Exercises in lexicology

The study of the lexical system must also include the study of the words' combinatorial possibilities -- their capacity to combine with one another in groups of certain patterns, which serve to identify meanings. Most modern research in linguistics attaches great importance to what is variously called valency, distributional characteristics, colligation and collocation, combining power or otherwise. This research shows that combinatorial possibilities of words play an important part in almost every lexicological issue.

Syntagmatic relationships being based on the linear character of speech are studied by means of contextual, valency, distributional, transformational and some other types of analysis.

Paradigmatic linguistic relationships determining the vocabulary system are based on the interdependence of words within the vocabulary (synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, etc.).

Questions:

What are the two types of semantic relations of words? What is the difference between them?

Prove that pragmatic and syntagmatic relations are functional.

What is the functional approach contrasted to?

What is valency?

What is the basis of syntagmatic relations? How are they studied?

What is the basis of pragmatic relations?

Different Groupings of Words. Morphological Groupings

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §11.2. Morphological and Lexico-Grammatical Grouping [pp. 221-226]

On the morphological level words are divided into four groups according to their morphological structure, namely the number and type of morphemes which compose them. They are:

Root or morpheme words. Their stem contains one free morpheme, e. g. dog, hand.

Derivatives contain no less than two morphemes of which at least one is bound, e.g. dogged, doggedly, handy, handful; sometimes both are bound: terrier.

Compound words consist of not less than two free morphemes, the presence of bound morphemes is possible but not necessary, e.g.dog-cheap 'very cheap'; dog-days 'hottest part of the year'; handball, handbook.

4. Compound derivatives consist of not less than two free morphemes and one bound morpheme referring to the whole combination. The pattern is (stem+stem)+suffix, e. g. dog-legged 'crooked or bent likeadog's hind leg', left-handed.

This division is the basic one for lexicology.

Another type of traditional lexicological grouping is known as word-families. The number of groups is certainly much greater, being equal to the number of root morphemes if all the words are grouped according to the root morpheme. For example: dog, doggish, doglike, doggy/doggie, to dog, dogged, doggedly, doggedness, dog-wolf, dog-days, dog-biscuit, dog-cart, etc.; hand, handy, handicraft, handbag, handball, handful, handmade, handsome, etc.

Similar groupings according to a common suffix or prefix are also possible, if not as often made use of. The greater the combining power ofthe affix, the more numerous the group. Groups with such suffixes as -er, -ing, -ish, -less, -ness constitute infinite (open) sets, i.e. are almost unlimited, because new combinations are constantly created. When the suffix is no longer productive the group may have a diminishing number of elements, as with the adjective-forming suffix -some, e.g. gladsome, gruesome, handsome, lithesome, lonesome, tiresome, troublesome, wearisome, wholesome, winsome, etc.

The next step is classifying words not in isolation but taking them within actual utterances. Here the first contrast to consider is the contrast between notional words and form or functional words. Actually the definition of the word as a minimum free form holds good for notional words only. It is only notional words that can stand alone and yet have meaning and form a complete utterance. They can name different objects of reality, the qualities of these objects and actions or the process in which they take part. In sentences they function syntactically as some primary or secondary members. Even extended sentences are possible which consist of notional words only. They can also express the attitude of the speaker towards reality.

Form words, also called functional words, empty words or auxiliaries (the latter term is coined by H. Sweet), are lexical units which are called words, although they do not conform to the definition of the word, because they are used only in combination with notional words or in reference to them. This group comprises auxiliary verbs, prepositions, conjunctions and relative adverbs. Primarily they express grammatical relationships between words. This does not, however, imply that they have no lexical meaning of their own.

The borderline between notional and functional words is not always very clear and does not correspond to that between various parts of speech. Thus, most verbs are notional words, but the auxiliary verbs are classified as form words. It is open to discussion whether link verbs should be treated as form words or not. The situation is very complicated if we consider pronouns. Personal, demonstrative and interrogative pronouns, as their syntactical functions testify, are notional words; reflexive pronouns seem to be form words building up such analytical verb forms as I warmed myself, but this is open to discussion. As to prop-words (one, those, etc.), some authors think that they should be considered as a separate, third group.

B.N. Aksenenko very aptly proved the presence of a lexical meaning by suggesting a substitution test with They went to the village as a test frame. By substituting across, from, into, round, out of and through for to, one readily sees the semantic difference between them.

