Exercises in lexicology

M. Breal was probably the first to emphasize the fact that in passing from general usage into some special sphere of communication a word as a rule undergoes some sort of specialization of its meaning. The word case, for instance, alongside its general meaning of 'circumstances in which a person or a thing is' possesses special meanings: in law ('a law suit'), in grammar (e. g. the Possessive case), in medicine ('a patient', 'an illness'). Compare the following: One of Charles's cases had been a child ill with a form of diphtheria (Snow). (case= 'a patient') The Solicitor whom I met at the Rolfords' sent me a case which any young man at my stage would have thought himself lucky to get (Idem), (case = 'a question decided in a court of law, a law suit')

The general, not specialized meaning is also very frequent in present-day English. E. g.: At last we tiptoed up the broad slippery staircase, and went to our rooms. But in my case not to sleep, immediately at least... (Idem), (case -- 'circumstances in which one is')

This difference is revealed in the difference of contexts in which these words occur, in their different valency. Words connected with illnesses and medicine in the first example, and words connected with law and court procedures in the second determine the semantic structure or paradigm of the word case.

The word play suggests different notions to a child, a playwright, a footballer, a musician or a chess-player and has in their speech different semantic paradigms. The same applies to the noun cell as used by a biologist, an electrician, a nun or a representative of the law; or the word gas as understood by a chemist, a soldier, a housewife, a motorist or a miner.

In all the examples considered above a word which formerly represented a notion of a broader scope has come to render a notion of a narrower scope. When the meaning is specialized, the word can name fewer objects, i.e. have fewer referents. At the same time the content of the notion is being enriched, as it includes a greater number of relevant features by which the notion is characterized. Or, in other words, the word is now applicable to fewer things but tells us more about them. The reduction of scope accounts for the term "narrowing of the meaning" which is even more often used than the term "specialization". We shall avoid the term "narrowing", since it is somewhat misleading. Actually it is neither the meaning nor the notion, but the scope of the notion that is narrowed.

There is also a third and more exact term for the same phenomenon, namely "differentiation", but it is not so widely used as the first two terms.

H. Paul, as well as many other authors, emphasizes the fact that this type of semantic change is particularly frequent in vocabulary of professional and trade groups.

H. Paul's examples are from the German language but it is very easy to find parallel cases in English. This type of change is fairly universal and fails to disclose any specifically English properties.

The best known examples of specialization in the general language are as follows: OE deor 'wild beast' >ModE deer'wild ruminant of a particular species' (the original meaning was still alive in Shakespeare's time as is proved by the following quotation: Rats and mice and such small deer); OE mete 'food'>ModE meat 'edible flesh', i. e. only a particular species of food (the earlier meaning is still noticeable in the compound sweetmeat). This last example deserves special attention because the tendency of fixed context to preserve the original meaning is very marked as is constantly proved by various examples. Other well-worn cases are: OE fu?ol 'bird' (|| Germ Vogel)>ModE fowl 'domestic birds'. The old meaning is still preserved in poetic diction and in set expressions like fowls of the air. Among its derivatives, fowler means 'a person who shoots or traps wild birds for sport or food'; the shooting or trapping itself is called fowling; a fowling piece is a gun. OE hund 'dog' (||GermHund)> ModE hound 'a species of hunting dog'. Many words connected with literacy also show similar changes: thus, teach<OE tжcan 'to show', 'to teach'; write< OE writan 'to write', 'to scratch', 'to score' (|| Germ reiЯen); writing in Europe had first the form of scratching on the bark of the trees. Tracing these semantic changes the scholars can, as it were, witness the development of culture.

In the above examples the new meaning superseded the earlier one. Both meanings can also coexist in the structure of a polysemantic word or be differentiated locally. The word token<OE tac(e)n || Germ Zeichen originally had the broad meaning of 'sign'. The semantic change that occurred here illustrates systematic inter-dependence within the vocabulary elements. Brought into competition with the borrowed word sign it became restricted in use to a few cases of fixed context (a love token, a token of respect, a token vote, a token payment) and consequently restricted in meaning. In present-day English token means something small, unimportant or cheap which represents something big, important or valuable. Other examples of specialization are room, which alongside the new meaning keeps the old one of 'space'; corn originally meaning 'grain', 'the seed of any cereal plant'; locally the word becomes specialized and is understood to denote the leading crop of the district; hence in England corn means 'wheat', in Scotland 'oats', whereas in the USA, as an ellipsis for Indian corn, it came to mean 'maize'.

As a special group belonging to the same type one can mention the formation of proper nouns from common nouns chiefly in toponymics, i.e. place names. E. g.: the City -- the business part of London; the Highlands -- the mountainous part of Scotland; Oxford -- University town in England (from ox + ford, i.e. a place where oxen could ford the river); the Tower (of London) --originally a fortress and palace, later a state prison, now a museum.

