In the Linguistics field, I need help to understand the first chapter, which is "Synonymy and Morphological Analysis," of the book entitled The...

In the first chapter of The Foundations of Linguistics Theory (edited by Nigel Love), an attempt is made to reconcile conflicting ideas of synonymy and morphological analysis. [Morphological analysis relates to meaningful elements while synonymy is a semantic sub-division relevant to lexical relations.] Based on an expanded concept of synonymity and on the introduction of synonymity statements and synonymity hypothesis, new questions arise as to the need for semantic information in defining morphological units. In turn, questions of identifying synonymous units--critically dependent upon semantic information--are complicated by the question of the relevance of that semantic information. Two questions regarding the relationship between morphological analysis and synonymity that are brought to our attention because of these complicating considerations are, as stated in Foundations of Linguistics Theory:

1. ...is it possible to make good the claim, inherent in the procedures of non-semantically based morphology, that morphological analysis does not require a concept of synonymy?
2. ...supposing this claim to be false or irrelevant, what then is the function of a concept of synonymy in relation to morphological analysis?

This is complex material and depends upon orienting your attention to the idea that descriptive linguistics often addresses languages for which morphology and synonymity are not known. As a result, answering whether or not semantic meaning is relevant to morphology and to synonymity is fundamentally critical. A further orientation of attention required is to the idea that the study of synonyms--of units of expression that have equivalent meanings--has expanded from the consideration of single words (e.g., wrong and incorrect) to the consideration of "words, bound morphs, phrases, clauses, sentences, and sequences of sentences ... as examples of synonymous expressions" (Foundations of Linguistics Theory). Consequently, questions of the relevance of semantic meaning encompass a larger scope than under the previous concept of single word-set synonymity.

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog