Chamizo Dominguez, Pedro J.

Nerlich, Brigitte

English

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main

 170ZESZYTY NAUKOWE WYśSZEJ SZKOŁY PEDAGOGICZNEJ W RZESZOWIE  SERIA FILOLOGICZNA ZESZYT 42/2001   STUDIA ANGLICA RESOVIENSIA 2 Pedro J. CHAMIZO DOMINGUEZ & Brigitte NERLICH LAS RELACIONES LÉXICAS. BEIHEFTE ZUR ZEITSCHRIFT FÜR ROMANISCHE PHILOLOGIE. BAND 299 by Miguel CASAS-GÓMEZ, MAX NIEMEYER VERLAG, TÜBINGEN, 1999. VIII + 241 PP.  ISBN: 3-484-52299-3 ISSN: 0084-5396 It is generally accepted that philosophers of language should not develop their theories in a philosophical vacuum but should be aware of the work done by linguists. Prof. Casas-Gómez’s work is one of these books that philosophers should  bear  in  mind  when  they  try  to  speak  about  polysemy,  homonymy, synonymy, hyponymy, cohyponymy, hyperonymy, antonymy and other related questions. Las  relaciones  léxicas  (Lexical  relationships)  is  the  result  of  extensive research  financed  by  the  Spanish  Ministry  of  Education,  the Alexander  von Humboldt Stiftung, and the Andalusian Government. The book has the following aims  (which  are  mostly  achieved):  1,  to  analyse  how  the  topic  of  ‘lexical relations’ has been treated throughout the history of linguistics; 2, to compare and contrast different researchers’ positions and opinions about this topic; 3, to outline  the  specific  problems  created  by  each  of  these  approaches;  4,  to synthesise the ideas of different authors inside a stable theoretical framework; and 5, to arrive at general and critical conclusion (p. 4). Prof. Casas-Gómez’s work is therefore firmly rooted in the past but also lays the foundations for future research (p. 5). His approach could, for example, be applied to a collected corpus of literary works (novels, poetry, essays, etc.), oral material, speakers’ opinions about  language  (collected  directly  via  interviews,  etc.,  or,  for  example,  as expressed in ‘letters to the editor’ in newspapers), and texts reflecting different uses of Spanish, especially Hispano-American ones (p. 6). In this project, one misses an attempt at analysing “technical” texts using scientific, technical, legal, medical or philosophical vocabulary (but, see 172). What is missing perhaps is a study of the use of technical terms in different disciplines (consider, for instance, the cases of anthropology, speculation or idealism) or the difference between  171words used in these disciplines as compared to their use in ordinary language. This  could  give  rise  to  very  interesting  questions  related  to  synonymy  and polysemy.  It  would,  for  example,  be  interesting  to  see  how  the  meaning  of various technical terms has changed over a period of 50 years, which is the time-span covered by Prof. Casas-Gómez in his study of novels.1  Prof.  Casas-Gómez’s  research  was  carried  out  under  the  influence  of German  academic  writing  and  this  can  be  felt  throughout  this  book:  the bibliography  (no  less  than  27  pages  of  bibliographical  references)  is  very exhaustive and covers most European languages; furthermore, this bibliography is continually referred to in the text and in lengthy and abundant footnotes (on pp. 42 and 72, for example, footnotes make up the main part of the text). This allows the reader to constantly check the author’s theses against those of other researchers.  However,  one  slight  shortcoming  of  writing  more  germanico  is perhaps the lack of ironic or humorous asides which would make the text more enjoyable and would have given the reader some breathing space.  Polysemy and homonymy are the main topics treated in this book, with all other topics centring around them. The author questions the traditional concept of polysemy (p. 57) as a genuine lexical relationship and also rejects the basic distinction  between  polysemy  and  homonymy.  Although  Prof.  Casas-Gómez does  not  quote  D.  Davidson2,  his  position  can  be  compared  to  Davidson’s. However,  the  rejection  of  polysemy  and  homonymy  as  descriptive  tools  can create serious problems when studying corpora. It should be stressed that under certain circumstances speakers/hearers and writers/readers can very well be aware of or become conscious of polysemy (and etymology) when using or interpreting words, especially when trying to achieve certain communicative effects.3 This can be observed, for example, when we encounter  terms  which  have  one  meaning  in  ordinary  language  and  another (sometimes very different one) in some technical jargon. For example, the term idealism (and its cognates) as used in ordinary language means something quite different  from  the  philosophers’  technical  use.  While,  in  ordinary  language, idealism can be a quasi-synonym for disinterestedness, altruism or unselfishness, in  technical,  philosophical  jargon  it  normally  means  something  similar  to “philosophical doctrine which maintains the thesis that the cognoscent subject  1 For the technical terms relating to economy, see Chamizo Domínguez, P. J. y García Lizana, A., “Lenguaje y cambio de paradigma en economía”, [in:] Martín Vide, C. (ed.), Actas del IX Congreso de Lenguajes Naturales y Lenguajes Formales. Barcelona: Promociones y Publicaciones Universitarias, 1993, pp. 185–195. 2 Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984. 3  See,  Nerlich,  B.  &  Chamizo  Domínguez,  P.  J., 1999:  “Cómo  hacer  cosas  con  palabras polisémicas: El uso de la ambigüedad en el lenguaje ordinario”, [in:] Contrastes, IV, pp. 77–96; and  Nerlich,  B.  &  Clarke,  D.  D.,  2001:  “Ambiguities  we  live  by:  Towards  a  pragmatics  of polysemy”, [in:] Journal of Pragmatics, 33, pp. 1–20.  172constitutes the known object”. Obviously, it would be very difficult to find a synonym in this case. To illustrate this point, let us imagine hearing a statement such  as  Kant  was  an  idealistic  but  rather  mean  philosopher. This  would  be interpreted very differently by an ordinary speaker and by a philosopher. The first would probably believe that this statement was a contradiction in terms because it is well known that Kant was a mean guy, while the second would probably be conscious of the ambiguity exploited in this statement.  Moreover,  one  should  not  forget  in  this  context  the  classical  distinction between the speakers’ passive and active competence. Many speakers may use only a small number of terms motu proprio in everyday conversations, but they may  well  be  able  to  understand  many  more  when  they  are  used  by  other speakers. I think that this is especially relevant when dealing with terms that are used in technical jargon as well as in ordinary language. One could say the same with reference to synonymy. In how far we consider two signs to be synonyms depends on the degree of our linguistic competence and the ways in which we have learnt how to use words. An example would be the use of the words ajonjolí and sésamo (both ‘sesame’) in Spanish. Looking at the  entry  in  the  DRAE  (Dictionary  of  the  Royal  Academy  of  the  Spanish Language), (ajonjolí. “Planta herbácea anual, de la familia de las pedaliáceas, de un metro de altura, tallo resto, hojas pecioladas, serradas y casi triangulares; flores  de  corola  acampanada,  blanca  o  rósea,  y  fruto  elipsoidal  con  cuatro cápsulas  y  muchas  semillas  amarillentas,  muy  menudas,  oleaginosas  y comestibles. Llámase también alegría y sésamo.”), one could say that this is an almost paradigmatic case of perfect synonymy. If a speaker learned the meanings of both words from the DRAE he or she would certainly believe that these words were  perfect  synonyms  and  would  assume  that  they  could  be  used interchangeably without changing the meaning of the utterances in which they are  used.  However  –  according  to  my  students  –  sésamo  has  been  used (especially in TV advertisements) for years with relation to hamburgers, while ajonjolí  has  been  mainly  used  with  relation  to  typical  Spanish  Christmas sweetmeats. For this reason, many speakers think that the object we are referring to with the word ajonjolí is quite different from the object referred to when using the  word  sésamo.  In  fact,  if  we  asked  ordinary  speakers  for  a  definition  of ajonjolí, they would probably say something like “small seeds used in Spanish Christmas sweetmeats and other cakes”; whereas when asked for a definition of sésamo  they  would  say  something  like  “small  seeds  used  to  sprinkle  on hamburgers”. Using G. Frege’s terminology, we can say that ajonjolí and sésamo no  longer  have  the  same  sense  or  the  same  reference  and  that,  despite  the reference  staying  the  same,  they  are  gradually  acquiring  different  meanings because they are used in different contexts. As a result, they may well soon cease to be synonyms.  173Prof.  Casas-Gómez’s  reflections  on  the  problems  of  polysemy  and synonymy also open up very interesting questions for the field of translation. Translating is mainly based on trying to find synonyms in the target language for the words used in the source language. However, if we accept the thesis that perfect synonymy is impossible to achieve, a successful translation should be a rather illusory undertaking. Similar problems arise with regard to polysemy and false friends. Many problems in translations derive from the fact that most words in a natural language are polysemous and that the polysemy of word in one language is not necessarily mirrored by a similar network of polysemous senses in the other language – far from it! This is especially important when speakers or writers use a polysemous word knowing that it is polysemous and deliberately try to achieve a specific cognitive, stylistic, or other effect. In these cases the search for a synonym in another language may be impossible. As a result, the cognitive or stylistic effects that the speaker wants to achieve in the original language may be irretrievably lost in the target language.4 False friends (a translator’s true enemies), especially partial semantic false friends (e.g.: English actual, Spanish actual or French table, Spanish tabla), pose similar problems. Here the synonymy between two languages is only partial. Such cases  could  be  profitably  analysed  using  Prof.  Casas-Gómez’s  insights.  Partial semantic false friends (as well as total ones) are the equivalent in two given natural languages to polysemous words in a single language. It is generally assumed that polysemy is the result of a word acquiring new meanings through the figurative uses of that word (e.g. mouth [facial orifice] – mouth [river]). The same holds true for  false  friends  which  are  the  result  of  the  fact  that  such  changes  have  not uniformly occurred in two given languages.5 This means that in these and other cases diachronic considerations must be taken into account. Studying difficulties in translation such as these would be easier if we were to maintain the synchronic and diachronic distinction between polysemy and homonymy, at least for analytical purposes. One of the results of the study of corpora promised by Prof. Casas-Gómez which would be most appreciated by translators would certainly be a list of possible equivalencies in several languages. To sum up, Las relaciones léxicas is a book that should be read not only by linguists, for whom this book has  mainly been written, but also by anybody interested in language, particularly philosophers of language and translators. The interest of this book lies not only in the notable results achieved, but also in the promises it holds for future studies.   4 For a further development of this topic, see Chamizo Domínguez, P. J., “Dealing with ambiguity  when  translating  polysemic  words”,  [in:]  Turjumàn.  Revue  de  Traduction  et d'Interprétation/Journal of Translation Studies. 8 (2), (1999), pp. 27–43. 5 See Chamizo Domínguez, P. J. and Nerlich, B., “Spanish lecturers do not teach fastidious topics: Metaphor, metonymy and false friends”. Submitted to Journal of Pragmatics. 

Miguel Casas-Gómez: Las relaciones léxicas. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, Bd. 299, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1999, pp. 241, ISBN: 3-484-52299-3, ISSN: 0084-5396.

Miguel Casas-Gómez: Las relaciones léxicas. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für Romanische Philologie, Bd. 299, Tübingen, Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1999, pp. 241, ISBN: 3-484-52299-3, ISSN: 0084-5396.

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Hochschulschriftenserver - Universität Frankfurt am Main