Exercises in lexicology

The emotional overtone as part of the word's communicative value deserves special attention. Different approaches have been developing in contemporarylinguistics.

The emotional and evaluative meaning of the word may be part of the denotational meaning. For example hireling `a person who offers his services for payment and does not care about the type of work' has a strong derogatory and even scornful connotation, especially when the name is applied to hired soldiers. There is a considerable degree of fuzziness about the boundaries between the denotational and connotational meanings.

The third type of semantic segmentation mentioned on p. 39 was the segmentation of the denotational meaning into semantic components. The componential analysis is a very important method of linguistic investigation and has attracted a great deal of attention. It is usually illustrated by some simple example such the words man, woman, boy, girl, all belonging to the semantic field "the human race" and differing in the characteristics of age and sex. Using the symbols HUMAN, ADULT, MALE and marking them positively and negatively so that -ADULT means 'young' and -MALE means 'female', we may write the following componential definitions:

man:	+ HUMAN	+ ADULT	+ MALE
woman:	+ HUMAN	+ ADULT	-- MALE
boy:	+ HUMAN	-- ADULT	+ MALE
girl:	+ HUMAN	-- ADULT	-- MALE

One further point should be made: HUMAN, ADULT, MALE inthis analysis are not words of English or any other language: they are elements of meaning, or semeswhich can be combined in various ways with other similar elements in the meaning of different words.Nevertheless a linguist, as it has already been mentioned, cannot study any meaning devoid of form, therefore these semes are mostly determined with the help of dictionary definitions.

To conclude this rough model of semantic complexities we come to the fourth point, that of polysemy.

Polysemy is inherent in the very nature of words and concepts as every object and every notion has many features and a concept reflected in a word always contains a generalization of several traits of the object. Some of these traits or components of meaning are common with other objects. Hence the possibility of using the same name in secondary nomination for objects possessing common features which are sometimes only implied in the original meaning. A word when acquiring new meaning or meanings may also retain, and most often retains the previous meaning.

E. g. birth -- 1) the act or time of being born, 2) an origin or beginning, 3) descent, family.

If the communicative value of a word contains latent possibilities realized not in this particular variant but able to create new derived meanings or words we call that implicational. The word bomb,for example, implies great power, hence the new colloquial meanings 'great success' and 'great failure', the latter being an American slang expression.

The different variants of a polysemantic word form a semantic whole due to the proximity of the referents they name and the notions they express. The formation of new meanings is often based on the potential or implicational meaning.The transitive verb drive, for instance, means `to force to move before one' and hence, more generally, 'to cause an animal, a person or a thing work or move in some direction', and more specifically 'to direct a course of a vehicle or the animal which draws it, or a railway train, etc.', hence 'to convey in a vehicle' and the intransitive verb: 'to go in a vehicle'. There are also many other variants but we shall mention only one more, namely -- the figurative -- 'to mean', as in: "What can he be driving at?" (Foote)

All these different meanings can be explained one with the help of one of the others.

The typical patterns according to which different meanings are united in one polysemantic word often depend upon grammatical meanings and grammatical categories characteristic of the part of speech to which they belong.

Depending upon the part of speech to which the word belongs all its possible meanings become connected with a definite group of grammatical meanings, and the latter influence the semantic structure of the word so much that every part of speech possesses semantic peculiarities of its own.

A good deal of work being published by linguists at present and dealing with semantics has to do with componential analysis. To illustrate what is meant by this we have taken a simple example used for this purpose by many linguists. Consider the following set of words: man, woman, boy, girl, bull, cow. We can arrange them as correlations of binary oppositions man : : woman = boy : : girl = bull : : cow. The meanings of words man, boy, bull on the one hand, and woman,girl and cow, on the other, have something in common. This distinctive feature we call a semantic component or seme. In this case the semantic distinctive feature is that of sex -- male or female. Another possible correlation is man : : boy = woman : : girl. The distinctive feature is that of age -- adult or non-adult. If we compare this with a third correlation man : : bull = woman : : cow, we obtain a third distinctive feature contrasting human and animal beings. In addition to the notation given on p. 41, the componential formula may be also shown by brackets. The meaning of man can be described as (male (adult (human being))), woman as (female (adult (human being))), girl as (female (non-adult (human being))), etc.

Componential analysis is thus an attempt to describe the meaning of words in terms of a universal inventory of semantic components and their possible combinations.

Componential approach to meaning has a long history in linguistics.L. Hjelmslev's commutation test deals with similar relationships and may be illustrated by proportions from which the distinctive features d1, d2, d3 are obtained by means of the following procedure:

As the first relationship is that of male to female, the second, of young to adult, and the third, human to animal, the meaning 'boy' may be characterized with respect to the distinctive features d1, d2, d3 as containing the semantic elements 'male', 'young', and 'human'. The existence of correlated oppositions proves that these elements are recognized by the vocabulary.

In criticizing this approach, the English linguist Prof. W. Haasargues that the commutation test looks very plausible if one has carefully selected examples from words entering into clear-cut semantic groups, such as terms of kinship or words denoting colours. It is less satisfactory in other cases, as there is no linguistic framework by which the semantic contrasts can be limited. The commutation test, however, borrows its restrictions from philosophy.

A form of componential analysis describing semantic components in terms of categories represented as a hierarchial structure so that each subsequent category is a sub-category of the previous one is described by R. S. Ginzburg. She follows the theory of the American linguists J. Katz and J. Fodor involving the analysis of dictionary meanings into semantic markers and distinguishers but redefines it in a clear-cut way. The markers refer to features which the word has in common with other lexical items, whereas a distinguisher, as the term implies, differentiates it from all other words.

We borrow from R. S. Ginzburg her analysis of the word spinster. It runs as follows: spinster -- noun, count noun, human, adult, female, who has never married. Parts of speech are the most inclusive categories pointing to major classes. So we shall call this component class seme (a term used by French semasiologists). As the grammatical function is predominant when we classify a word as a count noun it seems more logical to take this feature as a subdivision of a class seme.It may, on the other hand, be taken as a marker because it represents a sub-class within nouns, marks all nouns that can be counted, and differentiates them from all uncountable nouns. Human is the next marker which refers the word spinster to a sub-category of nouns denoting human beings (man, woman, etc. vs table, flower, etc.). Adult is another marker pointing at a specific subdivision of living beings into adult and not grown-up (man, woman vs boy, girl). Female is also a marker (woman, widow vs man, widower), it represents a whole class of adult human females. 'Who has never married' -- is not a marker but a distinguisher, it differentiates the word spinster from other words which have other features in common (spinster vs widow, bride, etc.).

The analysis shows that the dimensions of meaning may be regarded as semantic oppositions because the word's meaning is reduced to its contrastive elements. The segmentation is continued as far as we can have markers needed for a group of words, and stops when a unique feature is reached.

A very close resemblance to componential analysis is the method of logical definition by dividing a genus into species and species into subspecies indispensable to dictionary definitions. It is therefore but natural that lexicographic definitions lend themselves as suitable material for the analysis of lexical groups in terms of a finite set of semantic components. Consider the following definitions given in Hornby's dictionary:

cow -- a full grown female of any animal of the ox family

calf -- the young of the cow

The first definition contains all the elements we have previously obtained from proportional oppositions. The second is incomplete but we can substitute the missing elements from the previous definition. We can, consequently, agree with J. N. Karaulov and regard as semantic components (or semes) the notional words of the right hand side of a dictionary entry.

It is possible to describe parts of the vocabulary by formalizing these definitions and reducing them to some standard form according to a set of rules. The explanatory transformations thus obtained constitute an intersection of transformational and componential analysis. The result of this procedure applied to collective personal nouns may be illustrated by the following.

e. g. team> a group of people acting together in a game, piece of work, etc.

Procedures briefly outlined above proved to be very efficient for certain problems and find an ever-widening application, providing us with a deeper insight into some aspects of language.

Questions:

What are the two main components of lexical meaning?

What kinds of denotational meaning are there?

What does connotational meaning convey?

How can we segment denotational meaning?

What is implicational meaning?

What is componential analysis?

Give example of commutation test.

Give example of analysis using markers and distinguishers.

Give example of analysis using method of logical definition.

Give example of explanatory transformations.

Aspects of Lexical Meaning

I.V. Zykova, A Practical Course in English Lexicology, 4. Aspects of Lexical Meaning [pp. 18-20]

In the general framework of lexical meaning several aspects can be singled out. They are:

the denotational aspect;

the connotational aspect;

the pragmatic aspect.

The denotational aspect of lexical meaning is the part of lexical meaning which establishes correlation between the name and the object, phenomenon, process or characteristic feature of concrete reality (or thought as such), which is denoted by the given word. The term 'denotational' is derived from the English word to denote which means 'be a sign of, indicate, stand as a name or symbol for'. For example,the denotational meaning of booklet is 'a small thin book that gives information about something'. It is through the denotational aspect of meaning that the bulk of information is conveyed in the process of communication. The denotational aspect of lexical meaning expresses the notional content of a word.

The connotational aspect of lexical meaning is the part of meaning which reflects the attitude of the speaker towards what he speaks about. Connotation conveys additional information in the process of communication. Connotation includes:

the emotive charge, e.g. daddy as compared to father,

evaluation, which may be positive or negative, e. g. clique (a small group of people who seem unfriendly to other people) as compared to group (a set of people);

intensity (or expressiveness), e.g. adore as compared to love;

imagery, e.g. to wade -- to walk with an effort (through mud, water or anything that makes progress difficult). The figurative use of the word gives rise to another meaning which is based on the same image as the first -- to wade through a book.

The pragmatic aspect of lexical meaning is the part of meaning, that conveys information on the situation of communication. Like the connotational aspect, the pragmatic aspect falls into four closely linked together subsections:

information on the "time and space" relationship of the participants. Some information which specifies different parameters of communication may be conveyed not only with the help of grammatical means (tense forms, personal pronouns, etc.), but through the meaning of the word. For instance, the words come and go can indicate the location of the Speaker who is usually taken as the zero point in the description of the situation of communication.

The time element when related through the pragmatic aspect of meaning is fixed indirectly. Indirect reference to time implies that the frequency of occurrence of words may change with time and in extreme cases words may be out of use or become obsolete. Thus, the word behold -- 'take notice, see (esp. something unusual or striking)' as well as the noun beholder -- 'spectator' are out of use now but were widely used in the 17th century;

information on the participants and the given language community. To illustrate this type of pragmatic information in the word meaning one can cite an example analysed by G.Leech in "Semantics". Discussing two sentences

(1) They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a bunk with the loot. (2) After casting a stone at the police, they absconded with the money,

G.Leech points out that sentence (1) could be said by two criminals, talking casually about the crime afterwards; sentence (2) might be said by the chief inspector in making his official report. Thus, the languageused may be indicative of the social status of a person, his education, profession or occupation, etc. The pragmatic aspect of the word may also convey information about the social system of the given language community, its ideology, religion, system of norms and customs;

information on the tenor of discourse. The tenors of discourse reflect how the addresser (the speaker or the writer) interacts with the addressee (the listener or the reader). Tenors are based on social or family roles of the participants of communication. A mother will talk in a different way (a) with her small child and (b) about her children. There may be a situation of a stranger talking to a stranger, or two friends discussing matters of interest, or a teacher talking to a student, or a student interviewed by the dean, etc.;

information on the register of communication. The conditions of communication form another important group of factors. The register defines the general type of the situation of communication grading the situations in formality (variations ranging from extreme degrees of formality through norm to extreme non-formality). Three main types of the situations of communication are usually singled out: formal, neutral and informal. Practically every word in the language is register- oriented. Thus, the pragmatic aspect of meaning refers words like cordial, fraternal, anticipate, aid, sanguinary, celestial to the formal register while units like cut it out, to be kidding, hi, stuff are to be used in the informal register.

Questions:

What are the three aspects of lexical meaning?

Give example of denotational aspect.

What is connotational aspect? What are its elements? Give examples.

What is pragmatic aspect? What are its elements? Give examples

Word-Meaning and Motivation

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §2.3. Phonetic, Morphological and Semantic Motivation of Words [pp. 33-36]

The term motivation is used to denote the relationship existing between the phonemic or morphemic composition and structural pattern of the word on the one hand, and its meaning on the other. There are three main types of motivation: phonetical motivation, morphological motivation, and semantic motivation.

