Forms of the word theory

1. The definition of the word

2. Motivation

I

The
definition of the word was given already. The importance of
remembering about definitions is that they should indicate the most
essential characteristic features of the notion expressed by the term
under discussion, the features by which this notion is distinguished
from other similar notions.

E.g.
In defining the word one must distinguish it from other linguistic
units, such as phonemes, the morphemes, or the word groups.

Another
term, a
description
enumerates all the essential features of a notion.

The
definition of every basic notion is a very hard task; the definition
of the word is the most difficult in Linguistics because the simplest
word has many different aspects. The aspects are:

1)
It has a sound form because it is a certain arrangement of phonemes;

2)
It has its morphological structure, being also a certain arrangement
of morphemes, when used in actual speech, it may occur in different
word forms, and signal various meanings.

Being
the central
element
of any language system the word is a sort of focus for problems of
Phonology, Lexicology, Syntax, Morphology and also for some other
sciences that have to deal with language and speech, such as
Philosophy and Psychology etc.

The
characteristic
features of
a word are different depending in the science field where it is
studied. That’s why the variants of definitions were so numerous
and different in character.

E.g.
This example will show that any definition is conditioned by the aims
and interests of its authors. Thomas Hobbes, one of the great English
philosophers, revealed a materialistic approach to the problem of
nomination when he wrote that words are not mere sounds but names of
matter. Three centuries later Russian physiologist Pavlov examined
the word in connection with signal that can substitute any other
signal from the environment in evoking a response in a human
organism.

We
know such a phenomenon as a machine-translation.
It also deals with words (but by words is meant “a sequence of
graphemes which can occur between spaces”).

Within
the scope of Linguistics the word has been defined syntactically,
semantically, phonologically and by combining various approaches.

Words
seldom occur in isolation. They are arranged in certain patterns
conveying the relations between the thongs for which they stand,
therefore alongside with the lexical they possess some grammatical
meaning.

There
is one more, very important characteristics of the word, it is its
indivisibility:
Sapir says “It cannot cut into without a disturbance of meaning”.

E.g.
Compare a lion- alive (a as an article and a as a prefix).

A
purely semantic treatment can be found in Stephen Ullman’s
explanation: From the semantic point of view, “will fall into a
number of meaningful segments which are ultimately composed of
meaningful units. These units are called words”.

The
semantic phonological approach may be illustrated by Gardiner’s
definition: “A word is an articulate sound symbol in its aspect of
denoting something which is spoken about”.

The
French linguist Millet combines the semantic, phonological and
grammatic criteria and advances a formula which underlines many
definitions: “A word is defined by the association of a given
meaning with a given group of sounds susceptible of a given
grammatical employment”. We can take this formula together with the
statement that the word is the smallest significant unit of a given
language, capable of functioning alone. This addition is very
important to differentiate between a phoneme, morpheme and a word.

II

The
term motivation
is used to denote the relationship existing between the morphemic or
phonemic composition and structural pattern of the word on the one
hand, and its meaning on the other. There are three main types of
motivation: phonetical motivation, morphological and semantic
motivation.

E.g.
The word hiss is motivated by a certain similarity between the sounds
which make it up, and those referred to by the sense: its motivation
is phonetical.
Examples are also: bang, buzz, giggle, whistle etc.

The
derived word rethink is motivated in as much as its morphological
structure suggests the idea of thinking again. Its motivation is
morphological.

Semantic
motivation is based on the co-existence of direct and figurative
meanings, i.e. of the old sense and new within the same synchronous
system.

E.g.
Mouth continues to denote a part of the human face, and at the same
time it can mean metaphorically any opening or outlet: the mouth of a
river, for instance. In its direct meaning the word mouth is not
motivated, so that semantic motivation is also only relative.

If
there is no influence of other words on the word under discussion,
the word under discussion is said to be non-motivated (there is no
connections between the phonetical structure of the word and its
meaning).

The
difference between motivated and non-motivated words is that between
a symbol and a sign. The sign simply points to a meaning. The meaning
of a symbol is not arbitrary but depends upon its structure.

From
the historical point of view, motivation changes in the course of
time. Words that are non-motivated at present may have lost their
motivation due to changes in the vocabulary, their motivation is said
to be faded.

E.g.
The verb earn doesn’t suggest any necessary connection with
agriculture at present. It is purely conventional; historical
analysis shows that it is derived from OE earnian “to harvest”.
In ME this connection no longer exists, the motivation is lost and
earn is now a non-motivated word.

Some
linguists consider one more type of motivation – sound
symbolism.
Some words are supposed to illustrate the meaning more immediately
than do ordinary words. Their sound form is very closely connected
with the meaning. Examples are: flap, flip, flop, flash, glare,
glitter; sleet, slime, slush, where fl is associated with quick
movement, gl – with light and fire, sl – mud.