In the above examples the change of meaning occurred without change of sound form and without any intervention of morphological processes. In many cases, however, the two processes, semantic and morphological, go hand in hand. For instance, when considering the effect of the agent suffix -ist added to the noun stem art- we might expect the whole to mean 'any person occupied in art, a representative of any kind of art', but usage specializes the meaning of the word artist and restricts it to a synonym of painter. Cf.tranquilliser, tumbler, trailer.

The process reverse to specialization is termed generalization and widening of meaning. In that case the scope of the new notion is wider than that of the original one (hence widening), whereas the content of the notion is poorer. In most cases generalization is combined with a higher order of abstraction than in the notion expressed by the earlier meaning. The transition from a concrete meaning to an abstract one is a most frequent feature in the semantic history of words. The change may be explained as occasioned by situations in which not all the features of the notions rendered are of equal importance for the message.

Thus, ready< OE rжde (a derivative of the verb ridan 'to ride') meant 'prepared for a ride'. Fly originally meant 'to move through the air with wings'; now it denotes any kind of movement in the air or outer space and also very quick movement in any medium. See also pirate, originally 'one who robs on the sea', by generalization it came to mean 'any one who robs with violence'.

The process of generalization went very far in the complicated history of the word thing. Its etymological meaning was 'an assembly for deliberation on some judicial or business affair', hence -- 'a matter brought before this assembly' and 'what was said or decided upon', then 'cause', 'object', 'decision'. Now it has become one of the most general words of the language, it can substitute almost any noun, especially non-personal noun and has received a pronominal force. Cf. something, nothing, anything, as in Nothing has happened yet.

Not every generic word comes into being solely by generalization, other processes of semantic development may also be involved in words borrowed from one language into another. The word person, for instance, is now a generic term for a human being […].

The word was borrowed into Middle English from Old French, where it was persone and came from Latin persona 'the mask used by an actor', 'one who plays a part', 'a character in a play'. The motivation of the word is of interest. The great theatre spaces in ancient Rome made it impossible for the spectators to see the actor's face and facial changes. It was also difficult to hear his voice distinctly. That is why masks with a megaphonic effect were used. The mask was called persona from Lat per 'through' and sonare 'to sound'. After the term had been transferred (metonymically) to the character represented, the generalization to any human being came quite naturally. The process of generalization and abstraction is continuing so that in the 70s person becomes a combining form substituting the semi-affix -man (chairperson, policeperson, salesperson, workperson). The reason for this is a tendency to abolish sex discrimination in job titles. The plural of compounds ending in -person may be -persons or -people: businesspeople or businesspersons.

In fact all the words belonging to the group of generic terms fall into this category of generalization. By generic terms we mean non-specific terms applicable to a great number of individual members of a big class of words. The grammatical categoric meaning of this class of words becomes predominant in their semantic components.

It is sometimes difficult to differentiate the instances of generalization proper from generalization combined with a fading of lexical meaning ousted by the grammatical or emotional meaning that take its place. These phenomena are closely connected with the peculiar characteristics of grammatical structure typical of each individual language. One observes them, for instance, studying the semantic history of the English auxiliary and semi-auxiliary verbs, especially have, do, shall, will, turn, go, and that of some English prepositions and adverbs which in the course of time have come to express grammatical relations. The weakening of lexical meaning due to the influence of emotional force is revealed in such words as awfully, terribly, terrific, smashing.

"Specialization" and "generalization" are thus identified on the evidence of comparing logical notions expressed by the meaning of words. If, on the other hand, the linguist is guided by psychological considerations and has to go by the type of association at work in the transfer of the name of one object to another and different one, he will observe that the most frequent transfers are based on associations of similarity, or of contiguity. As these types of transfer are well known in rhetoric as figures of speech called metaphor (Gr metaphora<meta 'change' and pherein 'bear') and metonymy (Gr metonymia<meta 'change' and onoma/onyma 'name'), the same terms are adopted here. A metaphor is a transfer of name based on the association of similarity and thus is actually a hidden comparison. It presents a method of description which likens one thing to another by referring to it as if it were some other one. A cunning person for instance is referred to as a fox. A woman may be called a peach, a lemon, a cat, a goose, a bitch, a lioness, etc.

In a metonymy, this referring to one thing as if it were some other one is based on association of contiguity (a woman -- a skirt). Sean O'Casey in his one-act play "The Hall of Healing" metonymically names his personages according to the things they are wearing: Red Muffler, Grey Shawl, etc. Metaphor and metonymy differ from the two first types of semantic change, i.e. generalization and specialization, inasmuch as they do not result in hyponymy and do not originate as a result of gradual almost imperceptible change in many contexts, but come of a purposeful momentary transfer of a name from one object to another belonging to a different sphere of reality.

