英语论文网

gins from the Greekpoly- indicating many and sem implying sense or meaning. For the first time, it wasintroduced into general linguistics by Bréal in 1887. He claimed that “polysemy isthe always synchronic pattern of meanings surrounding a word, which is itself theever changing result of semantic change” (Nerlich & Clarke, 1997, p. 378). Tyler &Evans (2003, p. 95) point out that polysemy indicates the language phenomenonwhereby an individual linguistic form is connected with a set of related but distinctsenses or meanings.Polysemy is a fairly pervasive semantic phenomenon in human naturallanguages, which reveals the brevity and economy of human languages and theability of one single linguistic form to deliver more than one meaning has been anessential trait in human languages. In the light of what Lyons (1995, p. 26) mentions,not a single natural language found in the world exists such kind of case that everyindividual word has one and only one meaning. As a natural language phenomenon,polysemy has been a hot issue since its appearance in linguistics, lexicography,philosophy, psychology and some other fields. Here, we mainly attach ourimportance to the previous studies within the field of linguistics and lexicography. The study of polysemy in linguistics has a venerable history. Scholars ofdifferent periods propose some very classical theories to expound this kind ofphenomenon from various perspectives. Of all the approaches, our classification canmainly be divided into two broad kinds, a traditional one and a cognitive approach.
…………

Chapter Three Theoretical Basis........ 23
3.1 Introduction......... 23
3.2 The Background of Usage-Based Theory..... 23
3.3 The Nature of Language: Language Is a Complex..... 25
3.4 Language and Language in Use........ 28
3.4.1 Frequency and Language ........ 28
3.4.2 Language Events and Category Formation..... 30
3.5 Language Change in Usage-Based Theory......... 31
3.6 Summary....... 34
Chapter Four Results and Discussion ......... 36
4.1 Overall Description of Statistical Results ..... 36
4.1.1 Overall Description of the Data from OALD7 ..... 36
4.1.2 Overall Description of Contrastive Data from “Big five” ...... 37
4.2 The Results and Discussion of Three Major Categories....... 38
4.3 Summary....... 57
Chapter Five Conclusion .... 59
5.1 Major Findings of the Study ....... 59
5.2 Limitations of the Study........ 60
5.3 Suggestions for Future Study...... 61

Chapter Four Results and Discussion

4.1 Overall Description of Statistical Results
The total number of contronyms from A-N entries in OALD7 is 182, on the basisof classifying the antonyms on the macro level, the following table demonstrates thedistribution of different types of contronyms in proportion to the whole in OALD7. The results above we get is in accordance with what Karaman addresses in 2008:since incompatibility is occupied with a feature which is basic to any kind ofopposition, it forms the most fundamental type of opposition (Karaman, 2008.p.178).During the process of retrieving data, we also find that most lexemes have onegroup opposite meanings, while a few have two groups opposite meanings. By comparison and contrast, “Big five” do show some difference in the treatmentof opposite meanings: am本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。