1. LEXICOLOGY AS A BRANCH OF LINGUISTICS
1.1. The object of lexicology.
1.2. General and special lexicology. Historical and descriptive lexicology.
1.3. Links of lexicology with other branches of linguistics.
1.4. The word as the main language unit.
1.5. Main approaches to the study of lexical units.
1.1. The term "lexicology" is comprised of (состоит из) two Greek morphemes: lexis "word, phrase" and logos "learning,
word". Thus the literal meaning of the term "lexicology" is "the study of the word".
Lexicology as a branch of linguistics studies the vocabulary of a language as a system of lexical units, primarily (главным
образом) words. Another term for vocabulary is "word-stock", i.e. the word store, the sum total of words.
Traditionally, vocabulary units include words, e.g. dog, get, silly, morphemes, e.g. unfairly consists of the morphemes un-, fair-, -ly; phraseological units, e.g. red tape (волокита), to break the ice (положить начало).
The English vocabulary is enormous; it includes more than 600.000 words.
1.2. Distinction is made between general and special lexicology.
General lexicology is a part of general linguistics; it studies universal features of vocabularies of all or most languages,
Special lexicology is concerned with the vocabulary of a particular language, e.g. Russian, English, French, etc.
Historical lexicology studies the origin and development of vocabulary as well as its separate units.
Descriptive lexicology deals with the vocabulary of a given language at a particular stage of its development, e.g. lexicology
of Modern English.
1.3. Lexicology is closely connected with other branches of linguistics, such as phonetics, grammar, stylistics, which also
study words from various angles.
Lexicology is connected with Phonetics because the word is a two-facet (аспект) unit which has both a form and meaning.
Thus, the word can be defined as a series of sounds making up its form, and phonetics is concerned (among other things) with
the study of the sound-form of words.
The link between phonetics and lexicology is based on the following:
(a) The recognition and understanding of a word is impossible without its proper pronunciation.
(b) The position of stress is used to distinguish words of identical sound-forms but different parts of speech,
e.g. 'rebel, n. - re'bel, v.; 'frequent, a. -fre'quent, v.
(c) Stress may also be used to distinguish between compound words and word groups made up of identical components,
e.g. a 'dark 'room (a phrase, each component has its own stress), a 'dark-room (a compound, only one stress).
Lexicology is linked with Grammar because the word is used in speech as a grammatical unit, in certain grammatical
forms and functions. Grammar studies means of expressing grammatical relations between words in speech and patterns after
which words are combined into word-groups and sentences.
The connection between lexicology and grammar is seen in the following:
a) Each word belongs to some part of speech and has characteristics typical of it.
b) The grammatical form and function of a word may determine its lexical meaning,
e.g. brother - brothers "sons of the same parents", brethren "fellow members of a religious society, trade union, regiment,
guild, order, etc."
c) A grammatical form of a word may split off and acquire a new lexical meaning, becoming a new word. This is called
lexicalization of grammatical forms,
e.g. arm - arms (pi), arms "weapons"; developments "events".
(d) Words are divided into notional words and form words. A word in one meaning may function as a notional word and in
another as a form word,
e.g. He looked indifferently at the food. He looked indifferent.
(e) The morpheme is the central unit of morphology, a branch of grammar, and also a unit of which words are built, thus
studied also in lexicology.
(f) The system of all grammatical forms of a word is called its paradigm. The paradigm is used as a derivational means in
conversion, one of the ways of word-building.
There is also a close link between lexicology and Stylistics. Stylistics is concerned with the study of stylistic devices, on the
one hand, and functional styles, on the other. Stylistics studies meaning, synonymy, antonymy, etc. not as such, but for the
purpose of analysing texts, the effect they produce on the reader, in order to help the reader grasp the author's message.
1.4. The word is the basic unit of language. The principle characteristics of the word are as follows:
1) The word is a unity of the external and the internal structure, i.e. a unity of form and content; thus, it is a two-facet unit.
By the external structure of the word we mean its sound form, morphemic composition, and derivational structure.
The internal (or semantic) structure of the word is all its meanings together.
2) The word is characterized both by external (formal) unity and internal unity.
Its external unity means that a word possesses a single grammatical framing (структура), e.g. blackbird - blackbirds (pl).
The first component black can't have any grammatical forms of its own, whereas in a word-group each constituent (часть) can
have its own grammatical forms, e.g. the blackest birds I've ever seen.
In a word-group, other constituents can be inserted between its components, e.g. a black night bird, which is impossible so
far as the word is concerned. Its component morphemes are permanently (постоянно) linked together, unlike word-groups,
whose components possess a certain amount of structural freedom.
Semantic (internal) unity means that each meaningful word conveys one concept (идея), e.g. in the word-group a green
house each word conveys its own concept: green "coloured like grass", house "a building". The word greenhouse conveys
only one concept "a building of glass for rearing delicate plants".
3) The word is a cluster (группа) of forms and variants:
a) phonetic variants, e.g. schedule ['skedju:l], again [ə'gein]
b) morphological variants, e.g. dreamed/dreamt, dived/dove (AmE);
c) parallel formations of the type geographic/geographical; (but compare historic - historical, which are separate words);
d) lexico-semantic variants, by which we mean one polysemantic word in its different meanings,
e.g. bird 1) a feathered living creature
2) (sl) young woman
3) (coll) person.
In speech, a certain variant of a word is used in every speech act, but all its variants are identified by language users as
making up one and the same word.
4) The word is capable of grammatical employment (исполнение). In speech, it is used in one of its grammatical forms,
which are the smallest units at syntactic level, in a certain function.
The word is a nominative language unit, an association (связь) of a particular meaning with a particular series of
sounds, capable of grammatical employment.
1.5. There are several approaches (подход) to the study of the word.
1) Some decades ago lexicology was characterized by an atomistic approach, which is now obsolete (устарел), i.e. lexical
units were studied as unconnected separate items.
2) The vocabulary is studied as a system (systemic approach), i.e. the word is studied in its relations to other words in the
vocabulary as a component of various sets, groups, fields.
e.g. the word high is studied through its relations to other words: high - tall (synonymy), high - low (antonymy), high highly, highness (derivational cluster), etc.
3) The word is studied through its relation to its referent as a nominative unit (nominative approach). The nominative
approach is concerned with how things get their names.
e.g. The 'escalator began life as the "Reno Inclined Elevator", named after its inventor, Jesse Reno, who installed the first
one in 1896. "Escalator" was the trade name used by the Otis Elevator Company when it joined the market with a version of
its own four years later, but for years afterwards most people called it "a movable stairway".
4) The functional approach studies how words are combined in speech, i.e. a word is observed, studied and described in
its typical contexts,
e.g. the notion "group of the same kind of living things" is expressed by the words herd, flock, flight, shoal (стая рыб),
school, pack (свора), troop, colony, but flock is used only with sheep, goats, or birds.
5) The communicative approach studies how words are used for purposes of communication, e.g. it studies pragmatic
conventions about language use (social and cultural), speech etiquette, i.e. the appropriate use of language unites in various
situations.
e.g. OK is one of the most important discourse markers in English.
a) It indicates you accept an offer, suggestion, request.
b) It serves as a bridge between two topics or stages of a talk.
c) It shows the talk is drawing to a close, etc.
2. NOMINATION
2.1. What is nomination?
2.2. The main stages in the process of nomination: the formation of the concept, of the meaning, of the word-form.
2.3. Ways and means of nomination.
2.1. Nomination is the process of giving names to things. The branch of linguistics which studies the nominative function
of lexical units is termed onomasiology.
There are two main participants in the process of nomination; (1) the nominator, i.e. one who names an object, (2) the
referent, i.e. the named object, which is the starting point in the process of nomination.
2.2. The process of nomination begins with forming a concept of a referent.
The concept is a category of human cognition (познание). If s a generalized idea of a class of objects, summing up the
most essential characteristics of the given class that help to distinguish it from any other class of objects.
Concepts are basically similar for all people - speakers of different languages because (1) the formation of concepts is
determined by cognitive abilities of Man, (2) all people live in the same real world, whose features concepts abstract,
generalize and reflect. There is a real world we share irrespective of the language we use.
Some factors that influence the formation of concepts and may account for some differences in concepts in different
language communities are as follows:
1) the objective reality itself,
e.g. Eng. "to drink soup" because in England soup is liquid; in Rus. "есть суп" as in Russia the dish is half-liquid and halfsolid, that is why one chews it. They are real-world distinctions.
2) the level of knowledge about the nature of a referent,
e.g. the knowledge about the universe, and thus the concepts of a star, space, etc. in the 11th century and today.
3) the general system of notions of a given language community,
e.g. the system of religious beliefs: in Ancient Egypt a cat was a sacred animal, in India a cow is sacred, but neither has ever
been sacred in England or Russia.
Speakers of different languages clearly have different pictures of the world.
e.g. the Eskimos have three different words for snow depending on whether it is falling, lying on the ground or used for
igloos: the words of a language often reflect not so much the reality of the world as the interests of the people who speak it.
Still, if we do not have the same picture of the world as the speakers of other languages, we nevertheless have a picture that
can be related to and in some degree "mapped upon" (отображать) the picture that others have. That this is so is proved by the
fact that we can investigate (изучать) other languages and that we can translate.
e.g. in Russian there are two words синий, голубой and in English only one word blue corresponds to them. And yet,
English people are not colour-blind, of course they distinguish different shades of blue and the language reflects it: light-blue,
dark-blue.
The second stage of nomination is the formation of meaning.
The meaning of the word is closely connected with the concept but is not identical with it. Bloomfield argued that salt
could be clearly defined as sodium chloride (or NaCl). He was wrong to do so, the meaning of the word salt cannot be
regarded as identical with its chemical formula as salt means the same (substance that appears on our tables) to all English
speakers including those that have no idea of its chemical composition.
Neither referents nor concepts belong to the language while meaning does. A.I.Smirnitskiy defined meaning as "a certain
reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations that makes part of the linguistic sign - its so-called inner facet,
whereas the sound-form functions as its outer facet." Meaning is always connected to a certain sound-form.
The difference between meaning and concept can be proved by comparing synonymous words and phrases expressing
essentially the same concept but possessing meaning that is felt as different,
e.g. broad and wide "measuring much from side to side": broad is preferred when full horizontal extent is considered {broad
shoulders), wide is used in the presence of limiting features (e wide doorway). Cf. also: baby, babe, child, infant.
Unlike the concept, meaning reflects some features of an object which are not necessarily the most essential ones. The
formation of meaning consists in singling out several features or just one feature of an object,
e.g. fur in tabby "mottled or streaked cat esp. of gray or brownish colour with dark stripes". The features underlying the
meanings of corresponding words in different languages may be different, e.g. lady-killer and сердцеед.
In the process of nomination, the meaning should be correlated with a certain sound-form (and a graphical form). There are
three possibilities of forming the sound-form of a word:
(1) to invent a new sound-form;
(2) to borrow one from another language;
(3) to use already existing units of the given language.
The latter is secondary nomination, while in (1) and (2) we deal with primary nomination. Secondary nomination is much
more important than primary nomination, as most units are secondary nominations.
2.3. Ways of nomination in modern English can be classified as follows:
The external way of nomination is borrowing, i.e. taking over units from other languages. Borrowing has always been
important in the English language. The English vocabulary contains an immense number of words of foreign origin (70 75%); still, borrowing has never been the chief way of replenishing the vocabulary. Now, borrowings make up 7.5% of all
new words in English. The French language remains the main source of borrowing in English; a new tendency is an increasing
number of borrowings from Asian and African languages, e.g. karate (Jap), kungfu (Chinese), intifada (Arabic), yeti
(снежный ч-к).
An existing word may develop a new meaning, e.g. box - "a TV set";
charisma – “a personal charm (of a politician or an artist)” (the old meaning was "spiritual grace").
