The starting point of my research paper on field theory and gaps is the question: what are the different interpretations of ‘field’ in our language nowadays. I started with dictionaries and went on with encyclopedias.
According to the German dictionary “Duden” (Duden (2000: 370)) a field may be e.g. an electric field. This shows that this word may be lexical ambiguous. There can also be found some word combinations with ‘field’, e.g. cross-country, ‘ins Feld (in den Krieg) ziehen’ or field crop. This example shows that there is no one-to-one correspondence in English for ‘ins Feld ziehen’. A non-native speaker has to paraphrase this expression, e.g. ‘go to war’.
However, these notions are rather primary. In order to find a more precise kind of definition, I searched the “Wikipedia” (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Feld (access: 2005-08-02, 12:14 MEZ)) and found a very detailed description of the term ‘field’: it can represent an acre (differentiated land area to grow agricultural crop), in sports the field to play on or a certain group of pursuers, in military history the theater of war, in general a specific field, in physics a certain position, in computer science a data structure, in cutting the term for a single picture, and in a specific area of heraldry the term for the parts of a crest.
By looking up ‘field’ in the online dictionary ‘Wiktionary’ (http://de.wiktionary.org/wiki/Feld (access: 2005-08-02, 20:22 MEZ)), I discovered nearly the same definition as in the “Wikipedia”, but there were two pieces of extra information about ‘field’: it may be a defined as an area on a sheet of paper, a board to play on, or a screen, but it can as well depict the world outside of a laboratory.
Table of Contents
Structure
1. The term of FIELD in everyday language
2. FIELD Theories – general statements and presuppositions
2.1. Trier – Weisgerber
2.2. Lipka
2.3. Other theories
3. The concept of GAPS – general statements
3.1. Durell
3.2. Lehrer
4. Attempt of a FIELD analysis: semantic fields of ‘Basilikum’ and ‘basil’
Objectives and Topics
The primary objective of this research paper is to examine the linguistic concepts of "field theory" and "gaps" within semantics, exploring how vocabulary is structured into semantic fields and identifying how interlingual and functional gaps emerge in language comparison. The study further aims to apply these theoretical frameworks to a practical analysis of the semantic fields of 'Basilikum' and 'basil'.
- Definitions and interpretations of the term 'field' in linguistics and everyday language.
- Evaluation of influential field theories (e.g., Trier, Weisgerber, Lipka, Lehrer, Lutzeier).
- The theoretical and practical conceptualization of lexical, specification, and functional gaps.
- Methodological application of field analysis using the specific example of 'Basilikum' and 'basil'.
Excerpt from the Book
1. The term of FIELD in everyday language
The starting point of my research paper on field theory and gaps is the question: what are the different interpretations of ‘field’ in our language nowadays. I started with dictionaries and went on with encyclopedias.
According to the German dictionary “Duden” (Duden (2000: 370)) a field may be e.g. an electric field. This shows that this word may be lexical ambiguous. There can also be found some word combinations with ‘field’, e.g. cross-country, ‘ins Feld (in den Krieg) ziehen’ or field crop. This example shows that there is no one-to-one correspondence in English for ‘ins Feld ziehen’. A non-native speaker has to paraphrase this expression, e.g. ‘go to war’.
However, these notions are rather primary. In order to find a more precise kind of definition, I searched the “Wikipedia” (http://wikipedia.org/wiki/Feld (access: 2005-08-02, 12:14 MEZ)) and found a very detailed description of the term ‘field’: it can represent an acre (differentiated land area to grow agricultural crop), in sports the field to play on or a certain group of pursuers, in military history the theater of war, in general a specific field, in physics a certain position, in computer science a data structure, in cutting the term for a single picture, and in a specific area of heraldry the term for the parts of a crest.
Summary of Chapters
1. The term of FIELD in everyday language: Explores the lexical ambiguity and diverse contextual interpretations of "field" through various dictionary and encyclopedic definitions.
2. FIELD Theories – general statements and presuppositions: Discusses the historical and theoretical foundations of semantic field theory, covering major linguists like Trier, Weisgerber, and Lipka.
2.1. Trier – Weisgerber: Examines the foundational contributions of Jost Trier and Leo Weisgerber regarding the structured nature of language and word-fields.
2.2. Lipka: Details Leonhard Lipka's paradigmatic approach and his specific conditions for membership within a word-field.
2.3. Other theories: Provides an overview of further perspectives, including those of Doyé, Coseriu, Cruse, and the four-dimensional approach of Rolf Peter Lutzeier.
3. The concept of GAPS – general statements: Introduces the necessity of the "gap" concept in linguistics to address missing lexical items or information in natural language systems.
3.1. Durell: Analyzes Martin Durell’s perspective on "matrix gaps" and the challenges of interlingual comparison, particularly regarding culinary terminology.
3.2. Lehrer: Focuses on Adrienne Lehrer's view that lexical gaps, while ambiguous, are identifiable and that speakers often fill them through borrowing or paraphrasing.
4. Attempt of a FIELD analysis: semantic fields of ‘Basilikum’ and ‘basil’: Presents a practical field analysis, comparing the German term 'Basilikum' and the English 'basil' by evaluating hierarchical, feature, and final relationships.
Keywords
Field Theory, Semantic Fields, Lexical Gaps, Linguistics, Semantics, Lexicology, Word-field, Paradigmatic Structures, Hyponymy, Archilexeme, Language Comparison, Interlingual Gaps, Culinary Verbs, Vocabulary Structure, Semantic Features.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research paper?
The paper investigates how language vocabulary is categorized into semantic fields and explores the linguistic phenomenon of "gaps" within these systems.
What are the primary theoretical areas explored?
The work covers the definitions of "field," examines various field theories from the 20th century, and analyzes different types of linguistic gaps, such as lexical, specification, and functional gaps.
What is the main research question or goal?
The goal is to understand how fields are structured and how interlingual differences (gaps) occur, culminating in a practical analysis of the semantic fields of 'Basilikum' and 'basil'.
Which scientific methodology is utilized?
The author employs a comparative semantic analysis, reviewing established linguistic theories to evaluate and map out the specific semantic fields of two related terms in German and English.
What is covered in the main body of the work?
The main body systematically reviews literature on field theory, discusses the concept of gaps as proposed by linguists like Boas, Durell, and Lehrer, and provides a case study application.
Which keywords characterize this paper?
Key terms include field theory, semantic fields, lexical gaps, semantics, word-fields, and language comparison.
How does the author define a "functional gap"?
A functional gap is described as a situation where a speaker recognizes a lack of a precise one-to-one equivalent in another language to express a specific concept, often leading to paraphrasing.
How does the author analyze the field of 'Basilikum' and 'basil'?
The author maps out various relationships, including hierarchical connections, feature-based attributes, and final relationships to meat dishes, identifying missing equivalents in English.
- Quote paper
- Claudia Wipprecht (Author), 2005, The concept of ‘field’ and ‘gap’, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.hausarbeiten.de/document/75515
