Polysemantic words and their definitions

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Polysemantic words and their definitions

Polysemy is a wonderful treasure and perpetual value of every spoken language. Like a mirror, it reflects the history of the people, and views all the events that have ever happened in this world. Polysemy (plurality of meanings) shows how interesting the development of the world can be, how many new types of technique appear, and how one word can mean many different things. All the powers of the language are concentrated in polysemy which expresses not only feelings, but also personal attitude towards something, personal problems and worldview. Surely, every person may ask the following questions, «How do people understand each other? What does polysemy presuppose? What problems does it resolve? When we analyze the word meaning, we can observe that words, as a rule, are not the units of a single meaning.

Let us take the word «money» that is well known to everyone. Thus, the word «money» has such meanings in the English language, as:

1) what one earns by working or selling things;

2) coin or paper notes;

3) a person's wealth including their property;

4) a particular sum of money.

B.A. Plotnikov claims that polysemy, or significance of the units of language, is the universal phenomenon (appearance), inherent to all national, natural languages. The essence of polysemy consists in the fact that several related meanings are associated with the same group of sounds within one part of speech. Thus, polysemantic words denote a whole set of related concepts, grouped according to the national peculiarities of a given language.

For example, the word «model» means:

1) a copy of something usually smaller than the original;

2) a particular design or type of product;

3) a simple description of a system, used for explaining how something works, or calculating what might happen;

4) a system that can be copied by other people;

5) a person or thing that is considered to be an excellent example of something.

A. Stoichtanu mentions that polysemy is stipulated by the remoteness and the frequency of the according dictionaries. Polysemy characterizes the main lexical fund (in proportion of 80-85%). One of the most important characteristics of polysemy is the presence of significance of a particular word, proving that between the word and the subject, which is meant by this word, there is no original connection otherwise we should not call one and the same sound complex different subjects. Thus, all the languages of the world should be lexically identical, because every word reflects the subject and its natural qualities in its semantic structure. So, if polysemy is a condition of one word which has the possibility to increase more aspects of the same referent, thus, we can say that polysemantic words are those that have more than one meaning.

E.M. Mednicova in her works asserts that polysemantic word is the presence of several meanings in one word, connected with each other that are used to mark different subjects, occurrences, processes, and, consequently, are used in different meanings, or combinations of words. R.S. Ginzburg is of the same opinion. He mentions that the bulk of the English vocabulary is polysemantic, that is to say, possesses more than one meaning. The actual number of meanings of the commonly used words ranges from 5 to about 100.

In fact, the commoner the word is, the more meanings it has. Such linguists as I.V. Arnold, I. Coteanu, B. Vranceanu, B.I. Evseev regard polysemy as the quality of signs of the national languages through which they are distinguished from the artificial code, constructed on principal «one sign one meaning», so that the word that has more than one meaning in the language is called polysemantic. Thus, polysemy is the characteristic feature of the majority of words in many languages, however different they may be. It is the quality of one word to have more than one meaning irrespective of the context; a semantic property of a word which appeared in the practical social life to be called polysemy, and the word that continuously increases its semantic sphere and possesses new meanings to be called a polysemantic one. It is the possibility to increase more aspects of the same referent. The meanings of a polysemantic word are interconnected. Such scholars, as L. Lazarescu, F.R. Palmer, E.M. Galkina-Fedoruk, consider polysemy to be the junction, possibility, case of many meanings in the identically marked (significant) phenomena.

They pay attention at the fact that polysemy occurs in such cases when a word possesses a set of different meanings. Thus, a dictionary defines the word «flight» in the following ways:

1) passing through the air;

2) power of flying;

3) air journey;

4) volley;

5) digression;

6) series of steps.

So we can see that a word that acquires more than one meaning can be called polysemantic. Though there is no common opinion of what to treat as polysemy, and the opinions of the linguists, who call polysemy case, quality, possibility, junction, condition, characteristic, presence, differ in their root point, the essence of the term includes the same meaning. We understand polysemy as a possibility of one word to have more than one meaning, thus, a polysemantic word is a word that possesses more than one meaning. There are no debatable points here, and we agree with the opinions of linguists that different meanings of polysemantic words may come together due to the proximity of notion which they express.

When analysing the semantic structure of the word, we observe that words, as a rule, are not the units of single meaning. Monosemantic words, i.e. words having only one meaning, are comparatively few in number. They are mainly scientific terms, such as hydrogen, molecule, and the like, vulgarisms, and foreign words. The bulk of English words are polysemantic, that is to say, they possess more than one meaning. The actual number of meanings of the commonly used words ranges from five to about a hundred. In fact, the commoner the word is, the more meanings it has.

A bit different approach was applied by the authors of the reference book «The English Language», K.A. Guzeeva and T.G. Troshko. They consider that each word in any language has its concrete meaning, which coincides with the definite object or phenomenon. For example, one and the same object is defined in Russian by the word «стол», while in English - by the word «table», one and the same action - by the verbs «прыгать» and «jump», and so on. However, the majority of words have several meanings. Consequently, one word can name different objects, features, actions, etc. The authors emphasise that «the more often a word is used the more meanings it can have». They give another sort of figures - the scolars have counted that one thousand of the most generally used words of the English language has the general number of meanings equal to 25 thousand, i.e. the average number of meanings for each of these words is 25. Only the verb «set» has 126 registered meanings.

These are the most general definitions, which can give us a notion of the phenomenon of polysemy. The common point in these opinions is the frequency of use of a word that makes it polysemantic. It would be logical to make a supposition that all other linguists take into consideration this fact, though their opinions differ from the point of view of relatedness of meanings in the word structure, and all other ambiguities that cause the opposition of relatedness vs. unrelatedness. R.S. Ginzburg is of the same view-point when states that «in polysemantic words, however, we are confronted not with the problem of the analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of one and the same word».

Analysing different works on the topic, we have come to a conclusion that there is no unanimity of approaches to the problem of polysemy. Moreover, some linguists take into consideration several factors, while others consider the single factor to be a true one. That is why we shall try to group their opinions according to the aspects taken by the linguists as the core ones in their theories of polysemy. First, it is necessary to introduce some essential general notions dealing with the structure of polysemantic words.

While analysing this phenomenon of the language, it is necessary to take into account that there exists one notion that is of great importance for understanding the whole matter. Meaning is the basic word in the definitions used by the linguists. It is essential to clarify what type of meaning is being understood under this term. That is why a set of definitions is given.

One of the most important problems of polysemy is the difficulty in distinguishing it from homonymy. Investigators of languages offered many methods and ways of determining relations of meanings to hold strictly limit from homonymy to polysemy (from denotation correlations and historical connection of the language units to the utilization of intralinguistic evidence transformation and others). In our work we will try to distinguish homonymy and polysemy, showing different opinions, and analyzing works of E.M. Galkina-Fedoruk, R.S. Ginzburg, A.I. Smirnitsky, and others. Polysemy and homonymy are studied and investigated mostly detailed on lexical material, but here linguists do not have the same opinion concerning the fact, what in language should be called and considered homonymous, exactly, different words with the same external form, and what should we call a polysemantic word.

Some linguists, such as A. Lehrer, practically negate the existence of polysemy in the language, considering that any new grammatical word form, and also the less change in the meaning of the word makes it another one; others, like F.R. Palmer, on the contrary, consolidating in one word different lexical units with the same pronunciation, or the same writing, identically of what maintenance this unit expresses, in fact, negate the existence of homonymy in language.

Some dictionaries, composed by different authors, were marked by the lack of coordination in distinction of homonymous and polysemantic words, thus, one linguist considered some words to be homonymous and placed them in different vocabulary articles, while other, on the contrary, sticked to polysemantic words, and placed them in another vocabulary article. Mainly, there are two ways of understanding polysemy and homonymy. Such linguists as E. Hatch, and I.R. Galperin consider polysemy to be the source of the rise of homonymy, appearing in result of growing weak in its meaningful relationship, on the base of which a new additional meaning appears. E. Hatch claims that polysemy and homonymy are of special interest, and only the context can determine where polysemy or homonymy is. He believes that polysemy or homonymy may occur in one of the dialects, or can be used only by a specific group of people.

R.O. Yakobson asserts that in polysemy and homonymy there is some invariant that links even some separate entries. I.R. Galperin in his «Stylistics» proposes another idea, and asserts that a polysemantic word breaks its semantic ties with the head word and becomes a homonym for the word it is derived from. M.G. Arsenieva offers two opinions and two ways for distinguishing polysemy and homonymy. According to the first point of view, homonyms are considered to be the words that have different forms from the moment of the appearing of a word, and only during the process of its developing coincide one with another in the same shape.

All other cases, when the same phonetical cover has different maintenance, are considered to be the appearance of a polysemantic word, for example, «stock» - «a part of a gun»; «a share»; «line of ancestry». According to the second opinion, homonyms correspond to the words, historically different, but that coincide in their sound form when different significations of the word are diverged with their material cover that unites them, breaks the meaning and gives new life to the new words. R.A. Budagov claims that «there are two different things in the vocabulary of the language which have no common features, namely, polysemy and homonymy». Other linguists consider that polysemy and homonymy coexist, and are deeply connected with each other. O.N. Seliverstova shows debatable points in the opinions of some linguists that differentiate between lexical polysemy, that fulfills a specific function of forming new words, and homonymy that does not fulfill such function, though has some common features with polysemy. E.M. Galkina-Fedoruk offers an interesting point of view, regarding polysemy as the result of disintegration of a polysemantic word. However, in this case it is quite difficult to distinguish polysemy from homonymy.

