Exercises in lexicology

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

It is usual in modern linguistic science to use the terms pattern or structure to denote grammatical contexts. Patterns may be represented in conventional symbols, e.g.to take smth. astake+ N.to take to smb. astake to+N. It is argued that difference in the distribution of the word is indicative of the difference in meaning. Sameness of distributional pattern, however, does not imply sameness of meaning. As was shown above, the same patternto take+N may represent different meanings of the verbto take dependent mainly on the lexical group of the nouns with which it is combined.

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

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

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

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

Questions:

What is a context? How is it related to meaning of polysemantic words?

What is free meaning?

What are the two general types of context?

What are the two type of linguistic context?

Give example of lexical context determining meaning.

Give example of grammatical context determining meaning.

How are grammatical and lexical context interrelated?

What is extralinguistic context? Give examples.

Two Processes of the Semantic Development of a Word

Zhang Yunfei,An Introduction to Modern English Lexicology [pp. 170-174]

There are two important processes in the development of word meaning: radiation and concatenation.

1. Radiation: Semantically, radiation is the process in which the primary or central meaning stands at the center while secondary meanings radiate from it in every direction like rays

Take the word, head, for example:

"…head has many different senses illustrated in such phrases as the head of a school, six pence per head, the head of a page, to come to a head, to lose one's head, six head of cattle. These senses have little in common, but they all derive from special applications of the central idea of head as a part of the body. The principle of radiation is simple, but it can be complicated; in various ways. There are not many words whose central idea is so easy to discern as in the above examples,...and it is an oversimplification to regard all words as having had one primary meaning from which their other meanings may be derived. The central meaning from which secondary meanings have radiated may become obsolete, and each of the secondary meanings may become a centre of further radiations."(Brook 1958:172)

The last sentence of the above quotation leads to the other process, concatenation.

2. Concatenation: Concatenation, "linking together" [from L catena 'chain'] is a semantic process in which the meaning of a word moves gradually away from its first sense by successive shifts, like the links of a chain, until there is no connection between the sense that is finally developed and the primary meaning.

The stages of semantic development of the word candidate may serve to illustrate this process. Candidate comes from the Latin wordcandidates, white-robed. The Latin word candidatus, "pertaining to a person dressed in a white robe," may be called A. From this meaning there arises the modified sense "A white-robed applicant' for office, because the Romans wore white robes when standing for office" (A+B). The next step is to reject A altogether so that B comes to mean "an applicant for office; or a person taking an examination." By this time there is no connection at all between A and B, because the middle link, A + B has vanished. The whole process may be represented graphically as follows:

1. Apertaining to a person dressed in white

2. A+Ba white-robed applicant for office, because the Romans wore white robes when standing for office

3. Ban applicant for office; or a person taking an examination

The modern English sense of candidate is far removed from its original meaning

Questions:

What are the two processes in the development of a word meaning?

What is radiation? Give example.

What is concatenation? Give example.

Homonymy. Sources of Homonyms

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §10.2. The Origin of Homonyms [pp. 188-191]

The intense development of homonymy in the English language is obviously due not to one single factor but to several interrelated causes, such as the monosyllabic character of English and its analytic structure.

The abundance of homonyms is also closely connected with such a characteristic feature of the English language as the phonetic identity of word and stem or, in other words, the predominance of free forms among the most frequent roots. It is quite obvious that if the frequency of words stands in some inverse relationship to their length, the monosyllabic words will be the most frequent. Moreover, as the most frequent words are also highly polysemantic, it is only natural that they develop meanings which in the course of time may deviate very far from the central one. When the intermediate links fall out, some of these new meanings lose all connections with the rest of the structure and start a separate existence. The phenomenon is known as disintegration or split of polysemy.

Different causes by which homonymy may be brought about are subdivided into two main groups:

homonymy through convergent sound development, when two or three words of different origin accidentally coincide in sound; and

homonymy developed from polysemy through divergent sense development. Both may be combined with loss of endings and other morphological processes.

In Old English the words ?esund 'healthy' and sund 'swimming' were separate words both in form and in meaning. In the course of time they have changed their meaning and phonetic form, and the latter accidentally coincided: OE sund>ModE sound 'strait'; OE ?esund >ModE sound 'healthy'. The group was joined also accidentally by the noun sound 'what is or may be heard' with the corresponding verb that developed from French and ultimately from the Latin word sonus, and the verb sound 'to measure the depth' of dubious etymology. The coincidence is purely accidental.

