A Cognitive Linguistics Diagnosing Of Iraqi EFL Students’ Difficulties in Using Synonyms

Learning and teaching synonyms for Iraqi EFL students is a difficult task. Learning synonyms means learning how words can be related to each other. Understanding synonyms helps students to understand the meaning of the word easily and avoid mistakes committed in synonyms as a result of their knowledge concerning this area. Iraqi EFL students face difficulties in using appropriate synonyms. This study was conducted in the Department of English, College of Education for Women, University of Baghdad, to indicate first-year students’ incompetence in using synonyms. The participants of this study, fifty female students during the first semester, were chosen randomly for the academic year 2019-2020. In order to achieve the aim of this study, the researcher used pre and posttest as tools for collecting data. The data was analyzed by the SPSS program. Figures and tables were used to present the data. The present study reveals the difficulties that occurred when Iraqi EFL students used synonyms. This is due to the need for information about English equivalent words, then suggests suitable solutions for them. Also this study reveals that the domains theory has indeed been demonstrated to be effective in precisely understanding the semantic domains of English lexical concepts.

A Cognitive Linguistics Study of the Conceptual Derivation of Word Meaning

To maintain understanding, usage, and interrelations of English vocabularies by Iraqi second language learners (L2) is a challenging mission. In the current study, the cognitive linguistic theory of domains by Langacker (1987) is adopted to provide new horizons in learning vocabulary and qualify Iraqi students with a deep knowledge analysis of the meanings of lexical concepts. This paper aims to test the validity of expanding the English language vocabulary for second language learners from Iraq through domains theory. It also attempts to find how the domains theory supports L2 learners in identifying meanings related to lexical concepts. Accordingly, an experimental study is conducted on fifty-eight university students of the second year level from the University of Baghdad, Iraq. The pre and post-tests are analyzed by using the Editor for the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The results show the following: First, a progression of more than (0.05≤) is discovered in terms of students' understanding of the interrelationships between lexical concepts. Second, a new vision is dealt with to connect lexical concepts with their meanings according to the focus of the speakers using Langacker's theory. Third, domains theory (profile/ base organization, active zone, and the perceptual basis for knowledge representation) has proven effective in expanding Iraqi students' treatment and perception of semantic domains of English lexical concepts precisely.

A Cognitive Linguistics Study of the Conceptual Derivation of Word Meaning

To maintain understanding, usage, and interrelations of English vocabularies by Iraqi second language learners (L2) is a challenging mission. In the current study, the cognitive linguistic theory of domains by Langacker (1987) is adopted to provide new horizons in learning vocabulary and qualify Iraqi students with a deep knowledge analysis of the meanings of lexical concepts. This paper aims to test the validity of expanding the English language vocabulary for second language learners from Iraq through domains theory. It also attempts to find how the domains theory supports L2 learners in identifying meanings related to lexical concepts. Accordingly, an experimental study is conducted on fifty-eight university students of the second year level from the University of Baghdad, Iraq. The pre and post-tests are analyzed by using the Editor for the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS). The results show the following: First, a progression of more than (0.05≤) is discovered in terms of students' understanding of the interrelationships between lexical concepts. Second, a new vision is dealt with to connect lexical concepts with their meanings according to the focus of the speakers using Langacker's theory. Third, domains theory (profile/ base organization, active zone, and the perceptual basis for knowledge representation) has proven effective in expanding Iraqi students' treatment and perception of semantic domains of English lexical concepts precisely.

How morphologically related synonyms come to make up a paradigm

The Slavic perfective (pfv): imperfective (ipfv) opposition is based on stem derivation. It creates a complex network of functions for finite and non-finite forms, which largely applies regardless of aspectual pairedness (and actionality groups), since this opposition has classificatory properties. However, can derivationally related stems claimed to represent identical lexical concepts be treated as representatives of one or of two paradigms? The issue becomes especially intricate with aspect triplets in which two ipfv stems correspond to one pfv stem, as though combining two productive patterns of aspect derivation. On this background, we test some core assumptions of the morphology-lexicon interface on one typical aspect triplet from Polish and Czech, the cognate ipfv Pol. dzielić – rozdzielać, Cz. dělit – rozdělovat ‘divide, separate’. We provide their token-based analysis for the period 1750–2017. The two ipfv stems show preferences for different basic functions associated with the ipfv aspect, the coding of marginal arguments and adjuncts also yields clear biases of choice. These preferences prove stable over time, distinctions in form typically associated with inflection turn out to be altogether irrelevant. Our findings, as well as a revision of theoretical positions, support a notion of paradigm in which typical inflectional distinctions are brought into an equilibrium with functional inventories and collocational constraints.

A Cognitive Semantic Analysis of Meaning Interrelationship

Expanding the English vocabulary for Iraqi second language (L2) learners is a challenging task. In the present work, Langacker’s cognitive linguistic theory of domains (1987) is adopted to provide a new sight into vocabulary learning, and to expand the vocabulary repertoire of Iraqi students. This paper aims at testing the validity of expanding the English vocabulary of L2 Iraqi learners throughout the theory of domains. It also tries to find how can domains theory increase the package of vocabulary for L2 learners. Accordingly, an experimental study is to be conducted on forty-six college students of second-year level from, University of Baghdad, Iraq. The data of the pre-test and post-test were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) l editor. Results have shown the following: First, the progress of more than (0.05≤) has been detected as far as students' understanding of the semantic domains of the lexical concepts. Second, the main source of difficulty regarding vocabulary acquisition has been treated throughout Langacker's theory. Third, the domains theory has proven its effectiveness in accurately comprehending the semantic domains of the English lexical concepts.

من الاشتراك الدلالي إلى تغير المعنى

From polysemy to meaning change: lexical cognitive perspectivesSaber Lahbacha By:PhD. Arabic language and Literature, University of Manouba, Member of association of Arabic lexicology in TunisAbstract:Many essays to find a model to study polysemy in most words emerged in several semantic, lexical, cognitive and pragmatic perspectives. Diverse dimensions of this phenomenon are activated according to the requirements of each discipline. If the lexical treatment gives priority to distinguish between polysemy (one entry) and homonymy (many entries), the pragmatic approach includes the contextual non-linguistic operators in building polysemy. The cognitive approach considers that lexical concepts are sets of semantic complicated nuances built on polysemy. This cognitive approach considers that there is no way to distinguish between meanings and the boundaries between them are ambiguous.Key words: Semantics – Polysemy – cognitive linguistics – lexicology – homonymy. ملخصلم تنقطع محاولات إيجاد منوال لمقاربة الاشتراك الدلالي (تعدّد المعاني) في معظم الكلمات عن البروز ضمن منظورات دلالية ومعجمية وعرفانية وتداولية متعددة. وبحسب مقتضيات كلّ فرع لساني، يجري تنشيط الأبعاد المختلفة للظاهرة ويتم التركيز على مناحٍ دون أخرى. فإذا كانت المعالجة المعجمية تضع أولوية اهتمامها في توضيح التمييز بين الاشتراك الدلالي (مدخل واحد) والاشتراك اللفظي (مداخل متعددة)، فإن المقاربة التداولية تؤصل مشاركة العوامل السياقية غير اللغوية في تأسيس الاشتراك الدلالي. أما المقاربة العرفانية فترى أن المفاهيم المعجمية هي مجموعات من الفروق الدلالية المتراكبة التي تقوم على الاشتراك الدلالي ولا ترى أن التمييز بين المعاني ممكن بل إن الحدود بين المفاهيم المعجمية ضبابية.الكلمات المفاتيح: علم الدلالة - الاشتراك الدلالي – اللسانيات العرفانية – المعجمية - الاشتراك اللفظي.

المعنى بين الوحدة والتّعدّد: مقاربة دلاليّة

لم تنقطع محاولات إيجاد منوال لمقاربة الاشتراك الدّلاليّ (تعدّد المعاني) في معظم الكلمات عن البروز ضمن منظورات دلاليّة ومعجميّة وعرفانيّة وتداوليّة متعدّدة. وبحسب مقتضيات كلّ فرع لسانيّ، يجري تنشيط الأبعاد المختلفة للظّاهرة ويتمّ التّركيز على مناحٍ دون أخرى. فإذا كانت المعالجة المعجميّة تضع أولويّة اهتمامها في توضيح التّمييز بين الاشتراك الدّلاليّ (مدخل واحد) والاشتراك اللّفظيّ (مداخل متعدّدة)، فإنّ المقاربة التّداوليّة تؤصّل مشاركة العوامل السّياقيّة غير اللّغويّة في تأسيس الاشتراك الدّلاليّ. أمّا المقاربة العرفانيّة فترى أنّ المفاهيم المعجميّة هي مجموعات من الفروق الدّلاليّة المتراكبة التي تقوم على الاشتراك الدّلاليّ ولا ترى أنّ التّمييز بين المعاني ممكن بل إنّ الحدود بين المفاهيم المعجميّة ضبابيّة.الكلمات المفاتيح: علم الدّلالة – الاشتراك الدّلاليّ – اللّسانيّات العرفانيّة – المعجميّة – الاشتراك اللّفظيّ. Meaning between unity and plurality: semantic approachSaber Lahbacha By:Arabic Department, College of Education, Zayed University, UAE Abstract:Not a few essays aiming at finding a model to study polysemy in most words have emerged in several semantic, lexical, cognitive and pragmatic perspectives. Diverse dimensions of this phenomenon are activated according to the requirements of each discipline. While lexical treatment gives priority to the distinction between polysemy (one entry) and homonymy (many entries), the pragmatic approach includes the contextual non-linguistic operators in building polysemy. The cognitive approach considers that lexical concepts are sets of subtle semantic nuances built on polysemy. It also considers that there can be no obvious distinction between (the) different (shades of) meanings and that the boundaries between them are not clearly demarcated.Key words: semantics – polysemy – cognitive linguistics – lexicology – homonymy.