I found it interesting to think about the fact that dictionaries aren't perfect. Usually, most people reference a dictionary and use the information as fact, which is useful for their purposes. However, there are many more depths to which one can analyze the true meaning of words and the circumstances in which they - and other words like it - are used and modified. Specifically, the concept of internal vs. external causation was especially interesting when thinking about the different near-synonyms that behaved in different ways syntactically despite their semantic similarity. I found myself thinking about the distinction between word families and semantically-similar words in the English language, especially since neither the "closeness" of semantic meaning nor the "relatedness" of lexemes in word families seemed to predict how the words would behave in sentences and how they were modified to create similar derivatives.
I additionally found the concept of morphology trees quite interesting, especially when thinking about how they were similar and different. Both systems create structures that allow for the visualization of the data and both account for the relations between words of the sentences. I also found it really interesting that words (specifically compound lexemes), similar to sentences, can be ambiguous and that the respective trees can provide clarity and insight as to which meaning is being used (i.e. "undoable - cannot be done" vs. "undoable - can be undone").
I also realized that language is always changing and meanings of verbs can change. In fact, one example I thought of was how a seemingly intransitive verb is now beginning to have transitive purposes, at least in the younger generations. One of the examples mentioned by Atkins was "The teacher played the children." Now, there is truth in that this sentence cannot possibly mean that the teacher caused the students to play (no external causation). However, this sentence would be recognized by many as an acceptable one (The teacher "tricked" and/or "took advantage of" the children). Another use of this meaning might be: "You played yourself." This example was interesting to note because it brings into question the analysis of transitive/intransitive verbs and causation.
Hi Gabriel! I, too, find it extremely intriguing how with time, the transitivity and valency of verbs can change. It's pretty common with slang -- the verb "dig" (as in digging a hole) is often used to show appreciation, as in "I dig you", and thus often changes from intransitive to transitive. Why do you think this happens so often?
ReplyDeleteTo add on to that, I did some research and learned that the conjugation of different verbs changes with time as well. Irregularly past-tensed verbs such as "sang/sung" which do not use an -ed ending, in particular, tend to regularize over time. This happens fairly quickly, at a rate that is ‘inversely proportional to the square root of their frequency.' If you're interested in the constantly changing morphology of verbs, here's the link: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/09/29/the-evolution-of-the-past-tense-how-verbs-change-over-time/#.WA2O_ZMrKYU
It is interesting that you point out the meaning of words evolving, especially among younger generations. I wonder how much of that has to do with how we use language in social media? For example, are younger generations subconsciously using intransitive verbs as transitive in social media?
ReplyDelete