Two different Latin verbs: cadere 'to fall' and capere 'to hold' are the respective sources of the homonyms case1 'instance of thing's occurring' and case2 'a box'. Indeed, case1<OFr cas<Lat casus 'fall', and case2< Old Northern French casse<Lat capsa. Homonymy of this type is universally recognized. The other type is open to discussion. V.I. Abayev accepts as homonymy only instances of etymologically different words. Everything else in his opinion is polysemy. Many other scholars do not agree with V.I. Abayev and insist on the semantic and structural criteria for distinguishing homonymy from polysemy.

Unlike the homonyms case and sound all the homonyms of the box group due to disintegration or split of polysemy are etymologically connected. The sameness of form is not accidental but based on genetic relationship. They are all derived from one another and are all ultimately traced to the Latin buxus. "The Concise Oxford Dictionary" has five entries for box: box1 n 'a kind of small evergreen shrub'; box2 n 'receptacle made of wood, cardboard, metal, etc. and usually provided with a lid'; box3 v 'to put into a box'; box4 n 'slap with the hand on the ear'; box5 v -- a sport term meaning 'to fight with fists in padded gloves'.

Such homonyms may be partly derived from one another but their common point of origin lies beyond the limits of the English language. In these words with the appearance of a new meaning, very different from the previous one, the semantic structure of the parent word splits. The new meaning receives a separate existence and starts a new semantic structure of its own. Hence the term disintegration or split of polysemy.

It must be noted, however, that though the number of examples in which a process of this sort could be observed is considerable, it is difficult to establish exact criteria by which disintegration of polysemy could be detected. The whole concept is based on stating whether there is any connection between the meanings or not. Whereas in the examples dealing with phonetic convergence, i.e. when we said that case1and case2 are different words because they differ in origin, we had definite linguistic criteria to go by; in the case of disintegration of polysemy there are none to guide us, we can only rely on intuition and individual linguistic experience. For a trained linguist the number of unrelated homonyms will be much smaller than for an uneducated person. The knowledge of etymology and cognate languages will always help to supply the missing links. It is easier, for instance, to see the connection between beam 'a ray of light' and beam 'the metallic structural part of a building' if one knows the original meaning of the word, i.e. 'tree' (OE beam || Germ Baum), and is used to observe similar metaphoric transfers in other words. The connection is also more obvious if one is able to notice the same element in such compound names of trees as hornbeam, whitebeam, etc.

The conclusion, therefore, is that in diachronic treatment the only rigorous criterion is that of etymology observed in explanatory dictionaries of the English language where words are separated according to their origin, as in match1 'a piece of inflammable material you strike fire with' (from OFr mesche, Fr meche) and match2 (from OE gemжcca 'fellow').

It is interesting to note that out of 2540 homonyms listed in "The Oxford English Dictionary" only 7% are due to disintegration of polysemy, all the others are etymologically different. […]

Actually the homonymy of nouns and verbs due to the processes of loss of endings on the one hand and conversion on the other is one of the most prominent features of present-day English. […] It may be combined with semantic changes as in the pair long a : : long v. The explanation is that when it seems long before something comes to you, you long for it (long a<OE lan?, lon?a<OE lan?ian v), so that me lon?s means 'it seems long to me'.

The opposite process of morphemic addition can also result in homonymy. This process is chiefly due to independent word-formation with the same affix or to the homonymy of derivational and functional affixes. The suffix -er forms several words with the same stem: trail -- trailer1'a creeping plant' : : trailer2 'a caravan', i.e. 'a vehicle drawn along by another vehicle'.

In summing up this diachronic analysis of homonymy it should be emphasized that there are two ways by which homonyms come into being, namely convergent development of sound form and divergent development of meaning (see table below).

The first may consist in

phonetic change only,

phonetic change combined with loss of affixes,

independent formation from homonymous bases by means of homonymous affixes.

The second, that is divergent development of meaning may be

limited within one lexico-grammatical class of words,

combined with difference in lexico-grammatical class and therefore difference in grammatical functions and distribution,

based on independent formation from the same base by homonymous morphemes.



	Convergent development of sound form	Divergent semantic development
Independent of morphological changes	OE ?emжne`common' Lat medianusmean`average' OE mжnan`think'	chest `large box' OE cest chest `part of human body'
Combined with morphological changes	OE lufu n love n, v OE lufian v	wait v ME waiten v wait n silence n Lat silentium n silence v

The process can sometimes be more complicated. Thus […] the verb stick developed as a mixture of ME stiken<OE stician<sticca 'peg', and ME steken cognate with Greek stigma. At present there are at least two homonyms: stick v 'to insert pointed things into', a highly polysemantic word, and the no less polysemantic stick n 'a rod'.