Existing words may combine and give rise to new word-groups,
e.g. an electronic virus, human dimension.
Word-formation is the formation of new words out of morphemes existing in the language. The main ways of forming new
words in English are derivation, compounding, conversion, shortening.
Derivation (suffixation and prefixation) consists in adding prefixes and suffixes to stems. Currently thriving prefixes and
suffixes include de-, ex-, anti-, un-, -er, -ion, -age, etc.
e.g. -ie, weepie "a sentimental film", groupie "a pop fan who follows his/her idol everywhere";
Word-composition (compounding) is producing new words by combining two or more stems,
e.g. high-rise "many-storied building", page-turner "a very interesting book":
-aholic "addicted to": bookaholic, chocoholic; -friendly: consumer-friendly, environment-friendly; tele- "by telephone":
telemarketing, etc.
Conversion is the reallocation of a word to a different part of speech without changing its morphemic structure or sound
form, e.g. to stiff "(slang) to be a commercial failure; flop" from stiff, n. "(slang) a corpse; a record, theatrical production, etc.
that is a flop".
Shortening (abbreviation) may be of different types. Clipping is making a new word from a syllable (or two) of the original
word,
e.g. teen "a teenager", showbiz < showbusiness.
Letter-based abbreviation (initialisms and acronyms) means that a new word is made up of the initial letters of the
derivational base that may be a word or a word-group, e.g. AIDS, PC "personal computer", radar. Blending is making a new
word from two or more other words, by fusion, e.g. {brunch) or by putting together syllables of other words (Oxbridge,
alcoholiday).
Coinage is inventing a new word or phrase. The creation of words without the use of existing words is rare in general usage
but common in fiction, esp. fantasy. These words seldom enter the vocabulary but some do,
e.g. Lilliput (created by Swift) or J.R. R.Tolkien's hobbit (1937), Kodak (the trade name invented in the USA in 1988 by
George Eastman), the number Googol (invented on request by a 9-year-old boy).
Split of polysemy is the splitting of one polysemantic word into two or more words,
e.g. OE wacian gave birth to the verbs to wake, and to watch.
Lexicalization means that a grammatical form of a word becomes a separate word,
e.g. looks "appearance".
We should distinguish ways and means of nomination. By the latter we understand concrete affixes, patterns and lexical
units.
3. WORD-MEANING. MEANING AND MOTIVATION
3.1. The object of semasiology. Two approaches to the study of meaning.
3.2. Types of meaning.
3.3. Meaning and motivation.
3.1. The branch of lexicology which studies meaning is called "semasiology". Sometimes the term "semantics" is used as a
synonym to semasiology, but it is ambiguous (двусмысленный) as it can stand as well for (1) the expressive aspect of
language in general and (2) the meaning of one particular word.
Meaning is certainly the most important property of the word but what is "meaning"?
Meaning is one of the most controversial (спорный) terms in lexicology. At present there is no generally accepted
definition of meaning. Prof. Smirnitsky defines meaning as "a certain reflection in the mind of objects, phenomena or relations
that makes part of the linguistic sign, its so-called inner facet, whereas the sound form functions as its outer facet". Generally
speaking, meaning can be described as a component of the word through which a concept is communicated, enabling the word
to denote objects in the real world.
There are two approaches to the study of meaning: the referential approach and the functional approach. The former tries
to define meaning in terms of relations between the word (sound form), concept (notion, thought) and referent (object which
the word denotes). They are closely connected and the relationship between them is represented by "the semiotic triangle" ( =
the basic triangle) of Ogden and Richards (in the book "The Meaning of Meaning" (1923) by O.K. Ogden and LA. Richards).
concept (idea/picture/image that we have in our mind) – You develop concepts by your own experience, when you grow up.
symbol (sound form, sign, word)
referent (a named object)
Meaning is a reflection of a referent; is a component of the word.
This view denies a direct link between words and things, arguing that the relationship can be made only through the use of
our minds. Meaning is related to a sound form, concept and referent but not identical with them: meaning is a linguistic
phenomenon while neither concept nor referent is.
The main criticism of this approach is the difficulty of identifying "concepts": they are mental phenomena and purely
subjective (личный), existing in the minds of individuals. The strongest point of this approach is that it connects meaning and
the process of nomination.
The functional approach to meaning is less concerned with what meaning is than with how it works. It is argued, to say that
"words have meanings" means only that they are used in a certain way in a sentence. There is no meaning beyond that.
Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), in particular, stressed the importance of this approach in his dictum: "The meaning of the
word is its use in the language". So meaning is studied by making detailed analyses of the way words are used in contexts,
through their relations to other words in speech, and not through their relations to concepts or referents.
Actually, the functional approach is basically confined (ограничивать) to the analysis of sameness (сходство) or difference
of meaning. For example, we can say that in "take the bottle" and "take to the bottle” (пристраститься к вину) take has
different meaning as it is used differently, but it does not explain what the meaning of the verb is. So the functional approach
should be used not as the theoretical basis for the study of meaning, but only as complementary to the referential approach.
3.2. Word meaning is made up of different components, commonly known as types of meaning. The two main types of
meaning are grammatical meaning and lexical meaning.
Grammatical meaning belongs to sets of word-forms and is common to all words of the given part of speech, e.g. girls,
boys, classes, children, mice express the meaning of "plurality" (множество).
Lexical meaning belongs to an individual word in all its forms. It comprises (включает) several components. The two main
ones are the denotational component and the connotational component.
The denotational (=denotative) component (обозначающий), also called "referential meaning" or "cognitive meaning",
expresses the conceptual (notional) content of a word; broadly, it is some information, or knowledge, of the real-world object
that the word denotes. Basically, this is the component that makes communication, possible. e.g. notorious "widely-known",
celebrated "known widely".
The connotational (connotative) component expresses the attitude of the speaker to what Ы I» saying, to the object
denoted by the word. This component consists of emotive connotation and evaluative connotation
1) Emotive connotation (= "affective meaning", or an emotive charge), e.g. In "a single tree" single states that there is only
one tree, but "a lonely tree" besides giving the same information, also renders (conveys) the feeling of sadness. little
(expresses affection) – small.
We shouldn't confuse emotive connotations and emotive denotative meanings/associations in which some emotion is
named, e.g. horror, love, fear.
2) Evaluative connotation labels the referent as "good" or "bad", e.g. notorious has a negative evaluative connotation, while
celebrated a positive one. Cf: a notorious criminal/liar/coward/cheat/murderer and a celebrated
singer/scholar/artist/surgeon/writer/actor.
It should be noted that emotive and evaluative connotations are not individual, they are common to all speakers of the
language. But emotive implications (подтекст, смысл) are individual (or common to a group of speakers), subjective, depend
on personal experience. e.g. The word "hospital" may evoke all kinds of emotions in different people (an architect, a doctor,
an invalid)
Stylistic connotation, or stylistic reference, another component of word meaning, stands somewhat apart from emotive and
evaluative connotations. Indeed, it does not characterize a referent, but rather states how a word should be used by referring it
to a certain functional style of the language peculiar to a specific sphere of communication. It shows in what social context, in
what communicative situations the word can be used. girlie – baby-talk. Stylistically, words can be roughly classified into
literary, or formal (e.g. commence (начинать), discharge, parent), neutral {e.g. father, begin, dismiss) and non-literary, or
informal (e.g. dad, sack, set off).
3.3. The term "motivation" is used to denote the relationship between the form of the word, i.e. its sound form, morphemic
composition and structural pattern, and its meaning. There are three main types of motivation: phonetic, morphological and
semantic.
1) Phonetic motivation is a direct connection between the sound form of a word and its meaning. There are two types of
phonetic motivation: sound imitation and sound symbolism.
a) Sound imitation, or onomatopoeia: phonetically motivated words are a direct imitation of the sounds they denote (or the
sounds produced by actions or objects they denote), e.g. buzz, swish, bang, thud, cuckoo, sizzle
b) Sound symbolism. It’s argued by some linguists that the sounds that make up a word may reflect or symbolise the
properties (св-во) of the object which the word refers to, i.e. they may suggest size, shape, speed, colour. e.g. back vowels
suggest big size, heavy weight, dark colour; front vowels suggest lightness, smallness.
Many words beginning with sl- are slippery (скользкий) in some way: slide, slip, slither (соскальзывать), sludge (осадок),
or pejorative (унизительн.): slut (неряха), slattern (грязнуля), sly, sloppy, slovenly (неопрятный); words that end in -ump
almost all refer to some kind of roundish mass: plump, chump, rump (зад), hump (горб), stump. Certainly, not every word
with these phonetic characteristics will have the meaning suggested. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why sound
symbolism is not universally recognized in linguistics.
2) Morphological motivation is a direct connection between the lexical meaning of the component morphemes, the pattern
of their arrangement and the meaning of the word. Morphologically motivated words are those whose meaning is determined
by the meaning of their components, e.g. re-write "write again", ex-wife "former wife", chopper.
The degree of morphological motivation may be different. Words may be fully motivated (then they are transparent),
partially motivated and non-motivated (idiomatic, or opaque).
a) If the meaning of the word is determined by the meaning of the components and the structural pattern, it is fully
motivated: e.g. hatless.
b) If the connection between the morphemic composition of a word and its meaning is arbitrary (случайный), the word is
non-motivated, e.g. buttercup - yellow-flowered plant, axe.
c) In hammer -er shows that it is an instrument, but what is "hamming"? “Ham” has no lexical meaning in this word, thus
the word is partially motivated. Cf. also cranberry (клюква), gooseberry, cleaver.
Motivation may be lost in the course of time, e.g. in OE wifman was motivated morphologically: wif+man "wife о a man”,
now it is opaque; its motivation is said to be faded (woman).
3) Semantic motivation is based on co-existence of direct and figurative meanings оf the same word, e.g. butterfly - 1)
insect; 2) showy and frivolous person ( = metaphorical extension of the direct meaning).
4. CHANGE OF MEANING
4.1. Three aspects of semantic change.
4.2. Causes of semantic change.
4.3. Nature of semantic change. Metaphor and metonymy.
4.4. Results of semantic change.
4.1. Word meanings are liable (подвержен) to change in the process of historical development of the language. The
semantic structure of a word is never static. The number of meanings may change, with new meanings being added and some
meaning dropping out; the existing meanings may be rearranged in the semantic structure. wire – 1)a long thin piece of metal,
2)a telegramme
When speaking about semantic change, we must distinguish between:
2) the causes of semantic change, i.e. the factors bringing it about; we try to find out why the word has changed its meaning;
3) the nature of semantic change; we describe the process of the change and try to answer the question how it has been
brought about;
4) the results of semantic change; we try to state what has been changed. These are three different but closely connected
aspects of the same problem.
4.2. The causes, оr factors, that bring about semantic changes are classified into linguistic and extralinguistic. By
extralinguistic causes we mean various changes in the life of a speech community; changes in social life, culture, science,
technology, economy, as reflected in word meanings, e.g. mill originally was borrowed from Latin in the 1st с. B.C. in the
meaning "a building in which corn is ground into flour". When the first textile factories appeared in Great Britain it acquired a
new meaning -"a textile factory". The cause of this semantic change is scientific and technological progress. carriage – 1)a 4wheeled vehicle for transporting people driven by horses, 2)a railway car (in 1828).
Linguistic causes are factors that operate within the language system. They are:
1) Ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two words one of them is omitted and its meaning is transferred to the other one, e.g. In
OE sterven (MnE starve) meant, "die, perish". It was often used in the phrase "sterven of hunger", the second word was
omitted and the verb acquired the new meaning "die of hunger". a microwave oven > a microwave, mobile (telephone),
portable (radio/typewriter)
2) Discrimination of synonyms, e.g. In OE land had 2 meanings: 1.solid part of Earth's surface; 2.the territory of a nation. In
ME the word country was borrowed as a synonym to land. Then the second meaning of land came to be expressed by country
and the semantic structure of land changed. a cross – 1)a symbol of…, 2)suffering, 3)Christian religion
3) Linguistic analogy. If one member of a synonymic set takes on a new meaning, other members of the same set may
acquire this meaning too, e.g. to catch acquired the meaning "understand"; its synonyms to get, to grasp also acquired the
same meaning. strike (in ME stroke, rub gently) + hit (not to miss) > to strike=to hit (in ME to give a blow); to sleigh=to kill.
4.3. A necessary condition of any semantic change is some connection or association between the old, existing meaning
and the new one. There are two main types of logical association:
1) Similarity of meaning or metaphor,
2) Contiguity (смежность) of meaning or metonymy, i.e. contact, proximity (близость) in place or time.
Metaphor is the semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. Metaphors
may be based on similarity of shape, size, position, function.
In various languages metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of the human body are most frequent, e.g. the eye of a
needle "hole in the end of a needle"; the neck of a bottle, the heart of a cabbage - the metaphoric meaning has developed
through similarity of the shape of two objects; the foot of the hill - this metaphoric change is based on the similarity of
position; the hand of the clock, the Head of the school - the metaphoric meaning is based on similarity of function; the eye of a
potato – shape; an ass -1)a donkey, 2)a silly person; chicken – 1)the young og the hen, 2)hes themselves, 3)a young woman
A special group of metaphors comprises proper nouns that have become common nouns, e.g. a Don Juan - a lady-killer, a
vandal - one who destroys property, works of art (originally "Germanic tribe that in the 4th-5th с ravaged (разорять) Gaul,
Spain, N. Africa, and Rome, destroying many books and works of art"); a Romeo – a young romantic lover; Rockfellow,
Monte Christo.
Metonymy is a semantic process of associating two referents which are somehow connected or linked in time or space.
They may be connected because they often appear in the same situation, e.g. bench has developed the meaning "judges"
because it was on benches that judges used to sit,
or the association may be of material and an object made of it, e.g. silver - 1)certain precious metal; 2)silver coins;
3)cutlery; 4)silver medal; paper – 1)stuff, 2)documents, which are printed on this stuff.
or they may be associated because one makes part of the other, e.g. factory/farm hands "workers" (because strong, skillful
hands are the most important part of a person engaged in physical labour); a redcap – a porter in the US (red flannel bounds);
redcoats – Br. soldiers; blue coats – Am. policemen; black/brown shirts – German fascists; stage – theatre; screen – cinema.
Common nouns may be derived from proper names through metonymic transference, e.g. Wellingtons "high boots
covering knees in front" (from the 1st Duke of Wellington, Br. general and statesman, who introduced them in j fashion); a
Winchester; a diesel (invented by a German engineer Diesel); a limerick (invented in Limerick, North Ireland); sandwich
(after the 4th Earl of Sandwich)
4.4. Results of semantic change may be observed in the changes of the denotative component and the connotative
component of word meaning.
1) Changes of the denotative component are of two types:
a) broadening (or generalization. =widening, =extension) of meaning, i.e. the range of the new meaning is broader, the word
is applied to a wider range of referents, e.g. to arrive, borrowed from French, originally meant "to come to shore, to land". In
MnE it has developed a broader meaning "to come". Yankee - 1)a native of New England (originally), 2)a citizen of the USA
(now); target – 1)a small round shield, 2)a mark used in archery; 3)any kind of aim.
b) narrowing (or specialization, = restriction) of meaning. The word comes to denote a more limited range of referents,
fewer types of them, e.g. meat in OE meant "any food", now it means "flesh of animals used as food" (i.e. some special food);
in OE hound meant "a dog", now it is "a dog of special breed used in chasing foxes"; deort/deer – 1)a beast, 2)a certain kind
of wild animals.
As a special group, we can mention proper names derived from common nouns, e.g. the Border - between Scotland and
England, the Tower - the museum in London.
2) Changes in the connotative component of meaning are also of two types:
a) degeneration (or degradation, =deterioration) of meaning, i.e. a word develops a meaning with a negative evaluative
connotation which was absent in the first meaning, e.g. silly "happy" (originally) - "foolish" (now); queen -1)any woman, 2)a
female ruler, wife of a king, 3)a male homosexual; crafty -1)physically strong, 2)sly, cunning (the referent has deteriorated);
knovver/knave – 1)a boy, 2)a scoundrel.
b) elevation (or amelioration) of meaning, i.e. the first meaning has a negative connotation and the new one has not, e.g.
nice originally "foolish" - now "fine, good"; minister – 1)messenger, servant; 2) a servant in a very high position; Tori – 1)a
robber, 2)a member of the Conservative party.
In other cases the new meaning acquires positive connotation absent in the original meaning, e.g. knight "manservant"
(originally) - "noble, courageous man" (now).
The terms elevation and degeneration of meaning are inaccurate as we actually deal not with elevation or degradation of
meanings but of referents.
5. POLYSE1MV
5.1. Polysemantic and monosemantic words. Classification
5.2. Diachronic approach to polysemy5.3. Synchronic approach to polysemy.
5.4. The semantic structure of correlated words in English and Russian.
5.5. The national character of the semantic structure.
5.1. Polysemy is the ability of words to have more than one meaning. A word with several meanings is called
polysemantic. Monosemantic words, which have only one meaning, are comparatively few; they are mainly scientific terms
(hydrogen, hypnology – study of sleep) or rare words (flamingo, telepathy, hedgehog); form words, pronouns, numerals.
The bulk (большое кло-во) of English words are polysemantic. All the meanings of a polysemantic word make up a system
which is called the semantic structure of the word (system of meanings, all the senses). e.g. The word TABLE has the
semantic structure made up of at least 9 meanings: 1) piece of furniture; 2) the persons seated at a table; 3) (sing) food put on
the table; 4) a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood; 5) (pl) slabs of stone; 6) words cut into them or written on them (the Ten
Tables); 7) an orderly arrangement of facts, figures; 8) part of a machine tool on which work is put; 9) a level area, a
plateau.
5.2. Polysemy can be viewed diachronically and synchronically.
The system of meanings of a polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over centuries, as new meanings are added to
old ones or oust (вытеснять) some of them. As a result, the total number of meanings grows, and the vocabulary is enriched.
Thus, polysemy viewed diachronically is a historic change in the semantic structure of a word that results in disappearance
of some meanings and appearance of new meanings, and also in the rearrangement of the meanings in the semantic structure.
Diachronically, we distinguish between the primary meaning and secondary meanings of a word.
The primary meaning (original) is the oldest meaning of the word, its original meaning with which the word first appeared
in the language, e.g. the primary meaning of TABLE is "slabs of stone": O.E. tabule f. Lat tabula. All the other meanings
appeared later than the primary meaning.
When we describe a meaning as secondary, we imply that it can't have appeared before the primary meaning; when we say
a meaning is derived, we imply not only that, but also that it is dependent on another meaning and subordinate to it, e.g.
TABLE 1,2,3 are secondary, appeared later than TABLE 5; TABLE 2, 3 are derived from TABLE 1.
The main source of polysemy is semantic derivation (radiation of meanings; adding new meanings to the existing ones).
Polysemy may also result from homonymy. When two words coincide in sound-form, their meanings come to be felt as
making up one semantic structure. e.g. the human ear (f. Lat auris) and the ear of corn (f. Lat acus, aceris) diachronically are
homonyms. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one polysemantic word ear. The ear of com is
felt to be a metaphoric meaning (Of: the eye of a needle, the foot of the mountain) and thus, as a derived meaning of the wordCases of this type are comparatively rare.
5.3. Viewed synchronically, polysemy is understood as co-existence of several meanings of the same word and their
arrangement in the semantic structure (relation between the separate senses).
The status of individual meanings is not the same. We distinguish between the central (basic, major) meaning and minor
meanings (they must be contextually bound; they are actualized in certain contexts).
How do we determine which meaning is the basic one?
1) The contextual criterion: The basic meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts. It is representative of the
word taken in isolation, i.e. it occurs to us when we hear/see the word in isolation; that is why it is called a free meaning (least
dependant upon context). e.g. the central meaning of table is "a piece of furniture" Minor meanings occur only in specific
contexts, e.g. to keep the table amused (2) or the table of contents (7). doctor: a tree/bicycle doctor; a passport doctor (forges
documents); to doctor wine/food (to add drugs to it)
2) The basic meaning has the highest frequency in speech, e.g. table 1 has the highest frequency value and makes up 52% of
all the uses of the word; table 7 accounts for 35%; all the other meanings between them make up just 13% of all the uses.
3) The basic meaning is usually stylistically neutral and minor meanings are as a rule stylistically coloured/marked, e.g.
yellow 1.coloured like egg yoke or gold (neutral), 2.sensational (Am slang), 3.cowardly (coll). cat 1.domestic animal; 2.a
spiteful woman (coll).
Synchronically, we also distinguish between direct meanings and figurative (transferred) meanings. e.g. yellow 4.(fig) (of
looks, mood, feeling) jealous, envious, suspicious. kitten 1.the young of the cat; 2.aflirty playful girl.
We should note that a word may have two or more central meanings, e.g. get "obtain, receive" and "arrive, reach" are
equally central in the semantic structure. Oily 1.covered with oil; 2.like oil; 3.(minor) flatter, insincere in manner: oily smile.
As the semantic structure of a word is never static, the status (type) of its meanings may change in the course of time. The
primary meaning may become a minor one; a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of a word. e.g. The
primary meaning of quick is "living"; it is still retained in the semantic structure but has become a minor meaning which
occurs only in some expressions: to touch/wound to the quick (задеть за живое), the quick and the dead; “rapid, fast” has
become the central meaning.
4) The semantic relationship criterion: e.g. oyster 1.sea-animal; 2.a silent person (metaphoric transference); 3.sth valuable
(metaphoric extension).
5.4. Words of different languages are said to be correlated when their central meanings coincide, e.g. table — стол "piece
of furniture". But there is practically no one-to-one correspondence between the semantic structures of correlated
polysemantic words of different languages. The relations between correlated words are quite complicated, and we may single
out the following cases (and show them graphically).
1) Coincidence. The semantic structures of two correlated words may coincide; usually they are monosemantic words, e.g.
flamingo, hydrogen. We can show this relationship like two overlapping (перекрывающий) circles.
2) If the number of meanings is different, the semantic structure of one word may include that of its correlate it is the
relationship of inclusion, e.g. meeting 1.a gathering of people for a purpose; 2.the people in such a gathering; 3.the coming
together of two or more people, by chance or arrangement, encounter; митинг a (political/social) gathering of a number of
people.
Some meanings of two correlated words may coincide and the others don’t. This is the relationship of intersection. e.g. boy
1.male child; 2.young man; 3.male native servant; 4.junior sailor; мальчик 1.male child; 2.apprentice - юнга (obs). Cat –
кошка 1.животное, 2.шипы, 3.плеть (для наказания матросов).
5.5. All lexical meanings of a polysemantic word are interconnected. The relations between them are based on various
logical and psychological associations. Some of these relations are common to all or to many languages; others are peculiar to
a particular language. Thus, a semantic structure has a national character (some specific characteristics).
Relations that are common to all/most languages are:
1) metaphorical relations, e.g. ass "animal" – осёл "animal", ass (fig) "stupid person"- осёл "person".
2) metonymic relations, e.g. table "piece of furniture" - стол "piece of furniture", table "food " – стол "food put on (1) ".
Relations typical of English, but not of Russian are:
1. One and the same English verb may have both transitive and intransitive meanings in its semantic structure, e.g. Paper
burns easily, (intr) гореть; She burnt his letters, (tr) жечь. to dine, to walk (the dog).
2. One word has countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract meanings, e.g. his love of painting (живопись) - the
paintings on the wall (картина); coal - a coal, hair - a hair; art – an art; beauty – a beauty; straw – a straw; glass – a glass.