In all discussion of linguistic metaphor and metonymy it must be borne in mind that they are different from metaphor and metonymy as literary devices. When the latter are offered and accepted both the author and the reader are to a greater or lesser degree aware that this reference is figurative, that the object has another name. The relationship of the direct denotative meaning of the word and the meaning it has in a particular literary context is based on similarity of some features in the objects compared. The poetic metaphor is the fruit of the author's creative imagination, as- for example when England is called by Shakespeare (in "King Richard II") this precious stone set in the silver sea.

The world is a bundle of hay,

Mankind are the asses who pull (Byron).

Though women are angels, yet wedlock's the devil (Byron).

Every metaphor is implicitly of the form 'X is like Y in respect of Z'. Thus we understand Byron's line as 'women are like angels, so good they are, but wedlock is as bad as the devil'. The wordsworld, mankind, women, wedlock, i.e. what is described in the metaphor, are its tenor,whilea bundle of hay, asses, angels, the devil are the vehicle, that is they represent the image that carries a description and serves to represent the tenor. The third element Z is called the ground of the metaphor. In the second example the ground is 'good' (used ironically) and 'bad'. The ground, that is the similarity between the tenor and vehicle, in a metaphor is implied, not expressed.

In a linguistic metaphor, especially when it is dead as a result of long usage, the comparison is completely forgotten and the thing named often has no other name: foot (of a mountain), leg (of a table), eye (of a needle), nose (of an aeroplane), back (of a book).

Transfer of names resulting from tropes (figurative use of words) has been classified in many various ways. Out of the vast collection of terms and classifications we mention only the traditional group of rhetorical categories: metaphor, metonymy, hyperbole, litotes, euphemism, because it is time-honoured and every philologist must be acquainted with it, even if he does not accept it as the best possible grouping.

The meaning of such expressions as a sun beam or a beam of light are not explained by allusions to a tree, although the word is actually derived from OE beam 'tree' || Germ Baum, whence the meaning beam 'a long piece of squared timber supported at both ends' has also developed. The metaphor is dead. There are no associations with hens in the verb brood 'to meditate' (often sullenly), though the direct meaning is 'to sit on eggs'.

There may be transitory stages: a bottleneck 'any thing obstructing an even flow of work', for instance, is not a neck and does not belong to a bottle. The transfer is possible due to the fact that there are some common features in the narrow top part of the bottle, a narrow outlet for road traffic, and obstacles interfering with the smooth working of administrative machinery. The drawing of sharp demarkation lines between a dead metaphor and one that is alive in the speaker's mind is here impossible.

Metaphors, H. Paul points out, may be based upon very different types of similarity, for instance, the similarity of shape: head of a cabbage, the teeth of a saw. This similarity of shape may be supported by a similarity of function. The transferred meaning is easily recognized from the context: The Head of the school, the key to a mystery. The similarity may be supported also by position: foot of a page/of a mountain, or behaviour and function: bookworm, wirepuller. The word whip 'a lash used to urge horses on' is metaphorically transferred to an official in the British Parliament appointed by a political party to see that members are present at debates, especially when a vote is taken, to check the voting and also to advise the members on the policy of the respective party.

In the leg of the table the metaphor is motivated by the similarity of the lower part of the table and the human limb in position and partlyin shape and function. Anthropomorphic metaphors are among the most frequent. The way in which the words denoting parts of the body are made to express a variety of meanings may be illustrated by the following: head of an army/of a procession/of a household; arms and mouth of a river, eye of a needle, foot of a hill, tongue of a bell and so on and so forth. The transferred meaning is easily recognized from the context:...her feet were in low-heeled brown brogues with fringed tongues (Plomber).

Numerous cases of metaphoric transfer are based upon the analogy between duration of time and space, e. g.long distance : : long speech; a short path : : a short time.

The transfer of space relations upon psychological and mental notions may be exemplified by words and expressions concerned with understanding: to catch (to grasp) an idea; to take a hint; to get the hang of; to throw light upon.

This metaphoric change from the concrete to the abstract is also represented in such simple words as score, span, thrill. Score comes from OE scoru 'twenty' < ON skor 'twenty' and also 'notch'. In OE time notches were cut on sticks to keep a reckoning. As score is cognate with shear, it is very probable that the meaning developed from the twentieth notch that was made of a larger size. From the meaning 'line' or 'notch cut or scratched down' many new meanings sprang out, such as 'number of points made by a player or a side in some games', 'running account', 'a debt', 'written or printed music', etc. Span<OE spann -- maximum distance between the tips of thumb and little finger used as a measure of length -- came to mean 'full extent from end to end' (of a bridge, an arch, etc.) and 'a short distance'. Thrill < ME thrillen 'to pierce' developed into the present meaning 'to penetrate with emotion.'

Another subgroup of metaphors comprises transitions of proper names into common ones: an Adonis, a Cicero, a Don Juan, etc. When a proper name like Falstaff is used referring specifically to the hero of Shakespeare's plays it has a unique reference. But when people speak of a person they know calling him Falstaff they make a proper name generic for a corpulent, jovial, irrepressibly impudent person and it no longer denotes a unique being. Cf. Don Juan as used about attractive profligates. To certain races and nationalities traditional characteristics have been attached by the popular mind with or without real justification. If a person is an out-and-out mercenary and a hypocrite or a conformist into the bargain they call him a Philistine, ruthlessly destructive people are called Vandals, Huns, unconventional people -- Bohemians.

As it has been already mentioned, if the transfer is based upon the association of contiguity it is called metonymy. It is a shift of names between things that are known to be in some way or other connected in reality or the substitution of the name of an attribute of a thing for the name of the thing itself.

Thus, the word book is derived from the name of a tree on which inscriptions were scratched. ModEwin<OE winnan 'to fight'; the word has been shifted so as to apply to the success following fighting. Cash is an adaptation of the French word casse 'box'; from naming the container it came to mean what was contained, i.e. money; the original meaning was lost in competition with the new word safe. The transfer may be conditioned by spatial, temporal, causal, symbolic, instrumental, functional and other connections. The resulting polysemy is called regular because it embraces whole classes of words.

Regular spatial relations are, for instance, present when the name of the place is used for the people occupying it. The chair may mean 'the chairman', the bar 'the lawyers', the pulpit 'the priests'. The word town may denote the inhabitants of a town and the House -- the members of the House of Commons or of Lords.

A causal relationship is obvious in the following development: ModE fear< ME fere/feer/fer < OE fжr 'danger', 'unexpected attack'. States and properties serve as names for objects and people possessing them: youth, age, authorities, forces. The name of the action can serve to name the result of the action: ModE kill< ME killen 'to hit on the head' […]. Emotions may be named by the movements that accompany them: frown, start.

There are also the well-known instances of symbol for thing symbolized: the crown for 'monarchy'; the instrument for the product: hand for 'handwriting'; receptacle for content, as in the word kettle (cf. the kettle is boiling), and some others. Words denoting the material from which an article is made are often used to denote the particular article: glass, iron, copper, nickel are well known examples.

The pars pro toto (also a version of metonymy) where the name of a part is applied to the whole may be illustrated by such militarytermsas the royal horse for 'cavalry' andfoot for 'infantry', and by the expressions like I want to have a word with you. The reverse process (totum pro parte) is observed when OEceol 'a ship' develops into keel 'a lowest longitudinal frame of a ship'.

A place of its own within metonymical change is occupied by the so-called functional change. The type has its peculiarities: in this case the shift is between names of things substituting one another in human practice. Thus, the early instrument for writing was a feather or more exactly a quill (OE pen <OFr penne<It penna<Lat penna 'feather'). We write with fountain-pens that are made of different materials and have nothing in common with feathers except the function, but the name remains. The name rudder comes from OE roрer 'oar' || Germ Ruder 'oar'. The shift of meaning is due to the shift of function: the steering was formerly achieved by an oar. The steersman was called pilot; with the coming of aviation one who operates the flying controls of an aircraft was also called pilot.[…]

Common names may be metonymically derived from proper names as in macadam -- a type of pavement named after its inventor John McAdam (1756-1836) and diesel or diesel engine -- a type of compression ignition engine invented by a German mechanical engineer Rudolf Diesel (1858-1913). The process of nomination includes ellipsis (Diesel engine -- diesel).

Many international physical and technical units are named after great scientists, as for instance ampere -- the unit of electrical current after Andre Marie Ampere (1775-1836), a great French mathematician and physicist. Compare also: ohm, volt, watt, etc.

Transfers by contiguity often involve place names. There are many instances in political vocabulary when the place of some establishment is used not only for the establishment itself or its staff but also for its policy. The White House is the executive mansion of the president of the USA in Washington, the name is also used for his administration and politics. Similarly The Pentagon, so named, because it is a five-sided building, denotes the US military command and its political activities, because it contains the USA Defence Department and the offices of various branches of the US armed forces. Wall Street is the name of the main street in the financial district of New York and hence it also denotes the controlling financial interests of American capitalism.

The same type is observed when we turn to Great Britain. Here the British Government of the day is referred to as Downing Street because the Prime Minister's residence is at No 10 Downing Street. The street itself is named after a 17th century British diplomat.

An interesting case is Fleet Street -- a thoroughfare in central London along which many British newspaper offices are located, hence Fleet Street means British journalism. The name of the street is also metonymical but the process here is reversed -- a proper toponymical noun is formed from a common noun: fleet is an obsolete term for 'a creek or an inlet in the shore'. Originally the street extended along a creek.

Examples of geographical names, turning into common nouns to name the goods exported or originating there, are exceedingly numerous. Such transfer by contiguity is combined with ellipsis in the nomination of various stuffs and materials: astrakhan (fur), china (ware), damask (steel), holland (linen), morocco (leather).