It’s
practically enough about fundamentals of Lexicology. Now we come to
the methods used to deal with these problems.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

  20.03.2015540.67 Кб9W3.doc

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

A hypothesis is an assumption, an idea that is proposed for the sake of argument so that it can be tested to see if it might be true.

In the scientific method, the hypothesis is constructed before any applicable research has been done, apart from a basic background review. You ask a question, read up on what has been studied before, and then form a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is usually tentative; it’s an assumption or suggestion made strictly for the objective of being tested.

A theory, in contrast, is a principle that has been formed as an attempt to explain things that have already been substantiated by data. It is used in the names of a number of principles accepted in the scientific community, such as the Big Bang Theory. Because of the rigors of experimentation and control, it is understood to be more likely to be true than a hypothesis is.

In non-scientific use, however, hypothesis and theory are often used interchangeably to mean simply an idea, speculation, or hunch, with theory being the more common choice.

Since this casual use does away with the distinctions upheld by the scientific community, hypothesis and theory are prone to being wrongly interpreted even when they are encountered in scientific contexts—or at least, contexts that allude to scientific study without making the critical distinction that scientists employ when weighing hypotheses and theories.

The most common occurrence is when theory is interpreted—and sometimes even gleefully seized upon—to mean something having less truth value than other scientific principles. (The word law applies to principles so firmly established that they are almost never questioned, such as the law of gravity.)

This mistake is one of projection: since we use theory in general to mean something lightly speculated, then it’s implied that scientists must be talking about the same level of uncertainty when they use theory to refer to their well-tested and reasoned principles.

The distinction has come to the forefront particularly on occasions when the content of science curricula in schools has been challenged—notably, when a school board in Georgia put stickers on textbooks stating that evolution was «a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things.» As Kenneth R. Miller, a cell biologist at Brown University, has said, a theory «doesn’t mean a hunch or a guess. A theory is a system of explanations that ties together a whole bunch of facts. It not only explains those facts, but predicts what you ought to find from other observations and experiments.”

While theories are never completely infallible, they form the basis of scientific reasoning because, as Miller said «to the best of our ability, we’ve tested them, and they’ve held up.»

A theory is a rational type of abstract thinking about a phenomenon, or the results of such thinking. The process of contemplative and rational thinking is often associated with such processes as observational study or research. Theories may be scientific, belong to a non-scientific discipline, or no discipline at all. Depending on the context, a theory’s assertions might, for example, include generalized explanations of how nature works. The word has its roots in ancient Greek, but in modern use it has taken on several related meanings.

In modern science, the term «theory» refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with the scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that scientific tests should be able to provide empirical support for it, or empirical contradiction («falsify») of it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,^[1] in contrast to more common uses of the word «theory» that imply that something is unproven or speculative (which in formal terms is better characterized by the word hypothesis).^[2] Scientific theories are distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and from scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of the way nature behaves under certain conditions.

Theories guide the enterprise of finding facts rather than of reaching goals, and are neutral concerning alternatives among values.^[3]: 131 A theory can be a body of knowledge, which may or may not be associated with particular explanatory models. To theorize is to develop this body of knowledge.^[4]: 46

The word theory or «in theory» is sometimes used erroneously by people to explain something which they individually did not experience or test before.^[5] In those instances, semantically, it is being substituted for another concept, a hypothesis. Instead of using the word «hypothetically», it is replaced by a phrase: «in theory». In some instances the theory’s credibility could be contested by calling it «just a theory» (implying that the idea has not even been tested).^[6] Hence, that word «theory» is very often contrasted to «practice» (from Greek praxis, πρᾶξις) a Greek term for doing, which is opposed to theory.^[6] A «classical example» of the distinction between «theoretical» and «practical» uses the discipline of medicine: medical theory involves trying to understand the causes and nature of health and sickness, while the practical side of medicine is trying to make people healthy. These two things are related but can be independent, because it is possible to research health and sickness without curing specific patients, and it is possible to cure a patient without knowing how the cure worked.^[a]

Ancient usage[edit]

The English word theory derives from a technical term in philosophy in Ancient Greek. As an everyday word, theoria, θεωρία, meant «looking at, viewing, beholding», but in more technical contexts it came to refer to contemplative or speculative understandings of natural things, such as those of natural philosophers, as opposed to more practical ways of knowing things, like that of skilled orators or artisans.^[b] English-speakers have used the word theory since at least the late 16th century.^[7] Modern uses of the word theory derive from the original definition, but have taken on new shades of meaning, still based on the idea of a theory as a thoughtful and rational explanation of the general nature of things.

