For example, the field of " Killing Human Beings " in English includes such lexemes as 'kill, murder, assassinate, massacre, slaughter, butcher, and execute' which differ from one another in respect of many components of meaning. The theory of semantic fields is a linguistic theory which assumes that the lexical items of a natural language can be classified into sets, or fields, related semantically and divide up the semantic space in various ways. This paper aims at bridging the gap between linguistics and English-Arabic translation. A comparative study of English and Egyptian word associations has been carried out and the pedagogic implications for the teaching of English to Egyptian learners have been discussed. Word associations can help the FL teacher in this respect through introducing, to the learners, this information about the attitudes, beliefs, and cognitive structure of the culture of the target language. Hence, foreign learners have to learn about this cultural context. A foreign language should be taught in its native cultural context. This information may be of considerable pedagogic importance in foreign-language teaching. They are capable of yielding significant information about the attitudes, beliefs, and cognitive structures of cultures.
#Synonym for regress full
Word associations can explore the contents of human minds without being expressed in the full discursive structure of language. It has been realized that word associations can be a reliable technique for the comparative study of cultures. Revival of interest in word associations has taken a new shape. English Language change in its multiple aspects could seldom be considered an improvement or progress when left to inexpert and incompetent individuals, and the evidence indicates that most often the changes introduced are negative and diminish its power of expression and persuasion. The continuous erosion of the English language lexicon exemplified in this paper is not an improvement, and cannot be considered language progress, but must be understood as regress and as a reduction and limitation of the English language speakers, in general, to express themselves with precision and elegance in the language. People are those who change languages, and it is quite troublesome to realize that most people who change the English language have no expertise in it, that their average language level is less than intermediate, and that often those who contribute the most to the language change are illiterate or semi-literate and therefore “change” the English language not with the intent to improve it but due to ignorance and ineptitude in language matters. As inanimate objects, languages cannot change on their own will and power. The often repeated claim that “languages change” in themselves is illogical and incorrect from a grammatical viewpoint, and is an assumption without an empirical basis.
0 kommentar(er)
