Linguistik
Refine
Document Type
- Article (5)
- Review (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (7)
Keywords
- Wortfeld (7) (remove)
Institute
Çeviri yaparken her iki dile, kültüre yeterince hâkim olmamak bir dizi çeviri hatalarına yol açabilir. Bu noktada kaynak ve erek dilde yeterli kelime hazinesine sahip olmanın yanı sıra kelimelerin kullanım alanlarını, kurallarını, edim bilimsel etkilerini, sözdizimsel kuralları vs. de iyi bilmek gerekir. Humboldt ve Saussure'ün dil hakkındaki düşüncelerinden etkilenen Trier'in ortaya attığı sözlüksel alan teorisinin metin anlama ve anlatma edinci kapsamında etkilerinin neler olabileceği ve çeviribilimin sözlüksel alan teorisinden nasıl yararlanabileceği konusu irdelenmeye çalışılacaktır.
Trier'e (1973:5) göre bir sözcüğün anlaşılabilmesi için, sözlüksel alanın tamamının bilinmesi gerekir ve ancak sözlüksel alana hâkim isek o sözcüğü doğru anlayabiliriz. Anlam sadece ve sadece sözlüksel alan sayesinde vardır. Sözlüksel alan yoksa anlam da yoktur. Anlatılmak istenen düşünceye veya olguya dair bir kelimenin belli bir dilde bulunmaması bu düşüncenin veya olgunun o dilde olmadığı anlamına gelmez. Hayata dair genel kültür bilgimize ve tecrübelerimize dayanarak bu yeni kavramı anlayabiliriz.
The method of the lexical field – which was initially used to capture lexical units – established itself gradually in various grammatical concepts as an onomasiological and functionally motivated model for the description of grammatical categorical meanings. The concept of a field allows for a complex description of a grammatical system, where the focus lies not on the particular grammatical categories and forms, but on the semantic-functional categories in their relationship with the total inventory of linguistic means.
In the present monograph, we will deal with questions of lexical typology in the nominal domain. By the term "lexical typology in the nominal domain", we refer to crosslinguistic regularities in the interaction between (a) those areas of the lexicon whose elements are capable of being used in the construction of "referring phrases" or "terms" and (b) the grammatical patterns in which these elements are involved. In the traditional analyses of a language such as English, such phrases are called "nominal phrases". In the study of the lexical aspects of the relevant domain, however, we will not confine ourselves to the investigation of "nouns" and "pronouns" but intend to take into consideration all those parts of speech which systematically alternate with nouns, either as heads or as modifiers of nominal phrases. In particular, this holds true for adjectives both in English and in other Standard European Languages. It is well known that adjectives are often difficult to distinguish from nouns, or that elements with an overt adjectival marker are used interchangeably with nouns, especially in particular semantic fields such as those denoting MATERIALS or NATlONALlTIES. That is, throughout this work the expression "lexical typology in the nominal domain" should not be interpreted as "a typology of nouns", but, rather, as the cross-linguistic investigation of lexical areas constitutive for "referring phrases" irrespective of how the parts-of-speech system in a specific language is defined.
In diesem Beitrag soll der semantische Wandel einiger Frauenbezeichnungen analysiert, v.a. zunächst differenziert und anschließend erklärt werden. In fast jeder sprachgeschichtlichen Einführung dient der semantische Wandel der Frauenbezeichnungen als das Paradebeispiel für den semantischen Pfad der Abwertung, der Pejorisierung. Nach Begründungen wird jedoch erstaunlich selten gefragt. Indessen hat es sich seit den 1990er Jahren schnell durchgesetzt, hierfür die eingängige, auf den ersten Blick etwas paradox erscheinende Erklärung von Rudi Keller anzuführen, wonach die semantische Abwertung der Frau in Wirklichkeit auf ihre zu häufi ge Aufwertung, ihre Verehrung und Erhöhung zurückzuführen sei und damit ein sog. "Invisible-hand-Phänomen" bilde.
Überraschenderweise hat eine Auseinandersetzung mit dieser unhinterfragt, ja fast dankbar angenommenen Erklärung kaum stattgefunden. Immerhin präsupponiert diese einiges, etwa dass Frauen sich Männern gegenüber nicht höflich verhielten, bei der Wortwahl also nicht "eine Etage höher" griffen, des Weiteren, dass sich nur das männliche Sprechen über Frauen durchgesetzt haben muss: Haben Frauen nicht gesprochen? Oder hat sich ihr Sprachgebrauch nicht durchgesetzt? Wenn ja, warum?
Dieser Beitrag setzt sich kritisch mit der Kellerschen Erklärung auseinander und argumentiert dafür, dass es sich bei diesem semantischen Wandel um einen Spiegel und nicht, wie Keller (1995) behauptet, um einen "Zerrspiegel des Kulturwandels" handelt.
The contribution deals with a selected lexical field related to the emotion 'anger'. It is treated from a German-Czech perspective and with respect to its underlying psychological aspects. It begins by investigating the nature of lexical fields, and explains the framework of the chosen field in terms of its content and form. On this basis the author tries to find an answer to the question whether this particular field can in fact be considered to be a lexical field. In conclusion the paper discusses the question of whether psychological findings on emotions generally, and on the emotion of 'anger' in particular, can be of help in establishing both an outer delimitation and an internal structuring of the field.