Fontaine (2017: 11-2):
It could be argued that these stems [talk, walk] are ambiguous in terms of their lexical class. This would force us to consider their lexical representation and we could ask whether they should be represented as the same lexeme or different (this could be considered in terms of polysemy or homonymy). Luuk (2010:362) argues that “they are neither nouns nor verbs but flexibles”, i.e. polysemous lexemes. This suggests that in terms of lexical representation that there is one lexeme which encodes this type of flexibility but this is not true of all nouns or verbs so there must be something specific to this set (see Davies, 2004). According to Luuk, an implication of the assumption that accompanies alternative solutions for these items (either zero derivation or homophony) is that they “posit unnecessary hidden structure” (ibid., see also Don, 2005). At the moment, it would seem that SFL would assume homonymy but whether it would or would not consider such a solution is an unanswered question. In Fontaine (2017b), I argue for a preference for polysemy in lexical representation within the SFL framework. In considering the case of prepositions and particles, I show how this is not inconsistent with current SFL descriptions of English. While such representations may seem trivial at first sight, they have significant theoretical implications, which could send reverberations throughout the framework.
Blogger Comments:
[1] To be clear, this could not be argued, because word classes, such as noun and verb, are grammatical, not lexical. That is, Fontaine has again confused the word as lexical item with word as grammatical rank scale unit.
[2] To be clear, this would not "force us to consider their lexical representation" because the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory, and with 'the known facts of human biology and brain science (Edelman 1989: 228).
[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the noun talk and the verb talk — like the noun walk and the verb walk — are different words grammatically, noun versus verb, but the same word lexically. Polysemy and homonymy are irrelevant considerations, since a word is viewed from the meaning expressed ('from above'), not from the form that expresses ('from below').
[4] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, discussions of nouns and verbs are concerned with grammatical word classes, not lexical items. Again, the theoretical approach here is inconsistent with SFL Theory, since it views the word 'from below', as a form which is assigned different meanings.
[5] To be clear, SFL Theory "assumes" neither homonymy nor polysemy, since both assume the view 'from below', as previously explained.
[6] To be clear, 'preposition' and 'particle' are classes of word as grammatical unit, rather than lexical item, and arguing for polysemy takes the view 'from below'. The proposal in Fontaine (2017b) is thus inconsistent with theory-competent "SFL descriptions of English".
[7] To be clear, these fundamental misunderstandings of SFL Theory do not "have significant theoretical implications, which could send reverberations throughout the framework".
[2] To be clear, this would not "force us to consider their lexical representation" because the notion of lexical representation in a mental lexicon is inconsistent with SFL Theory, and with 'the known facts of human biology and brain science (Edelman 1989: 228).
[3] To be clear, in SFL Theory, the noun talk and the verb talk — like the noun walk and the verb walk — are different words grammatically, noun versus verb, but the same word lexically. Polysemy and homonymy are irrelevant considerations, since a word is viewed from the meaning expressed ('from above'), not from the form that expresses ('from below').
[4] To be clear, from the perspective of SFL Theory, discussions of nouns and verbs are concerned with grammatical word classes, not lexical items. Again, the theoretical approach here is inconsistent with SFL Theory, since it views the word 'from below', as a form which is assigned different meanings.
[5] To be clear, SFL Theory "assumes" neither homonymy nor polysemy, since both assume the view 'from below', as previously explained.
[6] To be clear, 'preposition' and 'particle' are classes of word as grammatical unit, rather than lexical item, and arguing for polysemy takes the view 'from below'. The proposal in Fontaine (2017b) is thus inconsistent with theory-competent "SFL descriptions of English".
[7] To be clear, these fundamental misunderstandings of SFL Theory do not "have significant theoretical implications, which could send reverberations throughout the framework".
No comments:
Post a Comment