A SEMANTIC STUDY ON THE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL MEANING OF THE VERB RUN
A SEMANTIC STUDY ON THE COMPARATIVE AND
CONTEXTUAL MEANING OF THE VERB RUN
A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Program in English Language Studies in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of
Magister Humaniara (M.Hum) in English Language Studies
by
YOSE RIANUGRAHA
Student Number: 086332005
THE GRADUATE PROGRAM IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE STUDIES
SANATA DHARMA UNIVERSITY
YOGYAKARTA
2012
A SEMANTIC STUDY ON THE COMPARATIVE AND
CONTEXTUAL MEANING OF THE VERB RUN
by Yose Rianugraha
Student Number: 086332005 Approved by
Prof. Dr. Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo _____________________________ _____________________________
Thesis Advisor Yogyakarta, 7 July 2012 ii
iii
A SEMANTIC STUDY ON THE COMPARATIVE AND
CONTEXTUAL MEANING OF THE VERB RUN
Presented by YOSE RIANUGRAHA
Student Number: 086332005 Defended before the Board of Examiners and was Declared Acceptable
BOARD OF EXAMINERS Chairperson : ______________________ Secretary : ______________________ Member : ______________________ Member : ______________________
Yogyakarta, __________2012 The Graduate Program Director Sanata Dharma University
A PSALM OF DAVID The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not want; He makes me lie down in green pastures.
He leads me beside still waters; He restores my soul. He leads me in paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear no evil; for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff, they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of my enemies; thou anointest my head with oil, my cup overflows. Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life; and I shall dwell in the house of the LORD for ever…….
(Psalms 23: 1-6)
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that the intellectual content of this thesis is the product of the thesis writer, and that all the assistance received in preparing this thesis and sources have been properly acknowledged. The writer understands the full consequences, including degree cancellation if he took somebody else’s ideas, phrases, or sentences without proper references.
Yogyakarta, 7 July 2012 Y. Yose Rianugraha
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
PUBLIKASI KARYA ILMIAH UNTUK KEPENTINGAN AKADEMIS
Yang bertandatangan di bawah ini, saya mahasiswa Universitas Sanata Dharma: Nama : Yose Rianugraha Nomor mahasiswa : 086332005 demi pengembangan ilmu pengetahuan, memberikan kepada Perpustakaan
Universitas Sanata Dharma karya ilmiah saya yang berjudul: A SEMANTIC STUDY ON THE COMPARATIVE AND CONTEXTUAL MEANING OF THE VERB RUN beserta perangkat yang diperlukan (bila ada). Dengan demikian saya memberikan kepada Perpustakaan Universitas Sanata Dharma hak untuk menyimpannya, mengalihkannya dalam bentuk media lain, mengelolanya dalam bentuk pangkalan data, mendistribusikannya secara terbatas, dan mempublikasikannya di internet atau media lain untuk kepentingan akademis tanpa perlu meminta ijin dari saya maupun memberikan royalti kepada saya selama tetap mencantumkan nama saya sebagai penulis. Demikian pernyataan ini yang saya buat dengan sebenarnya. Dibuat di Yogyakarta pada tanggal 7 Juli 2012 Yang menyatakan Yose Rianugraha vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I would like to express my greatest and deepest gratitude to the Lord, Jesus Christ and Mother Mary, who always stay beside me and have strengthened me to finish this thesis. It would be impossible for me to finish this thesis without Their help.
I would like to express my best gratitude to Prof. Dr. Soepomo Poedjosoedarmo, as my thesis advisor, who has given me guidance, suggestions, assistance, and support to finish my thesis. My gratitude also goes to Dr. Fr. B. Alip, M.Pd., M.A., for his help, suggestions and constructive criticisms to my thesis. His willingness to spend his precious time has been an invaluable contribution to the accomplishment of this thesis. Also, I would like to thank Drs. FX. Mukarto, M.S., Ph.D., Dr. Novita Dewi, M.S., M.A. (Hons), as well as Dr. B. B. Dwijatmoko, M.A., for giving me guidance as well as sufficiency of time to finish my thesis. I am absolutely sure that without their help and attention, I could not have completed this thesis.
My deepest gratitude also goes to my beloved parents, Imelda Linda Yuniati and YB. Lian Santoso, as well as my spiritual Father, Pater Martin Suhartono, S.J. I do really thank them for their affection, continuous prayers, patience and encouragement during the work on my thesis. Also, I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my beloved uncle and aunts, Paul Kwa, Yap Liang Nio, Doddy Liem and Pitoyo families for their prayers, unfailing support, and endless love throughout the duration of my study. like to thank my undergraduate thesis advisor as well as the head of PBI Department, Caecilia Tutyandari, S.Pd., M.Pd., who has supported me to finish my thesis. I am also deeply grateful to my colleagues at KPBB Atmajaya: Suryo Sudiro S.S., M.Hum., L. Bening Parwitasukci, M.Hum., Radjaban M.Hum., Paulina Chandra, M.Hum., and many others for always supporting me to finish my study and being such nice friends. The next appreciation goes to my colleagues at PPBA Duta Wacana Christian University: Paulus Widyatmoko, M.A., Andreas Winardi, M.A., Fransisca Endang Lestariningsih, M.Hum., Fransiskus Ransus, S.S., M.Hum., Bu Ambar, Bu Nia, and many others for their help and support.
May God always bless all those people abundantly for their kindness.
Yose Rianugraha
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE44 CHAPTER III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 3.1 Research Method ...............................................................................
12 2.1.1 Theories of Meaning ..............................................................
12 2.1.2 Word Meaning .......................................................................
13 2.1.3 Types of Meaning ..................................................................
15 2.1.4 Semantic Domain ...................................................................
18 2.1.5 Semantic Features ..................................................................
19 2.1.6 Contrastive Meaning ..............................................................
27 2.1.7 Contextual Meaning ...............................................................
32 2.2 Review of Related Study ...................................................................
37 2.3 Theoretical Framework ......................................................................
46 3.2 Data Source and Data Gathering .......................................................
10 1.4 Significance of the Study ...................................................................
47 3.3 Data Processing .................................................................................
48 CHAPTER IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 4.1 Comparative Analysis of the verb RUN ............................................
50 4.1.1 Manner ...................................................................................
53 4.1.2 Objective ................................................................................
55 4.1.3 Agent ......................................................................................
56 4.1.4 Distance .................................................................................
57 4.2 Semantic Properties Related to the verb RUN ...................................
58
4.2.1 Semantic Properties Related to the verb RUN as a single verb .......................................................................
11 CHAPTER II. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Theoretical Descriptions ....................................................................
9 1.3 Purpose of the Study ..........................................................................
........................................................................................................ i
........................................ vi
APPROVAL PAGE
.................................................................................. ii
THESIS DEFENSE APPROVAL PAGE
............................................... iii
DEDICATION PAGE
............................................................................... iv
STATEMENT OF ORIGINALITY
........................................................ v
LEMBAR PERNYATAAN PERSETUJUAN
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1 1.2 Research Questions ............................................................................
...................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
.......................................................................... ix
LIST OF TABLES
.................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT
............................................................................................... xii
ABSTRAK
................................................................................................. xiii
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study ...................................................................
59
as a phrasal verb .....................................................................
88 4.2.2.14 Phrasal Verb RUN THROUGH .............................
RUN
as a Single Verb ....................................................... 103 APPENDIX 3: Raw Data Table: Semantic Properties Related to the Verb
RUN
in conceptual meaning and beyond the conceptual meaning ............................................................................. 102 APPENDIX 2: Raw Data Table: Semantic Properties Related to the Verb
SPRINT
99 APPENDICES APPENDIX 1: Contrastive Table between RUN, RACE, GALLOP and
96 BIBLIOGRAPHY .....................................................................................
94 CHAPTER V. CONCLUSION ................................................................
92 4.2.2.17 Phrasal Verb RUN UP AGAINST ..........................
92 4.2.2.16 Phrasal Verb RUN UP ...........................................
90 4.2.2.15 Phrasal Verb RUN TO ...........................................
88 4.2.2.13 Phrasal Verb RUN OVER ......................................
72 4.2.2.1 Phrasal Verb RUN ACROSS ..................................
87 4.2.2.12 Phrasal Verb RUN OUT ........................................
86 4.2.2.11 Phrasal Verb RUN ON ...........................................
85 4.2.2.10 Phrasal Verb RUN OFF WITH ..............................
82 4.2.2.9 Phrasal Verb RUN OFF ........................................
81 4.2.2.8 Phrasal Verb RUN INTO .......................................
79 4.2.2.7 Phrasal Verb RUN IN ............................................
78 4.2.2.6 Phrasal Verb RUN DOWN ....................................
77 4.2.2.5 Phrasal Verb RUN AWAY WITH ...........................
76 4.2.2.4 Phrasal Verb RUN AWAY ......................................
72 4.2.2.3 Phrasal Verb RUN AROUND ................................
72 4.2.2.2 Phrasal Verb RUN AFTER .....................................
as a Phrasal Verb ...................................................... 106
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Semantic domain .........................................................................20 Table 2.2 Semantic features ........................................................................
28 Table 2.3 Analysis on features related in semantics ...................................
29 Table 2.4 Contrastive analysis of seven terms involving three types of properties ....................................................................................
31 Table 2.5 Contrastive analysis of verbs with extended semantic features .......
33 Table 2.6 Sentences with the verb run ........................................................
38 Table 2.7 Groups of sentences within the same context .............................
40 Table 3.1 Example of contrastive analysis ..................................................
48 Table 3.2 Example of contextual analysis ...................................................
49 Table 4.1 Comparative Analysis among RUN, RACE, GALLOP, SPRINT .....
52 Table 4.2 Semantic Properties Related to the verb RUN as a Single Verb ..........................................................................
60 Table 4.3 Comparative Analysis among RUN, RACE, GALLOP, and SPRINT beyond the conceptual meaning .............................
71 Table 4.4 Semantic Properties Related to the verb RUN as a Phrasal Verb ........................................................................
73
ABSTRACT
Rianugraha, Yose. 2012. A Semantic Study on the Comparative and Contextual
Meaning of the Verb RUN. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate
Program. Sanata Dharma University.This study belongs to a semantic study that attempts to examine the meaning of a word scientifically by conducting a comparative analysis. The analysis is carried out by comparing a word with other words which share the same semantic domain. The writer chose the verb run to be analyzed by comparing it with the other verbs in the same semantic domain, i.e. race, gallop, and sprint. The reason why the writer chose this verb is because it has a large number of meanings.
There are two problems to be solved. The first is what are the semantic properties of the conceptual meaning of the verb run when it is compared with the verbs race, gallop and sprint. The second is what semantic properties are related to the conceptual meaning of the verb run when the verb run is put beyond the conceptual meaning. The verb run used by the researcher in this study is run as a single verb and a phrasal verb.
To achieve the objectives, the research employed library or dictionary research for collecting data. The researcher used Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English, third edition, published in 2001. First, the writer compared
the verb run with other verbs, i.e. race, gallop, and sprint, in order to find the semantic properties between those verbs and assigned the values for each property by giving ‘plus’ and ‘minus’ sign. To determine the semantic features, the verbs are defined on the conceptual or denotative meaning from the dictionary. After that, the writer searched other meanings beyond the conceptual meaning of the verb run found in the dictionary to determine the context. When the contexts were found and put in sentences, the next step was to find the semantic properties that are related in the comparative analysis.