R.S. Ginsburg mentions that words, identical in their sound form, but different in meaning, are traditionally termed homonyms, and tries to show the difference between various meanings of one word, and the meaning of two homonymous words. The transition from polysemy to homonymy is a gradual process, and it is hardly possible to point out the precise stage at which divergent semantic development tears asunder all ties between the meanings, and results in the appearance of two separate words. Synchronically, the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy, as a rule, is wholly based on the semantic criterion. It is usually held that if a connection between various meanings is apprehended by the speaker, it is to be considered as making up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a case of homonymy, and not polysemy.

Thus, the semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is, actually, reduced to the differentiation of related and unrelated meanings. This traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable, first, because various meanings of the same word and the meanings of two or more different words may be equally apprehended by the speaker as synchronically unrelated. The meaning may be apprehended as related, and then we can speak about polysemy, pointing out that the difference in morphological structure of the plural form reflects the difference in meaning. Otherwise we may regard this as a case of partial lexical homonymy. It is observed that different meanings of one word may have certain stable relationships which are not to be found between the meanings of two homonymous words. A clearly perceptible connection can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one word, for example, foot of a man - foot of a mountain, loud voice - loud colour, deep well - deep knowledge, etc. Such semantic relationships are commonly found in the meanings of one word, and are considered to be indicators of polysemy. Similar relationships, however, are observed between the meanings of two partially homonymic words, for example, «to run» and «a run in the stockings».

Moreover, when analysing a polysemantic word on the synchronic level, we often find the meanings that can not be related in any way, as in the example with the meaning of the word that was discussed above. Thus, the semantic criterion proves to be untenable in theory, and because of that impossible in practice, as, in many cases, it can not be used to discriminate between several meanings of one word, and the meanings of two different words. Ginsburg differentiates between the two sources of homonymy:

1) divergent meaning development of a polysemantic word;

2) convergent sound development of two or more different words.

Polysemy may also arise from homonymy. When two words become identical in sound form, the meanings of the two words are felt as making up one semantic structure. Thus, the human «ear» and «ear» of corn are two homonymous words on the diachronic level. One is etymologically derived from Latin «auris», in other languages «acus», «aceris». Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word.

These cases, probably, illustrate the vagueness of the border-line between polysemy and homonymy. E.M. Galkina-Fedoruk in her works offers one way of distinguishing polysemy, rather then homonymy. If we want to know where the case of polysemy is, we should give some synonyms to the word, identical in sound. If synonyms that were chosen are not in synonymic relations with each other, than we have an example of homonymy.

Homonyms may also enter into antonymic relations, thus forming a set of antonyms. For instance, the word «fair» may be used with 1) hair; 2) weather; 3) sky; 4) skin; 5) tactle. The obvious antonyms seem to be l) dark; 2) cloudy; 3) foul. It can be seen that «fair» with «hair» and «fair» with «skin» have the same antonym - «dark», and so do «fair» with «weather» and «fair» with «tackle-foul». We might be tempted to say that where the antonyms are the same, we have polysemy, and that difference of antonyms implies homonymy.

The second way of attempting to establish polysemy rather than homonymy is to look for a central meaning, or a core meaning. It is obvious enough why «key» is used not only for «key» of the door, but also for a translation or a keystone (one «unlocks», the other «locks»). In any case, it is by no means easy to find out why it is used for the keys of a piano, and not at all clear that this is an example of polysemy. If we looked at this problem on the historical axis, we would see how the problem had arisen. A word changes its meaning in quite a surprising way. Thus, «arrive» is derived from Latin «ripa a shore», and originally meant «reach shore», while «rival» comes from Latin «revues a steam». As we can see, in general, it is difficult to decide whether there is any central, or core meaning; consequently, there is no common opinion about homonymy and polysemy.

Analyzing different opinions, we have understood that, on the one hand, we find polysemy, and, on the other hand, we encounter the cases of homonymy. The question is how to differentiate between polysemy and homonymy? In our opinion, (after a hard work of attempting to draw a line between the conceptions of polysemy and homonymy) in case when words which sound the same retain a remote, but still the same meaning, and are united by the same shape meaning, we have an example of polysemy. When two different words sound the same, but have no relationship in meaning, homonymy appears. Homonyms are the result of disintegration, or split of polysemy, and represent the case when two words sound the same way, but have nothing in common, in spite of the same spelling. For example, «subject» in the meaning of «theme», and in the meaning of «subjugation» are simple homonyms, accidentally having the same phonetical form that have two different sources, which signify two different objects, and have two different meanings.

polysemy language semantic word

Размещено на Allbest.ru