The similarly formed names for wines or kinds of cheese are international as, for instance: champagne, burgundy, madeira; brie cheese, cheddar, roquefort, etc.

Sometimes the semantic connection with place names is concealed by phonetic changes and is revealed by etymological study. The word jeans can be traced to the name of the Italian town Genoa, where the fabric of which they are made was first manufactured. Jeans is a case of metonymy, in which the name of the material jean is used to denote an object made of it. This type of multiple transfer of names is quite common (cf. china, iron, etc.). The cotton fabric of which jeans are made was formerly used for manufacturing uniforms and work clothes and was known for several centuries as jean (from Med Lat Genes, Genoa).

The process can consist of several stages, as in the word cardigan -- a knitted jacket opening down the front. Garments are often known by the names of those who brought them into fashion. This particular jacket is named after the seventh earl of Cardigan whose name is from Cardigan or Cardiganshire, a county in Wales.

Other examples of denominations after famous persons areraglanandWellingtons. Raglan -- a loose coat with sleeves extending in one piece to the neckline -- is named after field-marshal lord Raglan;Wellingtons orWellington boots -- boots extending to the top of the knee in front but cut low in back -- were popularized by the first Duke of Wellington.

Following the lead of literary criticism linguists have often adopted terms of rhetoric for other types of semantic change, besides metaphor and metonymy. These are: hyperbole, litotes, irony, euphemism. In all these cases the same warning that was given in connection with metaphors and metonymy must be kept in mind: namely, there is a difference between these terms as understood in literary criticism and in lexicology. Hyperbole (from Gr hyperbole 'exceed') is an exaggerated statement not meant to be understood literally but expressing an intensely emotional attitude of the speaker to what he is speaking about. E. g.: A fresh egg has a world of power (Bellow). The emotional tone is due to the illogical character in which the direct denotative and the contextual emotional meanings are combined.

A very good example is chosen by I. R. Galperin from Byron, and one cannot help borrowing it:

When people say "I've told you fifty times,"

They mean to scold and very often do.

The reader will note that Byron's intonation is distinctly colloquial, the poet is giving us his observations concerning colloquial expressions. So the hyperbole here, though used in verse, is not poetic but linguistic.

The same may be said about expressions like: It's absolutely maddening, You'll be the death of me, I hate troubling you, It's monstrous. It's a nightmare, A thousand pardons, A thousand thanks, Haven't seen you for ages, I'd give the world to, I shall be eternally grateful, I'd love to do it, etc.

The most important difference between a poetic hyperbole and a linguistic one lies in the fact that the former creates an image, whereas in the latter the denotative meaning quickly fades out and the corresponding exaggerating words serve only as general signs of emotion without specifying the emotion itself. Some of the most frequent emphatic words are: absolutely! lovely! magnificent! splendid! marvellous! wonderful! amazing! incredible! and so on.

The reverse figure is called litotes (from Gr litos 'plain', 'meagre') or understatement. It might be defined as expressing the affirmative by the negative of its contrary, e. g. not bad or not half bad for 'good', not small for 'great', no coward for 'brave'. Some understatements do not contain negations, e. g. rather decent; could do with a cup of tea. It is, however, doubtful whether litotes should be considered under the heading of semantic change at all, because as a rule it creates no permanent change in the sense of the word used and concerns mostly usage and contextual meaning of words. Understatement expresses a desire to conceal or suppress one's feelings, according to the code of reserve, and to seem indifferent and calm. E.g.:

"But this is frightful, Jeeves!'

"Certainly somewhat disturbing, sir." (Wodehouse)

"Long time since we met."

"It is a bit, isn't it?" (Wodehouse)

The indifference may be superficial and suggest that the speaker's emotions are too strong to be explicitly stated.

Understatement is considered to be a typically British way of putting things and is more characteristic of male colloquial speech: so when a woman calls a concert absolutely fabulous using a hyperbole a man would say it was not too bad or that it was some concert.

Understatement is rich in connotations: it may convey irony, disparagement and add expressiveness. E.g. rather unwise (about somebody very silly) or rather pushing (about somebody quite unscrupulous).

The term irony is also taken from rhetoric, it is the expression of one's meaning by words of opposite sense, especially a simulated adoption of the opposite point of view for the purpose of ridicule or disparagement. One of the meanings of the adjective nice is 'bad', 'unsatisfactory'; it is marked off as ironical and illustrated by the example: You've got us into a nice mess. The same may be said about the adjective pretty: A pretty mess you've made of it!

As to the euphemisms, that is referring to something unpleasant by using milder words and phrases so that a formerly unoffensive word receives a disagreeable meaning (e. g. pass away 'die'), they will be discussed later in connection with extralinguistic causes of semantic change and later still as the origin of synonyms.

Changes depending on the social attitude to the object named, connected with social evaluation and emotional tone, are called amelioration and pejoration of meaning[…]. Examples of amelioration are OE cwen 'a woman' >ModE queen, OE cniht 'a young servant' > ModE knight. The meaning of some adjectives has been elevated through associations with aristocratic life or town life. This is true about such words as civil, chivalrous, urbane. The word gentle had already acquired an evaluation of approval by the time it was borrowed into English from French in the meaning 'well-born'. Later its meaning included those characteristics that the high-born considered appropriate to their social status: good breeding, gracious behaviour, affability. Hence the noun gentleman, a kind of key-word in the history of English, that originally meant 'a man of gentle (high) birth' came to mean 'an honourable and well-bred person'. The meaning of the adjective gentle which at first included only social values now belongs to the ethical domain and denotes 'kind', 'not rough', 'polite'. A similar process of amelioration in the direction of high moral qualities is observed in the adjective noble -- originally 'belonging to the nobility'.

The reverse process is called pejoration or degradation; it involves a lowering in social scale connected with the appearance of a derogatory and scornful emotive tone reflecting the disdain of the upper classes towards the lower ones. E. g.: ModE knave<OE cnafa || Germ Knabe meant at first 'boy', then 'servant', and finally became a term of abuse and scorn. Another example of the same kind is blackguard. In the lord's retinue of Middle Ages served among others the guard of iron pots and other kitchen utensils, black with soot. From the immoral features attributed to these servants by their masters comes the present scornful meaning of the word blackguard 'scoundrel'. A similar history is traced for the words: boor, churl, clown, villain. Boor (originally 'peasant' || Germ Bauer) came to mean 'a rude, awkward, ill-mannered person'. Churl is now a synonym to boor. It means 'an ill-mannered and surly fellow'. The cognate German word is Kerl which is emotionally and evaluatory neutral. Up to the thirteenth century ceorl denoted the lowest rank of a freeman, later -- a serf. In present-day English the social component is superseded by the evaluative meaning. A similar case is present in the history of the word clown: the original meaning was also 'peasant' or 'farmer'. Now it is used in two variants: 'a clumsy, boorish, uncouth and ignorant man' and also 'one who entertains, as in a circus, by jokes, antics, etc.' The French borrowing villain has sustained an even stronger pejorisation: from 'farm servant' it gradually passed to its present meaning 'scoundrel'.

The material of this chapter shows that semantic changes are not arbitrary. They proceed in accordance with the logical and psychological laws of thought, otherwise changed words would never be understood and could not serve the purpose of communication. The various attempts at classification undertaken by traditional linguistics, although inconsistent and often subjective, are useful, since they permit the linguist to find his way about an immense accumulation of semantic facts. However, they say nothing or almost nothing about the causes of these changes.

Questions:

What is a necessary condition of any semantic change?

What are the two kinds of association involved as a rule in various semantic changes? Give examples of both.

What is specialization of meaning? Give examples.

What happens to the notion after specialization of meaning?

Give example of specialization of meaning in proper names.

What is generalization of meaning? Give examples.

What is metaphor and metonymy? Give examples.

What is the difference between linguistic and poetic metaphor?

Give example of metaphors in transitory state between poetic and linguistic.

Give example of metaphor based on similarity of shape.

Give example of anthropomorphic metaphor.

Give example of metaphors based on duration of time and space.

Give example of metaphorical transition of proper names into common nouns.

What are pars pro toto and totum pro parse? Give examples.

Give example of functional change.

Give example of metonymic derivation from proper names.

Give example of hyperboles, litotes, irony, euphemisms, amelioration and pejoration.

Results of Semantic Change

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §23. Results of Semantic Change [pp. 31-32]

Results of semantic change can begenerallyobserved in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word (restriction and extension of meaning) or in the alteration of its connotational component (amelioration and deterioration of meaning).

Changes in the denotational meaning may result in the restriction of the types or range of referents denoted by the word. This may be illustrated by the semantic development of the word hound (OE.hund) which used to denote 'a dog of any breed' but now denotes only 'a dog used in the chase'. This is also the case with the word fowl (OE.fu?ol, fu?el) which in old English denoted 'any bird', but in Modern English denotes'a domestic hen or cock'.This is generally described as "restriction of meaning" and if the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized vocabulary of some limited group within the speech community it is usual to speak of specialization, of meaning. For example, we can observe restriction and specialization of meaning in the case of the verbto glide(OE.glidan) which had the meaning 'to move gently and smoothly' and has now acquired a restricted and specialized meaning 'to fly with no engine' (cf.a glider).

Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents.This is commonly described as extension of meaning and may be illustrated by the wordtarget which originally meant 'a small round shield' (a diminutive oftarge, cf.ON.targa) but now means 'anything that is fired at' and also figuratively 'any result aimed at'.

If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialized vocabulary into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the generalization of meaning. The word camp, e.g., which originally was used only as a military term and meant 'the place where troops are lodged in tents' (cf. L.campus--'exercising ground for the army') extended and generalized its meaning and now denotes 'temporary quarters' (of travellers, nomads, etc.).