In the course of time the number of homonyms on the whole increases, although occasionally the conflict of homonyms ends in word loss.

Questions:

What is the main cause of huge number of homonyms in English?

What are the two main groups of causes of homonymy?

Give examples of homonyms that appeared in the language because of convergent development of sound-form.

Give examples of homonyms that appeared in the language because of divergent semantic development.

What role do morphologic processes play in bringing about homonyms?

Classification of Homonyms

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §10.1. Homonyms [pp. 184-189]

The most widely accepted classification is that recognizing homonyms proper, homophones and homographs. Homonyms proper are words identical in pronunciation and spelling, like fast and liver[…]. Other examples are: back n 'part of the body' : : back adv 'away from the front' : : back v 'go back'; ball n 'a round object used in games' : : ball n 'a gathering of people for dancing'; bark n 'the noise made by a dog' : : bark v 'to utter sharp explosive cries' : : bark n 'the skin of a tree' : : bark n 'a sailing ship'; base n 'bottom' : : base v 'build or place upon' : : base a 'mean'; bay n 'part of the sea or lake filling wide-mouth opening of land' : : bay n 'recess in a house or a room' : : bay v 'bark' : : bay n 'the European laurel'. The important point is that homonyms are distinct words: not different meanings within one word.

Homophones are words of the same sound but of different spelling and meaning: air : : heir; arms : : alms; buy : : by; him : : hymn; knight : : night; not: : knot; or : : oar; piece : : peace; rain : : reign; scent: : cent; steel : : steal; storey : : story; write : : right and many others.

In the sentence The play-wright on my right thinks it right that some conventional rite should symbolize the right of every man to write as he pleases the sound complex [ra?t] is a noun, an adjective, an adverb and a verb, has four different spellings and six different meanings. The difference may be confined to the use of a capital letter as in bill and Bill, in the following example: "How much is my milk bill?" "Excuse me, Madam, but my name is John." On the other hand, whole sentences may be homophonic: The sons raise meat : : The sun's rays meet. To understand these one needs a wider context. If you hear the second in the course of a lecture in optics, you will understand it without thinking of the possibility of the first.

Homographs are words different in sound and in meaning but accidentally identical in spelling: bow [bou] : : bow [bau]; lead [li:d]: : lead [led]; row [rou] : : row [rau]; sewer [sou?] : : sewer [sju?]; tear [ti?] : : tear [t??]; wind [w?nd] : : wind [wa?nd] and many more.

It has been often argued that homographs constitute a phenomenon that should be kept apart from homonymy as the object of linguistics is sound language. This viewpoint can hardly be accepted. Because of the effects of education and culture written English is a generalized national form of expression. An average speaker does not separate the written and oral form. On the contrary he is more likely to analyse the words in terms of letters than in terms of phonemes with which he is less familiar. That is why a linguist must take into consideration both the spelling and the pronunciation of words when analysing cases of identity of form and diversity of content.

Various types of classification for homonyms proper have been suggested.

A comprehensive system may be worked out if we are guided by the theory of oppositions and in classifying the homonyms take into consideration the difference or sameness in their lexical and grammatical meaning, paradigm and basic form. For the sake of completeness we shall consider this problem in terms of the same mapping technique used for the elements of vocabulary system connected with the word sound.

As both form and meaning can be further subdivided, the combination of distinctive features by which two words are compared becomes more complicated -- there are four features: the form may be phonetical and graphical, the meaning -- lexical and grammatical, a word may also have a paradigm of grammatical forms different from the basic form.

The distinctive features shown in the table on the next page are lexical meaning (different denoted by A, or nearly the same denoted byA), grammatical meaning (different denoted by B, orsame by B), paradigm (different denotedby C, or same denoted by C), and basic form (different D and same D).

The term "nearly same lexical meaning" must not be taken too literally. It means only that the corresponding members of the opposition have some important invariant semantic components in common. "Same grammatical meaning" implies that both members belong to the same part of speech.

Same paradigm comprises also cases when there is only one word form, i.e. when the words are unchangeable. Inconsistent combinations of features are crossed out in the table. It is, for instance, impossible for two words to be identical in all word forms and different in basic forms, or for two homonyms to show no difference either in lexical or grammatical meaning, because in this case they are not homonyms. That leaves twelve possible classes.

The 12 classes are:

ABCD. Members of the opposition light n 'the contrary of darkness' : : light a 'not heavy' are different in lexical and grammatical meaning, have different paradigms but the same basic form. The class of partial homonymy is very numerous. A further subdivision might take into consideration the parts of speech to which the members belong, namely the oppositions of noun : : verb, adjective : : verb, n : : adjective, etc.

