Электронная библиотека Финансового университета

     
?

Детальная информация
Карточка Таблица RUSMARC

Sabar, Nadav. Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis: the case of English look, see, seem and appear / Nadav Sabar. — 1 online resource. — (Studies in functional and structural linguistics). — <URL:http://elib.fa.ru/ebsco/1775012.pdf>.

Дата создания записи: 08.01.2018

Тематика: Linguistic analysis (Linguistics); Functionalism (Linguistics); English language — Semantics.; English language — Semantics.; Functionalism (Linguistics); Linguistic analysis (Linguistics); LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Grammar & Punctuation; LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / Syntax

Коллекции: EBSCO

Разрешенные действия: –

Действие 'Прочитать' будет доступно, если вы выполните вход в систему или будете работать с сайтом на компьютере в другой сети Действие 'Загрузить' будет доступно, если вы выполните вход в систему или будете работать с сайтом на компьютере в другой сети

Группа: Анонимные пользователи

Сеть: Интернет

Права на использование объекта хранения

Место доступа Группа пользователей Действие
Локальная сеть Финуниверситета Все Прочитать Печать Загрузить
Интернет Читатели Прочитать Печать
-> Интернет Анонимные пользователи

Оглавление

  • Lexical meaning as a testable hypothesis
  • Editorial page
  • Title page
  • LCC data
  • Table of contents
  • Acknowledgements
  • List of tables
  • List of figures
  • 1. The problem, methodology and theoretical background
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. The problem of the identification of linguistic units
      • 2.1 The problem of identifying linguistic units based on syntactic categories
      • 2.2 The problem of identifying linguistic units based on cognitive status
        • 2.2.1 The problem of stored sequences
        • 2.2.2 The problem of polysemy
    • 3. Methodology
      • 3.1 Qualitative support
      • 3.2 Quantitative support
    • 4. Preview of upcoming chapters
  • 2. attention, visual as the explanation for the choice of look
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. The fit with messages involving acts of visual attention
    • 3. The fit with messages where a visual stimulus is absent
    • 4. The fit with messages involving the communication of one’s thoughts or feelings
    • 5. The fit with messages involving attention-grabbing visual features
    • 6. The fit with messages involving attribution based on visual attention
    • 7. The fit with messages involving either visual or intellectual attention
    • 8. The fit with messages of searching
    • 9. Look in combination with directional terms: up, down, forward, back and after
    • 10. Conclusion
  • 3. Using big data to support the hypothesized meaning attention, visual
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Methodology
      • 2.1 Quantitative predictions test the generality of communicative strategies
      • 2.2 Justification of the inductive approach
    • 3. Supporting attention in the meaning of look
      • 3.1 Using carefully to support attention
      • 3.2 Using this to support attention
      • 3.3 Using but to support attention
      • 3.4 Using at to support attention
      • 3.5 Using deliberately to support attention
      • 3.6 Using think to support attention
    • 4. Supporting visual in the meaning of look
      • 4.1 Using eye to support visual
      • 4.2 Using painting to support visual
      • 4.3 Using see to support visual
    • 5. Conclusion
  • 4. attention, visual in competition with the meanings of see, seem, and appear
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. Look and see – attention, visual versus experiencing visually
      • 2.1 The hypothesis for see as a monosemic sign
      • 2.2 attention as the explanation for the choice of look over see
        • 2.2.1 Using turn to to support attention
        • 2.2.2 Using notice to support attention
      • 2.3 experiencing as the explanation for the choice of see over look
        • 2.3.1 Using believe to support experiencing
        • 2.3.2 Using understand to support experiencing
        • 2.3.3 Using less control to support experiencing
    • 3. Look and seem – attention, visual versus perspective dependency
      • 3.1 The hypothesis for seem as a monosemic sign
      • 3.2 visual as the explanation for the choice of look over seem
        • 3.2.1 Using green to support visual
      • 3.3 perspective dependency as the explanation for the choice of seem over look
        • 3.3.1 Using logical to support perspective
        • 3.3.2 Using to me to support perspective
        • 3.3.3 Using at the time to support perspective
    • 4. Look and appear – attention, visual versus initiation of perception
      • 4.1 The hypothesis for appear as a monosemic sign
      • 4.2 initiation as the explanation for the choice of appear over look
        • 4.2.1 Using introduce to support initiation
        • 4.2.2 Using first to support initiation
        • 4.2.3 Using comparative adjectives to support initiation
        • 4.2.4 Using but to support initiation
      • 4.3 Messages involving visual features: look versus appearance
    • 5. Conclusion
  • 5. Competing analyses of the meaning of look
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. A componential analysis
    • 3. A construction analysis
    • 4. A markedness analysis
  • 6. Theoretical excursus
    • 1. Introduction
    • 2. The linguistic status of the categories of grammar and lexicon
      • 2.1 The a priori assumption of a grammar-lexicon continuum
      • 2.2 The a priori assumption of polysemy in the lexicon
      • 2.3 The a priori assumption that only grammatical forms constrain one another
      • 2.4 The a priori assumption that lexical meanings are based on real-world categorizations
      • 2.5 Conclusion
    • 3. Recapitulations
  • References
  • Index

Статистика использования

stat Количество обращений: 0
За последние 30 дней: 0
Подробная статистика