No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
On the nature of associations in language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 27 June 2016
Extract
Among the many and diverse treatments of the concept of “field” scattered through a wide range of literature is to be found a marked and growing tendency to interpret the “field” as a psychic phenomenon, notably as witnessed in the various attempts which have been made to explain associative groups of elements as field phenomena. Such an approach, however, is by no means always justified, if for no other reason than the fact that various associative groups are by their nature non-identical. Such non-identity is in particular to be explained by the existence of various types of associations, so that unifications of elements may, for example, have both a paradigmatic and a syntagmatic nature.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , Fall 1969 , pp. 3 - 10
- Copyright
- Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1969
References
1 For bibliography see: A. A. Ufimtseva, “Teorii «semanticheskogo polia» i vozmozhnosti ikh primeneniia pri izuchenii slovarnogo sostava iazyka” (“Theories of the ‘Semantic Field’ and the Possibility of Their Application When Studying the Lexical Inventory of a Language”), in Akademiia Nauk SSSR, Institut Iazykoznaniia, Voprosy teorii iazyka U sovremennoĭ zarubezhnoĭ linguistike (Academy of Sciences U.S.S.R., Institute of Linguistics, Questions of language theory in contemporary foreign linguistics) (Moscow, 1961), pp. 30-63; and Iu.D. Apresian, “Sovremennye metody izucheni
znacheniî i nekotorye problemy strukturnoî lingvistiki” (“Modern Methods in the Study of Meaning and Some Problems of Structural Linguistics”), Problemy strukturnoĭ lingvistiki (Problems of Structural Linguistics) 2.102-50 (1963).
2 For the analysis of such concepts, and bibliography see: Coseriu, E., “Pour une sémantique diachronique structurale,” Travaux de Linguistique et de Littérature (Strasbourg) 2/1. 139–86 (1964)Google Scholar; Coseriu, E., “Structure lexicale et enseignement du vocabulaire,” in Actes du premier colloque internationale de linguistique appliquée (Nancy, 1966), pp. 175–217 Google Scholar; and Deese, J. E., The Structure of Associations in Language and Thought (Baltimore, 1966)Google Scholar.
3 Saussure, F. de, Cours de linguistique générale (Paris, 1964), pp. 170–75 Google Scholar.
4 Guiraud, P., “«Écrire comme un chat» le champ morphosémantique de «chat»,” in Atti—VIII Congresso internazionale di Studi Romanzi [Florence 1956] (Florence, 1960), vol. 2, pp. 549–54 Google Scholar; Guiraud, P., “Champ morphosémantique du verbe «chiquer»,” Bulletin de la Société de Linguistique de Paris 55. 135–54 (1960)Google Scholar; Sčur, G. S., “Zum morpho-semantischen Feld in der Morphologie und zu den Beziehungen zwischen analytischen Futur und Konjunktiv mit munu und skulu im Isländischen,” Nordeuropa 3 (1968)Google Scholar.
5 Porzig, W., “Wesenhafte Bedeutungsbeziehungen,” Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutschen Sprache und Literatur 58. 70–97 (1934)Google Scholar; Coseriu, E., “Lexikalische Solidaritäten,” Poetica 1. 293–303 (1967)Google Scholar.
6 Osgood, C. E., Method and Theory in Experimental Psychology (New York, 1953)Google Scholar, chapter 7; Noble, C. E., “An Analysis of Meaning,” Psychological Review 59. 421–30 (1952)Google Scholar; Noble, C. E., “The Role of Stimulus Meaning (m) in Serial Verbal Learning,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 43. 437–46 (1952)Google Scholar; Flavell, J. H. and Flavell, E. R., “One Determinant of Judged Semantic and Associative Connection between Words,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 58. 159–65 (1959)Google Scholar; Rau, L., “Variability in Response to Words: An Investigation to Stimulus-Ambiguity,” American Journal of Psychology 71. 338–49 (1958)Google Scholar; Staats, A. W. and Staats, C. K., “Meaning and m : Correlated but Separate,” Psychological Review 66. 136–44 (1959)Google Scholar; Wimer, C. C. and Lambert, W. E., “The Differential Effects of Word and Object Stimuli on the Learning of Paired Associates,” Journal of Experimental Psychology 57. 31–36 (1959)Google Scholar.
7 Apresian, pp. 128-131.
8 Entwisle, D. R., Word Associations of Young Children (Baltimore, 1966)Google Scholar.
9 Apresian.
10 Sčur, G. S., “Some Considerations on the Notion of Invariant Field in Linguistics,” Philologica Pragensia 8. 307–19 (1965)Google Scholar; Sčur, G. S., “On Some General Categories of Linguistics,” General Systems 11. 149–55 (1966)Google Scholar; Sčur, G. S., “On the Relations Among Some Categories in Linguistics,” General Systems 11. 157–64 (1966)Google Scholar; Sčur, G. S., “On Invariant and Functional Principles of Grouping of Linguistic Phenomena and on Two Types of Paradigmatics in Language,” Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of Linguists (Bucharest)Google Scholar; Sčur, G. S., “On the Associative Principle and Field in Linguistics,” in Studi Linguistici in onore di Vittore Pisani (Brescia, 1969), vol. 2, pp. 937–62 Google Scholar.
11 Sčur, G. S., “On System in Diachrony and a Comparative-Historical Study of Morphology of Cognate Languages,” Kratylos 11. 178–189 (1966)Google Scholar; Sčur, G. S., “On Comparative-Topological Study of Cognate Languages and the Nature of the Connection Between the Germanic Non-Finite and Finite Verbal Forms,” Colloquia Germanica (in press)Google Scholar; Sčur, G. S., “On a Topological Approach in the Study of Languages,” Frooskaparrit 17 (1968)Google Scholar.
12 Staats and Staats.
13
Sčur, G. S., “Ob associativnykh gruppakh v
zyke” (“Associative groups in Language), in Akademič Nauk SSSR. Institut lazykoznaniia, 2-i Simpozium po psikholinguistike (Academy of Sciences, USSR, Institute of Linguistics, 2nd Symposium on Psycholinguistics) (Moscow, 1968)Google Scholar.
14 Deese.
15 Entwisle.