ABCD. Same as above, only not both members are in their basic form. The noun (here might 'power') is in its basic form, the singular, but the verb may will coincide with it only in the Past Tense. This lack of coincidence between basic forms is not frequent, so only few examples are possible. Compare also bit n 'a small piece' and bit (the Past Indefinite Tense and Participle II of bite).

ABCD. Contains pairs of words belonging to the same part of speech, different in their basic form but coinciding in some oblique form, e. g. in the plural, or in the case of verbs, in the Past Tense. Axe -- axes, axis -- axes. The type is rare.

ABCD. Different lexical meaning, same basic form, same grammatical meaning and different paradigm: lie -- lay -- lain and lie -- lied -- lied. Not many cases belong to this group.



Difference and Identity in Words
A Different lexical meaning	A Nearly same lexical meaning
B Different grammatical meaning	Partial Homonymy	Patterned homonymy	D Same basic form
	light, -s n light, -er, -est a flat, -s n flat, -er, -est a	for prep for conj	before prep before adv before conj	eye, -s n eye, -s, -ed, -ing v
	might n may - might v			thought n thought v (Past Indefinite of think)	D Different basic form
B Same grammatical meaning	axis, axes n axe - axes n but - butted v butt - butted v			Synonyms
	lie - lay - lain v lie - lied - liedv	FullHomonymy spring, -s n spring, -s n spring, -s n	Polysemy Variants of the same polysemantic word	D Same basic form
	C Different paradigm	C Same paradigm or no changes	C Different paradigm

ABCD. Represents pairs different inABCD. Represents pairs different in lexical and grammatical meaning but not in paradigm, as these are not changeable form words. Examples: for prp contrasted to for cj.

ABCD. The most typical case of full homonymy accepted by everybody and exemplified in every textbook. Different lexical meanings, but the homonyms belong to the same part of speech: spring1 n 'a leap' :: spring2n 'a source' :: spring2 n 'the season in which vegetation begins'.

ABCD. Patterned homonymy. Differs from the previous (i.e. ABCD) in the presence of some common component in the lexical meaning of the members, some lexical invariant: before prp, before adv, before cj, all express some priority in succession. This type of opposition is regular among form words.

ABCD. Pairs showing maximum identity. But as their lexical meaning is only approximately the same, they may be identified as variants of one polysemantic word.

ABCD. Contains all the cases due to conversion: eye n : : eye v. The members differ in grammatical meaning and paradigm. This group is typical of patterned homonymy. Examples of such noun-to-verb or verb- to-noun homonymy can be augmented almost indefinitely. The meaning of the second element can always be guessed if the first is known.

ABCD. Pairs belonging to different parts of speech and coinciding in some of the forms. Their similarity is due to a common root, as in thought n : thought v (the Past Indefinite Tense of think).

ABCD. Similarity in both lexical and grammatical meaning combined with difference in form is characteristic of synonyms and hyponyms.

ABCD. The group is not numerous and comprises chiefly cases of double plural with a slight change in meaning such as brother -- brothers : : brother -- brethren.

It goes without saying that this is a model that gives a general scheme. Actually a group of homonyms may contain members belonging to different groups in this classification. Take, for example, fell1 n 'animal's hide or skin with the hair'; fell2 n 'hill' and also 'a stretch of North-English moorland'; fell3 a 'fierce' (poet.); fell4 v 'to cut down trees' and as a noun 'amount of timber cut'; fell6 (the Past Indefinite Tense of the verb fall). This group may be broken into pairs, each of which will fit into one of the above described divisions. Thus, fell1: : fell2 may be characterized as ABCD, fell1 : : fell4 as ABCD and fell4 : : fell5 asABCD.

Questions:

What are the three types of homonyms?

What are homonyms proper?

What are homophones?

What are homographs?

Why should lexicology study homographs?

How can homonyms proper be classified?

What are the most numerous classes of homonyms proper? Give examples.

Give examples of less numerous classes of homonyms.

Polysemy and Homonymy: Etymological and Semantic Criteria

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §37.

Polysemy and Homonymy: Etymological and Semantic Criteria [pp. 43-44]

One of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between different meanings of one word and the meanings of two homonymous words.

If homonymy is viewed diachronically then all cases of sound convergence of two or more words may be safely regarded as cases of homonymy, as, e.g.,race1 andrace2 can be traced back to two etymologically different words.The cases of semantic divergence, however, are more doubtful. The transition from polysemy to homonymy is a gradual process, so 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. In the case offlower, flour,e.g., it is mainly the resultant divergence of graphic forms that gives us grounds to assert that the two meanings which originally made up the semantic structure of one word are now apprehended as belonging to two different words.

Synchronically the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is as a rule wholly based on the semantic criterion. It is usually held that if a connection between the various meanings is apprehended by the speaker, theseare to be considered as making up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a case of homonymy, not polysemy.

Thus the semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the differentiation between related and unrelated meanings. This traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable, firstly, 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. For instance, themeaning 'a change in the form of a noun or pronoun' which is usually listed in dictionaries as one of the meanings of case1 seems to be synchronically just as unrelated to the meanings of this word as 'something that has happened', or 'a question decided in the court of law' to the meaning of case2- 'a box, a container', etc.

Secondly, in the discussion of lexico-grammatical homonymy it was pointed out that some of the meanings of homonyms arising from conversion (e.g.seal2 n--seal3 v;papern--paperv) are related, so this criterion cannot be applied to a large group of homonymous word-forms in Modern English. This criterion proves insufficient in the synchronic analysis of a number of other borderline cases, e.g.brother--brothers--'sons of the same parent' andbrethren--'fellow members of a religious society'. The meanings may be apprehended as related and thenwe can speak of polysemy pointing out that the difference in the morphological structure of the plural form reflects the difference of meaning. Otherwise we may regard this as a case of partial lexical homonymy.

It is sometimes argued that the difference between related and unrelated meanings may be observed in the manner in which the meanings of polysemantic words are as a rule relatable. It is observed that different meanings of one word have certain stable relationship which are not to be found between the meanings of two homonymous words. A clearly perceptible connection, e.g., can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one word (cf., e.g.,foot of the man--foot of the mountain, loud voice--loudcolours, etc., cf. alsodeep well anddeep knowledge, etc.).

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

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

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

Questions:

How can we distinguish between homonyms and polysemantic words?

Which criterion is used within synchronic approach? Give examples.

Which criterion is used within diachronic approach? Give examples.

What are the drawbacks of semantic criteria?

Tasks:

Where do we observe a) shifts in application; b) specialization: c) metaphorical extension:

red ink, red deer, red cabbage, red Indian

leaf of a tree - leaf of a book

business partner - marriage partner - partner in crime

hands of a person - hands of a clock

legs of a table

Name the type of a homonym here

school (школа) - school (косякрыб)

bow (поклон) - bow (лук)

night - knight

rose (роза) - rose (прош.отrise)

lie (лежать)- lie (лгать)

What phenomena do we face in the following words?

Polish (польский) - polish (полировать)

What methods do we face In the following words?

voice - голос, залог

man - (…more than 10 definitions in Modern English)

fair - a person with light hair; just honest



Seminar 4. Change of Meaning

Causes of Semantic Change

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §4.2. Linguistic Causes of Semantic Change, §4.3. Extralinguistic Causes of Semantic Change [pp. 71-76]

In the earlier stages of its development semasiology was a purely diachronic science dealing mainly with changes in the word meaning and classification of those changes. No satisfactory or universally accepted scheme of classification has ever been found, and this line of search seems to be abandoned.

In comparison with classifications of semantic change the problem of their causes appears neglected. Opinions on this point are scattered through a great number of linguistic works and have apparently never been collected into anything complete. And yet a thorough understanding of the phenomena involved in semantic change is impossible unless the whys and wherefores become known. This is of primary importance as it may lead eventually to a clearer interpretation of language development. The vocabulary is the most flexible part of the language and it is precisely its semantic aspect that responds most readily to every change in the human activity in whatever sphere it may happen to take place.

The causes of semantic changes may be grouped under two main headings, linguistic and extralinguistic ones, of these the first group has suffered much greater neglect in the past and it is not surprising therefore that far less is known of it than of the second. Linguistic causes influencing the process of vocabulary adaptation may be of paradigmatic and syntagmatic character; in dealing with them we have to do with the constant interaction and interdependence of vocabulary units in language and speech, such as differentiation between synonyms, changes taking place in connection with ellipsis and with fixed contexts, changes resulting from ambiguity in certain contexts, and some other causes.

Differentiation of synonyms isagradual change observed in the course of language history, sometimes, but not necessarily, involving the semantic assimilation of loan words. Consider, for example, the words time and tide. They used to be synonyms. Then tide took on its more limited application to the shifting waters, and time alone is used in the general sense.

The word beast was borrowed from French into Middle English. Before it appeared the general word for animal was deer which after the word beast was introduced became narrowed to its present meaning 'a hoofed animal of which the males have antlers'. Somewhat later the Latin word animal was also borrowed, then the word beast was restricted, and its meaning served to separate the four-footed kind from all the other members of the animal kingdom. Thus, beast displaced deer and was in its turn itself displaced by the generic animal. Another example of semantic change involving synonymic differentiation is the word twist. In OE it was a noun, meaning 'a rope', whereas the verb thrawan (now throw) meant both 'hurl' and 'twist'. Since the appearance in the Middle English of the verb twisten ('twist') the first verb lost this meaning. But throw in its turn influenced the development of casten (cast), a Scandinavian borrowing. Its primary meaning 'hurl', 'throw' is now present only in some set expressions. Cast keeps its old meaning in such phrases as cast a glance, cast lots, cast smth in one's teeth. Fixed context, then, may be regarded as another linguistic factor in semantic change. Both factors are at work in the case of token. The noun token originally had the broad meaning of 'sign'. When brought into competition with the loan word sign, it became restricted in use to a number of set expressions such as love token, token of respect and so became specialized in meaning. Fixed context has this influence not only in phrases but in compound words as well.

No systematic treatment has so far been offered for the syntagmatic semantic changes depending on the context. But such cases do exist showing that investigation of the problem is important.

One of these is ellipsis. The qualifying words of a frequent phrase may be omitted: sale comes to be used for cut-price sale, propose for propose marriage, be expecting for be expecting a baby, media for mass media. Or vice versa the kernel word of the phrase may seem redundant: minerals for mineral waters, summit for summit meeting. Due to ellipsis starve which originally meant 'to die' (|| Germ sterben) came to substitute the whole phrase die of hunger, and also began to mean 'to suffer from lack of food' and even in colloquial use 'to feel hungry'. Moreover as there are many words with transitive and intransitive variants naming cause and result, starve came to mean 'to cause to perish with hunger'.

English has a great variety of these regular coincidences of different aspects, alongside with cause and result, we could consider the coincidence of subjective and objective, active and passive aspects especially frequent in adjectives. E.g. hateful means 'exciting hatred' and 'full of hatred'; curious -- 'strange' and 'inquisitive'; pitiful -- 'exciting compassion' and 'compassionate'. One can be doubtful about a doubtful question, in a healthy climate children are healthy. To refer to these cases linguists employ the term conversives.

The extralinguistic causes are determined by the social nature of the language: they are observed in changes of meaning resulting from the development of the notion expressed and the thing named and by the appearance of new notions and things. In other words, extralinguistic causes of semantic change are connected with the development of the human mind as it moulds reality to conform with its needs.

Languages are powerfully affected by social, political, economic, cultural and technical change. The influence of those factors upon linguistic phenomena is studied by sociolinguistics. It shows that social factors can influence even structural features of linguistic units: terms of science, for instance, have a number of specific features as compared to words used in other spheres of human activity.

The word being a linguistic realization of notion, it changes with the progress of human consciousness. This process is reflected in the development of lexical meaning. As the human mind achieves an ever more exact understanding of the world of reality and the objective relationships that characterize it, the notions become more and more exact reflections of real things. The history of the social, economic and political life of the people, the progress of culture and science bring about changes in notions and things influencing the semantic aspect of language. For instance, OE eorрe meant 'the ground under people's feet', 'the soil' and 'the world of man' as opposed to heaven that was supposed to be inhabited first by Gods and later on, with the spread of Christianity, by God, his angels, saints and the souls of the dead. With the progress of science earth came to mean the third planet from the sun and the knowledge is constantly enriched. With the development of electrical engineering earth n means 'a connection of a wire conductor with the earth', either accidental (with the result of leakage of current) or intentional (as for the purpose of providing a return path). There is also a corresponding verb earth. E.g.: With earthed appliances the continuity of the earth wire ought to be checked.

The word space meant 'extent of time or distance' or 'intervening distance'. Alongside this meaning a new meaning developed 'the limitless and indefinitely great expanse in which all material objects are located'. The phrase outer space was quickly ellipted into space. Cf. spacecraft, space-suit, space travel, etc.

It is interesting to note that the English word cosmos was not exactly a synonym of outer space but meant 'the universe as an ordered system', being an antonym to chaos. The modern usage is changing under the influence of the Russian language as a result of Soviet achievements in outer space. […] the adjective cosmic (in addition to the former meanings 'universal', 'immense') in modern usage under the influence of Russianкосмический means 'pertaining to space travel', e. g. cosmic rocket 'space rocket'.