Although it has more mundane meanings in Greek, the word θεωρία apparently developed special uses early in the recorded history of the Greek language. In the book From Religion to Philosophy, Francis Cornford suggests that the Orphics used the word theoria to mean «passionate sympathetic contemplation».^[8] Pythagoras changed the word to mean «the passionless contemplation of rational, unchanging truth» of mathematical knowledge, because he considered this intellectual pursuit the way to reach the highest plane of existence.^[9] Pythagoras emphasized subduing emotions and bodily desires to help the intellect function at the higher plane of theory. Thus, it was Pythagoras who gave the word theory the specific meaning that led to the classical and modern concept of a distinction between theory (as uninvolved, neutral thinking) and practice.^[10]

Aristotle’s terminology, as already mentioned, contrasts theory with praxis or practice, and this contrast exists till today. For Aristotle, both practice and theory involve thinking, but the aims are different. Theoretical contemplation considers things humans do not move or change, such as nature, so it has no human aim apart from itself and the knowledge it helps create. On the other hand, praxis involves thinking, but always with an aim to desired actions, whereby humans cause change or movement themselves for their own ends. Any human movement that involves no conscious choice and thinking could not be an example of praxis or doing.^[c]

Formality[edit]

Theories are analytical tools for understanding, explaining, and making predictions about a given subject matter. There are theories in many and varied fields of study, including the arts and sciences. A formal theory is syntactic in nature and is only meaningful when given a semantic component by applying it to some content (e.g., facts and relationships of the actual historical world as it is unfolding). Theories in various fields of study are expressed in natural language, but are always constructed in such a way that their general form is identical to a theory as it is expressed in the formal language of mathematical logic. Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic.

Theory is constructed of a set of sentences that are entirely true statements about the subject under consideration. However, the truth of any one of these statements is always relative to the whole theory. Therefore, the same statement may be true with respect to one theory, and not true with respect to another. This is, in ordinary language, where statements such as «He is a terrible person» cannot be judged as true or false without reference to some interpretation of who «He» is and for that matter what a «terrible person» is under the theory.^[11]

Sometimes two theories have exactly the same explanatory power because they make the same predictions. A pair of such theories is called indistinguishable or observationally equivalent, and the choice between them reduces to convenience or philosophical preference.

The form of theories is studied formally in mathematical logic, especially in model theory. When theories are studied in mathematics, they are usually expressed in some formal language and their statements are closed under application of certain procedures called rules of inference. A special case of this, an axiomatic theory, consists of axioms (or axiom schemata) and rules of inference. A theorem is a statement that can be derived from those axioms by application of these rules of inference. Theories used in applications are abstractions of observed phenomena and the resulting theorems provide solutions to real-world problems. Obvious examples include arithmetic (abstracting concepts of number), geometry (concepts of space), and probability (concepts of randomness and likelihood).

Gödel’s incompleteness theorem shows that no consistent, recursively enumerable theory (that is, one whose theorems form a recursively enumerable set) in which the concept of natural numbers can be expressed, can include all true statements about them. As a result, some domains of knowledge cannot be formalized, accurately and completely, as mathematical theories. (Here, formalizing accurately and completely means that all true propositions—and only true propositions—are derivable within the mathematical system.) This limitation, however, in no way precludes the construction of mathematical theories that formalize large bodies of scientific knowledge.

Underdetermination[edit]

A theory is underdetermined (also called indeterminacy of data to theory) if a rival, inconsistent theory is at least as consistent with the evidence. Underdetermination is an epistemological issue about the relation of evidence to conclusions.

A theory that lacks supporting evidence is generally, more properly, referred to as a hypothesis.

Intertheoretic reduction and elimination[edit]

If a new theory better explains and predicts a phenomenon than an old theory (i.e., it has more explanatory power), we are justified in believing that the newer theory describes reality more correctly. This is called an intertheoretic reduction because the terms of the old theory can be reduced to the terms of the new one. For instance, our historical understanding about sound, «light» and heat have been reduced to wave compressions and rarefactions, electromagnetic waves, and molecular kinetic energy, respectively. These terms, which are identified with each other, are called intertheoretic identities. When an old and new theory are parallel in this way, we can conclude that the new one describes the same reality, only more completely.

When a new theory uses new terms that do not reduce to terms of an older theory, but rather replace them because they misrepresent reality, it is called an intertheoretic elimination. For instance, the obsolete scientific theory that put forward an understanding of heat transfer in terms of the movement of caloric fluid was eliminated when a theory of heat as energy replaced it. Also, the theory that phlogiston is a substance released from burning and rusting material was eliminated with the new understanding of the reactivity of oxygen.

Versus theorems[edit]

Theories are distinct from theorems. A theorem is derived deductively from axioms (basic assumptions) according to a formal system of rules, sometimes as an end in itself and sometimes as a first step toward being tested or applied in a concrete situation; theorems are said to be true in the sense that the conclusions of a theorem are logical consequences of the axioms. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are ‘rigorously tentative’, meaning that they are proposed as true and expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are incorrect, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often theories are corrected to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. An example of the former is the restriction of classical mechanics to phenomena involving macroscopic length scales and particle speeds much lower than the speed of light.