3. In the same semantic structure we find individual and collective meanings, e.g. youth 1.young people collectively –
молодежь; 2.a young man - юноша, 3.the state of being young - юность.
6. WORD MEANING AND CONTEX
6.1. Types of context and their role in realization of meaning.
6.2. Meaning and use.
6.1. One of the approaches to the investigating word-meaning is through the study of syntagmatic relations of words,
combinations with other words in speech, i.e. in typical contexts.
"The Oxford Companion to the English Language" defines context as (1) the speech... that normally precedes and follows a
word or other element of language, (2) the linguistic, situational, social and cultural environment of an element of language.
We shouldn't assume that words acquire meanings only in context as the meaning of the word is its inherent property. But a
particular meaning is realized in a certain context.
Word-meaning is determined by different types of contex. Firstly, we distinguish between linguistic, or verbal contex and
extralinguistic, or non-verbal contex.
Linguistic context is the minimum stretch Of speech necessary to determine (realize) each individual meaning. The
semantic structure of a word has an objective existence. Context brings out, actualizes meanings and it is in this sense that we
say that word meaning is determined by context.
Technically, the occurrence of a word in a linguistic context is said to be determined by collocational or selectional
restrictions,
e.g. the use of flock with sheep and birds, pack with dogs, wolves and
cards. Generally such association is largely determined by meaning
e.g. drink beer/milk, but eat bread/meat, but also, by the conventions of use,
e.g. milk is never rancid, but sow. On the other hand, meaning is determined by context,
e.g. white people, white wine, white coffee (which is of course brown).
A certain meaning in the semantic structure of a word which is least dependent on context and is representative of a word in
isolation, i.e. occurs to us when we hear or see the word alone, is called free,
e.g. doctor "smb whose profession is to attend to and treat sick people ". The other meanings that the word realizes only in
certain contexts are bound,
e.g. a radio/bicycle doctor "(infml) a person whose job is to repair the stated thing".
There are two types of linguistic context: lexical context (collocation) and grammatical context (colligation).
Lexical context is a habitual association of a word with other words in speech, the co-occurrence range of the word, i.e. the
group of other lexical items combined with a given word.
e.g. raise when combined with cattle at pigs means "keep animals", when combined with hopes and awareness means
"cause to appear or exist", when combined with question or issue means "mention". In grammatical context it is the
grammatical
structure, morpho-syntactic combinability of the word that brings out individual meanings. In modern
linguistics, the term pattern is used to denote grammatical context. Patterns are represented in conventional symbols, e.g. N nouns, V - verbs, D - adverbs, etc. e.g. make: V+N "to produce" (to make smth); VNV "to force" (to make smb do smth);
VAN "to become" (to make a good teacher).
However, we often find that both lexical and grammatical context should be considered together as grammatical context
alone is insufficient to indicate in which meaning the word is used,
e.g. (1) take in the VN pattern is used in different meanings determined by the lexical context: take coffee/teal sugar - "eat
or drink", take the bus/train, etc. - "travel by"; (2) in the pattern V prp N take has again quite different meanings: take to
gardening "adopt as a practice or hobby", take to the woods "take refuge in".
It is argued that difference in the distribution of the word indicates the difference in meaning. But the sameness of the
distribution does not imply the same meaning: in the same pattern a word may be used in different meanings which are
brought out by the lexical context.
Non-linguistic context is often referred to as situation, i.e. the actual speech situation in which the word is used. Here the
contextual factors are: (1) the speaker and the listener, i.e. their age, sex, background, social class, occupation, social relations,
physical and emotional state, (2) the setting, i.e. the circumstances, e.g. the place and time of communication, for example, a
law court or a press conference.
e.g. If "We are going down", perhaps in a storm, is said on board a ship it means "The ship is sinking", if it is said on
campus, say, at the end of June, it means "We are leaving the university, having graduated". Language should be considered in
a broad context of culture, way of life, the very environment in which it exists. Words should be studied in a broad context of
attitudes and perceptions as part of people's life experience. The extralinguistic knowledge about how things are organized and
perceived (the context of reference) then becomes indispensable.
Purely linguistic and extralinguistic features are closely interwoven. Historical and cultural information is actually realized
in words.
6.2. It is important to distinguish between systemic or "standard" meanings that the word has in the lexicon, on the one
hand, and "contextual" meanings, or uses of the word in different contexts. Thus "permanent" (common) "stock'V'usual"
meanings which are fixed in dictionaries are opposed to "functional "/"situational/occasional" meanings, which are not
registered in dictionaries. They are also called "extended", "creative", unique to each specific instance, while "dictionary"
meanings are "conventionalized" and are realized in typical context.
Thus, we can describe the above opposition in the following terms:
Static meanings
Found in dictionaries
Realized in context
Base-meaning
Predictable
Common/generalized
Dynamic meanings (= uses)
Found in speech
deriving from context
Extended meaning
Unpredictable
Unique/personal
e.g. The noun snout means "the front part of an animal's head, esp. a pig's head". It can also be used contemptuously of a
human nose when it is large or badly shaped. These are systemic "dictionary" meanings, belonging to the conventional
vocabulary. But in "the snout of the lorry" (Gerald Durrell) snout refers to "the pointed part of something, thought to be like a
snout". This is an occasional use of the word which extends its semantic potential. Thus, words used in various contexts may
acquire additional meanings. In most cases "extended" meanings are dynamic, i.e. "creative" uses, expressing the speaker's
individual views and attitudes. Usually such uses are emotional-expressive (metaphoric),
e.g. "the blanket of the dark" (Shakespeare).
"Occasional meanings" (uses) may eventually become conventional meanings, for example, now blanket has the fixed
meaning "a thick covering", in which it was originally used by Shakespeare in "Macbeth".
Any text includes both types of semantic realization of words. On the one hand, there are always words used in their
conventional meanings; on the other hand, there are "dynamic", occasional uses.
The actual meanings of words in context are affected by the genre of the utterance, the type of discourse and the functional
style in which the given lexical item occurs. The number of "extended", occasional uses is greatest in imaginative genres - in
fiction and journalism, as compared to informative ones. There seems to be no limit to how widely the word can vary in its
"creative", extended uses. Such uses contribute to the development of the word's semantic structure.
7. HOMONYMY.
7.1. Classification of homonyms.
7.2. Sources of homonymy.
7.3. Homonymy and polysemy.
7.1. Homonyms are words which are identical in sound form and/or spelling but different in meaning. Modern English is
extremely rich in homonyms as there are a lot of one-syllable and two-syllable words.
Homonyms can be classified according to different principles:
I. On the basis of (a) sound-form, (b) spelling and (c) meaning homonyms are classified into:
1) homonyms proper, or perfect homonyms, which are identical both in spelling and sound-form, but different in meaning,
e.g. bank "a shore"-bank "a financial institution",
'"
winter "a season" - to winter "to spend the winter";
2) homophones, which are identical in sound but different in spelling and
meaning,
e.g. course - coarse, weather - whether, cite - sight —site;
3) homographs, which are identical in spelling but different in sound and meaning,
e.g.'entrance, n. "door, gate"— en 'trance, v. "put in a trance", T'-'-i7-'^, leadfe} "the metal" - lead [i:] "conduct, guide";
II. On the basis of the paradigm, i.e. whether the paradigms of two words coincide completely or only in part, homonyms
are divided into:
1) full homonyms, which coincide in all their forms,
e.g. ball "a dancing party" - ball "a spherical object”, seal "a sea animal" - seal "apiece of wax, lead, etc. stamped with a
design"; 2) partial homonyms which have only some identical forms:
e.g. found "to establish" -found (past indefinite of find), seal "a sea animal" - to seal "tofasten or close tightly";
Partial homonyms usu. belong to different parts of speech, but may belong to the same part of speech,
e.g. to lie (lied) - to lie (lay, lain). III. On the basis of their part of speech, homonyms are classified into:
1) lexical homonyms which belong to the same part of speech,
e.g. seal(l) ~seal(2)
2) lexico-grammatical homonyms which belong to different parts of speech,
e.g. rose "aflower" - rose (past indefinite or rise). This group includes words related by conversion,
e.g. to jump-a jump, milk - to milk.
Some lexicologists argue that there are also grammatical homonyms but they are homonymous forms of one word and thus
not real homonyms, which are, by definition, different words.
7.2. Sources of homonymy are as follows:
1) Phonetic change which words undergo in their historical development: two or more words that originally were
pronounced differently may develop identical sound form,
e.g. sea (fr. OEs&) - see (fr. OE seon),
Iffr.OE ic )- eye (fr. OE ea Oe).
Phonetic change is the most important source of homonyms. It is largely a matter of historical chance, although a tendency
to assimilate the unfamiliar to the familiar is also a factor, as with compound "an enclosure", originally Malay kampong.
2) Borrowing: a borrowed word may coincide with a native word or another borrowed word,
e.g. match "a game, contest" (native) - match "a slender short piece of wood for producing fire" (French); fair "just"
(native) -fair "a gathering of buyers and sellers" (French)
3) Word-formation:
(a) conversion, which gives rise to numerous lexico-grammatical homonyms,
e.g. pale - to pale "grow or become pale",
mother "female parent" - to mother "to take care of like a mother";
(b) shortening, abbreviation,
e.g. aids - AIDS, dock "place in a harbour where ships are
(un)loaded or repaired" - doc (a shortening from doctor).
4) Split of polysemy: two or more homonyms can originate from different meanings of the same word when, for some
reason, they diverge and the semantic structure of the word breaks up, e.g. spring1 - act of springing", spring2 - "a place where
a stream of water comes up out of the earth", spring3 - "a season of the year". Historically, all these nouns originate from one
verb OE sprinean "to jump, to leap"; they were meanings of the same word, with the meaning of spring and spring3 based on
metaphors. But by ПОЛУ these associations have been lost, and they have become separate words.
7.3. When we deal with homonymy we face a problem. The problem is to decide whether we have polysemy, i.e. one form
with two meanings, or homonymy, i.e. two words with the same form.
Synchronically, there are several criteria to distinguish between polysemy and homonymy, but unfortunately, none is quite
reliable. The best known, perhaps, are the following criteria:
I) spelling: homophones are easily perceived to be different words,
e.g. flower -flour; but it can't be applied to homonyms proper, e.g. key to the door and key of a piano: are they different
words or one word in different meanings; 2) context. If s argued that context may help to decide whether we have polysemy
or homonymy, but in fact, it serves only to distinguish between different meanings,
e.g. a glass case "box" several cases of robbery "instances", but do we deal here with polysemy or homonymy? The
problem is still unsolved. This criterion is helpful when we deal with lexico-grammatical homonyms but fails in case of
lexical homonymy.
3) The most widely used is the semantic criterion. Most linguists argue that all the meanings of a polysemantic word are
somehow connected and they make up one system (called "the semantic structure of the word"), while the meanings of
homonyms are unrelated. This criterion is not quite reliable either:
(1) The decision whether the meanings are connected or not may be subjective. For instance, the decision of dictionary
makers often seems quite arbitrary (whether to handle one particular item as a single entry, i.e. as a polysemantic word, or to
treat it in terms of homonymy and to have a separate entry for each of the homonyms).
e.g. The Hornby Dictionary treats spring as two homonyms, while the Arakin Dictionary handles it as three homonyms,
whereas the COD and Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English treat it as one polysemantic word. Lexicographers often
base their decision on etymology: they take the view that homonymy relates to words whose meanings have converged while
polysemy relates to one word whose meanings have diverged or radiated.
(2) The semantic criterion can't be applied to a large group of lexico-grammatical homonyms which appear due to
conversion because, evidently, their meanings are related, e.g. dust - to dust "to remove dust".
Thus, though in theory we must distinguish between homonymy and polysemy, it can't always be done in practice as there
are no formal criteria to differentiate between them.
