Соursе pаpеr оn semantic systems in English: Neologisms

The second paragraph of this chapter is about Neologisms.
Chapter II includes two paragraphs.
The first paragraph of Chapter II is devoted to the definition of neologisms
The second paragraph presents research locales of the creation of neologisms in English
Conclusion contains the main themes and ideas of the course paper. It summarizes the main points and reviews the information, which was covered.
Bibliography gives the information about the list of used literature.

СHАPTЕR ОNЕ.

1. 
   What is Semantics?
   

Language, as it is studied here, is a conventionalized system made up of natural human speech and writing. (Paralinguistic expressions like sighing and laughing are excluded from this.) Also excluded will be the use of sign language.

The language taken into consideration is not restricted to any one type or style, such as formal language or writing, or to any one particular purpose or subject matter, such as information transmission. As a result, it will include banter, greetings, exclamations, poetry, and statements made by young children like "Daddy home."
Because other languages have not yet adopted essential semantic notions, the theory is exclusively applied to English. Cross-linguistic comparison is employed, however, in cases when the author feels that it is possible to support the theory by demonstrating semantic distinctions between languages that are typologically similar and those that are substantially different in their morphosyntax.⁴
Since semantics is not a "natural sort," like iron, it is not immediately clear what we are discussing. There is also no agreement on what it is; according to Riemer (2016: 1), it "could hardly be more protean and vaguer." As a result, I will start by describing semantics and save definition until the end of the book. We begin with the presumption that language is a system of signs, among other things. The signs have meaning, which is regarded in this context to be synonymous with meaning because of their significance. ('Significance' is an important word throughout the book and will be gradually explored.)⁵
Semantics is either (a) "the branch of linguistics that deals with meaning," (b) "the link between linguistic symbols and their meanings," or (c) "the study or analysis" of those relationships, according to the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (2002; "SOED" henceforth). The relationship between linguistic symbols and their meanings is (b), which is the book's main focus. The other semantic features, such as those in (a) and (c), are less important.⁶
Language has a complex interplay between symbols and meanings. Although some linguists have claimed that emotive utterances are meaningless, it provides for "meaning" to incorporate both the fact and the feeling in statements like "I saw a beautiful film!" Additionally, meaning will encompass things like the significance of farewells, which are social rituals rather than expressions of fact or emotion.
Semantics does not investigate the content of meaning because it is concerned with the nature of meaning. As a result, it examines the differences between similar words and even between "salt," "sodium chloride," and "NaCl." The scientific understanding associated with the word "salt" is not studied.
Linguistics is thought to be distinct from a number of other fields of study, just as it is from science. It is not logic if it merely considers propositional meanings and studies illogical and logical inferences. It is not epistemology, as in determining whether a claim meets the requirements for being true. It is not metaphysics, such as the question of whether particular words, like nouns, refer to objects that actually exist in the real world.
Further, the study of semantics is believed to be studied for knowledge's sake, and as such, excludes practical applications like the creation of computer systems for language processing, much as the study of biology does not include the creation of heart pacemakers.
Semantics in linguistics is limited to significance that relies solely on grammatical rules. That doesn't include importance that depends on social or other conventions, like when a bridge player says "One club" to indicate that they have an opening hand but don't necessarily have any clubs because they don't have a five-card major. That uses more than just language standards when playing the game of contract bridge. In this context, semantics also disqualifies "meaning" that is "dependent on mutual comprehension of intents, aims, and social relationships" (Saeed 2016: Introduction 3 177); for instance, Grice's (1975) dictums such "Do not speak more than is necessary."⁷
Since pragmatics is here regarded to include the study of what speakers choose to say, while linguistics deals with how they choose to say it, all those difficulties are not considered to be a part of pragmatics. 1 Semantics in this context also eliminates "dynamic semantics," such as Discourse Representation Theory, possibly a little arbitrarily. very closely resembles psychology and involves complexity that would undermine the goal of the book by studying meaning as it shifts in a listener's thinking as the speaker continues to speak. Additionally, "semantics" does not include "conversation analysis" or "discourse analysis" (the study of, for example, the structure of dialogue) (studying personal interaction, such as taking turns). Neither of those are linguistic; rather, they are sociological.
The definition of a theory or a theory of theories is not attempted here. Even within the physical sciences, there is little agreement among researchers as to what a theory is or should be; even less agreement exists as to what a theory might be in semantics. Some previous suggestions that involved unacceptably presumptuous assumptions have brought attention to how difficult it is to define. For instance, according to Allan (2016), Katz's proposals for what a semantic theory needs include offering a metalanguage of semantics, covering all languages, and defining the form of lexical entries; however, those proposals are only requirements for one particular and limited theory and do not apply to all semantic theories.⁸
Animals can have two eyes, three eyes, five eyes, or none at all. Some can also survive at temperatures exceeding boiling point and without oxygen. But when the evolutionary concepts of random variation, survival of the fittest, and environment adaption are applied, the situation becomes clear-cut and logical. There are many different types of meaning phenomena, and these phenomena can also be analyzed in terms of underlying principles. Here is a suggested list of them.
The way language and meaning were described before has an implicit semiotic principle that states that language conveys meaning through a system of signals. Each meaning should have a corresponding sign, and vice versa. There are many different types of indicators, some of which are "invisible" because they are abstract, like word order, while others are concrete and clear, like words and the rise and fall of the voice. Since there must be indications to indicate how the hearer is to form hierarchical structures, such as those within a clause, they are given even more significance by the linearity of language.⁹
One system is language's semiotics; others, such tense, number, and modification, are obviously present as well. We are aware that as time goes on, linguistic systems typically become more intricate and reliable, and that when a system does malfunction, language frequently seems to restore order. This uniformity makes the linguistic peculiarities stand out in contrast to the surroundings. Systematicity is a fundamental idea.
The indicators and the systems go beyond being purely abstract. A fundamental premise is that meaning is instantiated or "embodied" - as physical, observable occurrences. As language is spoken, the signals assume the shape of sound waves or marks on paper. They are processed in the mind, and so (we must presume) in the brain, when they take that form. Therefore, we must presume that a theory of semantics must be plausible in terms of psychology and neurology. That is an additional instance of the instantiation principle being used.¹⁰
Along with the words and syntactic structures thus formed, meaning changes. We must presume that it evolved as the human race evolved; it also develops in historical time; and it develops in all of us, as we grow up. Meanings may become more or less differentiated, and more or less complex. The principle of development underlies semantics also.