The results show that there are five semantic properties which appeared in the comparative analysis between the verb run and the verb race, gallop and sprint, namely manner, objective, agent or experiencer, distance, and tool. From the contextual analysis, the writer found nineteen contexts within twenty seven meanings of the verb run as a single verb and fifty-two contexts with nineteen prepositions used in phrasal verb. Both as a single and phrasal verb, the highest semantic properties related to the comparative analysis is agent or experiencer, followed by objective, manner, tool, and distance.
ABSTRAK
Rianugraha, Yose. 2012. A Semantic Study on the Comparative and Contextual
Meaning of the Verb RUN. Yogyakarta: English Language Studies. Graduate
Program. Sanata Dharma University.Penelitian ini merupakan sebuah studi semantik yang bertujuan untuk menganalisa arti sebuah kata secara ilmiah dengan melakukan analisa perbandingan kata. Analisa dilakukan dengan membandingkan sebuah kata dengan kata-kata lain yang masih termasuk dalam satu domain semantik. Penulis memilih kata kerja RUN untuk dianalisa dengan membandingkan dengan kata kerja lain yang memiliki domain semantik yang sama, yaitu RACE, GALLOP dan SPRINT. Alasan mengapa penulis memilih kata ini adalah karena kata kerja RUN memiliki arti yang sangat luas.
Ada dua rumusan masalah dalam penelitian ini. Yang pertama, properti semantik apa saja yang muncul dalam makna konseptual kata kerja RUN, ketika kata kerja tersebut dibandingkan dengan kata kerja RACE, GALLOP dan SPRINT. Yang kedua, properti semantik apa saja yang terkait dengan makna konseptual dari kata kerja RUN ketika kata kerja RUN diterapkan diluar makna konseptual. Kata kerja
RUN yang dipakai oleh peneliti adalah sebagai kata kerja tunggal dan kata kerja frase.
Dalam prosesnya, penelitian ini menggunakan kamus sebagai sumber utama dalam pengumpulan data. Kamus yang dipergunakan adalah Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English edisi ketiga yang diterbitkan tahun 2001. Pertama-tama,
penulis membandingkan kata kerja RUN dengan kata kerja yang lain untuk menemukan properti semantik dan fitur-fitur pembeda diantara kata-kata kerja tersebut dan memberi nilai dari setiap fitur dengan tanda ‘plus’ dan ‘minus’. Dalam menentukan fitur-fitur tersebut, kata kerja RUN hanya didefinisikan sebagai makna konseptual atau denotatif menurut kamus. Selanjutnya, penulis mencari beberapa arti dari kata kerja RUN (diluar makna konseptual) dalam kamus untuk menentukan konteks. Ketika konteks tersebut telah ditemukan dan diterapkan dalam suatu kalimat, langkah berikutnya yaitu menemukan properti semantik dan fitur-fitur semantik yang muncul dan terkait dalam analisa pembandingan.
Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa terdapat lima properti semantik dalam analisa perbandingan antara kata kerja RUN dengan kata kerja RACE, GALLOP, dan
SPRINT. Adapun kelima properti semantik tersebut adalah manner, objective, agent,
distance dan tool. Pada analisa konteks, penulis menemukan 19 konteks dari 27 arti
kata kerja RUN sebagai kata kerja tunggal dan 52 konteks dalam sembilan preposisi yang digunakan dalam kata kerja frase. Baik sebagai kata kerja tunggal maupun kata kerja frase, properti semantik yang terkait adalah agent, objective, manner, tool, dan distance.
INTRODUCTION
In this chapter, the writer will discuss the background of the study, the research questions, the purpose of the study, and the significance of the study.
1.1 Background of the Study
Meaning is fundamental to every human society, and language is one of the primary ways of conveying meaning. However, meaning is not a simple phenomenon. There has been suggestion that meanings are there first, and that language comes later, as a straightforward representation of these prior meanings.
Meanin g is a kind of ‘invisible, unclothed being’, waiting for the clothes of language to allow it to be seen. This assumes that meaning and language are in a simple relationship where language reflects some ‘given’ reality.
Nida (1975:11) says that a word seems to have a central meaning from which a number of other meanings are derived. From that point, we then recognize or imagine some kind of connection between each of these meanings. For instance when we are given the word hand, the first idea that comes up in our mind is part of the
body which includes the fingers and the thumb, used to hold things. However, the
word hand now occurs in many kinds of contexts in which it creates diverse meanings, e.g. give a hand, lend a hand, on the other hand, in the hands of somebody,
at first hand, and so on. While meaning is developed, the word hand no longer means
part of the body. Thus, give/lend a hand does not mean to giveone’s part of the body to someone else. It means to help someone with something as in the sentence Can you
give me a hand to bring these cardboards? or My best friend is always willing to lend word hand may also carry out verb part of speech. As in a sentence He handed the
teacher a slip of paper, the word hand means to give something to someone else with
our hand. Even it can mean something else which is not related to part of our body. In a sentence Stories handed down by word of mouth, the word hand means to give or
leave something to people who will live after you.
In our everyday life, we often hear expression like
“I seriously mean it.” It
implies that sometimes we say things we do not, in fact, mean. Perhaps it is most often heard coming from frustrated parents who have made too many empty threats to their naughty children. One thing we can find is that speakers of English instinctively know that there is difference in many cases between what we say and what we mean.
In our daily conversation, we use ‘literal’ and ‘non-literal’ meaning to convey our intention. We use the word ‘literally’ to emphasize the honesty and direct objective of our statements. For example, a mother is talking to her naughty child,
“If you kick Judith one more, I’ll take you straight home and you’ll miss the biscuits!”
The mother finds that she has to emphasize her intention to carry out the message. To illustrate the inferential type of non-literal meaning, we can see from polite requests made at a dinner-table. If the salt is out of reach from the place we are sitting, we might say,
“Is that the salt up your end, Cathy?” This expression occurs as a polite
request and we already know its intended purpose , namely one is asking Cathy’s help to get the salt. Many of the things we say are intended to be understood by applying rules of interpretation which are agreed by a community.
One feature of human language is the fact that it is an ‘arbitrary’ system of representation. Although not all aspects of meaning in English are completely arbitrary, it is generally true that there is very little ‘natural’ connection between the words we use and the things they refer to. Language is not the only symbolic system human beings use, although it is probably the most complex one and is used for a wide variety of purposes. In order to understand the properties of symbolic systems, it is useful for us to know non-linguistic system, such as color symbolism. For example, the color of green is used as a symbolic color to express ‘go’ in traffic lights, ‘environmentalism’ in the Green Party, or it can also be ‘an open country or parks’ when it refers on maps.
Fromkin (1996:151) states that to understand a language, we need to know the meaning of its words as well as the morphemes that compose them. We must also know how the meanings of words combine into phrase and sentence meanings. Finally, we must interpret the meaning of utterances in the context in which they are made. In linguistics, the study of meaning of words, phrases, and sentence is called
semantics. Semantics has two subfields, i.e. lexical semantics which is concerned
with the meanings of words and the meaning relationships among words and
sentential semantics which is concerned with the meaning of syntactic unit larger than
the word.Learning a language includes learning the agreed-upon meanings of certain strings of sounds and learning how to combine these meaningful units into larger units that also convey meaning (Fromkin 1996:152). We are not free to change the meanings of these words at will, because if we did we would be unable to sounds and meanings of morphemes and words. Every dictionary is filled with words and their meanings and so is the mind of every human being who speaks a language.
Our knowledge of meanings permits us to use them to express our thoughts and to understand them when heard. The meaning of words is part of linguistic knowledge and is, therefore, a part of the grammar. Our mental storehouse of information about words and morphemes is what we have been calling lexicon.
As it is stated before that a word can carry many meanings. Hence, it is worthy to understand the development of words. Resmini (1996) in his article entitled
Ambiguitas dan Perubahan Makna says that words might not change in meaning in
short period of time but there is possibility that a word will change over the times. It happens for some lexicons of every language in the world because of several reasons.
First, it happens owing to the development of technology. With the development and invention of advanced technology, there are some changes in meaning or even there are new words created. For instance, the word mouse used to refer only to a type of animal with a long tail that lives in pe ople’s houses or in fields. Now, as the invention of a computer, the word mouse can refer to a small device which is connected to a computer, and we can use it by our hand to move cursor or give instruction to the computer. As the internet grows, we can find some new words, such as malware,
phishing, bloggable, or qwerty as they are commonly used in internet nowadays.
The second factor is the development of social and culture. Historical records tell us that interaction between societies and other cultures is not a new phenomenon.
Wardhaugh (1990) defines society is any group of people who are drawn together for society speak. We can see that language in almost any society can take many very different forms and what forms we should choose to discuss when we attempt to describe the language of a society may prove to be a contentious matter.
Communication among societies is possible because we have knowledge about language which is shared with others, although how it is shared or even how it is acquired is not well understood. Chomsky (1965), in this case, distinguishes between what he has called competence and performance. The language we use in everyday living is remarkably varied and when we look closely at any language, we will discover time and time again that there is considerable internal variation, that speakers make constant use of the many different possibilities offered to them. No one speaks the same way all the time, and people constantly exploit the nuances of the languages they speak for a wide variety of purposes.
Wardhaugh (1986) highlighted there is a variety of possible relationships between language and society. One is that social structure may either influence or determine linguistic structure and behavior. Studies show that the varieties of language that speakers use reflect their regional, social or ethnic origin and possibly even their sex. Other studies show that particular ways of speaking, choices of words and even rules for conversing are determined by certain social requirements.
The relationship between language and culture has fascinated people from a wide variety of backgrounds. When we refer to what we mean by ‘culture’, it does not refer to the sense of ‘high culture’, i.e. the appreciation of music, literature, arts, and so on. Goodenough (1957:167) defined culture as a society’s culture which acceptable to its members, and to do so in any role that they accept for any one of themselves. One long-standing claim concerning the relationship between language and culture is that the structure of a language determines the way in which speakers of that language view the world. Thus, the development of society concerning with social and cultural attitudes, will also provoke the changes in meaning in language.
The next factor that brings about changes is the development of the word usages. Every scientific field usually has vocabulary which is related to that field. For instance, in medical field, there are some particular words which we can only define using specific dictionaries. Given example the term ‘swine influenza’ did not exist before the nineteenth century. It appears during the outbreak in 2009 in which lots of people died as this viral epidemic spread rapidly. Some medical terms also take Latin words, as in the word febris, it does not exist in English and we cannot find it in English dictionaries. It comes from Latin which means fever, an abnormally high body temperature, usually accompanied by shivering, headache, and in severe instances, delirium (Oxford dictionary). It is described in Oxford that the word fever comes from
fēfor (Old English) and from febris (Latin), reinforced in Middle English
by Old French fievre, also from febris. Thus, with the invention and development of certain knowledge or fields, it will also bring about changes in lexicons and their meanings.
Meanings also change due to the perception of our senses. Given the example the word snow, generally it means soft white pieces of frozen water that fall from the sky in cold weather and cover the ground (Longman dictionary). Yet, there are many refers to a small amount of snow that is blown by the wind, flake, which is a feathery ice crystal, typically displaying delicate sixfold symmetry, graupel, which is small particles of snow with a fragile crust of ice or soft hail, or blizzard, which refers to a severe snowstorm with high winds. We can also define snow based on the shapes of what we see, i.e. columns to refer to a class of snowflakes that is shaped like a six sided column or one of the 4 classes of snowflakes, dendrites to refer to a class of snowflakes that has 6 points, making it somewhat star shaped and is the classic snowflake shape, needles to refer to a class of snowflakes that are acicular in shape (their length is much longer than their diameter, like a needle). Based on what we see or what we feel, new words can be created and improved gradually.
The factor which also brings about changes in meaning of a word is the association of word. It is an association between a form of speech with something else that is related to that form of speech. For instance, the word drug literally means a medicine or another substance which has a physiological effect when ingested or otherwise introduced into the body as in the sentence A new drug aimed at sufferers
from Parkinson’s disease. However, when we hear the word drug, sometimes we
associate it with an illegal substance such as marijuana or cocaine, which some people take in order to feel happy, relaxed, or excited.
Ogden and Richards (1985:10-12) maintain that the word, what they called the ‘symbol’, and the actual object, the ‘referent’, are linked only indirectly, by way of our mental perception of that object, the thought or reference. More recently Ullman (1962:57) suggests t hat we might use more common terms: ‘name’ to denote the sequence of sounds that is the physical form of the utterance, ‘thing’ to denote the object or event that is being referred to, and ‘sense’ to denote the information that the name conveys to the hearer.
As mentioned before that learning a language includes learning the agreed- upon meanings of certain strings of sounds and learning how to combine these meaningful units into larger units that also convey meaning, the writer here would like to conduct a semantic study on the verb run. In our mind, when we hear the word
run, we might refer to an activity of running, i.e. to move our legs more quickly than
when we walk. It is true that run is a kind of activity and thus refers to verb in part of speech. However, in many dictionaries the word run belongs to many different parts of speech, i.e. noun, verb, adjective and adverb. In addition, every part of speech carries lots of different meaning for the same word. Given the example when the word run belongs to noun, it has a lot of meanings depending on the context. First, it means
‘a period of time spent running or a distance that you run’, as in the sentence
She usually goes for a run before breakfast. It can mean
‘later in the future or not immediately ’, as in the phrase in the long run or in the short run, ‘in the near future’, as in the sentence Sufficient supply, in the short run, will be a problem
, ‘a series of successes or failures ’ as in the phrase run of good/bad luck, a run of victories, ‘an amount of a product produced at one time
’ as in the phrase a limited run of 200 copies, and so on.
- – We seldom notice that run may also be an adjective. By adding the suffix
ing, the word run may function as an adjective, as in the phrase the sound of running
water, running commentary, running total, running joke, running sore, in running
- –ing also makes
the word run change into adverb. Given the example of a sentence She won the prize
for the fourth year running, the word run functions as an adjective which means for
four years, she won the prize constantly.Nida (1975) says that to determine the linguistic meaning of any form contrasts must be found, for there is no meaning apart from significant differences.
Besides, he also highlights that in endeavoring to determine the meaning of any lexical unit, from the level of a morpheme to the level of an entire discourse, it is essential to establish the basis of contrast. Thus, the writer here will make a contrastive meaning of the verb run by contrasting with the verbs race, gallop, and
sprint.
To some extent, one word can carry lots of meaning. We can take the example from the word red which has several meanings, i.e. color or pigment which resembles the hue of blood, emotionally charged terms used to refer to extreme radicals or revolutionaries, the amount by which the cost of a business exceeds its revenue or a socialist who advocates communism. In order to differ the meaning of a word between one another, we have to put the word into its context. Therefore, the writer will also conduct the contextual meaning analysis on his study.
1.2 Research Questions
Based on the above, the writer would like to conduct a study on the meaning of a word, i.e. the verb run by answering the following two questions:
1. What are the semantic properties of the conceptual meaning of the verb run when it is compared with the verb race, gallop, and sprint?
2. What semantic properties are related to the conceptual meaning of the verb run when it is put beyond the conceptual meaning?
1.3 Purpose of the Study
This study is intended to answer two questions. First, it is to examine the meaning of the verb run by comparing it with other verbs in the same semantic domains, i.e. race, gallop, and sprint. By comparing the verb run with the other verbs, we will find the semantic properties, i.e. properties that appear to provide the comparison and contrast between those verbs, along with the semantic features. After conducting the comparative analysis, it is important that we should also know the meaning of the verb run beyond the conceptual meaning. By looking up certain meanings from Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English published by Longman in 2001, we can identify the context of the verb run. From the use of the verb run in certain contexts, there are some properties that appear and are related to the conceptual meaning. Thus, the second purpose of this study is to find the semantic properties that are related to the conceptual meaning when the verb run is put beyond the conceptual meaning. So far as what the writer has found, Nida (1975) has provided the contextual meanings of the verb run. Yet, he has not made the relationship between the semantic properties appeared in contextual analysis and the comparative meaning. In the results and discussion, the writer will present the semantic properties that appear and are related to the conceptual meaning when the verb run is put beyond the conceptual meaning.