The extra-linguistic motivation is sometimes obvious, but some cases are not as straightforward as they may look. The word bikini may be taken as an example. Bikini, a very scanty two-piece bathing suit worn by women, is named after Bikini atoll in the Western Pacific but not because it was first introduced on some fashionable beach there. Bikini appeared at the time when the atomic bomb tests by the US in the Bikini atoll were fresh in everybody's memory. The associative field is emotional referring to the "atomic" shock the first bikinis produced.

The tendency to use technical imagery is increasing in every language, thus the expression to spark off in chain reaction is almost international. Live wire 'one carrying electric current' used figuratively about a person of intense energy seems purely English, though.

Other international expressions are black box and feed-back. Black box formerly a term of aviation and electrical engineering is now used figuratively to denote any mechanism performing intricate functions or any unit of which we know the effect but not the components or principles of action.

Feed-back a cybernetical term meaning 'the return of a sample of the output of a system or process to the input, especially with the purpose of automatic adjustment and control' is now widely used figuratively meaning 'response'.

Some technical expressions that were used in the first half of the 19th century tend to become obsolete: the English used to talk of people being galvanized into activity, or going full steam ahead but the phrases sound dated now.

The changes of notions and things named go hand in hand. They are conditioned by changes in the economic, social, political and cultural history of the people, so that the extralinguistic causes of semantic change might be conveniently subdivided in accordance with these. Social relationships are at work in the cases of elevation and pejoration of meaning […] where the attitude of the upper classes to their social inferiors determined the strengthening of emotional tone among the semantic components of the word.

Sociolinguistics also teaches that power relationships are reflected in vocabulary changes. In all the cases of pejoration […], such as boor, churl, villain, etc., it was the ruling class that imposed evaluation. The opposite is rarely the case. One example deserves attention though: sir + -ly used to mean 'masterful' and now surly means 'rude in a bad-tempered way'.

D. Leith devotes a special paragraph in his "Social History of English" to the semantic disparagement of women. He thinks that power relationships in English are not confined to class stratification, that male domination is reflected in the history of English vocabulary, in the ways in which women are talked about. There is a rich vocabulary of affective words denigrating women, who do not conform to the male ideal. A few examples may be mentioned. Hussy is a reduction of ME huswif (housewife), it means now 'a woman of low morals' or 'a bold saucy girl'; doll is not only a toy but is also used about a kept mistress or about a pretty and silly woman; wench formerly referred to a female child, later a girl of the rustic or working class and then acquired derogatory connotations.

Within the diachronic approach the phenomenon of euphemism (Gr euphemismos < eu 'good' and pheme 'voice') has been repeatedly classed by many linguists as taboo, i.e. a prohibition meant as a safeguard against supernatural forces. This standpoint is hardly acceptable for modern European languages. St. Ullmann returns to the conception of taboo several times illustrating it with propitiatory names given in the early periods of language development to such objects of superstitious fear as the bear and the weasel. He proves his point by observing the same phenomenon, i.e. the circumlocution used to name these animals, in other languages. This is of historical interest, but no similar opposition between a direct and a propitiatory name for an animal, no matter how dangerous, can be found in present-day English.

With peoples of developed culture and civilization euphemism is intrinsically different, it is dictated by social usage, etiquette, advertising, tact, diplomatic considerations and political propaganda.

From the semasiological point of view euphemism is important, because meanings with unpleasant connotations appear in words formerly neutral as a resultof their repeated use instead of words that are for some reason unmentionable, cf. deceased 'dead', deranged 'mad'.

Much useful material on the political and cultural causes of coining euphemisms is given in "The Second Barnhart Dictionary of New English". We read there that in modern times euphemisms became important devices in political and military propaganda. Aggressive attacks by armadas of bombers which most speakers of English would call air raids are officially called protective reaction, although there is nothing protective or defensive about it. The CIA agents in the United States often use the word destabilize for all sorts of despicable or malicious acts and subversions designed to cause to topple an established foreign government or to falsify an electoral campaign. Shameful secrets of various underhand CIA operations, assassinations, interception of mail, that might, if revealed, embarrass the government, are called family jewels.

It is decidedly less emotional to call countries with a low standard of living underdeveloped, but it seemed more tactful to call them developing. The latest terms (in the 70s) are L.D.C. -- less developed countries and M.D.C. -- more developed countries, or Third World countries or emerging countries if they are newly independent.

Other euphemisms are dictated by a wish to give more dignity to a profession. Some barbers called themselves hair stylists and even hairologists, airline stewards and stewardesses become flight attendants, maids become house workers, foremen become supervisors, etc.

Euphemisms may be dictated by publicity needs, hence ready-tailored and ready-to-wear clothes instead of ready-made. The influence of mass-advertising on language is growing, it is felt in every level of the language.

