Semantics vs Pragmatics of a Compound Word

APA 6th edition
In-text: (Smirnova, Biktemirova & Davletbaeva, 2016)
Your Bibliography: Smirnova, E.A., Biktemirova, E.I. & Davletbaeva, D.N. (2016). Semantics vs Pragmatics of a Compound Word. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(14), 6663-6674.

Harvard
In-text: (Smirnova, Biktemirova and Davletbaeva, 2016)
Your Bibliography: Smirnova, E., Biktemirova, E. and Davletbaeva, D. (2016). Semantics vs Pragmatics of a Compound Word. International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 11(14), pp. 6663-6674.

Chicago 16th edition
In-text: (Smirnova, Biktemirova and Davletbaeva 2016)
Your Bibliography: Smirnova, Elena A., Ella I. Biktemirova and Diana N. Davletbaeva (2016). "Semantics vs Pragmatics of a Compound Word". International Journal of Environmental and Science Education 11 (14):6663-6674.

Abstract

This paper is devoted to the study of correlation between semantic and pragmatic potential of a compound word, which functions in informal speech, and the mechanisms of secondary nomination, which realizes the potential of semantic-pragmatic features of colloquial compounds. The relevance and the choice of the research question is based on the following: firstly, the last decades in the study of the language are devoted to the analysis of ‘language in action’ (speech) rather than its inner form; secondly, the human factor is the leading notion in pragmalinguistics; thirdly, pragmatics is closely connected with productive word building and nomination processes. The following scientific methods were used in the research: analysis and synthesis, definition analysis, method of transformations, the semantic analysis, statistical method, descriptive analysis, and contextual method. The materials and methods chosen in the article help to prove that the meaning of a compound word is built not only on the semantic purpose but mostly on the pragmatic one, that is why the inner structure of a colloquial compound is more complicated. The research also shows that the traditional understanding of pragmatics determines the study of communicative features which appear in certain contexts. The obtained results can be applied in the educational system and are of theoretical and practical value for educational professionals who investigate the questions of pragmatics and semantics.

Keywords: Semantic component of meaning, pragmatic component of meaning, colloquial compounding, informal speech

References

Benczes, R. (2006). Creative compounding in English: The semantics of metaphorical and metonymical Noun-Noun Combinations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 206 p.

Boldyrev, N. & Babina, L. (2001). Vtorichnaya representaciya kak ocobii tip predstavlenia znanii v yazyke. Filologicheskiye nauki, 4, 79-86.

Brown, G. (1996). Speakers, listeners and communication: explorations in dicourse analysis. Cambridge: Camdridge University Press, 251 p.

Fisher, R. (1998). Lexical change in present-day English. A corpus-based study of the motivation, institutionalization and productivity of creative neologism. Tubingen: Gunter Narr Verl, 209 p.

Kobozeva, I. (2004). Lingvisticheskaya semantika. Moscow: Editorial URSS, 352 p.

Kolshansky, G. (1975). Sootnosheniye sub’ektivnykh i ob’ektivnykh faktorov v yazyke. Moscow: Nauka, 232 p.

Lacoff, G. & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 270 p.

Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. London: Longman, 250 p.

Lehrer, A. (2007). Blendalicious. In J. Munet (Ed.), Lexical Creativity, Texts and Contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 133 p.

Martynova, N. O. (2007). O tipakh nominacii inokultunykh realii v mezhkulturnoi kommunikacii. Direct access: http://cs.net.ru/conf/ruslang2005/trend7/martynova.htm

Meyer, R. (1993). Compound Comprehension in Isolation and in Context. The contribution of Conceptual and Discourse Knowledge to the Comprehension of Novel Noun-Noun Compounds. Tübingen: Niemeyer, 225 p.

Molchkova, L. (2003). Professionalnaya leksika angloyazychnykh sredstv massovoi informacii: pragmatika, semantika, struktura: PhD thesis abstract. Samara: Samara State University of Social Sciences and Education, 24 p.

Morrish, J. (1999). Frantic Semantics. Snapshots of Our Changing Language. London: Macmillan, 179 p.

Petru, E. (1993). Socio-pragmaticheskiye i strukturno-semanticheskiye osobennosti ekspressivnoi kollokvialnoi leksiki: PhD thesis. Pyatigorsk: Pyatigorsk State Pedagogical Institute of Foreign Languages, 235 p.

Posner, R. (1992). Reseach in Pragmatics after Morris. In M. Balat & J. Deledalle-Rhodes (Eds.). L’homme et ses signes. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 1420 p.

Sadykova, A. & Kayumova, D. (2014). The correlation between linguistic and conceptual worldviews: the role of metaphor. Life Scince Journal, 11(6), 552-555.

Sadykova, A. (2002). Sistema substantivnogo slovoslozheniya v tyurkskykh i germanskykh yazykakh v sravnitelno-tipologicheskom aspekte: PhD thesis. Kazan: Kazan State Pedagogical University, 492 p.

Salmon, N. (2005). Two conceptions of semantics. In Z. Szabo (Ed.), Semantics Versus Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 328 p.

Shelyakin, M. (2005). Yazyk i chelovek: K problem motivirovannocti yazykovoi sistemy. Moscow: Flinta, 296 p.

Smirnova, E., Sadykova, A. & Davletbaeva, D. (2014). The study of occasional words: Theoretical aspect. Life Science Journal, 11(11), 532-535.

Vardzelashvili, Zh. (2000). K voprosu o tolkovanii termina ‘nominaciya’ v lingvisticheskikh issledovaniyakh. Slavistics in Georgia, 1, 62-68.

Yule, G. (2000). Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 135 p.