Polysemy is an inherent (permanent) and general characteristic of language, sth no language can do without, while
homonymy is accidental and has no great value (except for puns) in language. Sometimes, though not often, homonyms may
even lead to misunderstandings.
8. SEMANTIC GROUPINGS OF THE ENGLISH LEXICON.
8.1. Semantic fields.
8.2. Hyponymy.
8.3. Thematic groups.
8.1. The theory of semantic fields was developed by German linguists J.Trier and W.Porzig in 1934. It attempts to deal with
words as related and contrasting members of a set. A lexical field (and if relatively small, a lexical set) is a group of words or
lexemes whose members are related by meaning, reference, or use. As the vocabulary is a system, words do not exist as
separate items but are related to other words: they are components of various groups.
Words linked by a common concept (expressing one concept) make up a semantic field, or a conceptual field, e.g. the
words: blue, red, green, yellow make up the semantic field of colour. The meanings of all such words have a common
semantic component described as the common denominator of meaning, e.g. "colour", "a military rank". All members of such
a field are semantically interdependent, they interrelate and define each other.
Words making up a semantic field may belong to different parts of speech, e.g. the semantic field "space" comprises nouns
(expanse, extent, surface), verbs (expand, extend, span, spread), adjectives (spacious, roomy, broad, vast), adverbs.
Words belonging to the same part of speech which express the same concept are termed "lexico-semantic group" (LSG),
e.g. LSG "metals": iron, copper, gold, silver; LSG "kinship terms": mother, father, son, daughter, aunt; LSG "verbs of
motion": run, walk, creep, fly, swim.
A semantic field covers or refers to an aspect of the world. Many works of reference have been organized according to
fields, from at least the time of Pliny the Elder's "Historia Naturalis" in AD 23 - 79. A recent work so organized is The
Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English (1981), organized in 14 semantic fields, the first of which, "Life and Living
Things", is divided into "Living Creatures, Animals/mammals, Birds, and Kinds and Parts of Plants", each group is made up
in turn of labeled lexical sets, usu. of synonyms, antonyms, and associated words.
There is no absolute list of such fields in any language, nor any fixed pattern or order in which a field or a set of fields may
be presented. Whether or not fields like "Kinds of Plants" or "Feelings and Sensations" have electro-chemical correlates in the
brain, they have a psychological reality in large part conditioned by culture: the presentation of such fields differs from age to
age and place to place, e.g. 9th century Muslim list begins with "power and war" and concludes with "food and women"; most
European lists from the 7th to the 17th century began with "God and the angels".
Words that make up such fields are incompatible. We cannot say, "This is a red hat" and at the same time of the same object
"This is a blue hat". Nor can we describe a creature both as a lion and a tiger. Sentences with incompatible terms will thus
contradict each other.
Fields may be unordered, that is to say, there is no natural way as far as their meanings are concerned of arranging the items
in these groups in any kind of order, e.g. there is no way in which we can arrange elephants, giraffes, rhinoceros (we don't
speak about scientific classifications). Other fields seem to have some kind of order; some are hierarchically ordered ( ranks)
– one item comes under/above another; some items occur in sequences (measurements such as inch, foot, yard, mile;
numerals); some are arranged in a cycle (the days of the week, the months of the year) – cyclical order.
On the other hand, semantic fields have a certain structure; each field has a core and one or more peripheral zones. Some
items in a semantic field belong to its core; they are more general terms, stylistically neutral and characterized by the highest
frequency value in speech. The others belong to the periphery. e.g. In the LSG of colour terms, blue belongs to the core, azure
"(poet) bright blue colour" belongs to the periphery. Thus, graphically, we can show the structure of a semantic field like this
(some concentric circles). Magenta purple-red in colour, scarlet bright red in colour, maroon dark red-brown in colour.
Different lexico-semantic variants of a polysemantic word, i.e. a word in different meanings may enter different semantic
fields,
e.g. blue belongs to the LSG of colour and in one of its minor meanings "condition of being sad" to the LSG of emotions.
Thus, the whole of the vocabulary is structured into overlapping semantic fields. Orange 1.colour; 2.fruit; 3.tree.
8.2. So far we have discussed groups of words naming items of a particular class (or sets of incompatible items). But there
are also words that refer to the class itself. This involves us in the notion of inclusion in the sense that tulip and rose are
included in flower, and lion and elephant in mammal.
The semantic relationship of inclusion is termed hyponymy: an X is a kind of Z. (A classifier and a member of the class).
The hyponymic relations may be viewed as hierarchical relations between the generic and the individual term, i.e. the
superordinate term, the classifier which serves to describe the LSG, called a hyperonym, and the subordinate term of
narrower or more specific meaning which comes "under" another of wider or more general meaning, called a hyponym. e.g.
The hyperonym is tree ; birch, pine, oak are co-hyponyms. Animal: sheep, cow, camel, goat, pig, donkey. Sheep: ram (male),
lamb, ewe (female). Ram: wether (castrated)
Hyponymic relations are often imprecise, unstable and multidimensional. The same word may be a hyponym of several
superordinates: e.g. rug is a synonym of carpet in some contexts and a hyponym of carpet in others; axe is a tool and a
weapon; a weapon is a hyponym of tool.
The same word may appear in several places in a hierarchy, in one of its meanings it may be superordinate to itself in
another meaning. e.g. Thus, animal may be used (1) in contrast with vegetable to include birds, fishes, insects, as well as
mammals; (2) in the sense of "mammal" to contrast with birds, fishes, insects, to include both humans and beasts, (3) in the
sense of "beast" to contrast with humans. So it occurs three times in the hierarchy.
A hyponym contains (includes) the meaning of the superordinate term and also some additional semantic components which
distinguish it from its co-hyponyms, e.g. The co-hyponyms stroll, stagger (unsteadily), saunter (leisurely), stride
(purposefully and taking long steps) all include the meaning of walk (the hyperonym); but stroll also includes the semantic
components "quiet" and "unhurried", stride "energetically", "purposefully".
Oddly enough, there is not always a superordinate term, e.g. there is no superordinate term for the group of adjectives blue,
green, red as "coloured" usu. excludes grey, black and white.
Paradigmatic relations
8.3. Another type of classification of words is known as thematic grouping – sentagmatic relations. Words in thematic
groups are joined together by common contextual associations, i.e. they are regularly used together in different contexts; their
contextual associations reflect relations of things and events in the real world, they are conditioned by the context of the
situation which makes necessary the use of certain words (situational contexts). Words making up a thematic group belong to
different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning, e.g. tree - grow - green - leaf- branch;
journey - passenger - travel - ticket - train – luggage; cat – tale – whiskers – purr – miaow – milk – mouse.
In practical language learning, thematic groups are often listed under such headings as "At the Theatre", "At the Doctor",
etc. and are often found in textbooks and course books.
9. SYNONYMY AND ANTONYMY
9.1. Synonyms: the problems of definition and classification. Synonymic sets.
9.2. Euphemisms.
9.3. Paronyms.
9.4. Antonyms.
9.1. Synonymy (or synonymity), in the traditional sense of the word is similarity of meaning. One of the most controversial
problems in modern linguistics is the problem of criteria of synonymy, i.e. what words should be considered synonyms.
There are three main criteria: (1) the notional criterion, (2) the semantic criterion, (3) the substitution criterion, or the
criterion of interchangeability. Traditional linguistics used the notional criterion and defined synonyms as words of the same
part of speech conveying the same notion but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic characteristics. This
definition has been criticised. First, "notion" is not a linguistic term; second, "shade of meaning" is vague, it lacks precision.
In modern research on synonymy, the semantic criterion is used. Synonyms are defined as words with the same denotative
component but differing in connotative components. e.g. hearty (neutral) - cordial (lit), pass away (lit) - die (neutral) - pop off
(coll), overweight (neutral) - fat (negative).
Yet, synonyms differ not only in the connotative component but in the denotative component as well. e.g. to look, to seem,
to appear don't differ in their connotations; they mean "to give the impression", but seem suggests an opinion based on
subjective impressions and personal reaction, while look implies an opinion based on general visual impression; appear often
suggests a distorted impression, e.g.: She seemed a capable woman, intent on her work. He looks a playwright, his
appearance fits the part. His tongue could make the worse appear the better reason. The difference between the verbs lies in
the denotative components.
So, synonyms are words similar in their denotations. The difference in their denotative components cannot exceed
(превосходить) certain limits. In language, difference can count more than similarity. If you know that the words copy and
forge are similar in meaning this is all very well, but it may not help you in choosing the correct word to be applied to the
particular situation. (Forge means "illegally copy sth, esp. sth written or printed"). Synonyms are both the same and different,
that’s why they can be opposed to each other, e.g. Is she a pretty girl? - Not pretty, only attractive. Pretty and attractive are
synonyms, they both mean "of pleasant appearance".
The third criterion of synonymy, i.e. the criterion of interchangeability has been much criticized. According to it,
synonyms are defined as words interchangeable in all or at least some contexts. True, some synonyms are interchangeable in
some environments (but not in others), e.g. deep/profound sympathy, but only deep water. But this gives us little measure of
synonymy (or similarity of meaning); it merely indicates the collocational possibilities, and these do not seem necessarily to
be always closely related to nearness of meaning. e.g. rancid (протухший) occurs only with bacon or butter; addled
(тухлый) with eggs and brains, but this is not a matter of their meaning ("stale, bad, rotten"). On the one hand, substituting
one synonym for another changes the utterance as synonyms do not mean exactly the same. e.g. He glared at her (=looked
angrily). He stared at her. He gaped at her (= look with an open mouth and in surprise).
On the other hand, words that are not synonymous may be interchangeable in some contexts. e.g. flower and rose are not
synonyms but are related in terms of hyponymy and can be substituted one for the other: He admired the rose/the flower. He
can be substituted for man: The man/He entered the room. Thus, the criterion of interchangeability cannot be accepted as a
valid one (надежный).
The only existing classification of synonyms was worked out by Academician Vinogradov. It comprises 3 types of
synonyms:
1.ideographic synonyms, conveying the same notion but differing in shades of meaning,
2.stylistic synonyms, differing in stylistic characteristics,
3.absolute (total) synonyms, coinciding in all shades of meaning and stylistic characteristics.
This classification is open to criticism. Firstly, absolute synonyms are very rare; the language tends to get rid of them
(spirant - fricative). It does not seem necessary to include them in the general classification. Secondly, the term "shade of
meaning" is vague. Thirdly, synonyms may differ both in denotative components and stylistic characteristics, e.g. handsome
"of fine form or figure" - pretty "attractive in dainty or graceful way" - bonny "comely; healthy looking; pleasing".
(N.Eng&Sc)
Synonyms are usu. arranged in sets (i.e. groups). The number of synonyms in such sets may vary from 2 up to a dozen or
even more (and may be different in different dictionaries), e.g. beautiful, good-looking, handsome, pretty, lovely, fair, bonny,
comely, beauteous, attractive.
Strictly speaking, members of synonymic sets are not words but lexico-semantic variants, so one polysemantic word may
enter different sets of synonyms, e.g. poor ' - inferior, unsatisfactory, imperfect; poor 2 - penniless, needy, impoverished.
A characteristic pattern of English synonymic sets is a group of synonyms including a native word (of Anglo-Saxon origin)
and a foreign one (borrowed from Latin, Greek or French), e.g. brotherly -fraternal, buy - purchase, world- universe. (The
native words are usually shorter and less learned.)
There are examples, too, of triples (i.e. sets of three): one native word, one French and one Latin, e.g. kingly - royal - regal
(though with this set it's the word of the French origin that's today in more common usage).
A synonymic set has a central word, called the dominant synonym; it expresses the meaning common to each synonym in
the set. It is characterized by: 1)high frequency of usage, 2)broad combinability (ability to combine with various word
classes), 3)broad general meaning, ( its meaning more or less "covers" the meaning of the other synonyms, so it may be
substituted for any of them), 4)neutral stylistic reference. e.g. In the set to surprise - to astonish - to amaze - to astound the
dominant synonym is to surprise; to copy (the dominant synonym) - to forge - to pirate - to fake - to counterfeit.
The law of synonymic attraction.
Subjects that are prominent in the interest of a community attract a large number of synonyms. e.g. In the USA there are
more than two dozen words denoting "money”: dough, bucks, the chips, green stuff/paper, long green/bread (Black).
Radiation of synonyms.
When a word develops a transferred meaning, its synonyms tend to acquire the same meaning, e.g. to get - to grasp "to
understand".
9.2. There are words in every language which people avoid because they are considered indecent, indelicate, rude, too
direct, harsh, impolite. As the referents, for which these words stand, must still be alluded to (упоминать), they are often
described in a roundabout way, by using substitutes called euphemisms. This is dictated by social conventions. Because a
word is associated with a socially distasteful subject, it becomes distasteful itself, i.e. a taboo word, and another word, a
euphemism, takes its place.
Why do euphemisms appear? They are considered to be the oldest type of synonyms, brought into existence in the distant
past by the superstitious fear to name evil spirits, dangerous animals, powers of nature. e.g. Old Nick for devil.
In modern English, some factors cause the appearance of euphemisms:
1)social taboos, based on the so-called principle of politeness. Some things are not mentioned in polite conversation and
their names are not socially acceptable, e.g. tabood body parts, bodily functions, death, disease, social pathology, e.g. DRUNK
- high, tipsy, tight, flustered, intoxicated; DIE - to be gone, to be no more, to pass away, to kick off.
2)political and commercial propaganda, to obfuscate (скрыть) reality, to create a favourable effect or to soften an
unpleasant effect, to make lies sound truthful. The use of euphemisms in confusing and deceiving way received the name
"doublespeak" - the language which makes the bad seem good, the unpleasant appear attractive or at least tolerable, e.g. a
rescue mission is used instead invasion, pacification centers instead of concentration camps, second class – economy class, fat
king – queen size.
In the '80s, a campaign for eradication of linguistic prejudice on issues involving especially race, gender, sexual affinity,
ecology, physical or mental development was set forth by progressive or activist groups. Political correctness is applied now
(esp. pejoratively) by conservative academics and journalists in the US, to the views and attitudes of those who object to 1)the
use of terms they consider sexist, racist, ableist (used against the physically or mentally impaired), ageist (used against any
age group); 2)stereotyping, such as the assumption that women are less intelligent than men; 3)jokes at the expense of women,
homosexuals, the disabled. PC is avoidance of language which may be construed as offensive, e.g. disabled people (a
euphemism for handicapped which is a euphemism for cripple) is to be differently abled; chairperson is used instead of
chairman/woman.
In the early '90s, many people voiced their criticism against what they termed "terminological absurdity", e.g. the word
"black" is felt to be so sensitive that PCs insist on banning it in all contexts, even in "blackboard".
9.3. Paronyms are words of the same part of speech containing the same stem, but different or partly different in their
meanings (and usage). They present difficulties even to native speakers and are sometimes called confusibles, e.g. economic economical, human - humane, contemptuous - contemptible, industrial - industrious.
Some linguists refer to paronyms words of different stems which are often confused in speech because of similarity of their
sound-forms, e.g. personal - personnel, to lie - to lay, corps - corpse.
9.4. Antonyms are words of the same part of speech which have contrasting denotational components of meaning, e.g. hot cold, to accept - to reject, up - down. So, antonymy is "oppositeness of meaning".
There are different kinds of oppositeness.
1.Some antonyms are contradictories, e.g. dead - alive, single - married. One term contradicts the other, and to use not
before one is to make it equivalent to the other, e.g. If Peter is married, he is not single. If he is single, he is not married. Such
words can be treated in term of complementarity, the items being complementary (дополняющий) to each other, because
there are only two possibilities.
The negative prefixes in-, im-, dis-, un- are often attached to words to give them the opposite meaning, e.g. possible impossible, lucky - unlucky, like - dislike. (But there are exceptions: impassive, invaluable, inflammable are not the opposites
of passive, valuable, flammable, but are almost synonymous, e.g. invaluable "so valuable that it's impossible to estimate the
value").
2.The second group of antonyms includes contraries. They should be treated in term of gradability, i.e. the degree of a
quality they denote. So these words are gradable, placed on a graded scale for comparison, e.g. wide - narrow: A is wider than
B. В is narrower than A. A is less narrow than B. В is less wide than A.
Since such antonyms are gradable, there are often intermediate terms. Thus, we have not just hot - cold, but hot - warm cool - cold, with the intermediate warm and cool forming a pair of antonyms themselves.
In each pair one of the terms is marked and the other is unmarked, and only the latter is used to ask about or describe the
degree of the gradable quality, e.g. How high/wide is it? But not: How low/narrow is it? It is 3feet high. But not: It is 3feet
low. In English, the "larger" term seems to be unmarked.
Unlike contradictories, with the gradable antonyms, to say that something is not, for instance wide isn't to say it is narrow
(and v.v.). The possibility of being neither wide nor narrow is left open.
There is no absolute distinction between the two abovementioned types of antonyms. We can treat male/female,
married/single, dead/alive as gradable antonyms on occasion, e.g. He is more dead than alive.
On the other hand, there are gradable antonyms, e.g. honest - dishonest, obedient -disobedient, open - shut, in which the
denial of one is taken to assert the other, thus, though we may say, "Bill is more/less honest than John", "BUI isn't honest"
implies that he is dishonest.
3.A quite different kind of oppositeness is found with pairs of words which exhibit the reversal of a relationship between
items, e.g. buy - sell, husband - wife. If A sells to В, В buys from A. If A is B's husband, B is A's wife.
These are relational opposites. The relationship between them can also be called converseness, and the words are
convertibles: lend - borrow, rent - let, own - belong to, give - receive, above - below, in front of- behind, parent-child. It is
worth noting that "true" gradable antonyms can be treated basically in terms of relational opposites, e.g. If A is wider than В, В
is narrower than A.
4.Incompatible terms, e.g. morning, night, evening, day, or blue, red, green are not true antonyms, as they are characterized
by the semantic relation of exclusion, not of contradiction, i.e. to say "It was morning" excludes "It was evening/day/night,"
and negation of one item doesn't imply semantic equivalence with the others, e.g. It wasn't night. It was day.
Most antonyms are adjectives, e.g. high - low, strong - weak, old - young because qualities are easily graded and contrasted.
Verbs take second place, e.g. lose -find, open - close, live - die. Nouns are not very rich in antonyms, e.g. good - evil, friend enemy, joy - sorrow. Antonymic adverbs can be adverbs proper, e.g. up - down, ever - never, now - then, here - there, or they
can be derived from antonymic adjectives, e.g. warmly - coldly, merrily - sadly.
Like synonyms, antonyms are not words but lexico-semantic variants. A polysemantic word may have an antonym (or
several antonyms) for each of its meanings, e.g. dull' "deficient in interest" - amusing, interesting, entertaining; dullг
"deficient in intellect" - clever, bright, capable.
Together with synonyms, antonyms represent the most important expressive means of the language. They are used by
authors as a stylistic device of contrast, e.g. The writer should ... care nothing for praise or censure, failure or success."
(W.S.Maugham)
Antonyms are used in numerous proverbs and sayings, e.g. Faults are thick where love is thin. Joy and sorrow are like
today and tomorrow.
10. WORD-FORMATION
10.1. The morphological structure of English words.
10.2. Definition of word-formation. Synchronic and diachronic approaches to word formation.
10.3. Main units of word-formation. Derivational analysis.
10.4. Ways of word-formation.
10.5. Functional approach to word-formation.
10.6. The communicative aspect of word-formation.
10.1. Structurally, words are divisible into smaller units which are called morphemes. Morphemes are the smallest
indivisible two-facet [form+meaning] (significant) units. A morpheme exists only as a constituent part of the word.
One morpheme may have different phonemic shapes, i.e. it is represented by allomorphs {its variants), e.g. in please,
pleasure, pleasant [pli:z], [ple3-], [plez-] are allomorphs of one morpheme; compare - comparable; suffice - sufficient.
Semantically, all morphemes are classified into roots and affixes. The root is the lexical centre of the word, its basic part; it
has an individual lexical meaning, e.g. in help, helper, helpful, helpless, helping, unhelpful - help- is the root. Affixes are used
to build stems, to modify the meaning of roots; they are classified into prefixes and suffixes; there are also infixes. A prefix
precedes the root, a suffix follows it; an infix is inserted in the body of the word, e.g. prefixes: re-think, mis-take, dis-cover,
over-eat, ex-wife; suffixes: danger-ous, familiar-ize, kind-ness, swea-ty.
Structurally, morphemes fall into: free morphemes, bound morphemes, semi-bound (semi-free) morphemes.
A free morpheme is one that coincides with a stem or a word-form. A great many root-morphemes are free, e.g. in
friendship the root -friend- is free as it coincides with a word-form of the noun friend
A bound morpheme occurs only as a part of a word. All affixes are bound morphemes because they always make part of a
word, e.g. in friendship the suffix -ship is a bound morpheme. Some root morphemes are also bound as they always occur in
combination with other roots and/or affixes, e.g. in conceive, receive, perceive -ceive- is a bound root. To this group belong
so-called combining forms, root morphemes of Greek and Latin origin, e.g. tele-, mega, -logy, micro-, -phone: telephone,
microphone, telegraph.
Semi-bound morphemes are those that can function both as a free root morpheme and as an affix (sometimes with a change
of sound form and/or meaning), e.g. proof, a. "giving or having protection against sth harmful or unwanted" (a free root
morpheme): proof against weather; -proof (in adjectives) "treated or made so as not to be harmed by or so as to give protection
against" (a semi-bound morpheme): bulletproof, ovenproof, dustproof. Gate – Monica-gate (a scandal)
Morphemic analysis aims at determining the morphemic (morphological) structure of a word, i.e. the aim is to split the
word into morphemes and state their number, types and the pattern of arrangement. The basic unit of morphemic analysis is
the morpheme.
In segmenting words into morphemes, we use the method of Immediate (parts of words) and Ultimate Constituents
(morphs). At each stage of the analysis, a word is broken down into two meaningful parts (ICs, i.e. Immediate Constituents).
At the next stage, each 1С is broken down into two smaller meaningful elements. The analysis is completed when we get
indivisible constituents, i.e. Ultimate Constituents, or morphs, which represent morphemes in concrete words, e.g. Friend-, ly, -ness are indivisible into smaller meaningful units, so they are Ultimate Constituents (morphs) and the word friendliness
consists of 3 morphemes: friend-+-li+-ness.
There are two structural types of words at the morphemic level of analysis: monomorohic (non-segmentable, indivisible)
and polymorphic words (segmentable, divisible). The former consist only of a root morpheme, e.g. cat, give, soon, blue, oh,
three. The latter consist of two or more morphemes, e.g. disagreeableness is a polymorphic word which consists of four
morphemes, one root and three affixes: dis- + -agree- + -able + -ness. The morphemic structure is Pr + R + Sf1 + Sf2.
10.2. Word-Formation (W-F) is (the process of) building words from available linguistic material after certain structural
and semantic patterns. It is also a branch of lexicology that studies the process of building words as well as the derivative
structure of words, the patterns on which they are built and derivational relations between words.
Synchronically, linguists study the system of W-F at a given time; diachronically, they are concerned with the history of
W-F, and the history of building concrete words. The results of the synchronic and the diachronic analysis may not always
coincide, e.g. historically, to beg was derived from beggar (Fr), but synchronically the noun beggar is considered derived
from the verb after the pattern v + -er/-ar > N, as the noun is structurally and semantically more complex (on the analogy of
such words as reader, writer, teacher); peddle- < -pedlar/peddler, lie < liar; enthuse is motivated by enthusiasm, that’s why it
is derived from the latter.