The theory–practice gap[edit]

Theory is often distinguished from practice. The question of whether theoretical models of work are relevant to work itself is of interest to scholars of professions such as medicine, engineering, and law, and management.^[12]: 802

This gap between theory and practice has been framed as a knowledge transfer where there is a task of translating research knowledge to be application in practice, and ensuring that practitioners are made aware of it academics have been criticized for not attempting to transfer the knowledge they produce to practitioners.^{[12]: 804 [13]} Another framing supposes that theory and knowledge seek to understand different problems and model the world in different words (using different ontologies and epistemologies) . Another framing says that research does not produce theory that is relevant to practice.^[12]: 803

In the context of management, Van de Van and Johnson propose a form of engaged scholarship where scholars examine problems that occur in practice, in an interdisciplinary fashion, producing results that create both new practical results as well as new theoretical models, but targeting theoretical results shared in an academic fashion.^[12]: 815 They use a metaphor of «arbitrage» of ideas between disciplines, distinguishing it from collaboration.^[12]: 803

Scientific[edit]

In science, the term «theory» refers to «a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.»^[14][15] Theories must also meet further requirements, such as the ability to make falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry, and production of strong evidence in favor of the theory from multiple independent sources (consilience).

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved (or replaced by better theories) as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time; this increased accuracy corresponds to an increase in scientific knowledge. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing diseases.

Definitions from scientific organizations[edit]

The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of «theory» is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics) … One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.^[16]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not «guesses» but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than «just a theory.» It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.^[15]

The term theory is not appropriate for describing scientific models or untested, but intricate hypotheses.

Philosophical views[edit]

The logical positivists thought of scientific theories as deductive theories—that a theory’s content is based on some formal system of logic and on basic axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.^[11] This is called the received view of theories.

In the semantic view of theories, which has largely replaced the received view,^[17][18] theories are viewed as scientific models. A model is a logical framework intended to represent reality (a «model of reality»), similar to the way that a map is a graphical model that represents the territory of a city or country. In this approach, theories are a specific category of models that fulfill the necessary criteria. (See Theories as models for further discussion.)

In physics[edit]

In physics the term theory is generally used for a mathematical framework—derived from a small set of basic postulates (usually symmetries, like equality of locations in space or in time, or identity of electrons, etc.)—which is capable of producing experimental predictions for a given category of physical systems. One good example is classical electromagnetism, which encompasses results derived from gauge symmetry (sometimes called gauge invariance) in a form of a few equations called Maxwell’s equations. The specific mathematical aspects of classical electromagnetic theory are termed «laws of electromagnetism», reflecting the level of consistent and reproducible evidence that supports them. Within electromagnetic theory generally, there are numerous hypotheses about how electromagnetism applies to specific situations. Many of these hypotheses are already considered adequately tested, with new ones always in the making and perhaps untested.

Regarding the term «theoretical»[edit]

Certain tests may be infeasible or technically difficult. As a result, theories may make predictions that have not been confirmed or proven incorrect. These predictions may be described informally as «theoretical». They can be tested later, and if they are incorrect, this may lead to revision, invalidation, or rejection of the theory.
^[19]

Mathematical[edit]

In mathematics the use of the term theory is different, necessarily so, since mathematics contains no explanations of natural phenomena, per se, even though it may help provide insight into natural systems or be inspired by them. In the general sense, a mathematical theory is a branch of or topic in mathematics, such as Set theory, Number theory, Group theory, Probability theory, Game theory, Control theory, Perturbation theory, etc., such as might be appropriate for a single textbook.

In the same sense, but more specifically, the word theory is an extensive, structured collection of theorems, organized so that the proof of each theorem only requires the theorems and axioms that preceded it (no circular proofs), occurs as early as feasible in sequence (no postponed proofs), and the whole is as succinct as possible (no redundant proofs).^[d] Ideally, the sequence in which the theorems are presented is as easy to understand as possible, although illuminating a branch of mathematics is the purpose of textbooks, rather than the mathematical theory they might be written to cover.

Philosophical[edit]

A theory can be either descriptive as in science, or prescriptive (normative) as in philosophy.^[20] The latter are those whose subject matter consists not of empirical data, but rather of ideas. At least some of the elementary theorems of a philosophical theory are statements whose truth cannot necessarily be scientifically tested through empirical observation.

A field of study is sometimes named a «theory» because its basis is some initial set of assumptions describing the field’s approach to the subject. These assumptions are the elementary theorems of the particular theory, and can be thought of as the axioms of that field. Some commonly known examples include set theory and number theory; however literary theory, critical theory, and music theory are also of the same form.

Metatheory[edit]

One form of philosophical theory is a metatheory or meta-theory. A metatheory is a theory whose subject matter is some other theory or set of theories. In other words, it is a theory about theories. Statements made in the metatheory about the theory are called metatheorems.

Political[edit]

A political theory is an ethical theory about the law and government. Often the term «political theory» refers to a general view, or specific ethic, political belief or attitude, thought about politics.

Jurisprudential[edit]

In social science, jurisprudence is the philosophical theory of law. Contemporary philosophy of law addresses problems internal to law and legal systems, and problems of law as a particular social institution.

Examples[edit]

Most of the following are scientific theories. Some are not, but rather encompass a body of knowledge or art, such as Music theory and Visual Arts Theories.

• Anthropology: Carneiro’s circumscription theory
• Astronomy: Alpher–Bethe–Gamow theory — B²FH Theory — Copernican theory — Newton’s theory of gravitation — Hubble’s law — Kepler’s laws of planetary motion Ptolemaic theory
• Biology: Cell theory — Chemiosmotic theory — Evolution — Germ theory — Symbiogenesis
• Chemistry: Molecular theory — Kinetic theory of gases — Molecular orbital theory — Valence bond theory — Transition state theory — RRKM theory — Chemical graph theory — Flory–Huggins solution theory — Marcus theory — Lewis theory (successor to Brønsted–Lowry acid–base theory) — HSAB theory — Debye–Hückel theory — Thermodynamic theory of polymer elasticity — Reptation theory — Polymer field theory — Møller–Plesset perturbation theory — density functional theory — Frontier molecular orbital theory — Polyhedral skeletal electron pair theory — Baeyer strain theory — Quantum theory of atoms in molecules — Collision theory — Ligand field theory (successor to Crystal field theory) — Variational transition-state theory — Benson group increment theory — Specific ion interaction theory
• Climatology: Climate change theory (general study of climate changes) and anthropogenic climate change (ACC)/ global warming (AGW) theories (due to human activity)
• Computer Science: Automata theory — Queueing theory
• Cosmology: Big Bang Theory — Cosmic inflation — Loop quantum gravity — Superstring theory — Supergravity — Supersymmetric theory — Multiverse theory — Holographic principle — Quantum gravity — M-theory
• Economics: Macroeconomic theory — Microeconomic theory — Law of Supply and demand
• Education: Constructivist theory — Critical pedagogy theory — Education theory — Multiple intelligence theory — Progressive education theory
• Engineering: Circuit theory — Control theory — Signal theory — Systems theory — Information theory
• Film: Film theory
• Geology: Plate tectonics
• Humanities: Critical theory
• Jurisprudence or ‘Legal theory’: Natural law — Legal positivism — Legal realism — Critical legal studies
• Law: see Jurisprudence; also Case theory
• Linguistics: X-bar theory — Government and Binding — Principles and parameters — Universal grammar
• Literature: Literary theory
• Mathematics: Approximation theory — Arakelov theory — Asymptotic theory — Bifurcation theory — Catastrophe theory — Category theory — Chaos theory — Choquet theory — Coding theory — Combinatorial game theory — Computability theory — Computational complexity theory — Deformation theory — Dimension theory — Ergodic theory — Field theory — Galois theory — Game theory — Gauge theory — Graph theory — Group theory — Hodge theory — Homology theory — Homotopy theory — Ideal theory — Intersection theory — Invariant theory — Iwasawa theory — K-theory — KK-theory — Knot theory — L-theory — Lie theory — Littlewood–Paley theory — Matrix theory — Measure theory — Model theory — Module theory — Morse theory — Nevanlinna theory — Number theory — Obstruction theory — Operator theory — Order theory — PCF theory — Perturbation theory — Potential theory — Probability theory — Ramsey theory — Rational choice theory — Representation theory — Ring theory — Set theory — Shape theory — Small cancellation theory — Spectral theory — Stability theory — Stable theory — Sturm–Liouville theory — Surgery theory — Twistor theory — Yang–Mills theory
• Music: Music theory
• Philosophy: Proof theory — Speculative reason — Theory of truth — Type theory — Value theory — Virtue theory
• Physics: Acoustic theory — Antenna theory — Atomic theory — BCS theory — Conformal field theory — Dirac hole theory — Dynamo theory — Landau theory — M-theory — Perturbation theory — Theory of relativity (successor to classical mechanics) — Gauge theory — Quantum field theory — Scattering theory — String theory — Quantum information theory
• Psychology: Theory of mind — Cognitive dissonance theory — Attachment theory — Object permanence — Poverty of stimulus — Attribution theory — Self-fulfilling prophecy — Stockholm syndrome
• Public Budgeting: Incrementalism — Zero-based budgeting
• Public Administration: Organizational theory
• Semiotics: Intertheoricity – Transferogenesis
• Sociology: Critical theory — Engaged theory — Social theory — Sociological theory – Social capital theory
• Statistics: Extreme value theory
• Theatre: Performance theory
• Visual Arts: Aesthetics — Art educational theory — Architecture — Composition — Anatomy — Color theory — Perspective — Visual perception — Geometry — Manifolds
• Other: Obsolete scientific theories

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

Citations[edit]

Sources[edit]

External links[edit]

• «How science works: Even theories change», Understanding Science by the University of California Museum of Paleontology.
• What is a Theory?

WORD STRUCTURE IN MODERN ENGLISH

  I.   The morphological structure of a word. Morphemes. Types of morphemes. Allomorphs.

II.   Structural types of words.

III.   Principles of morphemic analysis.

  IV.   Derivational level of analysis. Stems. Types of stems. Derivational types of words.

I.   The morphological structure of a word. Morphemes. Types of Morphemes.  Allomorphs.

There are two levels of approach to the study of word- structure: the level of morphemic analysis and the level of derivational or word-formation analysis.

Word is the principal and basic unit of the language system, the largest on the morphologic and the smallest on the syntactic plane of linguistic analysis.

It has been universally acknowledged that a great many words have a composite nature and are made up of morphemes, the basic units on the morphemic level, which are defined as the smallest indivisible two-facet language units.

The term morpheme is derived from Greek morphe “form ”+ -eme. The Greek suffix –eme has been adopted by linguistic to denote the smallest unit or the minimum distinctive feature.

The morpheme is the smallest meaningful unit of form. A form in these cases a recurring discrete unit of speech. Morphemes occur in speech only as constituent parts of words, not independently, although a word may consist of single morpheme. Even a cursory examination of the morphemic structure of English words reveals that they are composed of morphemes of different types: root-morphemes and affixational morphemes. Words that consist of a root and an affix are called derived words or derivatives and are produced by the process of word building known as affixation (or derivation).

The root-morpheme is the lexical nucleus of the word; it has a very general and abstract lexical meaning common to a set of semantically related words constituting one word-cluster, e.g. (to) teach, teacher, teaching. Besides the lexical meaning root-morphemes possess all other types of meaning proper to morphemes except the part-of-speech meaning which is not found in roots.

Affixational morphemes include inflectional affixes or inflections and derivational affixes. Inflections carry only grammatical meaning and are thus relevant only for the formation of word-forms. Derivational affixes are relevant for building various types of words. They are lexically always dependent on the root which they modify. They possess the same types of meaning as found in roots, but unlike root-morphemes most of them have the part-of-speech meaning which makes them structurally the important part of the word as they condition the lexico-grammatical class the word belongs to. Due to this component of their meaning the derivational affixes are classified into affixes building different parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives or adverbs.

Roots and derivational affixes are generally easily distinguished and the difference between them is clearly felt as, e.g., in the words helpless, handy, blackness, Londoner, refill, etc.: the root-morphemes help-, hand-, black-, London-, fill-, are understood as the lexical centers of the words, and –less, -y,      -ness, -er, re- are felt as morphemes dependent on these roots.

 Distinction is also made of free and bound morphemes.

Free morphemes coincide with word-forms of independently functioning words. It is obvious that free morphemes can be found only among roots, so the morpheme boy- in the word boy is a free morpheme; in the word undesirable there is only one free morpheme desire-; the word pen-holder has two free morphemes  pen- and hold-. It follows that bound morphemes are those that do not coincide with separate word- forms, consequently all derivational morphemes, such as –ness, -able, -er are bound. Root-morphemes may be both free and bound. The morphemes theor- in the words theory, theoretical, or horr- in the words horror, horrible, horrify; Angl- in  Anglo-Saxon; Afr- in Afro-Asian are all bound roots as there are no identical word-forms.

It should also be noted that morphemes may have different phonemic shapes. In the word-cluster please , pleasing , pleasure , pleasant the phonemic shapes of the word stand in complementary distribution or in alternation with each other. All the representations of the given morpheme, that manifest alternation are called allomorphs/or morphemic variants/ of that morpheme.

The combining form allo- from Greek allos “other” is used in linguistic terminology to denote elements of a group whose members together consistute a structural unit of the language (allophones, allomorphs). Thus, for example, -ion/ -tion/ -sion/ -ation are the positional variants of the same suffix, they do not differ in meaning or function but show a slight difference in sound form depending on the final phoneme of the preceding stem. They are considered as variants of one and the same morpheme and called its allomorphs.

Allomorph is defined as a positional variant of a morpheme occurring in a specific environment and so characterized by complementary description.

Complementary distribution is said to take place, when two linguistic variants cannot appear in the same environment.

Different morphemes are characterized by contrastive distribution, i.e. if they occur in the same environment they signal different meanings. The suffixes –able and –ed, for instance, are different morphemes, not allomorphs, because adjectives in –able mean “ capable of beings”.

Allomorphs will also occur among prefixes. Their form then depends on the initials of the stem with which they will assimilate.

Two or more sound forms of a stem existing under conditions of complementary distribution may also be regarded as allomorphs, as, for instance, in long a: length n.

II. Structural types of words.

The morphological analysis of word- structure on the morphemic level aims at splitting the word into its constituent morphemes – the basic units at this level of analysis – and at determining their number and types. The four types (root words, derived words, compound, shortenings) represent the main structural types of Modern English words, and conversion, derivation and composition the most productive ways of word building.

According to the number of morphemes words can be classified into monomorphic and polymorphic. Monomorphic or root-words consist of only one root-morpheme, e.g. small, dog, make, give, etc. All polymorphic word fall into two subgroups:  derived words and compound words – according to the number of root-morphemes they have. Derived words are composed of one root-morpheme and one or more derivational morphemes, e.g. acceptable, outdo, disagreeable, etc. Compound words are those which contain at least two root-morphemes, the number of derivational morphemes being insignificant. There can be both root- and derivational morphemes in compounds as in pen-holder, light-mindedness, or only root-morphemes as in lamp-shade, eye-ball, etc.

These structural types are not of equal importance. The clue to the correct understanding of their comparative value lies in a careful consideration of: 1)the importance of each type in the existing wordstock, and 2) their frequency value in actual speech. Frequency is by far the most important factor. According to the available word counts made in different parts of speech, we find that derived words numerically constitute the largest class of words in the existing wordstock; derived nouns comprise approximately 67% of the total number, adjectives about 86%, whereas compound nouns make about 15% and adjectives about 4%. Root words come to 18% in nouns, i.e. a trifle more than the number of compound words; adjectives root words come to approximately 12%.

But we cannot fail to perceive that root-words occupy a predominant place. In English, according to the recent frequency counts, about 60% of the total number of nouns and 62% of the total number of adjectives in current use are root-words. Of the total number of adjectives and nouns, derived words comprise about 38% and 37% respectively while compound words comprise an insignificant 2% in nouns and 0.2% in adjectives. Thus it is the root-words that constitute the foundation and the backbone of the vocabulary and that are of paramount importance in speech. It should also be mentioned that root words are characterized by a high degree of collocability and a complex variety of meanings in contrast with words of other structural types whose semantic structures are much poorer. Root- words also serve as parent forms for all types of derived and compound words.

III. Principles of morphemic analysis.

In most cases the morphemic structure of words is transparent enough and individual morphemes clearly stand out within the word. The segmentation of words is generally carried out according to the method of Immediate and Ultimate Constituents. This method is based on the binary principle, i.e. each stage of the procedure involves two components the word immediately breaks into. At each stage these two components are referred to as the Immediate Constituents. Each Immediate Constituent at the next stage of analysis is in turn broken into smaller meaningful elements. The analysis is completed when we arrive at constituents incapable of further division, i.e. morphemes. These are referred to Ultimate Constituents.

A synchronic morphological analysis is most effectively accomplished by the procedure known as the analysis into Immediate Constituents. ICs are the two meaningful parts forming a large linguistic unity.

The method is based on the fact that a word characterized by morphological divisibility is involved in certain structural correlations. To sum up: as we break the word we obtain at any level only ICs one of which is the stem of the given word. All the time the analysis is based on the patterns characteristic of the English vocabulary. As a pattern showing the interdependence of all the constituents segregated at various stages, we obtain the following formula:

un+ { [ ( gent- + -le ) + -man ] + -ly}

Breaking a word into its Immediate Constituents we observe in each cut the structural order of the constituents.

A  diagram presenting the four cuts described looks as follows:

1. un- / gentlemanly

2.   un- / gentleman / — ly

3.   un- / gentle / — man / — ly

4.   un- / gentl / — e / — man / — ly

A similar analysis on the word-formation level showing not only the morphemic constituents of the word but also the structural pattern on which it is built.

The analysis of word-structure at the morphemic level must proceed to the stage of Ultimate Constituents. For example, the noun friendliness is first segmented into the ICs: [frendlı-] recurring in the adjectives friendly-looking and friendly and [-nıs] found in a countless number  of nouns, such as unhappiness, blackness, sameness, etc. the IC [-nıs] is at the same time an UC of the word, as it cannot be broken into any smaller elements possessing both sound-form and meaning. Any further division of –ness would give individual speech-sounds which denote nothing by themselves. The IC [frendlı-] is next broken into the ICs [-lı] and [frend-] which are both UCs of the word.

Morphemic analysis under the method of Ultimate Constituents may be carried out on the basis of two principles: the so-called root-principle and affix principle.

