Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in Discourse

The article raises one of the most controversial issues of linguistic semantics – the correlation of two or more meanings within a lingual sign. A necessary step to understand the meaning is interpretation – conscious analytical work of a person directed onto specification and individualization of t...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Yulia M. Sergeeva
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Sourthern Federal University 2018-03-01
Series:Izvestiâ Ûžnogo Federalʹnogo Universiteta: Filologičeskie Nauki
Subjects:
Online Access:http://philol-journal.sfedu.ru/index.php/sfuphilol/article/view/1116
id doaj-b56cc5c1fc6a4a7ab7910b6d95728c13
record_format Article
spelling doaj-b56cc5c1fc6a4a7ab7910b6d95728c132020-11-25T03:14:54ZengSourthern Federal UniversityIzvestiâ Ûžnogo Federalʹnogo Universiteta: Filologičeskie Nauki1995-06402312-13432018-03-0120181798710.23683/1995-0640-2018-1-79-87Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in DiscourseYulia M. Sergeeva0Institute of foreign languages of Moscow State Pedagogical UniversityThe article raises one of the most controversial issues of linguistic semantics – the correlation of two or more meanings within a lingual sign. A necessary step to understand the meaning is interpretation – conscious analytical work of a person directed onto specification and individualization of the general sense. Empirical studies prove that ambiguity, i.e. the possibility to interpret one utterance in several ways, leads to misinterpretation of the sense and as such requires immediate clarification or else the communication might be defective. In order to systematize typical ambiguous utterances three basic types of ambiguity are introduced: syntactic, lexical and semantic, each one guarded by its own linguistic mechanism. It is argued that ambiguity can be intentional (equivocation, doublespeak) or unintentional (occasional language error or vagueness of expression). The latter is treated as pragmatic ambiguity (aka indeterminacy). Pragmatic ambiguity is caused by the fact that an utterance may have more than one meaning in the context in which it is uttered. The article is concluded with the statement that diversity of meanings result from the uniqueness of concepts as products of individual thinking. The presented material contributes to detection of problematic passages in a text, since it not only marks dubious sentences, but also explains the sources of their potential ambiguity.http://philol-journal.sfedu.ru/index.php/sfuphilol/article/view/1116dialogueaddresseeimplicatureambiguityinterpretationmeaningcontextual situation
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Yulia M. Sergeeva
spellingShingle Yulia M. Sergeeva
Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in Discourse
Izvestiâ Ûžnogo Federalʹnogo Universiteta: Filologičeskie Nauki
dialogue
addressee
implicature
ambiguity
interpretation
meaning
contextual situation
author_facet Yulia M. Sergeeva
author_sort Yulia M. Sergeeva
title Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in Discourse
title_short Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in Discourse
title_full Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in Discourse
title_fullStr Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in Discourse
title_full_unstemmed Personal Factor of Semantic Variability in Discourse
title_sort personal factor of semantic variability in discourse
publisher Sourthern Federal University
series Izvestiâ Ûžnogo Federalʹnogo Universiteta: Filologičeskie Nauki
issn 1995-0640
2312-1343
publishDate 2018-03-01
description The article raises one of the most controversial issues of linguistic semantics – the correlation of two or more meanings within a lingual sign. A necessary step to understand the meaning is interpretation – conscious analytical work of a person directed onto specification and individualization of the general sense. Empirical studies prove that ambiguity, i.e. the possibility to interpret one utterance in several ways, leads to misinterpretation of the sense and as such requires immediate clarification or else the communication might be defective. In order to systematize typical ambiguous utterances three basic types of ambiguity are introduced: syntactic, lexical and semantic, each one guarded by its own linguistic mechanism. It is argued that ambiguity can be intentional (equivocation, doublespeak) or unintentional (occasional language error or vagueness of expression). The latter is treated as pragmatic ambiguity (aka indeterminacy). Pragmatic ambiguity is caused by the fact that an utterance may have more than one meaning in the context in which it is uttered. The article is concluded with the statement that diversity of meanings result from the uniqueness of concepts as products of individual thinking. The presented material contributes to detection of problematic passages in a text, since it not only marks dubious sentences, but also explains the sources of their potential ambiguity.
topic dialogue
addressee
implicature
ambiguity
interpretation
meaning
contextual situation
url http://philol-journal.sfedu.ru/index.php/sfuphilol/article/view/1116
work_keys_str_mv AT yuliamsergeeva personalfactorofsemanticvariabilityindiscourse
_version_ 1724641716430962688