Journal Review POLYSEMY as COMPLEXITY

Journal critic   by azwar

Titile                           : Polysemy as Complexity?

Penulis                      : Jarno Raukko

Sumber                      : http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2006_1/1.5.3.%20RAUKKO.pdf

Tujuan Penelitian        :

Title

The writer writes the title without following a good grammar. In addition, the titile does not inform us the spesific  focused area  of polysemy would cause the complexity. In our mind would  be there some questions about the titile such as “ does it couse of  comlexity in a sentence meaning?, does it make some complexites to write in dictionary of the word’s meaning or what?  In my oppinion  the good  title would be “Does pollysemy rise a complexity in meaning of words”. 

Abstract                                                                        

The writer clearly  gives the opening discussion to the reader about the polysemy that would raise complexity. But in this abstrack the writer does not  attache the clear reason how to measure  it’s complexity and  what kind of the mothode he uses  in this article.

Introduction

  In this  part  the writer    has  focused  on grammar, morphology, and phonology to prove his oppinion about polysemy complexity.  He says that  some of reserchers have faced the difficulties   in the research.  The writer mentions that  Miestamo as the researcher   who  finds  the stage complexity  in his research. The writer wants to know  either the complexity happens on  starting  assumption or  on a working  hyphotesys  in dealing with morphemes, different grammatical category, and the degree  of irregularity.

The writer  assumes  that  polysemy  has as such complexity. He  argues that  by increasing  the number of polysemy in English words would increase the complexity in polysemy itself. He assumes in general  that it can be seen by  many   point of view that  polysemy has or  by seeing  the viewpoint of lexicon.  

Problem

To support his assumsion to be strong and valuable the writer has brought  six prospectives  to prove polysemy that would  have  the complex difficulty.

At number 1,  he begins to support his opinion  by bringing  the use of  lexeme in English word would  not make  complexity in meaning. In the contrary to the point number 2 that he argues  the pair word in English word would cause the complexity in meaning. At the point number 3 he says that  the semantics should be at number 2. Here, the writer gives wrong reason. Why? Because at the number 2 it is about  the pair that would  cause complexity so that his oppionion is wrong at this point.  At point number 4 he does not give some examples about  universal semantics and primitive   semantics. He uses Wierzbicka ‘s opinion  that  a semantic primitive is more maximally simple but in semantic universal one word has so many meanings that  would raise  a broad explaination. Here, ther writer  has lack example about this. At poin 5 he just says about rich semantics meaning and lack semantic meaning. In the other hand he does not attache some examples of it's framework or the example of rich meaning and lack meaning. It is contrary to his oppinion that the word  that has some meanings would bring complexity.  At last number 6 his methode is not clear about how to measure how many word in english that would bring to complexity. His opinion in using  the method is not clear at all.

Analysis

This journal study about  how semantic meaning creates difficult complexity  to the meaning. The more increasing semantic meaning it would bring the more complex difficulty  to word meaning.  The writer says that the   more complex of difficulty in  semantic would cause the original meaning of word get lost.

the weakneses of this writing is the writer uses difficut explaination to arrange the sentence. When he wants to express his opinion he does not write with the simple and good way of grammar. It causes the reader is difficult to understand the meaning such as “If we could accomplish this goal with 10,000 polysemous words each of which had 100 meanings, the lexicon would be smaller, i.e., less complex, than if we had 500,000 or 1,000,000 words to meet the same needs. Again,polysemy would involve less complexity than no polysemy.

His oppinion about pollysemy would bring the complexity is not supported by the great reason and good example.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the writers’ argument about the  pollysemy would cause complexity is not clear. The writer are failed to give some examples about  the  dynamic  meaning  that must be had by semantics  and  he does not bring the measurement method  as the standar method to masure the complexity in  th e article

The journal that i criticize is bellow



REVIEW JOURNAL
Polysemy as Complexity?
Jarno Raukko
Identity

The journal is about semantic journal. It talks about either the complexity of meaning in semantics make us more difficult to understand or make us easy to understand. In this writing the writer uses some prospective s to shows some complicated problem that is presented by semantic meaning effect. He urges that original meaning of a word can lose when they are combined to be polysemy

Abstract
In this writing the writer wants to know whether the polysemy can go either to be more complexity in meaning or to be less complexity in it’s meaning.

Introduction
In this part the writer writes that the researchers has focused on grammar, morphology, and phonology. He says that some of them have faced the difficulties in the research. The writer mentions Miestamo as the researcher who finds the stage complexity in his research. The writer mentions that he wants to know either the complexity happens on starting assumption or a working hyphotesys in dealing with morphemes, different grammatical categories, and the degree of irregularity.
The writer assumes that polysemy has as such complexity. His oppinion argues that by increasing the number of polysemy in english words would increase the complexity in polysemy itself. He assume that it can be seen by many point of view that polysemy has in general or by seeing the viewpoint of lexicon.

Problem
To make his assumsion strong and valuable the writer has brought six prospectives to prove polysemy has the complex difficulty. They are
1. In a simple case, the writer shows that the usage of lexeme. Here, he gives an example that actualy every word has it own meaning but whenever the words have been compose into a lexeme it has semanic meaning and the original meaning of every word loses

2. At the case of the meaning of pair of words the writer assumes that it increases the difficult complexity. He says the actually every word in pair has it own meaning but because of the pair they have new meaning. So the writer says it is irrelevant.

3. The writers suggests that semantics should be dynamic system such nomber 2. He says that if semantically one word to other word are having the same meaning it would make less complexity but whenever one word is combined to other word in other hand the meaning are too far it will make difficult to understand such as “natural” is added to “predictable”

4. He also confirms that semantic complexity would increase complexity. he brings the reason that happens between semantic universal and semantic primitive. He uses Wierzbicka ‘s opinion that a semantic primitive is more maximally simplex but in semantic universal one word has so many meanings that I would raises broad explaination.

5. He emphasizes that we could think that semantically a word with broad meaning has a rich semantic meaning with a specific meaning but in contrast it is contrary, vague, loose, and has too generall , and poor semantic meaning. Event it lessen the number of referent for an example actually the word of dog is poorer meaning than the word of spaniel.

6. The writer bases his oppinion on the view of lexicon to lessen the complexity. He says that if we can accomplish 10.000 polisimous words with 100 meanings so the lexicon would be smaller but if we have 5.00.000 or 1.000.000 words it would make polysemy in difficult complexity,
Analysis

This journal study about how semantic meaning creates difficult complexity to the meaning. The more increasing semantic meaning it would bring the more complex difficulty to word meaning. The writer says that it the more complex of difficult semantic would cause the original meaning of word get lost.
the weakneses of this writing is the writer uses difficut exlaination to arrange the sentence. When he wants to express his opinion he does not write with the simple and good way of grammar. It causes the reader is difficult to understand the meaning such as “If we could accomplish this goal with 10,000 polysemous words each of which had 100 meanings, the lexicon would be smaller, i.e., less complex, than if we had 500,000 or 1,000,000 words to meet the same needs. Again,polysemy would involve less complexity than no polysemy.

Conclusion
It can be concluded that the writer urges that point number 1 and 6 shows how polysemy in the position of complexity. Here, the writers deeply emphasizes that the original meaning of words get lost when they get into semantic meaning.