Guía docente de Principios y Metodología para la Investigación del Componente Léxico en Inglés (M19/56/2/15)

1. Presentación del curso, sus contenidos y objetivos

2. Las disciplinas que estudian el significado.

3. La naturaleza del componente léxico. La cuestión de la sistematicidad.

4. Teorías del significado léxico:

•    Teorías atomísticas
•    Teorías relacionales
•    La teoría del campo léxico.

5. El componente cognitivo en el estudio del léxico.

6. Metodología del estudio del léxico

•    Perspectivas deductivas e inductivas
•    La Lingüística del Corpus

7. La dimensión contrastiva.

8. El estudio del léxico y su aplicabilidad a campos relacionados · Lexicografía · Terminología. · Léxico y traducción · Léxico y aprendizaje de lenguas

• Interés en el estudio del léxico en inglés
• Un nivel al menos C1 en inglés

• Students should achieve a general understanding of the study of the lexical component in natural languages.
• Students should become aware of the specificity of the lexical component, as opposed to other components of the language.
• Students should become aware of the centrality of the lexical component to linguistic analysis.
• Students should become familiar with different approaches to the study of the lexical component.
• Students should become aware of the need for a coherent, integrated approach to the  lexical component.
• Students should become aware of the relationship between mind and language as illustrated by the mental lexicon.
• Students should understand the nature of the linguistic sign as an essentially complex but integrated entity.
• Students should become familiar with issues arising from the contrastive dimension of lexical analysis.
• Students should become familiar with lexical analysis methodologies and tools, and more specifically with Corpus Linguistics.
• Students should become aware of the relevance of lexical analysis for other language- related disciplines:
  • Lexicography
  • Terminology
  • Translation
  • Language learning
  • Literary analysis

1. Disciplines that study meaning: Lexicology, lexicography, Lexical Semantics

2. The nature of the lexical component: size and structure. Lexicography.

3. The mental lexicon: the neurological and cognitive bases of lexical studies. Introduction to Cognitive Linguistcs, and categorization applied to lexical studies.

4. Basic and specialised Lexis: principles and methodology in terminology Specialized terms vs. basic vocabulary.

5. Theories of lexical meaning:

• Atomistic theories: Componential analysis, Universal primitives
• Relational theories: meaning and sense, Lexical Functions, Systemic Linguistics
• Lexical field theory: from Trier to cognitive-based lexical domains
•  The cognitive component in lexical studies: prototype effects, fuzzy edges, overlapping and basic level od categorization.

6. Methodology of lexical analysis

• Deductive and inductive perspectives
• Corpus linguistics: principles, methodology and limitations
• Applications of lexical studies to literary analysis
• The contrastive dimension in lexical analysis

7. Unity and diversity in the linguistic sign: homonymy, polisemy and vagueness

8. Implications for Language learning

El temario práctico está integrado con el teórico.

• Butler, C. 1985. “Systemic approaches to lexis, phonology and discorise”, in Systemic Linguistics: Theory and Appilcations. London: Bletsford Academic.
• Cabré Castelbí, M. T. 1993 “Los lenguajes de especialidad”, in La Terminología: teoría, metodología, aplicaciones, pp. 125- 168. Barcelona: Antártida.
• Cabré Castelbí, M. T. 1993 “La unidad terminológica”, in La Terminología: teoría, metodología, aplicaciones,  pp. 169-224. Barcelona: Antártida.
• Coseriu, E. 1990. Semántica Estructural y Semántica Cognitiva. Collecció Homenatges, Barcelona: Universidad de Barcelona.
• Faber, P. and R. Mairal Usón 1998. “The paradigmatic nd Syntagmatic structure of the lexical field of feeling”, in Cuadernos de Investigación Filológica, 1997-1998, pp. 35-60.
• Faber et al. 2006. “Process-oriented terminology management in the domain of Coastal Engineering”, in Terminology, 12:2, pp. 189-213.
• Lakoff, G. y Johnson M. 1980. “Concepts we live by”, in Metaphors We Live By, pp. 3-6. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Lakoff, G. y Johnson M. 1980. “The systematicity of metaphorical concepts”, in Metaphors We Live By, pp. 7-9. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Lakoff, G. y Johnson M. 1980. “Metaphorical systematicity: highlighting and hiding”, in Metaphors We Live By, pp. 10-21. Chicago: University of Chicago.
• Lakoff, G. 1987. “Preface” Women, Fire and Dangerous Things.Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Lehrer, A. 1974. “Semantic fields”, in Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure, pp. 15-45. Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Lehrer, A. 1974. “Componential analysis”, in Semantic Fields and Lexical Structure, pp. 46-75. Amsterdam: North Holland.
• Márquez Linares, C. F. 2002. “Polisemia, vaguedad referencial y terminología” , in Faber, P. y Jiménez Hurtado, C. (eds.) Investigar en Terminología. Granada: Comares.
• Saussure, F. de 1915/1983. “Nature of the Linguistic Sign”, in Course in General Linguistics, pp. 97-104. Londres: Duckworth. Traducción de Roy Harris.
• Saussure, F. de 1915/1983. “Invariability and variability of the sign”, in Course in General Linguistics, pp. 105-113. Londres: Duckworth. Traducción de Roy Harris.
• Tuggy, D. 1993. “Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness”, Cognitive Linguistics 4-3.273-290.

• Aarts, J. M. G. y Calbert J. P. 1979. Metaphor and Non-Metaphor. The Semantics of Adjective-Noun Combinations. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
• Aarts, J. y Meijs, W. (eds.) 1990. Theory and Practice in Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
• Aijmer, K. Y Altenberg, B. (eds.) 1991 English Corpus Linguistics. London: Longman.
• Aitchison, J. 1994. Words in the Mind: An Introduction to the Mental Lexicon. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
• Baker, M. 1993. “Corpus Linguistics and Translation Studies”, in Baker, M and G. Francis Text and Technology: in Honour of John Sinclair.
• Baker, M. Francis, G. y Tognini-Bonelli, E. (eds.) 1993. Text and Technology: In Honour of John Sinclair. Amsterdam y Phil.: Benjamins.
• Bejoint, H. 1994. Tradition and Innovation in Modern English Dictionaries. Oxford: O.U.P.
• Butler, C. 1985. Systemic Linguistics. Theory and Applications. London: Blatsford Academic and Educational.
• ——— 1990. “Functional Grammar and Systemic Grammar: a preliminary comparison”. Working papers in Functional Grammar no. 39. University of Amsterdam.
• Coseriu, E. 1977. Principios de semántica estructural. Madrid: Gredos.
• Cruse, D. A. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: C. U. P.
• Deane, P. 1988. “Polysemy and Cognition”, in Lingua 75, pp. 325-361
• Dik, S. C. 1978a. Functional Grammar. Amsterdam: New Holland.
• ——— 1978b. Stepwise Lexical Decomposition. Lisse: Peter de Ridder Press.
• Faber, P. and R. Mairal Usón 1998. “Towards a Semantic Syntax”, in Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses, N0. 36, 1998.
• Faber, P. And Mairal Usón, R. 1999. Constructing a lexicon of English Verbs. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
• Fodor, J. 1977. Semantics. Theories of Meaning in Generative Grammar. Sussex: Harvester Press.
• Geckeler, H. 1977. Semántica Estructural y Teoría del Campo Léxico. Madrid: Gredos.
• Geeraerts, D. 1987. “Types of Semantic Information in Dictionaries”, in Ilson, R. A Spectrum of Lexicography, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
• Gordon, W. T. 1982. A History of Semantics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
• Hartmann, R. R. K. (ed.) 1983. Lexicography: Principles and Practice.  Londres & New York: Academic Press.
• Hausman, F. J. et al. (eds.) 1989. Wörtebücher/ Dictionaries/ Dictionnaires. Ein Internationales Handbuch zur Lexicographie/ International Encyclopedia of Lexicography/ Enciclopedie Internationale de Lexicographie. Berlin & New York: W. de Gruyter.
• Hurford, J. R. and Heasley B. 1983. Semantics: a Coursebook. Cambridge: C. U. P.
• Ilson, R. 1987 A Spectrum of Lexicography, Amsterdam: J. Benjamins.
• Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and Cognition. Cambridge, Massachussetts: MIT.
• Johnson, M. 1987. The Body in the Mind. Chicago and Londres: The University of Chicago Press.
• Katz, J. y Fodor, J. A. 1963. “The structure of a semantic theory” Language, 39, pp. 170-210.
• Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
• Landau, S. I. 1989. Dictionaries. The Art and craft of Lexicography. Londres & New York: Longman.
• Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
• Leech, G. 1974. Semantics. Hammondsworth: Penguin.
• Lipka, L. 1990. An Outline of English Lexicology. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
• Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (2 vols.). Cambridge: C. U. P.
• Mairal Usón, Ricardo and Francisco Cortés Rodríguez 2006 “An outline of Role and Reference Grammar”. En R. Mairal y otros (eds.) Current Trends in Linguistic Theory. Madrid: UNED, págs. 97-175.
• Martín Mingorance, L. 1984. “Lexical fields and stepwise lexical decomposition in a Contrastive English-Spanish verb valency dictionary” en R. R. K. Hartmann (ed.) p. 226-36.
• ——— 1990. “Fuctional grammar and lexematics in lexicography” en J. Tomaszczyk y B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (eds.) pp. 227-53.
• Miller, George. and Johnson-Laird, Phillip. 1976. Language and Perception. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
• Palmer, F. R. 1976. Semantics. A New Outline. Cambridge: C. U. P.
• Pustejovsky, J. 1995. The Generative Lexicon. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
• Sinclair, J. (ed.) 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation.  Oxford: O. U. P.
• Stubbs, M. 1996 Text and Corpus Analysis Oxford: Blackwell.
• Svensen, B. 1993. Practical Lexicography. Pinciples and Methods of Dictionary-making. Oxford: O. U. P.
• Tsohatzidis, S. L. (ed.) 1990. Meaning and Prototypes. Studies in Linguistic Categorization.  Londres: Routledge.
• Wanner, L. 1996. “Introduction”, in Wanner, L. (ed.) Lexical Functions in Lexicology and Natural Language Processing. Amsterdam y Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Wanner, L. (ed.) 1996. Lexical Functions in Lexicology and Natural Language Processing. Amsterdam y Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
• Wierzbicka, A. 1980. Lingua Mentalis. Sidney: Academic Press.
• Zgusta, L. 1971. Manual of Lexicography. Prague: Academia Press.

• https://lextutor.ca/conc/eng/
• http://manila.ugr.es/en/index.htm
• https://www.ugr.es/~oncoterm/

CONVOCATORIA ORDINARIA

Evaluation instruments

• Written assignment: 60%
• Class attendance and participation: 15%
• Presentation: 25%

Evaluation Criteria

• Students are expected to use independently the methods and tools for lexical analysis presented in class
• Students are expected to view lexical theories and methodological approaches critically ad to be able to recognise potential shortcomings and opportunities. An eclectic approach is encouraged
• Students are expected to present their findings fluently and articulately.
• Students are expected to attend the seminars and participate actively in the discussions, posing questions whenever there is something they do not agree with or comprehend entirely.

Evaluation instruments

• Written assignment: 100%

Evaluation Criteria

• Students are expected to use independently the methods and tools for lexical analysis presented in class
• Students are expected to view lexical theories and methodological approaches critically ad to be able to recognise potential shortcomings and opportunities. An eclectic approach is encouraged.
• Students are expected to present their findings fluently and articulately.

Evaluation instruments

• Written assignment: 100%

Evaluation Criteria

• Students are expected to use independently the methods and tools for lexical analysis presented in class
• Students are expected to view lexical theories and methodological approaches critically ad to be able to recognise potential shortcomings and opportunities. An eclectic approach is encouraged.
• Students are expected to present their findings fluently and articulately.

Seminars will include the presentation of new material on the part of the lecturer. This material will be added to the PRADO Platform.

The material thus presented will be discussed with the students, adding different points of view and analysing it from a critical perspective.

Finally, students will be given a task that exemplifies the content previously presented and will allow them to deal with the real issues concerned and thus become aware of the possibilities and limitations. This task will be done in class under the supervision of the lecturer.

Additionally, students will be provided with a reading list of articles and other material directly related to the topics covered in the subject. Each student will select one of the works and present it to their peers in class. Students are required to approach their allotted work critically and pose questions that will create a debate.

Finally, students will be given a final assignment where they will be able to use the skills and knowledge acquired throughout the course.

"El plagio, entendido como la presentación de un trabajo u obra hecho por otra persona como propio o la copia de textos sin citar su procedencia y dándolos como de elaboración propia, conllevará automáticamente la calificación numérica de cero en la asignatura en la que se hubiera detectado, independientemente del resto de las calificaciones que el estudiante hubiera obtenido. Esta consecuencia debe entenderse sin perjuicio de las responsabilidades disciplinarias en las que pudieran incurrir los estudiantes que plagien." En línea con la normativa de la UGR expuesta en el párrafo anterior, es necesario aclarar que, al igual que con cualquier otro tipo de plagio, el incumplimiento del compromiso de autoría por parte del/de la estudiante debido a la utilización de recursos no humanos (por ejemplo, aplicaciones informáticas de Inteligencia Artificial) conllevará igualmente la calificación automática de SUSPENSO (0) en la asignatura, así como las responsabilidades disciplinarias que esta acción pueda acarrear.