When there is a certain similarity between the sounds that make lip the word and those referred to by the sense, the motivation is phonetical. Examples are: bang, buzz, cuckoo, giggle, gurgle, hiss, purr, whistle, etc. Here the sounds of a word are imitative of sounds in nature because what is referred to is a sound or at least, produces a characteristicsound (cuckoo). Although there exists a certain arbitrary element in the resulting phonemic shape of the word, one can see that this type of motivation is determined by the phonological system of each language as shown by the difference of echo-words for the same concept in different languages. St. Ullmann stresses that phonetic motivation is not a perfect replica of any acoustic structure but only a rough approximation. This accounts for the variability of echo-words within one language and between different languages. Cf. cuckoo (Engl), Kuckuck (Germ), кукушка (Russ). Within the English vocabulary there are different words, all sound imitative, meaning 'quick, foolish, indistinct talk': babble, chatter, gabble, prattle. In this last group echoic creations combine phonological and morphological motivation because they contain verbal suffixes -le and -er forming frequentative verbs. We see therefore that one word may combine different types of motivation.

Words denoting noises produced by animals are mostly sound imitative. In English they are motivated only phonetically so that nouns and verbs are exactly the same. In Russian the motivation combines phonetical and morphological motivation. The Russian wordsблеятьv andблеяние n are equally represented in English by bleat. Cf. also: purr (of a cat), moo (of a cow), crow (of a cock), bark (of a dog), neigh (of a horse) and their Russian equivalents.

The morphological motivation may be quite regular. Thus, the prefix ex- means 'former' when added to human nouns: ex-filmstar, ex-president, ex-wife. Alongside with these cases there is a more general use of ex-: in borrowed words it is unstressed and motivation is faded (expect, export, etc.).

The derived word re-think is motivated inasmuch as its morphological structure suggests the idea of thinking again. Re- is one of the most common prefixes of the English language, it means 'again' and 'back' and is added to verbal stems or abstract deverbal noun stems, as in rebuild, reclaim, resell, resettlement. Here again these newer formations should be compared with older borrowings from Latin and French where re-is now unstressed, and the motivation faded. Compare re-cover 'cover again' and recover 'get better'. In short: morphological motivation is especially obvious in newly coined words, or at least words created in the present century. C f. detainee, manoeuvrable, prefabricated, racialist, self-propelling, vitaminize, etc. In older words, root words and morphemes motivation is established etymologically, if at all.

From the examples given above it is clear that motivation is the way in which a given meaning is represented in the word. It reflects the type of nomination process chosen by the creator of the new word. Some scholars of the past used to call the phenomenon the inner word form.

In deciding whether a word of long standing in the language is morphologically motivated according to present-day patterns or not, one should be very careful. Similarity in sound form does not always correspond to similarity in morphological pattern. Agential suffix -er is affixable to any verb, so that V+-ermeans 'one who V-s' or 'something that V-s': writer, receiver, bomber, rocker, knocker. Yet, although the verb numb exists in English, number is not 'one who numbs' but is derived from OFr nombre borrowed into English and completely assimilated.

The cases of regular morphological motivation outnumber irregularities, and yet one must remember the principle of "fuzzy sets" in coming across the word smoker with its variants: 'one who smokes tobacco' and 'a railway car in which passengers may smoke'.

Many writers nowadays instead of the term morphological motivation, or parallel to it, introduce the term word-building meaning. In what follows the term will be avoided because actually it is not meaning that is dealt with in this concept, but the form of presentation.

The third type of motivation is called semantic motivation. It is based on the co-existence of direct and figurative meanings of the same word within the same synchronous system. Mouth continues to denote a part of the human face, and at the same time it can metaphorically apply to any opening or outlet: themouth of a river, of a cave, of a furnace. Jacket is a short coat and also a protective cover for a book, a phonograph record or an electric wire. Ermine is not only the name of a small animal, but also of its fur, and the office and rank of an English judge because in England ermine was worn by judges in court. In their direct meaning neither mouth nor ermine is motivated.

As to compounds, their motivation is morphological if the meaning of the whole is based on the direct meaning of the components, and semantic if the combination of components is used figuratively. Thus, eyewash `a lotion for the eyes' or headache 'pain in the head', or watchdog `a dog kept for watching property' are all morphologically motivated. If, on the other hand, they are used metaphorically as 'something said or deceive a person so that he thinks that what he sees is good, though in fact it is not', 'anything or anyone very annoying' and 'a watchful human guardian', respectively, then the motivation is semantic. Compare also heart-breaking, time-server, lick-spittle, sky-jack v.

An interesting example of complex morpho-semantic motivation passing through several stages in its history is the word teenager 'a person in his or her teens'. The motivation may be historically traced as follows: the inflected form of the numeral ten produced the suffix -teen. The suffix later produces a stem with a metonymical meaning (semantic motivation), receives the plural ending -s, and then produces a new noun teens 'the years of a person's life of which the numbers end in -teen, namely from 13 In 19'. In combination with age or aged the adjectives teen-age and teen-aged are coined, as in teen-age boy, teen-age fashions. A morphologically motivated noun teenager is then formed with the help of the suffix -er which is often added to compounds or noun phrases producing personal names according to the pattern 'one connected with…'

The pattern is frequent enough. One must keep in mind, however, that not all words with a similar morphemic composition will have the same derivational history and denote human beings. E. g. first-nighter and honeymooner are personal nouns, but two-seater is 'a car or an aeroplane seating two persons', back-hander is 'a back-hand stroke in tennis' and three-decker 'a sandwich made of three pieces of bread with two layers of filling'.

When the connection between the meaning of the word and its form is conventional that is there is no perceptible reason for the word having this particular phonemic and morphemic composition, the word is said to be non-motivated for the present stage of language development.

Every vocabulary is in a state of constant development. Words that seem non-motivated at present may have lost their motivation. The verb earn does not suggest at present any necessary connection with agriculture. The connection of form and meaning seems purely conventional. Historical analysis shows, however, that it is derived from OE (?e-)earnian 'to harvest'. In Modern English this connection no longer exists and earn is now a non-motivated word. Complex morphological structures tend to unite and become indivisible units, as St. Ullmanndemonstrates tracing the history of not which is a reduced form ofnoughtfrom OE nowiht<no-wiht 'nothing'.

When some people recognize the motivation, whereas others do not, motivation is said to be faded.

Sometimes in an attempt to find motivation for a borrowed word the speakers change its form so as to give it a connection with some well-known word. These cases of mistaken motivation received the name of folk etymology. The phenomenon is not very frequent. Two examples will suffice: A nightmare is not 'a she-horse that appears at night' but 'a terrifying dream personified in folklore as a female monster'. (OE mara 'an evil spirit'.) The international radio-telephone signal may-day corresponding to the telegraphic SOS used by aeroplanes and ships in distress has nothing to do with the First of May but is a phonetic rendering of French m'aidez 'help me'.

Some linguists consider one more type of motivation closely akin to the imitative forms, namely sound symbolism. Some words are supposed to illustrate the meaning more immediately than do ordinary words. As the same combinations of sounds are used in many semantically similar words, they become more closely associated with the meaning. Examples are: flap, flip, flop, flitter, flimmer, flicker, flutter, flash, flush, flare; glare, glitter, glow, gloat, glimmer; sleet, slime, slush, where fl- is associated with quick movement, gl- with light and fire, sl- with mud.

This sound symbolism phenomenon is not studied enough so far, so that it is difficult to say to what extent it is valid. There are, for example, many English words, containing the initial fl- but not associated with quick or any other movement: flat, floor, flour, flower. There is also nothing muddy in the referents of sleep or slender.

To sum up this discussion of motivation: there are processes in the vocabulary that compel us to modify the Saussurian principle according to which linguistic units are independent of the substance in which they are realized and their associations is a matter of arbitrary convention. It is already not true for phonetic motivation and only partly true for all other types. In the process of vocabulary development, and we witness everyday its intensity, a speaker of a language creates new words and is understood because the vocabulary system possesses established associations of form and meaning.

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §17. Morphological Motivation, §18. Phonetical Motivation, §19. Semantic Motivation [pp. 25-27]

[…] there are cases when we can observe a direct connection between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning. This relationship between morphemic structure and meaning is termed morphological motivation.

The main criterion in morphological motivation is the relationship between morphemes. Hence all one-morpheme words, e.g. sing, tell, eat, are by definition non-motivated. In words composed of more than one morpheme the carrier of the word-meaning is the combined meaning of the component morphemes and the meaning of the structural pattern of the word. This can be illustrated by the semantic analysis of different words composed of phonemically identical morphemes with identical lexical meaning. The words finger-ring and ring-finger, e.g., contain two morphemes, the combined lexical meaning of which is the same; the difference in the meaning of these words can be accounted for by the difference in the arrangement of the component morphemes.

If we can observe a direct connection between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning, we say that this word is motivated. Consequently words such as singer, rewrite, eatable, etc., are described as motivated. If the connection between the structure of the lexical unit and its meaning is completely arbitrary and conventional, we speak of non-motivated or idiomatic words, e.g. matter, repeat.

It should be noted in passing that morphological motivation is "relative", i.e. the degree of motivation may be different. Between the extremes of complete motivation and lack of motivation, there exist various grades of partial motivation. The word endless, e.g., is completely motivated as both the lexical meaning of the component morphemes and the meaning of the pattern is perfectly transparent. The word cranberry is only partially motivated because of the absence of the lexical meaning in the morpheme cran-.

One more point should be noted in connection with the problem in question. A synchronic approach to morphological motivation presupposes historical changeability of structural patterns and the ensuing degree of motivation. Some English place-names may serve as an illustration. Such place-names as Newtowns and Wildwoods are lexically and structurally motivated and may be easily analysed into component morphemes. Other place-names, e.g. Essex, Norfolk, Sutton, are non-motivated. To the average English speaker these names are non-analysable lexical units like sing or tell. However, upon examination the student of language history will perceive their components to be East+ Saxon, North+Folk and South+Town which shows that in earlier days they were just as completely motivated as Newtowns or Wildwoods are in Modern English.

Motivation is usually thought of asproceeding from form or structure tomeaning. Morphological motivation as discussed above implies a direct connection between the morphological structure of the word and its meaning. Some linguists, however, argue that words can be motivated in more than one way and suggest another type of motivation which may be described as adirectconnection between the phonetical structure of the word and its meaning.Itis argued that speech sounds may suggest spatial and visual dimensions, shape, size, etc. Experiments carried out by a group of linguists showed that back open vowels are suggestive of big size, heavy weight, dark colour, etc. The experiments were repeated many times and the results were always the same. Native speakers of English were asked to listen to pairs of antonyms from an unfamiliar (or non-existent) language unrelated to English, e.g.ching--chung and then to try to find the English equivalents, e.g.light--heavy, (big--small, etc.), which foreign word translates which English word. About 90 per cent of English speakers felt thatching is the equivalent of the Englishlight (small) andchungof its antonymheavy (large).

It is also pointed out that this type of phonetical motivation may be observed in the phonemic structure of some newly coined words. For example, the small transmitter that specializes in high frequencies is called 'a tweeter', the transmitter for low frequences'a woofer'.

Another type of phonetical motivation is represented by such words as swish, sizzle, boom, splash, etc. These words may be defined as phonetically motivated because the soundclusters [sw??, s?zl, bum, splж?] are a direct imitation of the sounds these words denote. It is also suggested that sounds themselves may be emotionally expressive which accounts for the phonetical motivation in certain words. Initial [f] and [p], e.g., are felt as expressing scorn, contempt, disapproval or disgust which can be illustrated by the wordspooh! fie! fiddle-sticks, flim-flam and the like. The sound-cluster [i?] is imitative of sound or swift movement as can be seen in wordsring, sing, swings fling, etc. Thus, phonetically such words may be considered motivated.

This hypothesis seems to require verification. This of course is not to deny that there are some words which involve phonetical symbolism: these are the onomatopoeic, imitative or echoic words such as the English cuckoo, splash andwhisper. And even these are not completely motivated butseem to be conventional to quite a large extent (cf.кукареку and cock-a-doodle-doo). In any case words like these constitute only a small and untypical minority in the language. As to symbolic value of certain sounds, this too is disproved by the fact that identical sounds and sound- clusters may be found in words of widely different meaning, e.g. initial [p] and [f], are found in words expressing contempt and disapproval (fie, pooh) and also in such words asplough, fine, and others. The sound-cluster [i?] which is supposed to be imitative of sound or swift movement(ring, swing) is also observed in semantically different words, e.g.thing, king, and others.

The term motivation is also used by a number of linguists to denote therelationship between the central and the coexisting meaning or meanings of a word which are understood as a metaphorical extension of the central meaning. Metaphorical extension may be viewed as generalization of the denotational meaning of a word permitting it to include new referents which are in some way like the original class of referents. Similarity of various aspects and/or functions of different classes of referents may account for the semantic motivation of a number of minor meanings. For example, a woman who has given birth is calleda mother; by extension, any act that gives birth is associated with beinga mother, e.g. inNecessity is the mother of invention. The same principle can be observed in other meanings: a mother looks after a child, so that we can say She became a mother to her orphan nephew, orRomulus and Remus were supposedly mothered by a wolf. Cf. alsomother country, a mother's mark (=a birthmark), mother tongue, etc. Such metaphoric extension may be observed in the so-called trite metaphors, such asburn with anger, break smb's heart, jump at a chance, etc.

If metaphorical extension is observed in the relationship of the central and a minor word meaning it is often observed in the relationship between its synonymic or antonymic meanings. Thus, a few years ago the phrases ameeting at the summit, a summit meeting appeared in the newspapers.

Cartoonists portrayed the participants of such summit meetings sitting on mountain tops. Now when lesser diplomats confer the talks are calledfoothill meetings. In this way bothsummit and its antonymfoothill undergo the process of metaphorical extension.

Questions:

What is motivation? What types of motivation are there?

What is phonetic motivation? Give examples of phonetically motivated words.

What is sound symbolism? Give examples for and against it.

What is morphological motivation?

Prove that in some cases the morphological structure of a word is not enough to deduce its meaning.

Give example of applying diachronic approach to motivation.

What is folk motivation?

What is semantic motivation? Give examples.

Tasks

Where do we observe the relationships between meaning and a) sound form; b) concept; c) referent?

seal - sill (a)

boat - лодка, пароход) (b)

dove - голубка - tauber, pigeon (a)

water - H2O (c)

духи - вонявки (чеш.) - perfume (Fr.) (a)

нога - foot, leg (b)

невеста - булка (болгар.) (a)

coat - пальто, пиджак (b)

остановка - дурак (тур.) (a)

Which type of the connotative component do we observe in the following rows of words?

to glare - to gaze - to glance

to shiver - to shudder

to astonish - to surprise - to amuse

celebrated - outstanding - notorious - popular - famous

to love - to be fond of - to like - to adore - to admire - to worship - to dote

Which motivation do we observe here?

boom

rewrite

mouth

blackboard

his-s-s

crumble

cranberry

wallflower

wow-wow

tut-tut



Seminar 3. Polysemy and Homonymy

Diachronic and Synchronic Approaches to Polysemy

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §27. Diachronic Approach, §28. Synchronic Approach [pp. 34-36]

If polysemy is viewed diachronically, itis understood as the growth and development of or, in general, as a change in the semantic structure of the word.

Polysemy in diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and at the same time acquire one or several new ones. Then the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows: did the word always possess all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others? are the new meanings dependent on the meanings already existing? and if so what is the nature of this dependence? can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings? and so on.

In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the polysemantic wordtable we find that of all the meanings it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is 'a flat slab of stone or wood' which is proper to the word in the Old English period (OE.tabule from L.tabula); all other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning.

The terms secondary and derived meaning are to a certain extent synonymous. When we describe the meaning of the word as "secondary" we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning was in existence. When we refer to the meaning as "derived" we imply not only that, but also that it is dependent on the primary meaning and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the wordtable,e.g., we may say that the meaning 'the food put on the table' is a secondary meaning as it is derived from the meaning 'a piece of furniture (on which meals are laid out)'.

It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word.

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 humanear and theear of corn are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically related to L.auris, the other to L.acus, aceris. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type (cf.the eye of the needle, the foot of the mountain) and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic wordear. Casesof this type are comparatively rare and, as a rule, illustrative of the vagueness of the border-line between polysemy and homonymy.

Semantic changes result as a rule in new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of English words tend to an increase in number of meanings.

Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meaningsof the same word at a certain historical period of the development of the English language. In this case the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of the word must be investigated along different lines.

In connection with the polysemantic wordtable discussed above we are mainly concerned with the following problems: are all the nine meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of this word? Is the order in which the meanings are enumerated (or recorded) in dictionaries purely arbitrary or does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the wordtable? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that first occurs to us whenever we hear or see the wordtable, is 'an article of furniture'. This emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and all other meanings are minor in comparison.

It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, minor meanings are observed only in certain contexts, e.g. 'to keep the table amused','table of contents' and so on. Thus we can assume that the meaning 'a piece of furniture' occupies the central place in the semantic structure of the wordtable. As to other meanings of this word we find it hard to grade them in order of their comparative value. Some may, for example, consider the second and the third meanings ('the persons seated at the table' and 'the food put on the table') as equally "important", some may argue that the meaning 'food put on the table' should be given priority. As synchronically there is no objective criterion to go by, we may find it difficult in some cases to single out even the basic meanings since two or more meanings of the word may be felt as equally "central" in its semantic structure. If we analyse the verbto get, e.g., which of the two meanings 'to obtain' (get a letter, knowledge, some sleep) or 'to arrive' (get to London, to get into bed) shall we regard as the basic meaning of this word?

A more objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in speech. There is a tendency in modern linguistics to interpret the concept of the central meaning in terms of the frequency of occurrence of this meaning. In a study of five million words made by a group of linguistic scientists it was found that the frequency value of individual meanings is different. As far as the wordtable is concerned the meaning 'a piece of furniture' possessesthe highest frequency value and makes up 52% of all the uses of this word, the meaning 'an orderly arrangement of facts' (table of contents) accounts for 35%, all other meanings between them make up just 13% of the uses of this word.

Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as individual meanings may differ in their stylistic reference. Stylistic (or regional) status of monosemantic words is easily perceived. For instance the worddaddy can be referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the wordparent to the bookish.The wordmovie is recognizably American andbarnie is Scottish. Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any such restrictive labels. To do it we must state the meaning in which they are used. There is nothing colloquial or slangy or American about the wordsyellow denoting colour,jerk in the meaning'a sudden movement or stopping of movement' as far as these particular meanings are concerned. But whenyellow is used in the meaning of 'sensational' or whenjerk is used in the meaning of 'an odd person' it is both slang and American.

Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent. The polysemantic wordsworker andhand, e.g., may both denote 'a man who does manual work', but whereas this is the most frequent and stylistically neutral meaning of the wordworker, it is observed only in 2.8% of all occurrences of the wordhand, in the semantic structure of which the meaning 'a man who does manual work'(to hire factory hands) is one of its marginal meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference.

It should also be noted that the meaning which has the highest frequency is the one representative of the whole semantic structure of the word. This can be illustrated by analysing the words under discussion. For example the meaning representative of the wordhand which first occurs to us is 'the end of the arm beyond the wrist'. This meaning accounts for at least 77% of all occurrences of this word. This can also be observed by comparing the wordhand with its Russian equivalents. We take it for granted that the English wordhand is correlated with the Russianрука, but not with the Russianрабочий though this particular equivalent may also be found, e.g. in the case ofto hire factory hands.

Questions:

What is polysemy? Give examples of polysemantic words, prove that they are polysemantic.

What are the main problems of interdependence of meanings of a polysemantic word within diachronic approach?

Give example of investigating meanings of a polysemantic word within diachronic approach.

What are the main problems of interdependence of meanings of a polysemantic word within synchronic approach?

What are the criteria for establishing the priority of minor meanings?

Give example of stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word.

Polysemy and Context. Types of Context

[…] afull understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the word is used, i.e. from the study of the intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of speech. This is of greatest importance in connection with the problem of the synchronic approach to polysemy.

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

As can be seen from the examples discussed above we understand by the term context the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have meanings only in the context. The semantic structure of the word has an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodiesdialectical permanency and variability. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say that meaning is determined by context.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some linguists go so far as to assert that word-meaning in general can be analysed through its collocability with other words. They hold the view that if we know all the possible collocations (or word-groups) into which a polysemantic word can enter, we know all its meanings. Thus, the meanings of the adjectiveheavy, for instance, may be analysed through its collocability with the wordsweight, safe, table; snow, wind, rain; industry, artillery, etc.

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

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

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