It is typical of the English language that the boundary between notional and functional words sometimes lies within the semantic structure of one and the same word, so that in some contexts they appear as notional words and in other contexts as form words. Compare the functions and meanings of the verb have as used in the following extract from a novel by A. Huxley: Those that have not complain about their own fate. Those that have do not, it is only those in contact with them -- and since the havers are few these too are few -- who complain of the curse of having. In my time I have belonged to both categories. Once I had, and I can see that to my fellowmen I must then have been intolerable... now I have not. The curse of insolence and avarice has been removed from me.

The systematic use of form words is one of the main devices of English grammatical structure, surpassed in importance only by fixed word order. Form words are therefore studied in grammar rather than in lexicology which concentrates its attention upon notional words.

Those linguists who divide all the words into three classes (notional words, form words, deictic and substitute words or prop-words) consider the latter as pointing words (this, that, they, there, then, thus, he, here, how, who, what, where, whither, nobody, never, not). Deictic words are orientational words, relative to the time and place of utterance. They ultimately stand for objects of reality, if only at second hand.

The division into such classes as parts of speech observes both paradigmatic and syntagmatic relationships of the words and also their meaning. There is no necessity to dwell here upon the parts of speech, because they are dealt with in grammar. We shall limit our discussion to subdivisions of parts of speech and call them lexico-grammatical groups. By a lexico-grammatical group we understand a class of words which have a common lexico-grammatical meaning, a common paradigm, the same substituting elements and possibly a characteristic set of suffixes rendering the lexico-grammatical meaning. These groups are subsets of the parts of speech, several lexico- grammatical groups constitute one part of speech. Thus, English nouns are subdivided approximately into the following lexico-grammatical groups: personal names, animal names, collective names (for people), collective names (for animals), abstract nouns, material nouns, object nouns, proper names for people, toponymic proper nouns.

If, for instance, we consider a group of nouns having the following characteristics: two number forms, the singular and the plural; two case forms; animate, substituted in the singular by he or she; common, i.e. denoting a notion and not one particular object (as proper names do); able to combine regularly with the indefinite article, some of them characterized by such suffixes as-er/-or, -ist, -ee, -eer and the semi- affix -man, we obtain the so-called personal names: agent, baker, artist, volunteer, visitor, workman.

Observing the semantic structure of words belonging to this group we find a great deal of semantic likeness within it, not only in the denotative meanings as such but also in the way various meanings are combined. Personal nouns, for instance, possess a comparatively simple semantic structure. A structure consisting of two variants predominates. In many cases the secondary, i.e. derived meaning is due to generalization or specialization. Generalization is present in such words as advocate, which may mean any person who supports or defends a plan or a suggestion anywhere, not only in court; apostle, which alongside its religious meaning may denote any leader of any reform or doctrine. E. g.: What would Sergius, the apostle of the higher love, say if he saw me now? (Shaw)

Specialization is observed in cases like beginner, where the derived meaning corresponds to a notion of a narrower scope: 'one who has not had much experience' as compared to 'one who begins'.

The group is also characterized by a high percentage of emotionally coloured, chiefly derogatory words among the metaphorical derived variants, such as baby 'a person who behaves like a baby'or witch 'an ugly and unkind woman'.

Words belonging to another lexico-grammatical group, for instance those denoting well-known animals, very often develop metaphorical expressive names for people possessing qualities rightly or wrongly attributed to the respective animals: ass, bitch, cow,fox, swine. E.g.: Armitage had talked, he supposed. Damned young pup! What did he know about it! (Christie)

The subdivision of all the words belonging to some part of speech into groups of the kind described above is also achieved on this basis of oppositions. Should we want to find the subgroups of the English noun, we may take as distinctive features the relations of the given word to the categories of number and case, their combining possibilities with regard to definite, indefinite and zero article, their possible substitution by he, she, it or they, their unique or notional correlation.

Lexico-grammatical groups should not be confused with parts of speech. A few more examples will help to grasp the difference. Audience and honesty, for instance, belong to the same part of speech but to different lexico-grammatical groups, because their lexico-grammatical meaning is different: audience is a group of people, and honesty is a quality; they have different paradigms: audience has two forms, singular and plural, honesty is used only in the singular; also honesty is hardly ever used in the Possessive case unless personified. To show that the substituting elements are different two examples will suffice: I am referring to what goes on inside the audience's mind when they see the play (Arden). Honesty isn't everything but I believe it's the first thing (Priestley). Being a collective noun, the word audience is substituted by they, honesty is substituted by it.