Innovations possible in advertising are of many different types […]. If we now turn to the history of the language, we see economic causes are obviously at work in the semantic development of the word wealth. It first meant 'well-being', 'happiness' from weal from OE wela whence well. This original meaning is preserved in the compounds commonwealth and commonweal. The present meaning became possible due to the role played by money both in feudal and bourgeois society. The chief wealth of the early inhabitants of Europe being the cattle, OE feoh means both 'cattle' and 'money', likewise Goth faihu; Lat pecus meant 'cattle' and pecunia meant 'money'. ME fee-house is both a cattle-shed and a treasury. The present-day English fee most frequently means the price paid for services to a lawyer or a physician. It appears to develop jointly from the above mentioned OE feoh and the Anglo-French fee, fie, probably of the same origin, meaning 'a recompense' and 'a feudal tenure'. This modern meaning is obvious in the following example: Physicians of the utmost fame were called at once, but when they came they answered as they took their fees, "There is no cure for this disease." (Belloc)

The constant development of industry, agriculture, trade and transport bring into being new objects and new notions. Words to name them are either borrowed or created from material already existing in the language and it often happens that new meanings are thus acquired by old words.

Questions

What are the two main groups of causes of semantic change?

Describe the process of differentiation of synonyms.

Give examples of syntagmatic semantic changes.

What are conversives? Give examples.

What extralinguistic causes can lead to semantic changes?

Prove that scientific and technical advancement may lead to semantic changes.

Give example of semantic change due to social causes.

What are euphemisms? Give examples.

Give examples of political euphemisms.

Prove that economic advancements can lead to semantic change.

Nature of Semantic Change. Metaphor, Metonymy and Other Minor Types

R.S. Ginzburd, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §22. Nature of Semantic Change [p. 30]

Generally speaking, a necessary condition of any semantic change, no matter whatits cause, is some connection, some association between the old meaning and the new. There are two kinds of association involved as a rule in various semantic changes namely: a) similarity of meanings, and b) contiguity of meanings.

Similarity of meanings or metaphor may be described as a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. The wordhand, e.g., acquired in the 16th century the meaning of 'a pointer of a clock or a watch' because of the similarity of one of the functions performed by the hand (to point at something) and the function of the clockpointer. Since metaphor is based on the perception of similarities it is only natural that when an analogy is obvious, it should give rise to a metaphoric meaning. This can be observed in the wide currency of metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of the human body in various languages (cf. 'the leg of the table', 'the foot of the hill', etc.). Sometimes it is similarity of form, outline, etc. that underlies the metaphor. The wordswarm andcold began to denote certain qualities of human voices because of some kind of similarity between these qualities and warm and cold temperature. It is also usual to perceive similarity between colours and emotions.

It has also been observed that in many speech communities colour terms, e.g. the wordsblack andwhite, have metaphoric meanings in addition to the literal denotation of colours.

Contiguity of meanings or metonymy may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it.

This can be perhaps best illustrated by the use of the wordtongue-- 'the organ of speech' in the meaning of 'language' (as inmother tongue; cf. also L.lingua, Russ.язык). The wordbench acquired the meaning 'judges, magistrates' because it was on thebench that the judges used to sit in law courts, similarlythe House acquired the meaning of 'members of the House'(Parliament).

It is generally held that metaphor plays a more important role in the change of meaning than metonymy. A more detailed analysis would show that there are some semantic changes that fit into more than the two groups discussed above. A change of meaning, e.g., may be brought about by the association between the sound-forms of two words. The wordboon, e.g., originally meant 'prayer, petition', 'request', but then came to denote 'a thing prayed or asked for'. Its current meaning is 'a blessing, an advantage, a thing to be thanked for.' The change of meaning was probably due to the similarity to the sound-form of the adjectiveboon(an Anglicised form of Frenchbon denoting 'good, nice').

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §4.1. Types of Semantic Change [pp. 60-71]

In what follows we shall deal in detail with various types of semantic change. This is necessary not only because of the interest the various cases present in themselves but also because a thorough knowledge of these possibilities helps one to understand the semantic structure of English words at the present stage of their development. The development and change of the semantic structure of a word is always a source of qualitative and quantitative development of the vocabulary.

All the types discussed depend upon some comparison of the earlier (whether extinct or still in use) and the new meaning of the given word. This comparison may be based on the difference between the concepts expressed or referents in the real world that are pointed out, on the type of psychological association at work, on evaluation of the latter by the speaker, on lexico-grammatical categories or, possibly, on some other feature.

The order in which various types are described will follow more or less closely the diachronic classification of M. Breal and W. Paul. […]