dis-, de-,etc.(e.g. readiness, comradeship, to activise; unnatural, to displease, to decipher). 2 страница

Such semantic relationships are commonly found in the meanings of one word and are considered to be indicative of polysemy. It is also suggested that the semantic connection may be described in terms of such features as, e. g., form and function (cf. horn of an animal and horn as an instrument), or process and result (to run — ‘move with quick steps’ and a run — act of running).

Similar relationships, however, are observed between the meanings of two partially homonymic words, e. g. to run and a run in the stocking.

Moreover in the synchronic analysis of polysemantic words we often find meanings that cannot be related in any way, as, e. g. the meanings of the word case discussed above. Thus the semantic criterion proves not only untenable in theory but also rather vague and because of this impossible in practice as in many cases it cannot be used to discriminate between several meanings of one word and the meanings of two different words.

§ 38. Formal Criteria: Distribution and Spelling

The criterion of distribution suggested by some linguists is undoubtedly helpful, but mainly in cases of lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonymy. For example, in the homonymic pair paper « — (to) paper v the noun may be preceded by the article and followed by a verb; (to) paper can never be found in identical distribution. This formal criterion can be used to discriminate not only lexico-grammatical but also grammatical homonyms, but it often fails in cases of lexical homonymy, not differentiated by means of spelling.

Homonyms differing in graphic form, e. g. such lexical homonyms as knight — night or flower — flour, are easily perceived to be two different lexical units as any formal difference of words is felt as indicative of the existence of two separate lexical units. Conversely lexical homonyms identical both in pronunciation and spelling are often apprehended as different meanings of one word.

It is often argued that in general the context in which the words are used suffices to establish the borderline between homonymous words, e. g. the meaning of case₁ in several cases of robbery can be easily differentiated from the meaning of case₂ in a jewel case, a glass case. This however is true of different meanings of the same word as recorded in dictionaries, e. g. of case, as can be seen by comparing the case will be tried in the law-court and the possessive case of the noun.

¹ See ‘Semasiology’, § 23, p. 31. 44

Thus, the context serves to differentiate meanings but is of little help in distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy. Consequently we have to admit that no formal means have as yet been found to differentiate between several meanings of one word and the meanings of its homonyms.

In the discussion of the problems of polysemy and homonymy we proceeded from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of language. ¹ Some linguists hold that the basic and elementary units at the semantic level of language are the lexico-semantic variants of the word, i. e. individual word-meanings. In that case, naturally, we can speak only of homonymy of individual lexico-semantic variants, as polysemy is by definition, at least on the synchronic plane, the coexistence of several meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

§ 39. Summary and Conclusions

1. Homonyms are words that sound alike but have different semantic structure. The problem of homonymy is mainly the problem of differentiation between two different semantic structures of identically sounding words.

2. Homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms may be regarded as full and partial homonymy. Cases of full homonymy are generally observed in words belonging to the same part of speech. Partial homonymy is usually to be found in word-forms of different parts of speech.

3. Homonymous words and word-forms may be classified by the type of meaning that serves to differentiate between identical sound-forms. Lexical homonyms differ in lexical meaning, lexico- grammatical in both lexical and grammatical meanings, whereas grammatical homonyms are those that differ in grammatical meaning only.

 Lexico-grammatical homonyms are not homogeneous. Homonyms arising from conversion have some related lexical meanings in their semantic structure. Though some individual meanings may be related the whole of the semantic structure of homonyms is essentially different.

5. If the graphic form of homonyms is taken into account, they are classified on the basis of the three aspects — sound-form, graphic form and meaning — into three big groups: homographs (identical graphic form), homophones ‘ (identical sound-form) and perfect homonyms (identical sound-form and graphic form).

6. The two main sources of homonymy are: 1) diverging meaning development of a polysemantic word, and 2) convergent sound development of two or more different words. The latter is the most potent factor in the creation of homonyms.

 7. The most debatable problem of homonymy is the demarcation line “between homonymy and polysemy, i. e. between different meanings of one word and the meanings of two or more phonemically different words.

¹ See ‘Introduction’, § 2.

8. The criteria used in the synchronic analysis of homonymy are: 1) the semantic criterion of related or unrelated meanings; 2) the criterion of spelling; 3) the criterion of distribution.

There are cases of lexical homonymy when none of the criteria enumerated above is of any avail. In such cases the demarcation line between polysemy and homonymy is rather fluid.

9. The problem of discriminating between polysemy and homonymy in theoretical linguistics is closely connected with the problem of the basic unit at the semantic level of analysis.

WORD-MEANING IN SYNTAGMATICS AND PARADIGMATICS

It is more or less universally recognised that word-meaning can be perceived through intralinguistic relations that exist between words. This approach does not in any way deny that lexical items relate to concrete features of the real world but it is suggested that word-meaning is not comprehensible solely in terms of the referential approach. ¹

Intralinguistic relations of words are basically of two main types: syntagmatic and paradigmatic.

Syntagmatic relations define the meaning the word possesses when it is used in combination with other words in the flow of speech. For example, compare the meaning of the verb to get in He got a letter, He got tired, He got to London and He could not get the piano through the door.

Paradigmatic relations are those that exist between individual lexical items which make up one of the subgroups of vocabulary items, e. g. sets of synonyms, lexico-semantic groups, etc.

Paradigmatic relations define the word-meaning through its interrelation with other members of the subgroup in question. For example, the meaning of the verb to get can be fully understood only in comparison with other items of the synonymic set: get, obtain, receive, etc. Cf. He got a letter, he received a letter, he obtained a letter, etc. Comparing the sentences discussed above we may conclude that an item in a sentence can be usually substituted by one or more than one other items that have identical part-of-speech meaning and similar though not identical lexical meaning.

The difference in the type of subgroups the members of which are substitutable in the flow of speech is usually described as the difference between closed and open se, ts of lexical items. For example, any one of a number of personal pronouns may occur as the subject of a sentence and the overall sentence structure remains the same. These pronouns are strictly limited in number and therefore form a closed system in which to say he is to say not I, not you, etc. To some extent the meaning of he is defined by the other items in the system (cf., e. g., the English I, you, etc., and the Russian я, ты, вы, etc. ). Thesets of items in which the choice

¹ See ‘Semasiology’, § 4, p. 18. 46

is limited to a finite number of alternatives as here are described as closed systems.

The members of closed systems are strictly limited in number and no addition of new items is possible.

The sets in which the number of alternatives is practically infinite as they are continually being adapted to new requirements by the addition of new lexical items are described as open systems. Closed systems are traditionally considered to be the subject matter of grammar, open systems such as lexico-semantic fields, hyponymic, synonymic sets, etc. ¹ are studied by lexicology.

The distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations is conventionally indicated by horizontal and vertical presentation as is shown below.

 

§ 40. Polysemy and Context

From the discussion of the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations it follows that a full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the word is used, i. e. from the study of the intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of speech. This is of greatest importance in connection with the problem of the synchronic approach to polysemy.

It will be recalled that in analysing the semantic structure of the polysemantic word table we observed that some meanings are representative of the word in isolation, i. e. they invariably occur to us when we hear the word or see it written on paper. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used in certain contexts. This is true of all polysemantic words. The adjective yellow, e. g., when used in isolation is understood to denote a certain colour, whereas other meanings of this word, e. g. ‘envious’, ‘suspicious’ or ‘sensational’, ‘corrupt’, are perceived only in certain contexts, e. g. ‘a yellow look’, ‘the yellow press’, etc.

As can be seen from the examples discussed above we understand by the term context the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have meanings only in the context. The semantic structure of the word has an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodies

¹ See ‘Semasiology’, §§ 45-50, pp. 51-61.

dialectical permanency and variability. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say that meaning is determined by context.

The meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are usually described as free or denominative meanings. Thus we assume that the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ is the denominative meaning of the word table, the meaning ‘construct, produce’ is the free or denominative meaning of the verb make.

The meaning or meanings of polysemantic words observed only in certain contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (or verbal) contexts or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.

The two more or less universally recognised main types of linguistic contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.

§ 41. Lexical Context

In lexical contexts of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word under consideration. This can be illustrated by analysing different lexical contexts in which polysemantic words are used. The adjective heavy, e. g., in isolation is understood as meaning ‘of great weight, weighty’ (heavy load, heavy table, etc. ). When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural phenomena such as wind, storm, snow, etc., it means ’striking, falling with force, abundant’ as can be seen from the contexts, e. g. heavy rain, wind, snow, storm, etc. In combination with the words industry, arms, artillery and the like, heavy has the meaning ‘the larger kind of something’ as in heavy industry, heavy artillery, etc.

The verb take in isolation has primarily the meaning ‘lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize’, etc. When combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (e. g. to take the tram, the bus, the train, etc. ) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb go.

It can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing out this or that individual meaning of the words is the lexical meaning of the words with which heavy and take are combined. This can be also proved by the fact that when we want to describe the individual meaning of a polysemantic word, we find it sufficient to use this word in combination with some members of a certain lexical group. To describe the meanings of the word handsome, for example, it is sufficient to combine it with the following words — a) man, person, b) size, reward, sum. The meanings ‘good-looking’ and ‘considerable, ample’ are adequately illustrated by the contexts.

The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically (or phraseologically) bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical contexts.

Some linguists go so far as to assert that word-meaning in general can be analysed through its collocability with other words. They hold the view that if we know all the possible collocations (or word-groups) into

which a polysemantic word can enter, we know all its meanings. Thus, the meanings of the adjective heavy, for instance, may be analysed through its collocability with the words weight, safe, table; snow, wind, rain; industry, artillery, etc.

The meaning at the level of lexical contexts is sometimes described as meaning by collocation. ¹

§ 42. Grammatical Context

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb make, e. g. ‘to force, to enduce’, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do something or in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun and the infinitive of some other verb (to make smb. laugh, go, work, etc. ). Another meaning of this verb ‘to become’, ‘to turn out to be’ is observed in the contexts of a different structure, i. e. make followed by an adjective and a noun (to make a good wife, a good teacher, etc. ).

Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically (or structurally) bound meanings. Cases of the type she will make a good teacher may be referred to as syntactically bound meanings, because the syntactic function of the verb make in this particular context (a link verb, part of the predicate) is indicative of its meaning ‘to become, to turn out to be’. A different syntactic function of the verb, e. g. that of the predicate (to make machines, tables, etc. ) excludes the possibility of the meaning ‘to become, turn out to be’.

In a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the grammatical aspects should be taken into consideration. The grammatical structure of the context although indicative of the difference between the meaning of the word in this structure and the meaning of the same word in a different grammatical structure may be insufficient to indicate in whiсh of its individual meanings the word in question is used. If we compare the contexts of different grammatical structures, e. g. to take+nown and to take to+noun, we can safely assume that they represent different meanings of the verb to take, but it is only when we specify the lexical context, i. e. the lexical group with which the verb is combined in the structure to take + noun (to take coffee, tea; books, pencils; the bus, the tram) that we can say that the context determines the meaning.

It is usual in modern linguistic science to use the terms pattern or struсture to denote grammatical contexts. Patterns may be represented in conventional symbols, e. g. to take smth. as take +N. to take to smb. as take to+N. ² It is argued that difference in the distribution of the word is indicative of the difference in meaning. Sameness of

¹ See also ‘Methods and Procedures of Lexicological Analysis’, § 4, p. 246.

² See ‘Semasiology’, § 3, p. 1-7. Conventional symbols habitually used in distributional patterns are as follows:

N — stands for nouns or their functional equivalents, e. g. personal pronouns. V — stands for verbs except auxiliary and modal verbs (be, have, shall, etc. ). A — stands for adjectives or their functional equivalents, e. g. ordinal numerals. D — stands for adverbs or their functional equivalents, e. g. at home.

distributional pattern, however, does not imply sameness of meaning. As was shown above, the same pattern to take + N may represent different meanings of the verb to take dependent mainly on the lexical group of the nouns with which it is combined.

§ 43. Extra-Linguistic Context (Context of Situation)

Dealing with verbal contexts we consider only linguistic factors: lexical groups of words, syntactic structure of the context and so on. There are cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by these linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used. The meanings of the noun ring, e. g. in to give somebody a ring, or of the verb get in I've got it are determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context, but much more so by the actual speech situation.

The noun ring in such context may possess the meaning ‘a circlet of precious metal’ or ‘a call on the telephone’; the meaning of the verb to get in this linguistic context may be interpreted as ‘possess’ or ‘understand’ depending on the actual situation in which these words are used. It should be pointed out however that such cases, though possible, are not actually very numerous. The linguistic context is by far a more potent factor in determining word-meaning.

It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the connotational component of meaning may be affected by the context. Any word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain contexts acquire emotive implications. Compare, e. g., fire in to insure one’s property against fire and fire as a call for help. A stylistically and emotively neutral noun, e. g. wall, acquires tangible emotive implication in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act V, Scene 1) in the context “O wall, О sweet and lovely wall". ¹

Here we clearly perceive the combined effect of both the linguistic arid the extra-linguistic context. The word wall does not ordinarily occur in combination with the adjectives sweet and lovely. So the peculiar lexical context accounts for the possibility of emotive overtones which are made explicit by the context of situation.

§ 44. Common Contextual Associations. Thematic Groups

Another type of classification almost universally used in practical classroom teaching is known as thematic grouping. Classification of vocabulary items into thematic groups is based on the co-occurrence of words in certain repeatedly used contexts.

In linguistic contexts co-occurrence maу be observed on different levels. On the level of word-groups the word question, for instance, is often found in collocation with the verbs raise, put forward, discuss, etc., with the adjectives urgent, vital, disputable and so on. The verb accept occurs in numerous contexts together with the nouns proposal, invitation, plan and others.

¹ St. Ullmann. Semantics. Oxford, 1962, pp. 130, 131. See also ‘Semasiology’, § 8, p. 20.

As a rule, thematic groups deal with contexts on the level of the sentence. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking of things or events. Common contextual association of the words, e. g. tree — grow — green; journey — train — taxi — bags — ticket or sunshine — brightly — blue — sky, is due to the regular co-occurrence of these words in a number of sentences. Words making up a thematic group belong to different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning.

Contextual associations formed by the speaker of a language are usually conditioned by the context of situation which necessitates the use of certain words. When watching a play, for example, we naturally speak of the actors who act the main parts, of good (or bad) staging of the play, of the wonderful scenery and so on. When we go shopping it is usual to speak of the prices, of the goods we buy, of the shops, etc. ¹

MEANING RELATIONS IN PARADIGMATICS AND SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS

 

Modern English has a very extensive vocabulary. A question naturally arises whether this enormous word-stock is composed of separate independent lexical units, or it should perhaps be regarded as a certain structured system made up of numerous interdependent and interrelated sub-systems or groups of words. This problem may be viewed in terms of the possible ways of classifying vocabulary items.

Attempts to study the inner structure of the vocabulary revealed that in spite of its heterogeneity the English word-stock may be analysed into numerous sub-systems the members of which have some features in common, thus distinguishing them from the members of other lexical sub-systems. Words can be classified in various ways. Here, however, we are concerned only with the semantic classification of words. Classification into monosemantic and polysemantic words is based on the number of meanings the word possesses. More detailed semantic classifications are generally based on the semantic similarity (or polarity) of words or their component morphemes. The scope and the degree of similarity (polarity) may be different.

§ 45. Conceptual (or Semantic) Fields

Words may be classified according to the concepts underlying their meaning. This classification is closely connected with the theory of conceptual or semantic fields. By the term “semantic fields” we understand closely knit sectors of vocabulary each characterised by a common concept. For example, the words blue, red, yellow, black, etc. may be described as making up the semantic field of colours, the words mother, father, brother, cousin, etc. — as members of the semantic field

¹ In practical language learning thematic groups are often listed under various headings, e. g. “At the Theatre”, “At School”, “Shopping”, and are often found in textbooks and courses of conversational English.

of kinship terms, the words joy, happiness, gaiety, enjoyment, etc. as belonging to the field of pleasurable emotions, and so on.

The members of the semantic fields are not synonyms but all of them are joined together by some common semantic component — the concept of colours or the concept of kinship, etc. This semantic component common to all the members of the field is sometimes described as the common denominator of meaning. All members of the field are semantically interdependent as each member helps to delimit and determine the meaning of its neighbours and is semantically delimited and determined by them. It follows that the word-meaning is to a great extent determined by the place it occupies in its semantic field.

Thus the semantic field may be viewed as a set of lexical items in which the meaning of each is determined by the co-presence of the others*

It is argued that we cannot possibly know the exact meaning of the word if we do not know the structure of the semantic field to which the word belongs, the number of the members and the concepts covered by them, etc. The meaning of the word captain, e. g., cannot be properly understood until we know the semantic field in which this term operates — the army, the navy, or the merchant service. It follows that the meaning of the word captain is determined by the place it occupies among the terms of the relevant rank system. In other words we know what captain means only if we know whether his subordinate is called mate or first officer (merchant service), commander (‘navy’) or lieutenant (‘army’).

Semantic dependence of the word on the structure of the field may be also illustrated by comparing members of analogous conceptual fields in different languages. Comparing, for example, kinship terms in Russian and in English we observe that the meaning of the English term mother-in-law is different from either the Russian тёща or свекровь as the English term covers the whole area which in Russian is divided between the two words. The same is true of the members of the semantic field of colours (cf. blue — синий, голубой), of human body (cf. hand, arm — рука) and others.

The theory of semantic field is severely criticised by Soviet linguists mainly on philosophical grounds since some of the proponents of the semantic-field theory hold the idealistic view that language is a kind of self-contained entity standing between man and the world of reality (Zwischenwelt). The followers of this theory argue that semantic fields reveal the fact that human experience is analysed and elaborated in a unique way, differing from one language to another. Broadly speaking they assert that people speaking different languages actually have different concepts, as it is through language that we ‘" see” the real world around us. In short, they deny the primacy of matter forgetting that our concepts are formed not only through linguistic experience, but primarily through our actual contact with the real world. We know what hot means not only because we know the word hot, but also because we burn our fingers when we touch something very hot. A detailed critical analysis of the theory of semantic fields is the subject-matter of general linguistics. Here we are concerned with this theory only as a means of semantic classification of vocabulary items.

⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒

Поделиться:

Воспользуйтесь поиском по сайту: