Analysis of Semantics and Pragmatics in Two Texts
Linguistics is the science of a language. Linguists depend on the use of certain aspects in order to analyse, describe and explain a human language; these aspects include semantics and pragmatics.
Semantics can be defined as the study of "meaning" of lexical words and expressions independently of context. Where pragmatics is the process of recognising the "invisible meaning" of lexical items and expressions; taking into account the speaker's/ addressee's intention, the status of hearer/ receiver and the actual situation.
This paper will explain the process we, as humans usually follow to understand a certain text or utterance. This ...view middle of the document...
The extensive use of these terms throughout the article was a necessity since the main topic is about a medical condition.
Another lexical field was elaborated in this article being the family relationships such as mothers, fathers, husbands, wives, children etc.
Antonymy or the use of two lexical items that represent the opposite meaning appear in this article such as men and women, males and females, wives and husbands, mothers and fathers, vent and defend etc. The use of these terms in this article is more likely for the purpose of comparison. Most of these antonyms are relational opposites; these opposites indicate two ends of a relationship between persons.
Also there were synonymous sense relations between few lexical items in the text for example, husband and hubby, males and men, females and women. These lexical items have the "same" meaning, however they are not absolute synonyms because the terms males and females are more general than the terms men and women because the first set could refer to a larger group of people, being all males/females. Another non-absolute synonyms are the terms hubby and husband, where the word hubby is the more colloquial term for husband.
Homonymy also occurs in this article through the use of the term "food" in the phrase "here is a little food for thought" shown in comment 1. The term food here even though it has the same phonological and written form of the term food which means "the nutrients eaten by human or animals for the purpose of staying alive". However, in this context "food "for thought can be expressed as a positive idea or piece of information given from the writer to the reader to enhance the knowledge of the reader.
In comment 2 the expression "wouldn’t lift a finger" has a homonymous sense relation because such expression could be interpreted literally as not lifting a finger, where in this context this expression means that the writer's husband failed to help her with the housework even by doing little things.
Pragmatically speaking, verbs like "love" in comment 1 "love the way everyone gets emotive about men" forms an expressive speech act because the writer or the addressee is expressing his feelings.
There is also a referential relationship between some expressions, for example in comment 2 in the first phrase being “Last week, hubby came home with flu. I also had “it”. The expression “It” in this context is an example of anaphora meaning that the “ It” here refers back to an already introduced entity, being the “flu” in this case.
Also based on the pragmatic analysis of article 1, the lexeme "sympathy" which occurred in the first paragraph of the actual article " to seek sympathy for their ailment from their partners" has a different denotative meaning than that of the writer's intention because the most direct meaning of the this lexeme is associated with the feelings and emotions of the sympathy that needs to be paid when someone passes away. Where in this context the...