10.3. The aim of derivational analysis is to determine the derivational structure of a word, i.e. to state the derivational
pattern after which it is built and the derivational base (the source of derivation). Traditionally, the basic units of derivational
analysis are: the derived word (the derivative), the derivational base, the derivational pattern, the derivational affix –
[derivational structure].
The derivational base is the source of a derived word, i.e. a stem, a word-form, a word-group (sometimes even a sentence)
which motivates the derivative semantically and on which the latter is based structurally (1.a stem, 2.a phrase, 3.a word
group), e.g. in dutifully the base is dutiful-, which is a stem; in unsmiling it is the word-form smiling (participle I); in blue-eyed
it is the word-group blue eye.
In affixation, derivational affixes are added to derivational bases to build new words, i.e. derivatives. They repattern the
bases, changing them structurally and semantically. They also mark derivational relations between words, e.g. in
encouragement en- and -ment are derivational affixes: a prefix and a suffix; they are used to build the word encouragement:
(en- + courage) + -ment. They also mark the derivational relations between courage and encourage, encourage and
encouragement.
A derivational pattern is a scheme (a formula) describing the structure of derived words already existing in the language
and after which new words may be built, e.g. the pattern of friendliness is a + -ness > N, i.e. an adjective stem + the nounforming suffix -ness.
Derivationally, all words fall into two classes: simple (non-derived) words and derivatives. Simple words are those that are
non-motivated semantically and independent of other linguistic units structurally, e.g. boy, run, quiet, receive. Derived words
are motivated structurally and semantically by other linguistic units, e.g. to spam, spamming, spammer, anti-spamming are
motivated by spam.
Each derived word is characterized by a certain derivational structure. In traditional linguistics, the derivational structure
is viewed as a binary entity (сущность), reflecting the relationship between derivational bases and derivatives and consisting
of a stem and a derivational affix, e.g. the structure of nationalization is nationaliz- + -ation (described by the formula, or
pattern v + -ation > N).
But there is a different point of view. In modern W-F, the derivational structure of a word is defined as a finite set of
derivational steps necessary to produce (build) the derived word, e.g. [(nation + -al) + -ize] + -ation.
To describe derivational structures and derivational relations, it is convenient to use the relator language and a system of
oriented graphs. In this language, a word is generated by joining relators to the amorphous root O. Thus, R1O describes the
structure of a simple verb (cut, permiate); R2O shows the structure of a simple noun (friend, nation); R3O is a simple
adjective (small, gregarious) and R4O is a simple adverb (then, late). e.g. The derivational structure of nationalization is
described by the R-formula R2R1R3R2O; the R-formula of unemployment is R2R2R1O (employ > employment >
unemployment). In oriented graphs, a branch slanting (наклоняться) left and down "/" correspond to R1; a vertical branch "|"
corresponds to R2; a branch slanting right and down "\" to R3, and a horizontal right branch to R4.
Words whose derivational structures can be described by one R-formula are called monostructural, e.g. dutifulness,
encouragement; words whose derivational structures can be described by two (or more) R-formulas are polystructural, e.g.
disagreement R2R2R1O /R2R1R1O (agree > disagree > disagreement R2RIRIO or agree > agreement > disagreement
R2R2R1O).
There are complex units of word-formation. They are derivational clusters and derivational sets.
A derivational cluster is a group of words that have the same root and are derivationally related. The structure of a cluster
can be shown with the help of a graph, e.g.
{ reread, misread
READ { read, reader, reading, readership
{ readable, unreadable
A derivational set is a group of words that are built after the same derivational pattern, e.g. n + -ish > A: mulish, dollish,
apish, bookish, wolfish,
Table TWO TYPES OF STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
MORPHEMIC ANALYSIS
AIM
DERIVATIONAL ANALYSIS
to find out the morphemic structure to determine the derivational structure
(composition)
derived word, derivational pattern,
derivational base, derivational step,
derivational means (the paradigm – all the
grammatical forms of a lexeme, e.g. affix)
(non-segmentable) simple and derived words
RESULTS: CLASSES OF monomorphic
and polymorphic (segmentable)
WORDS
words
1.cut, v. and cut, n. are 1.cut, v. is a simple word (RIO); cut, n. is
EXAMPLES
monomorphic (root) words
derived from it(R2RlO)
2.encouragement,
unemployment 2.encouragement and unemployment
consist of three morphemes and have different derivational structures: v
have
the
same
morphemic + -ment ->N(R2R1R2O) and un-+ n -> N
composition: Pr + R + Sf
(R2R2R1O)
BASIC UNITS
morphemes (roots and affixes)
10.4. Traditionally, the following ways of W-K are distinguished: affixation, compounding, conversion, shortening,
blending, back-formation. Sound interchange, sound imitation, distinctive stress, lexicalization, coinage certainly do not
belong to word-formation as no derivational patterns are used.
Affixation is formation of words by adding derivational affixes to derivational bases. Affixation is divided into prefixation
and suffixation, e.g. the following prefixes and suffixes are used to build words with negative or opposite meanings: un-, non-,
a-, contra-, counter-, de-, dis-, in-, mis-, -less, e.g. non-toxic.
Compounding is building words by combining two (or more) derivational bases (stems or word-forms), e.g. big-ticket
(expensive), fifty-fifty, laid-back, statesman. Among compounds, we distinguish derivational compounds, formed by adding a
derivational affix (usu. a suffix) to a word group, e.g. heart-shaped (shaped like a heart), stone-cutter (one who cuts stone).
Conversion consists in making a word from some existing word by transferring it into another part of speech. The new word
acquires a new paradigm; the sound form and the morphemic composition remain unchanged. The most productive
conversion patterns are n > V (i.e. formation of verbs from noun-stems), v > N (formation of nouns from verb stems), a > V
(formation of verbs from adjective stems), e.g. a drink, a do, ago, a swim: Have another try. to face, to nose, to paper, to
mother, to ape; to cool, to pale, to rough, to black, to yellow. Nouns and verbs can be converted from other parts of speech,
too, for example, adverbs: to down, to out, to up; ifs and buts.
Shortening consists in substituting a part for a whole. Shortening may result in building new lexical items (lexical
shortenings) and so-called graphic abbreviations, which are not words but signs representing words in written speech; in
reading, they are substituted by the words they stand for, e.g. Dr = doctor, St = street, saint, Oct = October. Lexical
shortenings are produced in two ways:
1) clipping, a new word is made from a syllable (or two syllables) of the original word, e.g. back-clippings: pro <
professional, chimp < chimpanzee, fore-clippings: copter < helicopter, gator < alligator, fore-and-aft clippings: duct <
deduction, tec < detective.
2) abbreviation, a new word is made from the initial letters of the original word or word-group. Abbreviations are divided
into letter-based initialisms (FBI < the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and acronyms pronounced as root words (AIDS,
NATO).
Blending is building new words, called blends, fusions, telescopic words, or portmanteau words, by merging (usu. irregular)
fragments of two existing words, e.g. biopic < biography + picture, alcoholiday < alcohol + holiday.
Back-formation is derivation of new words by subtracting a real or supposed affix (usu. a suffix) from existing words (on
analogy with existing derivational pairs), e.g. to enthuse < enthusiasm, to intuit < intuition.
Sound interchange and distinctive stress are not ways of word-formation. They are ways of distinguishing words or word
forms, e.g. food - feed, speech - speak, life - live; 'insult, n. - in'sult, v, 'perfect, a. - perfect, v. Sound interchange may be
combined with affixation and/or the shift of stress, e.g. strong - strength, wide - width.
10.5. Productivity and activity of derivational ways and means. Productivity and activity in W-F are close but not
identical. By productivity of derivational ways/types/patterns/means we mean ability to derive new words, e.g. The suffix –er
/ the pattern v + -er > N is highly productive.
By activity we mean the number of words derived with the help of a certain derivational means or after a derivational
pattern, e.g. -er is found in hundreds of words so it is active. Sometimes productivity and activity go together, but they may
not always do.
DERIVATIONAL EXAMPLE PRODUCTIVITY ACTIVITY
MEANS
-ly
nicely
+
+
-ous
dangerous
+
-th
breadth
In modern English, the most productive way of W-P is affixation (suffixation more so than prefixation), then comes
compounding, shortening takes third place, with conversion coming fourth.
Productivity may change historically. Some derivational means/patterns may be non-productive for centuries or decades,
then become productive, then decline again, e.g. In the late 19th с US -ine was a popular feminine suffix on the analogy of
heroine, forming such words as actorine, doctorine, speakerine. It is not productive or active now. -ess
Semantic selectivity of derivational means.
By this we mean that a particular affix is added not to all available bases, but only to stems belonging to 1)certain parts of
speech and 2)some particular lexico-semantic groups, e.g. -ish is added to verb-stems (snappish, snarlish), noun-stems
(mulish, boyish, snobbish), adj.-stems (longish, brownish), num-stems (sevenish). Secondly, -ish in the meaning of "like,
resembling" is added to noun-stems of the LSGs "human beings" and "animals" but not, for example, "plants": mannish,
womanish, girlish, old-maidish, commuterish; tigerish, owlish, camelish. -ful is added to noun-stems meaning "container":
boxful, spoonful, lungful, mouthful, cupful.
10.6. The main function of W-F is the nominative one, i.e. building new names, but W-F also performs the communicative
function.
1)W-F performs the transformational function; words are transferred to a different part of speech and thus are able to
perform new syntactic functions in a sentence. There are certain types of derivatives which retain the lexical meaning of the
base, but acquire a different part-of-speech category. They are called syntactic derivatives, e.g. stillness - the quality of being
still, derivation - the process of deriving.
2)Within a text, derivatives perform the text-building function, they are used as a. means to create cohesion (целостность)
of the text. A derivative and its base are used to connect sentences, one of which follows the other. The derivational base
introduces new information, it is the communicative centre of the sentence, i.e. the rheme. The derivative in the following
sentence refers to the base, the information given beforehand is the theme of the sentence, which has a new rheme. Thus,
derivatives are used to create the functional (communicative) perspective of the text. e.g. At your age you can hardly expect to
be natural (rheme). Naturalness (theme) is something you learn painfully by a trial and error.
3)Another W-F function is semantic compression. Derivatives can express much information in a very concise way,
replacing complex syntactic constructions, e.g. ex-IBMer - a former employee of the International Business Machines.
4)Derivatives may perform the expressive function, making an utterance very expressive, emotional, convey evaluation,
e.g. no-goodnik
English has also contributed quite a few international words to world languages, e-g• sport terms: football, tennis, box, match, knockdown,
• clothes: sweater, pullover, tweed, jersey, nylon:
• entertainment:^//», club, jazz, cocktail, etc.
International words in different languages, despite their outward similarity, often have different meanings. They are called
"false friends of interpreters" as interpreters and translators, as well as language learners should be aware of them, e.g.
sympathy "compassion"'- симпатия "liking", complexion "face colour" - комплекция "build", decade "tenyears" - декада
"ten days".
13. LEXICOGRAPHY
13.1. Lexicography as a branch of Linguistics. The relationship between Lexicography and Lexicology.
13.2. Some basic problems of Lexicography.
13.3. Types of dictionaries.
13.4. Historical development of British and American Lexicography.
13.5. New Trends in Lexicography.
13.1. Lexicography is the theory and practice of compiling dictionaries. It's closely connected with Lexicology for:
1)they have a common object of study, i.e. the vocabulary of a language;
2)they make use of each other's achievements, i.e. the material collected in dictionaries is used by linguistists in their
research and on the other hand, the principles of dictionary making are based on linguistic fundamentals.
The difference between them lies in the degree of systematization and completeness each of them is able to achieve.
Lexicology aims at systematization, revealing characteristic features of words. However, it can't achieve completeness^
regards vocabulary units, for their number is
very great, and systematization and completeness can't be achieved simultaneously.