As can be seen from the examples discussed above it is mainly the denotational component of the lexical meaning that is affected while the connotational component remains unaltered. There are other cases, however, when the changes in the connotational meaning come to the fore. These changes, as a rule accompanied by a change in the denotational component, may be subdivided into two main groups: a) pejorative development or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge, and b) ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning. The semantic change in the wordboor may serve to illustrate the first group. This word was originally used to denote 'a villager, a peasant' (cf. OE. ?ebur 'dweller') and then acquired a derogatory, contemptuous connotational meaning and came to denote 'a clumsy or ill-bred fellow'. The ameliorative development of the connotational meaning may be observed in the change of the semantic structure of the wordministerwhich in one of its meanings originally denoted 'a servant, an attendant',but now--'a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a department of state or accredited by one state to another'.

It is of interest to note that in derivational clusters a change in the connotational meaning of one member does not necessarily affect all the others. This peculiarity can be observed in the wordsaccident and accidental. The lexical meaning of the nounaccident has undergone pejorative development and denotes not only 'something that happens by chance', but usually'somethingunfortunate'. The derived adjectiveaccidental does not possess in its semantic structure this negative connotational meaning (cf. alsofortune: bad fortune, good fortune andfortunate).

Questions:

How can we observe the results of semantic change?

How can denotational meaning change? Give examples.

How can connotational meaning change? Give examples.

Historical Changeability of Semantic Structure

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §29. Historical Changeability of Semantic Structure [pp. 36-37]

From the discussion of the diachronic and synchronic approach to polysemyit follows that the interrelation and the interdependence of individual meanings of the word may be described from two different angles. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive but are viewed here as supplementing each other in the linguistic analysis of a polysemantic word.

It should be noted, however, that as the semantic structure is never static, the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. This is perhaps best illustrated by the semantic analysis of the wordrevolution. Originally, when this word first appeared in ME. 1350--1450 it denoted 'the revolving motion of celestial bodies' and also 'the return or recurrence of a point or a period of time'. Later-on the word acquired other meanings and among them that of 'a complete overthrow of the established government or regime' and also 'a complete change, a great reversal of conditions'. The meaning 'revolving motion' in ME. was both primary (diachronically) and central (synchronically). In ModernEnglish, however, while we can still diachronically describe this meaning as primary it is no longer synchronically central as the arrangement of meanings in the semantic structure of the wordrevolution has considerably changed and its central and the most frequent meaning is 'a complete overthrow of the established government or the regime'. It follows that the primary meaning of the word may become synchronically one of its minor meanings and diachronically a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of the word. The actual arrangement of meanings in the semantic structure of any word in any historical period is the result of the semantic development of this word within the system of the given language.

Questions:

Give example proving that semantic structure of a word may change in the course of time.

What determines the actual arrangement of meanings in the semantic structure of any word?



Tasks:

Where do we observe a) the conflict of synonyms b) the linguistic analogy c) linguistic ellipsis?

sky - heavens

finals (последние экзамены)

to catch, to get, to grasp = to understand

the Kremlin

What type of the similarity of the metaphor do we observe here?

head of cabbage

the key of the mystery

a book-worm

the foots of mountains

orange violet

the eye of a needle

What type of the metonymies do we observe here?

glass, china, silver

the Board

the first violin

sandwich, Disney

to eat a whole plate

China

Where do we observe hyperbole and where - litotes?

I have not seen you for ages!

Not bad

T hate doing it

We are dead

No coward

To make a mountain out of a molehill

No fool

Seminar 5. Lexical Paradigmatics

English Vocabulary as a System

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §1.5. The Notion of Lexical System [pp. 21-23]

It has been claimed by different authors that, in contrast to grammar, the vocabulary of a language is not systematic but chaotic. In the light of recent investigations in linguistic theory, however, we are now in a position to bring some order into this "chaos".

Lexicology studies the recurrent patterns of semantic relationships, find of any formal phonological, morphological or contextual means by which they may be rendered. It aims at systematization.

There has been much discussion of late, both in this country and abroad, concerning different problems of the systematic nature of the language vocabulary. The Soviet scholars are now approaching a satisfactory solution based on Marxist dialectics and its teaching of the general interrelation and interdependence of phenomena in nature and society.

There are several important points to be made here.

The term system as used in present-day lexicology denotes not merely the sum total of English words, it denotes a set of elements associated and functioning together according to certain laws. It is a coherent homogeneous whole, constituted by interdependent elements of the same order related in certain specific ways. The vocabulary of a language is moreover an adaptive system constantly adjusting itself to the changing requirements and conditions of human communications and cultural surroundings. It is continually developing by overcoming contradictions between its state and the new tasks and demands it has to meet.

A set is described in the abstract set theory as a collection of definite distinct objects to be conceived as a whole. A set is said to be a collection of distinct elements, because a certain object may be distinguished from the other elements in a set, but there is no possibility of its repeated appearance. A set is called structured when the number of its elements is greater than the number of rules according to which these elements may be constructed. A set is given either by indicating, i.e. listing, all its elements, or by stating the characteristic property of its elements. For example the closed set of English articles may be defined as comprising the elements: the, a/an and zero. The set of English compounds on the other hand is an infinite (open) set containing all the words consisting of at least two stems which occur in the language as free forms.

In a classical set theory the elements are said to be definite because with respect to any of them it should be definite whether it belongs to a given set or not. The new development in the set theory, that of fuzzy sets, has proved to be more relevant to the study of vocabulary. We have already mentioned that the boundaries of linguistic sets are not sharply delineated and the sets themselves overlapping.

The lexical system of every epoch contains productive elements typical of this particular period, others that are obsolete and dropping out of usage, and, finally, some new phenomena, significant marks of new trends for the epochs to come. The present status of a system is an abstraction, a sort of scientific fiction which in some points can facilitate linguistic study, but the actual system of the language is in a state of constant change.

Lexicology studies this whole by determining the properties of its elements and the different relationships of contrast and similarity existing between them within a language, as well as the ways in which they are influenced by extra-linguistic reality.

The extra-linguistic relationships refer to the connections of words with the elements of objective reality they serve to denote, and their dependence on the social, mental and cultural development of the language community.

The theory of reflection as developed by V.I. Lenin is our methodological basis, it teaches that objective reality is approximately but correctly reflected in the human mind. The notions rendered in the meanings of the words are generalized reflections of real objects and phenomena. In this light it is easy to understand how things that are connected in reality come to be connected in language too. […] the original meaning of the word post was 'a man stationed in a number of others along a road as a courier', hence it came to mean the vehicle used, the packets and letters carried, a relay of horses, the station where horses could be obtained (shortened for post-office), a single dispatch of letters. E. g.: It is a place with only one post a day (Sidney Smith). It is also used as a title for newspapers. There is a verb post 'to put letters into a letter-box.'

The reflection of objective reality is selective. That is, human thought and language select, reflect and nominate what is relevant to human activity.

Even though its elements are concrete and can be observed as such, a system is always abstract, and so is the vocabulary system or, as Academician V.V. Vinogradov has called it, the lexico-semantic system. The interdependence in this system results from a complex interaction of words in their lexical meanings and the grammatical features of the language. V.V. Vinogradov includes in this term both the sum total of words and expressions and the derivational and functional patterns of word forms and word-groups, semantic groupings and relationships between words. The interaction of various levels in the language system may be illustrated in English by the following: the widespread development of homonymy and polysemy, the loss of motivation, the great number of generic words and the very limited autonomy of English words as compared with Russian words are all closely connected with the mono-morphemic analytical character of the English language and the scarcity of morphological means. All these in their turn result, partly at least, from levelling and loss of endings, processes undoubtedly connected with the reduction of vowels in unstressed syllables. […]

The term system as applied to vocabulary should not be understood to mean a well-defined or rigid system. As it has been stated above it is an adaptive system and cannot be completely and exactly characterized by deterministic functions; that is for the present stateof science it is not possible to specify the system's entire future by its status at some one instant of its operation. In other words, the vocabulary is not simply a probabilistic system but a set of interrelated adaptive subsystems.

Questions:

What are the aims of lexicology concerned with systematizations?

What is a system? Describe peculiarities of lexical system.

What is a set? What is a fuzzy set? Give examples of sets within lexical system.

Prove that lexical system is in a state of constant change.

How are lexical system and extra-linguist reality connected?

What are the main grammatical and phonetical features of English that influence its lexical system?

Types of Semantic Relations of Words

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §1.5. The Notion of Lexical System [pp. 23-25]

Last but not least, one final point may be made about the lexical system, namely that its elements are characterized by their combinatorial and contrastive properties determining their syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships. A word enters into syntagmatic (linear) combinatorial relationships with other lexical units that can form its context, serving to identify and distinguish its meaning. Lexical units are known to be context-dependent. E. g. in the hat on her head the noun head means 'part of the body', whereas in the head of the department head means 'chief'. A word enters into contrastive paradigmatic relations with all other words, e. g. head, chief, director, etc. that can occur in the same context and be contrasted to it. This principle of contrast or opposition is fundamental in modern linguistics […].

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic studies of meaning are functional because the meaning of the lexical unit is studied first not through its relation to referent but through its functions in relation to other units.

Functional approach is contrasted to referential oronomasiological approach, otherwise called theory of nomination, in which meaning is studied as the interdependence between words and their referents, that is things or concepts they name, i.e. various names given to the same sense. The onomasiological study of lexical units became especially prominent in the last two decades. The revival of interest in onomasiological matters is reflected in a large volume of publications on the subject. […].