According to the affix principle the splitting of the word into its constituent morphemes is based on the identification of the affix within a set of words, e.g. the identification of the suffix –er leads to the segmentation of words singer, teacher, swimmer into the derivational morpheme – er  and the roots teach- , sing-, drive-.

According to the root-principle, the segmentation of the word is based on the identification of the root-morpheme in a word-cluster, for example the identification of the root-morpheme agree-  in the words agreeable, agreement, disagree.

As a rule, the application of these principles is sufficient for the morphemic segmentation of words.

However, the morphemic structure of words in a number of cases defies such analysis, as it is not always so transparent and simple as in the cases mentioned above. Sometimes not only the segmentation of words into morphemes, but the recognition of certain sound-clusters as morphemes become doubtful which naturally affects the classification of words. In words like retain, detain, contain or  receive, deceive, conceive, perceive the sound-clusters [rı-], [dı-] seem to be singled quite easily, on the other hand, they undoubtedly have nothing in common with the phonetically identical prefixes  re-, de- as found in words re-write, re-organize, de-organize, de-code. Moreover, neither the sound-cluster [rı-] or [dı-], nor the [-teın] or [-sı:v] possess any lexical or functional meaning of their own. Yet, these sound-clusters are felt as having a certain meaning because [rı-] distinguishes retain from detain and [-teın] distinguishes retain from receive.

It follows that all these sound-clusters have a differential and a certain distributional meaning as their order arrangement point to the affixal status of re-, de-, con-, per- and makes one understand —tain and –ceive as roots. The differential and distributional meanings seem to give sufficient ground to recognize these sound-clusters as morphemes, but as they lack lexical meaning of their own, they are set apart from all other types of morphemes and are known in linguistic literature as pseudo- morphemes. Pseudo- morphemes of the same kind  are also encountered in words like rusty-fusty.

IV.   Derivational level of analysis. Stems. Types of Stems. Derivational types of word.

The morphemic analysis of words only defines the constituent morphemes, determining their types and their meaning but does not reveal the hierarchy of the morphemes comprising the word. Words are no mere sum totals of morpheme, the latter reveal a definite, sometimes very complex interrelation. Morphemes are arranged according to certain rules, the arrangement differing in various types of words and particular groups within the same types. The pattern of morpheme arrangement underlies the classification of words into different types and enables one to understand how new words appear in the language. These relations within the word and the interrelations between different types and classes of words are known as derivative or word- formation relations.

The analysis of derivative relations aims at establishing a correlation between different types and the structural patterns words are built on. The basic unit at the derivational level is the stem.

The stem is defined as that part of the word which remains unchanged throughout its paradigm, thus the stem which appears in the paradigm (to) ask ( ), asks, asked, asking is ask-; thestem of the word singer ( ), singer’s, singers, singers’ is singer-. It is the stem of the word that takes the inflections which shape the word grammatically as one or another part of speech.

The structure of stems should be described in terms of IC’s analysis, which at this level aims at establishing the patterns of typical derivative relations within the stem and the derivative correlation between stems of different types.

There are three types of stems: simple, derived and compound.

Simple stems are semantically non-motivated and do not constitute a pattern on analogy with which new stems may be modeled. Simple stems are generally monomorphic and phonetically identical with the root morpheme. The derivational structure of stems does not always coincide with the result of morphemic analysis. Comparison proves that not all morphemes relevant at the morphemic level are relevant at the derivational level of analysis. It follows that bound morphemes and all types of pseudo- morphemes are irrelevant to the derivational structure of stems as they do not meet requirements of double opposition and derivative interrelations. So the stem of such words as retain, receive, horrible, pocket, motion, etc. should be regarded as simple, non- motivated stems.

Derived stems are built on stems of various structures though which they are motivated, i.e. derived stems are understood on the basis  of the derivative relations between their IC’s and the correlated stems. The derived stems are mostly polymorphic in which case the segmentation results only in one IC that is itself a stem, the other IC being necessarily a derivational affix.

Derived stems are not necessarily polymorphic.

Compound stems are made up of two IC’s, both of which are themselves stems, for example match-box, driving-suit, pen-holder, etc. It is built by joining of two stems, one of which is simple, the other derived.

In more complex cases the result of the analysis at the two levels sometimes seems even to contracted one another.

The derivational types of words are classified according to the structure of their stems into simple, derived and compound words.

Derived words are those composed of one root- morpheme and one or more derivational morpheme.

Compound words contain at least two root- morphemes, the number of derivational morphemes being insignificant.

Derivational compound is a word formed by a simultaneous process of composition and derivational.

Compound words proper are formed by joining together stems of word already available in the language.

Теги:
Word structure in modern english 
Реферат 
Английский
Просмотров: 27585
Найти в Wikkipedia статьи с фразой: Word structure in modern english