Semantička intuicija leksikografa i jezičkih laika na primeru pridevske antonimije srpskog jezika u rečeničnom kontekstu

Abstract

Cilj rada je da se na primeru antonimije ispita da li se i na koji način intuitivna jezička znanja leksikografa razlikuju od znanja izvornih govornika, koji nisu jezički stručnjaci. Ispitanici iz dva uzorka imali su zadatak da navedu pridev suprotnog značenja u odnosu na grafički istaknut pridev u rečenici, koji je aktiviran u primarnom konkretnom, sekundarnom konkretnom i sekundarnom apstraktnom značenju. Rezultati pokazuju da se ispitanici dve grupe dosledno slažu oko toga šta je antonim prideva aktiviranog u primarnom značenju, dok razlike postoje u izboru antonima za sekundarna značenja, pri čemu adekvatniji antonim ponekad navode jezički stručnjaci, ali u nekim slučajevima i jezički laici. Dobijeni rezultati sugerišu da se pri ispitivanju antonimije istraživači podjednako mogu osloniti na intuiciju jezičkih laika, kao i na intuiciju jezičkih stručnjaka.

The paper explores whether and in what way the intuitions of linguists differ from the intuitions of non-linguist native speakers on the example of antonymy. Reliance on speakers’ intuitions in linguistic research is neither new nor uncommon. However, the question of whether the intuitions of non-linguist native speakers should be treated the same as the intuitions of those with formal linguistic education is still open. Previous studies dealing with this topic compared linguist and non-linguist intuitions mainly based on their responses in various syntax tasks, yielding different results in terms of reliability of non-linguist vs. linguist intuitions. In this study, respondents from two samples (16 lexicographers and 81 non-linguist native speakers of Serbian) had the task to replace the underlined adjective in a sentence with its antonym. Twenty-two Serbian adjectives were used in different contexts in stimulus-sentences activating their primary, secondary concrete, and secondary abstract meaning. When the results from two samples are compared, it is observed that, in both samples, the number of stated antonyms tends to increase from the primary, through the secondary concrete, to the secondary abstract meaning. Two groups of respondents provided the same dominant antonyms when the adjectives were activated in their primary meaning, and only one different antonym when the adjective was used in secondary concrete meaning. The biggest difference between the samples was found in antonyms given by respondents when the adjective was used in its secondary abstract meaning. The results indicate that, compared to linguists, there is higher agreement in the sample of native speakers on the dominant antonym when the adjective is activated in primary meaning. There is also a tendency of higher agreement on the antonym in the group of native speakers when the adjective is used in secondary abstract and concrete meanings as well, but the difference is not statistically significant. Bearing in mind the obtained results, it can be concluded that, in the field of antonymy, researchers can equally rely both on the intuition of native speakers and that of linguists. Still, further studies on larger samples of both categories of respondents are necessary to complement the findings of the current research.