Talk:Onomasiology

[Untitled]

I'd be willing to clean up this article if somebody told me more specifically which parts or aspects should be improved for what reason. Sinatra 17:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At present, the article is nothing more than an unsourced translation of de:Onomasiologie. That article in turn looks suspiciously like it is almost verbatim based on the source given there, Grzega (2004); you can tell from its style that it wasn't intended to be an encyclopedic account. Problems include:

The text-flow is broken by the lists, which are too long and cumbersome to be of any help anyway.
The article doesn't provide any historical view. The rise of onomasiology from 1875 on should be covered, along with its general proponents (Ernst Tappolett, Friedrich Diez, Adolf Zauner) and their most important works. The term onomasiology itself was coined in Zauner (1903:340-1). In its original inception, it thrived until about 1930, to be taken up in a new form fifty years later by linguists of the cognitive persuasion like Dirk Geeraerts and, more recently, Blank and Koch and others.
The differences between (as well as overlaps with) its traditional counterpart semasiology should be outlined briefly.
The text as it is now reflects just one approach to onomasiology, that of Grzega 2004. Rather than outlining one approach in a textbook-like fashion, it would be better to contrast the most important approaches of the last 130 years, and to note some lines of agreement as well as the most important differences between them.
Sources should be cited, and a brief bibliography would be nice, too.

— mark ✎ 18:33, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I'll try my best to improve the article. But let me just add a few remarks on your comments:

I don't think that breaking a text-flow by lists is something that should be avoided. Actually, it is a quite common way in order to improve readability. If the lists are long, then this is because they are comprehensive. If the lists are cumbersome, then I should think of rewording them. However, I had the texts (German and English) also read by some students before putting them in Wikipedia, and they were considered ok. Nevertheless, I will try to find a more reader-friendly style.
Concerning the historical overview, I agree. The difference between semasiology and onomasiology is actually explained, but I will add an example.
The general approach is not just the one in Grzega 2004. Grzega 2004 itself presents a synopsis and synthesis of all approaches so far. There are some aspects that are specific to Grzega 2004, which I could delete.
Since Grzega 2004 is the most encompassing book on historical onomasiology, I haven't added any further sources, especially as most of the other books pursue only limited questions. But I will think about some other works.

Sinatra 11:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent additions are great. — mark ✎ 09:18, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you've asked for comments... I think there should be some mention of onomasiological approaches to areas of grammar other than lexical semantics e.g. in morphosyntax, which also has a long tradition. The article rather gives the impression that this approach is limited to lexical semantics. Also the later parts of the article as it stands are basically about lexical semantic change. Is this the right article for them to be in? Daffy2 23:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS The link to semasiology redirects to semantics, which kinda defeats the whole point, giving the impression that onomasiology is the opposite (!) of semantics. Daffy2 23:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm if anything, the opposite of onomasiology would be semasiology, not semantics. I see semantics as a broader term covering both semasiology and onomasiology. — mark ✎ 09:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]