But dictionaries aim at a more or less complete description of individual words, but in doing so they can't attain systematic
treatment.
13.2. The most important problems faced by lexicographers are:
1)the selection of lexical units for inclusion;
2)their arrangement;
3)the selection and arrangement of word-meanings;
4)the definition of meanings;
5)illustrative material;
6)supplementary material.
1. The selection of units for inclusion
The basic problem is what lexical units to select for inclusion, and to determine the type and number of headwords.
Should we include / the dictionary contain foreign words? technical terms? archaic words? new words? dialectisms? slang
words, etc?
We face the problem of polysemy and homonymy. Besides, we should decide how to treat derivatives, esp. those built after
the most productive patterns (such as v + -er —* N, A + -ness —»N, a + -ly—> Adv). Should they be given special entries or
not?
There are no general answers to these questions. The choice depends on the type of the dictionary, its aim, size, and some
other considerations, and is always more or less arbitrary.
2. Arrangement of entries
When the problem of arrangement is settled there arises the question which of the selected units have the right to a separate
entry and which are to be included under the headword,
e.g whether "each other" is a group of two separate words to be treated separately under the headwords "each" and "other"
or whether it is a unit that deserves a special entry.
The number of entries also depends on how dictionary compilers solve the problems of polysemy and homonymy and
regularly formed derivatives with such affixes as -er, -ly, -ness, -ing.
The order of arrangement of the entries is different in different types of dictionaries. The order may be (a) alphabetical
and (b) the cluster-type order, i.e. words of the same root, or close in their denotational meaning, or in their frequency value
are grouped together.
Each mode of presentation has its advantages, (a) The alphabetical order provides for an easy finding of any word, (b) The
cluster-type order requires less space and presents a clearer picture of the relations of each unit with the others in the language
system.
Practically, however, most dictionaries use a combination of these two orders of arrangement.
3. The number of meanings and their choice depend on:
1) the aim the dictionary compilers set themselves;
2) how they treat obsolete, dialectal, highly specialized meanings, how they solve the problem of polysemy and
homomymy.
There are three different ways of arranging word-meanings:
1) historical order, i.e. meanings are arranged in the order of their historical development (from the earliest to the most
recent ones);
2) actual (or empirical) order, i.e. meanings are arranged according to their frequency value (the most common ones come
first);
3) logical order, i.e. meanings are arranged to show their logical connection. The historical order is mostly used in
diachronical (historical) dictionaries, and in
synchronic ones compilers usually use the empirical and the logical order.
4. Meanings may be defined in different ways:
1) by means of encyclopedic definitions (such definitions are concerned with objects for which words are names);
2) by means of descriptive definitions or paraphrases;
3) with the help of synonymous words and expressions;
4) by means of cross-reference.
Descriptive definitions are used in a majority of cases. They are concerned with words as speech material.
American dictionaries for the most part are traditionally encyclopedic. They furnish their readers with more information
about facts and things than British dictionaries which are more linguistic
Encyclopedic definitions are typical of nouns, esp. proper nouns and terms.
Synonyms are most often used to define verbs and adjectives, and (cross-) reference is used to define derivatives,
abbreviations and variant forms.
5. Illustrative examples raise the following questions: 1) when are examples to be used?
2) what words may be listed without any illustrations?
3) should they be made up or borrowed from books and/or periodicals? (In diachronic dictionaries quotations are used and
they are carefully dated).
4) How much space should they occupy?
6. The supplementary material appended to the dictionary may be:
1)material of linguistic nature pertaining to the vocabulary (e.g. geographical names, foreign words, standard abbreviations);
2)material of encyclopedic nature (may include lists of colleges, universities, tables of weights and measures, military
ranks).
13.3. All dictionaries are divided into encyclopedic and linguistic. They differ in (1) the choice of items included and (2) in
the information given about them. Linguistic dictionaries are word-books. Their subject-matter is lexical units and their
linguistic properties (pronunciation, meaning, usage). Encyclopedias are thing-books, giving information about the
extralinguistic world. They deal with objects, phenomena and concepts. Encyclopedic dictionaries give both types of
information. The most famous encyclopedias in English are the Encyclopedia Britannica (in 32 volumes) and Encyclopedia
Americana (30 volumes). Besides there are reference books confined to some particular fields of knowledge, e.g. the Oxford
Art Dictionary, the Oxford Companion to English Literature, "Who's Who" Dictionary. Linguistic dictionaries can be
classified by different criteria:
1)According to the nature of their word-list they are general and restricted. General dictionaries contain lexical units in
ordinary use in different spheres of communication. Restricted dictionaries make their choice from a certain part of the
vocabulary, e.g. phraseological dictionaries, dialectal dictionaries, dictionaries of new words, terminological dictionaries and
so on.
2)According to the information supplied dictionaries may be explanatory and specialized. Explanatory dictionaries
provide information on all aspects of lexical units (graphical, grammatical, etymological, stylistic, semantic). Specialized
dictionaries deal with only some aspect of lexical units, e.g. English Pronouncing Dictionary by Daniel Jones.
3)According to the language in which information is given dictionaries may be: monolingual end bilingual (translation).
4)According to the prospective user dictionaries are divided into those meant for scholars (e.g. etymological dictionaries),
for language learners/students (e.g. Oxford Student's Dictionary of Current English by A.S. Hornby) and for the general
public (e.g. The Concise Oxford Dictionary).
13.4. Historical Development of British and American Lexicography.
period
I
II
III
5th-13th c.
Glossaries
16th с
Foreign Language
Dictionaries
17th с
Dictionaries
of Hard
Words
IV
17th с.-the
first half of
the 18th c.
V
second half
of the 18th c.
-first half of
the 19th с
Prescriptive
Dictionaries
A gloss is a note made in a margin or between lines, usu. a word or phrase, explaining or
translating a difficult word in a MS or other text. Such glosses have played an important role in the
history of lexicography. The first vocabulary lists in English were 8*-century Anglo-Saxon
glosses, in which words were written between Latin lines. Later, these words were collected
together as lists, more or less alphabetically. Such lists were known as "glossae coilectae"
(collected glosses), later "glossaria" (glossaries). These are ancestors of the first Latin-English
dictionaries. The first printed dictionary in Britain appeared in 1500, it was "Ortus Vocabulorum",
a Latin-English dictionary.
The rapid development of international trade in the 16 to century led to a demand for translation
dictionaries: French-English, Spanish-English, Italian-English, etc.
These dictionaries were meant to give information on hard and exotic words: borrowings from
Latin, Greek, new European languages, obsolete Anglo-Saxon words, etc. The first monolingual
English dictionary of this type appeared in 1604. It was "Table Alphabeticall" (compiled by
Robert Cawdry, a school-master), which contained fewer than 3.000 "hard usuall English words"
listed alphabetically, with the barest explanations. It was designed for quick consultation by
"unskillful persons" to help them understand and use foreign borrowings.
Dictionaries of hard words were gradually replaced by dictionaries giving information on
current usage. The first attempt at a dictionary including all the words of the language, not only
hard ones, was made by Nathaniel Bailey, who published the first edition of his Universal
Etymological English Dictionary (1721), a one-volume reference dictionary of some 40.000
entries that was strong on bookish and technical vocabulary, weak in definition and semantic
covering, up-to-date in spelling and provided the accepted etymologies of its day. It was the
standard dictionary of the 18th с The 28th and last edition was in 1800. Nathaniel Bailey was the
first to give information on the pronunciation and etymology of English words.
It was a very important stage in the history of British Lexicography because in 1755 Dr
Samuel Johnson's famous dictionary appeared. It differs from the works of his predecessors in
both scale and intention. Dr Johnson sought to encapsulate the "best" usage of his day, and did this
on the basis of over 100.000 quotations from the best authrs in the 16th с to his own time. In
definitions and the internal arrangement of entries, Johnson also went beyond his rivals. By
arranging the senses chronologically, Johnson enabled his readers to follow the
evolution of each word and provided the foundation for the historical lexicography of the 19 c.
Johnson gave little attention to collocation, idiom, and grammatical information, although he
provided a brief grammar at the front. In cases of divided or uncertain usage he provided a
prescriptive comment, e.g. "a proper word".
His dictionary enjoyed unique authority among successive generations of users in the matter of
word choice and word usage. In spelling it represents a strongly conservative tradition, compared
with which Bailey was progressive. Pronouncing dictionaries became established in the latter half
of the 18th c, of which John Walker's "Critical Pronouncing Dictionary of the English Language"
(1791) was the foremost. The Walker pronunciations were effectively married with Johnson's
Dictionary in many of the abridged versions of Johnson's Dictionary, which lasted well into
the 19th с.
VI
latter half of contributed to dictionary making (1) the development of encyclopedic dictionaries and
the 19th с - specialized dictionaries (such as of dialect and technical words), (2) recording of word-history
the 1970's
through dated quotations. The 19th с saw many largescale dictionary projects, produced by teams
of compilers. In 1858 the English Philological Society started work on compiling the Oxford
English Dictionary on Historical Principle. It was first published in 1928. This excellent dictionary
covers the English vocabulary with a completeness unrivalled in linguistic history. The second
edition of the OED was published in 1989, in 20 volumes. The Concise Oxford Dictionary and the
Shorter OED are its variants.
The 20th с saw the development of Lexicography as a scholarly subject, largely under the
influence of Linguistics, and promoted especially by the growth of academic societies, such as the
Dictionary Society of North America (1975), and the European Association for Lexicography
(1983).
13.5. Since the 1970s, the flow of dictionaries has been unabated, as publishers try to meet the needs of an increasingly
language-conscious age. New editions and supplements to the well-known dictionaries have appeared and several publishers
have launched new general series (e.g.Longman). Reader's Digest .produced its great Illustrated Dictionary in 1984, the first
full-colour English dictionary, in the encyclopedic tradition. Prominent also have been the dictionaries for special purposes
(foreign language teaching, linguistics, medicine, chemistry, etc.). For the first time, spoken vocabulary has begun to find its
way into dictionaries.
The 1980s will one day be seen as a watershed in lexicography - the decade in which computer applications began to alter
radically the methods and the potential of lexicography: the future is on disc, in the form of vast lexical databases,
continuously updated, that can generate a dictionary of a given size and scope in a fraction of the time it used to take. Special
programs have become available enabling people to ask the dictionary special questions (e.g. "find all words ending in -esse").
Access to large machine-dictionaries is becoming routine in offices and homes.
Classification of Dictionaries
Dictionaries are classified
according to:
1 subject matter
2 language of explanation
into:
encyclopedic - linguistic
monolingual - bilingual - polylingual
3 type of explanation
4 nature of word-list
explanatory - translation - demonstrative
general - restricted
5 range of data about the word
6 type of information given
general - specialized
specialized: combinatory, slang,
etymological, pronouncing, etc.
synchronic (descriptive) - diachronic
(historical)
general - specialist - learner's (beginner advanced, native - foreign, etc.)
comprehensive (unabridged) -short
(abridged) or concise: single-volume "desk"
and "family" dictionaries, collegiate, school,
pocket, mini and micro dictionaries
hand-made - computer-based
paper - electronic
7 time axis
8 the prospective user
9 size
10 the compiler's technique
11 form
Dictionary Information
Dictionaries generally give some or all of the following types of information:
l)Headword and any variants, sometimes with syllabication marked and homograph status indicated.
2)Pronunciation in a system of respelling or phonetic symbols.
3)Grammatical information and usage labels (often in the form of abbreviations or codes).
4)Number of senses as necessary.
5)Explanations proper.
6)Illustrative phrases or sentences.
7)Compounds, derivatives, phrasal verbs and idioms.
8)Etymology.
9)Points of usage.
10)Synonyms and antonyms.
Dictionaries are often characterized by the type of information on which they concentrate, e.g. The Oxford Dictionary of
English Etymology (1966).