation corresponding to the inclusion of one class in another is hyponymy. Examples are : apple- fruit ; car- vehicles ; tool- furntiture ; cow - animal.

The more specific concept is known as the hyponym, and the more general concept is known as the hypernym or superordinate. Apple is the hyponym and fruit is the superordinate / hypernymy. Hyponymy is not restricted to objects, abstract concepts, or nouns. It can be identified in many other areas of the lexicon.

E.g : a. the verb cook has many hyponyms.

Word: Cook

Hyponyms: Roast, boil, fry, grill, bake.

b. the verb colour has many hyponyms

Word: colour

Hyponyms: blue, red, yellow, green, black and purple

Hyponymy involves the logical relationship of entailment. Example : ‘There is a horse’ entails that ‘There is an animal”. Hyponymy often functions In discourse as a means of lexical cohesion by establishing referential equivalence to avoid repetition.



C. Definition of Polysemy



A polyseme the phenomenon of having or being open to several or many meanings.When a word has several very closely related senses or meanings.Polysemous word is a word having two or more meanings. For example, foot in : - He hurt his foot ; - She stood at the foot of the stairs.

A well-known problem in semantics is how to decide whether we are dealing with a single polysemous word or with two or more homonyms.
F.R.Palmer concluded saying that finally multiplicity of meaning is a very general characteristic of language.Polysemy is used in semantics and lexical analysis to describe the word with multiple meanings.Crystal and Dick Hebdige (1979) also defined polysemy.Lexical ambiguity depends upon homonymy and polysemy.



The difference between homonyms and polysemes is subtle. Lexicographers define polysemes within a single dictionary lemma, numbering different meanings, while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata. Semantic shift can separate a polysemous word into separate homonyms. For example, check as in "bank check" (or Cheque) , check in chess, and check meaning "verification" are considered homonyms, while they originated as a single word derived from chess in the 14th century.







Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonymy

http://everything2.com/title/hyponymy

http://www.yourdictionary.com/polysemy

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/lexical-relations-hyponymy-and-homonymy.html

http://winsomeanuja.blogspot.com/2009/10/lexical-relations-hyponymy- homonymy.html

Read More...... Read more...

RELATIONAL OPPOSITE

Oleh Jusnaedi (204 011 060 34)
Relational opposites A quite different kind of 'opposite' is found with pairs of words which exhibit the reversal. In lexical semantics, opposites are words that lie in an inherently incompatible binary relationship as in the opposite pairs male : female, long : short, up : down, and precede : follow. The notion of incompatibility here refers to fact that one word in an opposite pair entails that it is not the other pair member. For example, something that is long entails that it is not short. It is referred to as a 'binary' relationship because there are two members in a set of opposites. The relationship between opposites is known as opposition. A member of a pair of opposites can generally be determined by the question What is the opposite of X ?

The term antonym (and the related antonym) has also been commonly used as a term that is synonymous with opposite; however, the term also has other more restricted meanings. One usage has antonym referring to both gradable opposites, such as long : short, and (non-gradable) complementary opposites, such as male : female, while opposites of the types up : down and precede : follow are excluded from the definition. A third usage (particularly that of the influential Lyons 1968, 1977) defines the term antonym as referring to only gradable opposites (the long : short type) while the other types are referred to with different terms. Therefore, as Crystal (2003) warns, the terms antonym and antonym should be regarded with care. In this article, the usage of Lyons (1963, 1977) and Cruse (1986, 2004) will be followed where antonym is restricted to gradable opposites and opposite is used as the general term referring to any of the subtypes discussed below.



Opposites are, interestingly, simultaneously different and similar in meaning. Typically, they differ in only one dimension of meaning, but are similar in most other respects, including similarity in grammar and positions of semantic abnormality. Additionally, not all words have an opposite. Some words are non-opposable. For example, animal or plant species have no binary opposites (other than possible gender opposites such as lion/lioness, etc.); the word platypus therefore has no word that stands in opposition to it (hence the unanswerability of What is the opposite of platypus?). Other words are opposable but have an accidental gap in a given language's lexicon. For example, the word devout lacks a lexical opposite, but it is fairly easy to conceptualize a parameter of devoutness where devout lies at the positive pole with a missing member at the negative pole. Opposites of such words can nevertheless sometimes be formed with the prefixes un- or non-, with varying degrees of naturalness. For example, the word undevout appears in Webster's dictionary of 1828, while the pattern of non-person could conceivably be extended to non-platypus.


Opposites may be viewed as a special type of incompatibility.

1.

Words that are incompatible create the following type of entailment (where X is a given word and Y is a different word incompatible with word X)
2.

Sentence A is X entails sentence A is not Y
3.

An example of an incompatible pair of words is cat .

dog: It's a cat entails It's not a dog

4.

This incompatibility is also found in the opposite pairs fast : slow and stationary : moving, as can be seen below:

It's fast entails It's not slow

5.

It's stationary entails It's not moving

Cruse (2004) identifies some basic characteristics of opposites:


* banality

* inheritress

* patency


Complementary


Complementary opposites are pairs that express absolute opposites, like mortal and immortal.

* interactives

* satisfactives

* counteractives


Antonyms (Gradable Opposites)


For the purposes of this article (see introduction), antonyms, from the Greek anti ("opposite") and onoma ("name") are gradable opposites. Gradable opposites lie at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum of meanings; examples are hot and cold, slow and fast, and fat and skinny. Words may have several different antonyms, depending on the meaning: both long and tall can be antonyms of short.


Though the word antonym was only coined by philologists in the 19th century, such relationships are a fundamental part of a language, in contrast to synonyms, which are a result of history and drawing of fine distinctions, or homonyms, which are mostly etymological accidents or coincidences.


Languages often have ways of creating antonyms as an easy extension of lexicon. For example, English has the prefixes in- and un-, so unreal is the antonym of real and indocile is of docile.

Some planned languages abundantly use such devices to reduce vocabulary multiplication. Esperanto has mal- (compare bona = "good" and malbona = "bad"), Damin has kuri- (tjitjuu "small", kuritjitjuu "large") and Newspeak has un- (as in ungood, "bad").


Directional Opposites


* antipodals

* reversives

* converses (or relational opposites)

* pseudo-opposites


Auto- Antonyms


An auto-antonym is a word that can have opposite meanings in different contexts or under separate definitions:


* enjoin (to prohibit, issue injunction; to order, command)

* fast (moving quickly; fixed firmly in place)

* cleave (to split; to adhere)

* sanction (punishment, prohibition ; permission)

* stay (remain in a specific place, postpone; guide direction, movement)






Relational opposites A quite different kind of 'opposite' is found with pairs of words which exhibit the reversal of a relationship between…….:


1.

Semantic Relationships Between Words


Modern studies of semantics are interested in meaning primarily in terms of word and sentence relationships. Let's examine some semantic relationships between words:


Synonyms are words with similar meanings. They are listed in a special type of dictionary called a thesaurus.. A regular dictionary lists words according to form, usually in alphabetical order; a thesaurus lists words according to meaning. Synonyms usually differ in at least one semantic feature. Sometimes the feature is objective (denotative), referring to some actual, real world difference in the referents: walk, lumber, stroll, meander, lurch, stagger, stride, mince. Sometimes the feature is subjective (connotative), referring to how the speaker feels about the referent rather than any real difference in the referent itself: die, pass away, give up the ghost, kick the bucket, croak. There tend to be very few absolute synonyms in a language. Example: sofa and couch are nearly complete synonyms, yet they differ in their collocability in at least one way: one may say couch potato, but not *sofa potato.


One special type of partial synonym is called a paronym. Paronyms are words with associated meanings which also have great similarities in form: proscribe/ prescribe, industrial/ industrious, except/accept, affect/effect. Many errors in speech and writing are due to mixups involving paronyms.



Antonyms are words that have the opposite meaning. Oppositeness is a logical category. There are three types:


Complementary pairs are antonyms in which the presence of one quality or state signifies the absence of the other and vice versa. single/ married, not pregnant/ pregnant There are no intermediate states. (Joking aside, you can't really be "a little pregnant" or "kinda married.")


Gradable pairs are antonyms which allow for a natural, gradual transition between two poles: good/bad, hot/ cold . It is possible to be a little cold or very cold, etc.


Relational opposites are antonyms which share the same semantic features, only the focus, or direction, is reversed: tie/untie, buy/sell, give/receive, teacher/pupil, father/son.


Some concepts lack logical opposites that can be described in terms of any special word; colors are a good example: the logical opposite of red is not red. Such concepts may form relational antonyms, however, through symbolic systems of thinking. For instance, in Cold War thinking, the relational opposite of American is Russian; in current US politics, the relational opposite of Democrat is Republican. These are cultural relational opposites.


Homonyms are words that have the same form but different meanings. There are two major types of homonyms, based upon whether the meanings of the word are historically connected or result from coincidence.



Coincidental homonyms are the result of such historical accidents as phonetic convergence of two originally different forms or the borrowing of a new word which happens to be identical to an old word. There is usually no natural link between the two meanings: the bill of a bird vs the bill one has to pay; or the bark of a dog vs the bark of a tree.


The second type of homonym, the polysemous [pAli∆si‡∆m´s] homonym, results when multiple meanings develop historically from the same word. The process by which a word acquires new meanings is called polysemy [pAli∆si‡∆mi∆]. Unlike coincidental homonyms, polysemous homonyms usually preserve some perceptible semantic link marking the development of one meaning out of the other, as in the leg of chair and the leg of person; or the face of a person vs. the face of a clock.


Sometimes it is impossible to tell whether two words of identical form are true homonyms (historically unrelated) or polysemous homonyms (historically related), such as ice scate vs. skate the fish: skate--fish (from Old English skata') ice skate (from Dutch schaat'); deer/dear are historically related (cf. darling, German Tier, animal.)


Since polysemy is so difficult to separate from true homonymy, dictionaries usually order entries according to 1) the first recorded appearance of word or 2) frequency of meaning use. This is a problem for lexicographers, the people who study words and write dictionaries.


There are universal tendencies in the directionality of polysemy. studies of polysemy in a wide variety of languages generally find the following directions in meaning shift:

1) body part to part of object. (hands, face, lip, elbow, belly, vein of gold or of a leaf) But: appendix.


2) animal to human for personality traits (shrew, bear, wolf, fox, quiet as a fish) But: my cat is a real Einstein.


3) space to time (long, short, plural)


4) spatial to sound (melt, rush,)


5) sound to color (loud, clashing, mellow)


6) Physical, visible attribute to emotional or mental, invisible quality (crushed, big head, green with envy, yellow coward, sharp/dull, spark)


Directionality in polysemy seems to be logically motivated: concrete meanings give rise to abstract ones (sharp knife --> sharp mind); mundane gives rise to the technical (chip of wood --> computer chip).


2.

Relational Opposite Of Lexical


An opposite lexical relation is an association between two lexical units which have the opposite core meanings in some contexts.

Examples (English)

Directional converses


Opposites marking the two directions along an axis.

{(east, west), (up, down), (convex, concave)}

Relational converses


Opposites which specify the relative positions of two entities on opposite sides or poles of a spatial or relational axis.


Antonyms


When measuring or judging in a certain way, something can be either X or Y, or it can be neither.

When measuring temperature, something can be either hot or cold, or it can be neither.


Directional converses


If something goes (or faces) X and it turns around, it goes (or faces) Y.


If something goes up and it turns around, it goes down.

If something is X, oriented the other way it is Y.

If something is convex, oriented the other way it is concave.











BIBLIOGRAPHY


Crystal, David. (2003). A dictionary of linguistics and phonetics (5th ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Read More...... Read more...

SYNONYMY AND ANTONYM

Oleh Musyawir (20401107146)
Synonyms are different words (or sometimes phrases) with identical or very similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. The word comes from Ancient Greek syn (σύν) ("with") and onoma (ὄνομα) ("name"). The words car and automobile are synonyms. Similarly, if we talk about a long time or an extended time, long and extended become synonyms. In the figurative sense, two words are often said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation:

"a widespread impression that … Hollywood was synonymous with immorality" (Doris Kearns Goodwin)

Synonyms can be any part of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or prepositions), as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech. More examples of English synonyms are:

· student and pupil (noun)

· petty crime and misdemeanor (noun)

· buy and purchase (verb)

· sick and ill (adjective)

· quickly and speedily (adverb)

· on and upon (preposition)





Note that synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the "aperture in the iris of the eye" is not synonymous with student. Similarly, he expired means the same as he died, yet my passport has expired cannot be replaced by my passport has died.

In English, many synonyms evolved from the parallel use, in the early medieval period, of Norman French (from Latin) and Old English (Anglo-Saxon) words, often with some words being used principally by the Saxon peasantry ("folk", "freedom", "bowman") and their synonyms by the Norman nobility ("people", "liberty", "archer").

Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique. Different words that are similar in meaning usually differ for a reason: feline is more formal than cat; long and extended are only synonyms in one usage and not in others (for example, a long arm is not the same as an extended arm).. Synonyms are also a source of euphemisms.

The purpose of a thesaurus is to offer the user a listing of similar or related words; these are often, but not always, synonymy.



ANTONYM

In lexical semantics, opposites are words that lie in an inherently incompatible binary relationship as in the opposite pairs male : female, long : short, up : down, and precede : follow. The notion of incompatibility here refers to fact that one word in an opposite pair entails that it is not the other pair member. For example, something that is long entails that it is not short. It is referred to as a 'binary' relationship because there are two members in a set of opposites. The relationship between opposites is known as







opposition. A member of a pair of opposites can generally be determined by the question What is the opposite of X ?

The term antonym (and the related antonymy) has also been commonly used as a term that is synonymous with opposite; however, the term also has other more restricted meanings. One usage has antonym referring to both gradable opposites, such as long : short, and (non-gradable) complementary opposites, such as male : female, while opposites of the types up : down and precede : follow are excluded from the definition. A third usage (particularly that of the influential Lyons 1968, 1977) defines the term antonym as referring to only gradable opposites (the long : short type) while the other types are referred to with different terms. Therefore, as Crystal (2003) warns, the terms antonymy and antonym should be regarded with care. In this article, the usage of Lyons (1963, 1977) and Cruse (1986, 2004) will be followed where antonym is restricted to gradable.
Antonyms (gradable opposites)

For the purposes of this article (see introduction), antonyms, from the Greek anti ("opposite") and onoma ("name") are gradable opposites. Gradable opposites lie at opposite ends of a continuous spectrum of meanings; examples are hot and cold, slow and fast, and fat and skinny. Words may have several different antonyms, depending on the meaning: both long and tall can be antonyms of short.