1.4 Significance of the Study
It is stated that the meaning of a word becomes clear when it is compared with the other words in the same semantic domain. By comparing the word run with the other verbs in the same semantic domain, we are able to see its difference from semantic features. This study is beneficial as it provides the relationship between the contextual meaning and comparative meaning by analyzing the semantic properties and features that appear and are related.
LITERATURE REVIEW
This chapter presents review of the related literature. First, it will discuss the theoretical descriptions, i.e. some descriptions of theories related to this study. After that, it will present the theoretical framework, i.e. the theories discussed in the descriptions used by the writer in this study.
2.1 Theoretical Descriptions
In the theoretical descriptions, the writer would like to review some theories related to his study, i.e. theories of meaning, word meaning, types of meaning, semantic domain, semantic features, contrastive meaning, and contextual meaning.
2.1.1. Theories of Meaning Meaning is a central and fundamental concept to the whole study of language.
However, as Ullmann (1964: 54) points out, it is also “one of the most ambiguous and most controversial terms in the theory of language.” Kempson (1977: 11) agrees with this statement when asserting that the problem of what we mean when we refer to the meaning of a word or a sentence “is the classical problem of semantics, the problem indeed on which semantics has traditionally foundered.
” She also mentions three main ways in which linguists and philosophers have attempted to construct explanations of meaning in natural language (1977: 11), i.e. by defining the nature of word meaning, defining the nature of sentence meaning, and explaining the process of communication.
For over decades, linguists have spent a large amount of time finding out the Ogden and „meanings of meaning‟ as a preliminary to the study of their subject. definitions of meaning are: an intrinsic property; the other words annexed to a word in the dictionary; the connotation of a word; an essence; that to which is actually related to a sign by a chosen relation; that to which the user of a symbol actually refers, etc. They show how confusion and misunderstanding arise because of lack of agreement on such a basic term (1946: 186-187).
Bloomfield (1933) has had a slightly different emphasis on meaning. It was not the scientific study of mental phenomena, i.e. thought and symbolization, but the scientific definition of everything to which language may refer.
We can define the meaning of a speech-form accurately when this meaning has to do
with some matter of which we possess scientific knowledge. We can define the names
of minerals, for example, in terms of chemistry and mineralogy, as when we say that
the ordinary meaning of the English word salt is ‘sodium chloride’ (NaCl), and wecan define the names of plants or animals by means of the technical terms of botany
or zoology, but we have no precise way of defining words like love or hate, which
concern situations that have not been accurately classified- – and these latter are in the great majority. (Language, p. 139)
Finally, Bloomfield has come to a conclusion that the definition of meaning progresses by a continuing process of revision and clarification, leading to greater clarity and depth of understanding.
2.1.2. Word Meaning
The definition of word meaning is as elusive as the definition of the term meaning. Ogden and Richards (1946: 10) claim that the words mean nothing by themselves and it is only when a thinker makes use of them that they stand for anything, or, in one sense, have „meaning‟. It is a consequence of their theory of meaning presented by the semiotic triangle where the relationship between symbol and referent is indirect. As Hanks (2007: 7) explains, the words stand for objects only a word may vary slightly in the conceptual schemata of individual speakers, and the way in which the world is conceived may also vary from speaker to speaker.
Crystal (1985: 236) adds that the assumption that words carry the meaning in a language is wrong as the meaning is carried by sentences. In order to understand what is meant, we have to put the word in a context, which usually means to put it into a sentence (e.g. the word „table‟ which can mean either a piece of furniture or a part of a printed page).