Though the word antonym was only coined by philologists in the 19th century, such relationships are a fundamental part of a language, in contrast to synonyms, which are a result of history and drawing of fine distinctions, or homonyms, which are mostly etymological accidents or coincidences.

Languages often have ways of creating antonyms as an easy extension of lexicon. For example, English has the prefixes in- and un-, so unreal is the antonym of real and indocile is of docile.

Some planned languages abundantly use such devices to reduce vocabulary multiplication. Esperanto has mal- (compare bona = "good" and malbona = "bad"), Damin has kuri- (tjitjuu "small", kuritjitjuu "large") and Newspeak has un- (as in ungood, "bad").

Read More...... Read more...

GRAMMATICAL RELATION

Oleh Irmayani(20401107093)
Traditional grammars mark great use of the notions of subject and object (and also of the distinction between direct and indirect object). This largely based upon the formal distinctions of noun phrases within a sentence such as John gave Bill a book, where John is subject, Bill indirect object and a book direct object,and these are defined by the position of the noun phrases relative to the verb and to one another. In Latin these grammatical relation, as they have been called, are a marked by inflection – by the case ( in the traditional sense ) of the nouns, they subject being in the nominative, the direct object in the accusative and the indirect object.

These grammatical relation are also important when we consider the category of voice ( active and

passive) in many languages. For, if we compare John played the piano and The was played by John, it is

apparent that, which is active. It is the subject in the second. The passive.. While John is the subject in the

first, but appears after by in the second. Intuitively, and informally, what we want to say is that the object of

the active sentence becomes the subject of the passive, while the subject moves to the position after by or

becomes the ‘agent’.There are, however, some complications. In English we find that the inderect object

may become the subject of the passive, as in Bill was given a book by john, as may the inderect object- A

book was given to Bill by John (though this might perhaps be seen as the passive of John gave a book to

Bill not John gave Bill a book).

As long as the terms ‘deep subject’ and ‘deep object’ are used to deal solely with formal relations of

this kind no real problems arise. But we may well be tempted to see the deep subject as the ‘doer’ and the

deep object as the ‘sufferer’; some linguistic have used the terms ACTOR AND GOAL to make this

distinction. There are, however , difficulties if we attempt to define them in semantic terms. For it is by no

mans true that the subject of a transitive verb can always be seen as one who ‘does’ something. Verb of

this kind should deter us from attempting to define actor in semantic terms. But even with action verbs, it is

not clear that we can clearly establish what meant by actor.

In spite of the absence of any clear semantic definitions for these grammatical relation some scholars, those

who have advocated RELATION GRAMMAR, have argued that they are talked about deep ‘subject ‘

and ‘object’, this was only an informal description and restricted solely to English – and Chomsky actually

saw no reason to use these terms. It is only terms of subject and object that we can make any general,

universal statements about active and passive. For, whatever the apparent differences in the various

languages, in all cases the object of the active becomes the subject of the passive and the subject of the

active is removed elsewhere.

Most of the arguments in favor of relation grammar are of a technical and syntactic nature, ranging over

numerous languages, and cannot be followed up here. But, in general, it seems to be the case that such

notions as subject and object are useful in many languages. However, there are some languages which

appear to have a different system of grammatical relation. One of the most obvious fact about subject and

object in languages like English is that some verbs, those that are transitive, typically have both subjects and

objects, while others, the intransitive verbs, have subject only. In talking about the noun phrase with the

intransitive verbs as ‘subject’ we are, of course, identifying, in relation terms, with the subject of the

transitive verbs, and the justification is found in formal features of the language.

This is of interest to us here because the distinction involved sometimes corresponds to that of intransitive

and transitive in English. Thus the contracts between intransitive and transitive in English bounce in English is

found in the basic (non-causative) and causative forms of the verb meaning ‘jump’. French and many other

languages in a similar way use a verb meaning ‘do’ or ‘make’: English intransitive and transitive cook are

translated into french by curie and fare curie.

Some linguistic have suggested that the transitivity distinction can be dealt with in terms of causative, the

transitive being seen as the causative, the transitive being seen as the causative of a basic non-causative

form. Thus John rang the bell is interpreted as ‘John’ caused the bell to ring and, by and extension of this

idea, John killed Bill as ‘John caused Bill to die’. Bu there are objections to this. First, there is a difference

between this purely semantic analysis of English and the formal features of Tigris and French (though this

might not disturb the advocates of generative semantics. Secondly, languages have causative of transitive as

well as (basically) intransitive verbs. Moreover, there seems to be no obvious motivation for the choice of

the transitive as the basic non- causative form. Tigris does not, as we might have expected from the

arguments about English, treat the intransitive ‘break’ as basic and the transitive as causative; the intransitive

is, in fact, indicated by a form with the passive prefix – taster.

Furthermore. There are degrees of plausibility in the causative analysis of English verbs. A causative

analysis of march in The sergeant marched the recruits is more reasonable than a similar analysis of

(transitive) ring or kill. It is clear that the recruits actively performed the action of marching and that the

sergeant caused them to do so, but bells that are rung and people who are killed do not actively performed

the actions of ringing and dying under causation. Natural language comprehension efforts may use

techniques based on simple string recognition, or on deeper analysis of grammatical relation. The lexical

scanner will use the former method. Efforts to develop grammatical scanner have generally proved

unsatisfactory due to underlying complexity of human language. Because the domain of palliative care is

relatively well-defined, simple phrase recognition methods can give immediate improvements in search

results without the complexity of grammatical method. This approach is also consistent with experience

based on expert system construction, which has shown that it is more useful to encode domain – specific in

a limited, artificial computer form than to attempt to have the computer master a poorly- bounded domain.

The aim of work reported in this paper is to evaluate the extent to which proposed system ofgrammatical

relations reflect the kinds of deep linguistic knowledge required for semantic, representation, in particular

for deriving semantic.grammatical relation either produced by or ex-tracked from the output of wide-

converge syntactic parses are currently used as input to shallow semantic parsers, which identify semantic

relation that exist between predictors (typically verbs) and their dependents. Predicate- argument structure

identified in this way can then be used in tasks link information extraction and question answering.

However, wide- converge stochastic parsers are only rarely used in dialogue systems. Traditionally,

interpretation modules of dialogue systems utilize specialized parses and semantic interpreters. Unlike in

information retrieval and question answering tasks, the system often needs to be connected to a knowledge

base which represents the state of the world and must be able to convert user utterances into knowledge

base queries. In addition to identifying negation , quantification, tense and modality.

We formulated four principles for deep grammatical relation representation. Firstly, grammatical relations

should, whenever possible, reflect relations between the predictors correspond to the same role assignment..

For example, the deep grammatical relation in passive constructions should be the same as those in the

active equivalents. And the analysis of a control verb construction like John persuaded Mary to dance

should make it clear that there is a ‘subject’ grammatical relations from dance to Mary similar to that in the

implied sentence Mary danced. Secondly, a grammatical relation should, whenever possible, appear only if

there is a an explicit selection restriction link between the words. For example, in a raising verb construction

like John expect Mary to dance, there should be no grammatical relation from the raising verb expected to

its object Mary. Also, where a preposition functions strictly as a syntactic role marker, as in the

construction John relies on Mary, it should have no place in the grammatical relation analysis. Now the two

analyzes are formally distinct:

a. the first is rooted at predicate in a closed path and the second at lit;

b. the definite external argument the bulb takes scope over the modifier lit in the first but over in a closed

path in the second.

The shared task data set contains numerous passive participles, most of which can be classified into the

following four groups depending on how the participle is used: (a) complement of passive auxiliary, (b)

complement of raising verb, (c) nominal post modifier, (d) nominal Pre-modifier. In all these case, our

system for deep grammatical relation annotation requires: that there is a relation from the passive participle

to the deep object and that this relation be the same as in the corresponding active declarative construction,

so that predicate-argument structure can be straightforwardly derived.

The conclusion of these, we have proposed a set of principles for developing a grammatical relation

annotation system for use with both shallow and deep semantic interpretation systems, in particular a tutorial

dialogue system.

Read More...... Read more...

PREDICATESAND ARGUMENTS

Oleh Lartini (2040107114)
In a sentence the verb is often best seen as a relational feature and, indeed, that active and passive sentences could be handled as if they were relational opposites. Analysis in relational terms seems to offer a far more satisfactory solution to the problem of a sentence meaning than componential analysis. In an essence such analysis will have much in common with predicates calculus.

The predicate appears to structure multiple levels of meaning. The predicate with its arguments is a proposition and the proposition may become an argument of a superior predicate. This kind of recursion in the semantic structure makes it important to characterize each predicate by reference to its signature — the number and respective types of its arguments. It should later become clear that syntactically each level of meaning must be represented by a differently ordered structure. The first four examples are sentences where the predicate seems to have the simplest semantic structure.









Proposition



(1)


They waited.


WAIT(a)


"waited"

(2)


They waited long.


LONG(WAIT(a))


"waited long"

(3)


They waited in the next room.


IN(WAIT(a),b)


"waited in next room"

(4)


They were in the next room.


IN(a,b)


"were in next room"



Since we are not concerned here with entailment or any other logical relation between sentences, we do not need formulae that express prepositions, but can use what logicians call ‘open sentences’. Thus we can characterize walk, love and give in terms of one-two and three-place predicates. It will be often be convenient to spell out the predicate in full whit the relevant English word; when this is done it will be placed in square brackets [walk], [love], [give]. A major advantage of this approach is that it can ‘handle’ ‘atomics’ components as well as relational ones. For we may regard such as components as a relation involving just one argument.

Predicate calculus provides a simple method of dealing with what is known in grammar as subordination by allowing preposition to function as an argument. Thus we may to analyze Bayu thinks that Rafy loves Luna. By saying that the predicate [think] has two arguments, Bayu and the preposition Rafy loves Luna. We need to is one of the argument indicate that the whole preposition Rafy loves Luna is one of the arguments of [think]. This illustrate that sentence can be given as [think], [love], where the round brackets show that [love] is a single element. This illustrate that preposition with is own predicate and argument can also be an argument of another ‘higher’ preposition.

In this example semantic interpretation has not been very different from that suggested by the syntax of the sentence. But it is possible to break prepositions down into far more basic elements than those indicated by the actual words of the sentence. For instances, we might think of treating Surya gave Toni a book in terms of s three-places of predicate [give]-[give]. But we could instead, interpret the sentence as ‘Surya caused Tony to have a book’. The formula then becomes [cause],[have], where the arguments of [cause] are (Surya) and [have],(‘Toni have the book’). Similarly, we might treat kill as ‘cause to die’ or ‘cause to become not alive’. The latter is more favored, but it also involves the use of the logical operator ~ ‘not’. The formula ‘John killed Mary would then be [cause](x), [become](y), [alive]. i.e. ‘John cause Mary become Mary not alive’; notice that both [cause] and [become] have a preposition as their second argument.

This kind of analysis is often written out in ‘tree diagrams’ which are used for syntax. The generative semantics argued that a representation of this kind did not merely relate to the semantics of kill, but was rather its deep structure. The argument was largely based upon the triple ambiguity of I almost killed him, where it is argued, almost may qualify cause, become, or not alive (ef. Morgan 1969). The first sense applies if I shoot at him but missed ( I almost caused the subsequence events, bur did not). The second applies if I shoot at him and he recovered after narrowly avoiding death ( he become almost dead). The third applies if I shoot him in he was in a state of near death (he become almost dead). On the basis of this it is argued that kill must be interpreted in terms of three sentences in deep structure , for this will make it possible to place almost in each of these three sentences and thus show whether it qualities cause, become, or not other.



BIBLIOGRAPHY



Lionz j, Semantic 2, press indicated of the university of Cambridge, 1977.

Palmer F.R.,Semantic, edition, Cambridge unity press London, new York, 2001.

Pateda, mansoer, semantic leksikal, rineka cipta, Jakarta, 2001.

Read More...... Read more...

GRAMMAR AND LEXICON

Oleh Lartini (2040107114)
Grammar, however, is not restricted to the study of form of function words. It is concerned, more widely, with categories such a tense, gender, number and with syntactic functions such as subject and object. Some of them may be marked in a language by form words, but they may equally be marked by morphemes or even by form words. While there is a problem of establishing what are the relevant grammatical categories in any language, it is irrelevant for semantic whether a grammatical category is indicated by a form word, a morpheme or the order of the words.

For example, we find that English marks past tense with the past tense morpheme (usually indicated as –ed ). But there is no similar morpheme to indicated the future, this is marked by the verbs shall and will or by be going to (it may also be indicated by other verbal forms with the appropriate adverbs as in I’m flying to Cairo tomorrow and I fly to Cairo tomorrow). Other languages may use inflection where English and most familiar language use form words. Thus the English conjunctions after, when, while, if are translated Bihn (a Cushitic language of Ethiophia) by endings of verb. Nearer home, Finnish has many complex ‘case’ systems, containing not only ‘nominative’, ‘accusative’, ‘ablative’ etc, all of Which are familiar from Latin, but also ‘elative’, ‘illative’,’ adhesive’ and others. These last ones would translate characterize it English out of, into, on, as.

In modern linguistics the problem of the distinction between the grammar and the lexicon is often posed in terms of the distinction between sentences that are unacceptable or deviant for grammatical reasons, and those that are excluded on lexical grounds. There is no apparent difficulty about recognizing grammatically deviant sentences. An example would be *the boy is in the garden. This breaks only one grammatical rules, but we can easily invent sentences that seem to conform to no rules at all as *been a when I tomato. In contrast we shall rule out on different grounds *the water is fragile, *the flower walked away. With these the issue is on be of collocation. Which determines the possible co occurrence of water with fragile and flower with walk.

There have, however, been opposing views on the question whether these two kinds of restriction, one grammatical, the other lexical, are, in principle, different. One argument to sustain the difference is that a sentence can be grammatically correct, yet at the same time totally defiant in lexical terms. If a sentence can thus conform to grammar, but be completely deviant lexically, it would seem that grammar and lexicon are distinct. Earlier, incidentally, Carnap had made the same point by inventing a sentence that does not contain any English word at all yet seems to be quite grammatical in terms of English – Pirots karulize clatically(1937: 2).

Some linguists believe that just as a grammar could be wholly formal, and that we need not concern ourselves with the meaning of any of our grammatical categories, so, too, a total statement of all collocation possibilities of a word would be sufficient to characterize it linguistically. Indeed, some went so far as to believe that the set of collocation possibilities of a word was essentially the meaning of that word for the linguist.

What is relevant to semantics is that he was concerned with restrictions on the co occurrence of items within a sentence, so that we shall no permit *the idea cut the tree,* I drank the bread,*he frightened that he was coming,* he elapsed the man. in all these examples it is clear that we have chosen item that, in some way, do not fit the verbs. The last examples are clearly a matter of grammar in that frighten does no take a that-clause, while elapse is an intransitive verb that does not take any object at all. With the other two examples it is a matter, however, of the incompatibility of lexical items, of certain nouns (as subjects or objects) with certain verbs. While nothing the difference between these two types, Chomsky proposed to deal with them in similar ways. In both cases he stated, as part of the specification of the verb, the environment in which it may occur. Thus elapse was shown as not occurring with an object noun phrase, and frighten not occurring with the following that-clause ( or rather it was not shown that they can so occur , since the specification would state what is possible, not what is possible). Similarly cut would be shown to need a concrete subject, and drink a liquid object. This was achieved in terms of components (concrete) and (liquid). These are selection restriction. Any sentence which did not comply to them was ruled out and the grammar would not generate it.

The lexical restrictions, it has been suggested (Haas 1973:147-8), are not a matter of rules but of tendencies, not of Yes/No, but More/Less, when judge in terms of deviance, unfortunately this leads us to the problem ‘When is a rule a rule?’, for there is no clear line between grammatical or lexical deviance. Some sentences are clearly ungrammatical and are simply to be ruled out or corrected, while others are odd only in a lexical way and can, with some imagination, be contextualized. But there are others that are half-way, and we are not really sure whether their deviance is lexical or grammatical.

Consider, for example, *the dog scattered. This is not simply a matter of the collocation of dog with scatter, for the verb scatter is normally used only with plural nouns (the dogs scattered), or with collective nouns (the herd scattered). It would seem, therefore, that a grammatical rule is being broken and that we should amend to the dogs scattered (or the dog was scattered). But cannot we imagine a dog with magical powers whose way of avoiding its enemies was to break into many peaces and ‘scatter’ over a wide area? Indeed we can, and so we have found a possible, if far fetched, contextualization for the dog scattered. The deviance would seem, there for to be lexical rather than grammatical. But I am not really sure. Can we say, the dog scattered even ………….. Context? Or would the dog scattered itself be more appropriate. My indication here shows that we are on the borderline of grammar and lexicon.

Read More...... Read more...

COMPONENTS AND THE SENTENCES

Oleh Miftahul Chaer (20401107107)
Components may be used to stated selection restrictions. All that is needed is that a particular component should be stated as a feature of one of the collocated words and as part of the required environment of the other.

Katz and Fodor (1963), however, suggest that we can go further and actually derive the meaning of the words it contains. It is worthwhile looking in detail at their model if only to illustrate how difficult it is to move form word to sentence meaning, and because no one else has made such as a clear and detailed proposal. In simple language, what they propose is a set of rules to combine the meanings of individual lexical items. The rules are called Projection Rules, the combination is referred to as Amalgamation, and the meanings are called Paths. Projection rules are needed since it is necessary to state what may be amalgamated with that, and in what order. This will be determined by the grammatical status of the elements.

The example chosen by Kats and Fodor as an illustration of the application of the projection rules is the man hit the colorful ball. The first establish is the grammatical status of the lexical items, that colorful is an adjective and ball a noun and that together whit the they form a noun phrase, and so on, but we need not bother with the details here. We then have to amalgamate the paths of the various lexical items. In on path colorful we find a marker (color) referring to actual color, but there is another path in which the marker is to deal with the meaning of colorful to refer the colorful nature of any aesthetic object. Ball has three paths, one with the marker (social activity), the other two with the marker (physical object) but distinguished by the distinguisher [having globular shape] and [solid missile for projection by engine of war].in general terms we are saying that all three balls can be colorful in the literal sense of having color, but only the ball at which people dance can be colorful in the evaluative sense-the other two balls cannot.

We now amalgamate colorful ball with hit. Hit has two paths, one indicating collision, the other indicating striking, and both occur in the environment (physical objects). We shall not, however, now have eight two times four) derived paths, since neither will amalgamate with colorful ball with the marker (social activity), since in neither of hit can this kind of ball be hit. We shall instead have only four possibilities. Finally, we can amalgamate the path of the man (one path only), and so eventually derive four readings only for the sentence (colliding with or striking either an ordinary ball or a cannon ball).

Read More...... Read more...

GRAMMATICAL CATEGORIES

Oleh Miftahul Chaer (20401107107)
A grammatical category is a semantic distinction which is reflected in a morphological paradigm. Grammatical categories can have one or more exponents. There are some familiar grammatical categories-gender, number and person. For English has, strictly, no grammatical gender at all. It has, of course, the pronouns he, she, and it, but these are essentially markers of sex. The first two, he and she, are used if the sex is specifically indicate or known; otherwise it is used. There is, however, one qualification. There is a difference between the use of the pronoun for animals and for human. It maybe used for animals, e.g. to refer to a dog, and so may he or she if the sex is known. However, with humans it can not be used, even if the sex is unknown. For the indefinite unknown human the forms they, them, there are used in colloquial English (even for singular) as in has anyone lost their hat ? if anyone comes tell them to go away. This is frowned on by some grammarians, but seems to me to be a useful and whole acceptable device for avoiding the indication of sex. For reference to a specific human whose sex is unknown, e.g. a baby, it is sometimes used but it is probably wiser to ask the mother first ‘is it a boy or a girl?’

Many languages have noun classes that function grammatically like the gender classes of the Indo-European and Semitic languages. Grammatical genders are classes of nouns reflected in the behavior of associated words; every noun must belong to one of the classes and there should be very few which belong to several classes at once. If a language distinguishes between masculine and feminine gender, for instance, then each noun belongs to one of those two genders; in order to correctly decline any noun and any modifier or other type of word affecting that noun, one must identify whether the noun is feminine or masculine. The term "grammatical gender" is mostly used for Indo-European languages, many of which follow the pattern just described. While Old English (Anglo-Saxon) had grammatical gender, Modern English is normally described as lacking grammatical gender.

The linguistic notion of grammatical gender is distinguished from the biological and social notion of natural gender, although they interact closely in many languages. Both grammatical and natural gender can have linguistic effects in a given language. Although some authors use the term "noun class" as a synonym or an extension of "grammatical gender", for others they are separate concepts. One can in fact say that grammatical gender is a type of noun class.

Grammatical number is a grammatical category of nouns, pronouns, and adjective and verb agreement that expresses count distinctions (such as "one" or "more than one"). Most languages of the world have formal means to express differences of number. The most widespread distinction, as found in English and many other languages, involves a simple two-way number contrast between singular and plural (car / cars; child / children, etc.). Other more elaborate systems of number are described below.

Grammatical number is a morphological category characterized by the expression of quantity through inflection or agreement. As an example, consider the English sentences below:

That apple on the table is fresh.

Those two apples on the table are fresh.

The number of apples is marked on the noun — "apple", singular number (one item) vs. "apples", plural number (more than one item) —, on the demonstrative, "that/those", and on the verb, "is/are". Note that, especially in the second sentence, this information can be considered redundant, since quantity is already indicated by the numeral "two"..

A language has grammatical number when its nouns are subdivided into morphological classes according to the quantity they express, such that:

1. Every noun belongs to a single number class. (Number partitions nouns into disjoint classes.)
2. Noun modifiers (such as adjectives) and verbs have different forms for each number class, and must be inflected to match the number of the nouns they refer to. (Number is an agreement category.)

This is the case in English: every noun is either singular or plural (a few, such as "fish", can be either, according to context), and at least some modifiers of nouns — namely the demonstratives, the personal pronouns, the articles, and verbs — are inflected to agree with the number of the nouns they refer to: "this car" and "these cars" are correct, while "*this cars" or "*these car" are ungrammatical. Only count nouns can be freely used in the singular and in the plural. Mass nouns, like "wine", "silverware" and "wisdom", are normally used only in the singular ([2]). Many languages distinguish between count nouns and mass nouns.

Not all languages have number as a grammatical category. In those that do not, quantity must be expressed directly, with numerals, or indirectly, through optional quantifiers. However, many of these languages compensate for the lack of grammatical number with an extensive system of measure words.

There is a hierarchy among number categories: No language distinguishes a trial unless having a dual, and no language has dual without a plural.

Grammatical person is deictic reference to a participant in an event; such as the speaker, the addressee, or others. Grammatical person typically defines a language's set of personal pronouns. It also frequently affects verbs, sometimes nouns, and possessive relationships as well.

English distinguishes three grammatical persons: The personal pronouns I (singular) and we (plural) are in the first person. The personal pronoun you is the second person. It refers to the addressee. You are used in both the singular and plural; thou is the archaic informal second-person singular pronoun.

Any person, place, or thing other than the speaker and the addressee is referred to in the third person. When referring to oneself in the third person, it is ileums.. See English personal pronouns, and the following articles on specific grammatical persons, or their corresponding personal pronouns:

Pronoun


Person/plurality


Gender

Standard

I


First person singular


-

You


Second person singular/plural


-

He


Third person singular, masculine / gender-neutral third person singular


masculine

She


Third person singular, feminine


feminine

It


Third person singular, neuter


neuter

We


First person plural


-

They


Third person plural/gender-neutral third person singular (correctness of this usage disputed)


-

Colloquial

Youse


Second person plural, dialect


-

Yinz


Second person plural, dialect


-

Ye


Second person plural, dialectal Hiberno-English


-

Archaic

Thou


Second person singular, archaic


-

There are other forms with deictic functions. The definite article the is used to refer to single identifiable item in the context, where it is apparent to speaker and hearer precisely what that item is. Because of its function the article does not normally occur with names (proper nouns). A proper noun such as Fred, professor Brown,etc., is used simply to identify a particular person, and the article would thus be redundant (though it is used, redundantly, in some languages, e.g. Italian).

Read More...... Read more...