Other words belonging to the same lexico-grammatical group as audience are people, party, jury, but not flock or swarm, because the lexico-grammatical meaning of the last two words is different: they are substituted by it and denote groups of living beings but not persons, unless, of course, they are used metaphorically.



Questions:

What are morphological groups of words? Give examples of words belonging to each group.

What are word-families?

What is the difference between notional and form words?

Prove that form words still possess lexical meaning.

What are deictic words? What do they express?

What is a lexico-grammatical group? Give examples of lexico-grammatical groups.

Prove that words belonging to the same lexico-grammatical groups share some semantic peculiarities.

What is the basis for singling out a lexico-grammatical group?

What is the difference between part of speech and lexico-semantical group?

Semantic Groupings

Synonyms

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §47. Semantic Equivalence and Synonymy, §48. Criteria of Synonymity, §49. Patterns of Synonymic Sets in Modern English [pp. 55-59]

Lexical units may also be classified, by the criterion of semantic similarity and semantic contrast. The terms generally used to denote these two types of semantic relatedness are synonymy and antonymy.

Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence. Semantic equivalence however can exist between words and word-groups, word-groups and sentences, sentences and sentences. For example,John is taller than Bill is semantically equivalent toBill is shorter than John. John sold the bookto Bill andBill bought the book from John may be considered semantically equivalent.

As can be seen from the above these sentences are paraphrases and denote the same event. Semantic equivalence may be observed on the level of word-groups. Thus we may say thatto win a victory is synonymous withto gain a victory, etc.

Here we proceed from the assumption that the terms synonymy and synonyms should be confined to semantic relation between words only. Similar relations between word-groups and sentences are described as semantic equivalence. Synonyms may be found in different parts of speech and both among notional and function words. For example,thoughandalbeit, on andupon, since andas are synonymous because these phonemically different words are similar in their denotational meaning.

Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but identical or similar in meaning. This definition has been severely criticized on many points. Firstly, it seems impossible to speak of identical or similar meaning of words as such as this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. It is inconceivable that polysemantic words couldbe synonymous in an their meanings. The verb look, e.g., is usually treated as a synonym ofsee, watch, observe, etc., but in another of its meanings it is not synonymous with this group of words but rather with the verbsseem, appear (cf.to look at smb andto look pale). The number of synonymic sets of a polysemantic word tends as a rule to be equal to the number of individual meanings the word possesses.

In the discussion of polysemy and context we have seen that one of the ways of discriminating between different meanings of a word is the interpretation of these meanings in terms of their synonyms, e.g. the two meanings of the adjectivehandsome are synonymously interpreted as handsome--'beautiful' (usually about men) andhandsome--'considerable, ample' (about sums, sizes, etc.).

Secondly, it seems impossible to speak of identity or similarity of lexical meaning as a who1e as it is only the denotational component that may be described as identical or similar. If we analyse words that are usually considered synonymous, e.g.to die, to pass away; to begin, to commence, etc., we find that the connotational component or, to be more exact, the stylistic reference of these words is entirely different and it is only the similarity of the denotational meaning that makes, them synonymous. The words, e.g.to die, to walk, to smile, etc., may be considered identical as to their stylistic reference or emotive charge, but as there is no similarity of denotational meaning they are never felt as synonymous words.

Thirdly, it does not seem possible to speak of identity of meaning as a criterion of synonymity since identity of meaning is very rare even among monosemantic words. In fact, cases of complete synonymy are very few and are, as a rule, confined to technical nomenclatures where we can find monosemantic terms completely identical in meaning as, for example,spirant andfricative in phonetics. Words in synonymic sets are in general differentiated because of some element of opposition in each member of the set. The wordhandsome, e.g., is distinguished from its synonymbeautiful mainly because the former implies the beauty of a male person or broadly speaking only of human beings, whereas beautiful is opposed to it as having no such restrictions in its meaning.

Thus it seems necessary to modify the traditional definition and to formulate it as follows:synonyms are words different in sound-form but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings. Synonymous relationship is observed only between similar denotational meanings of phonemically different words.

Differentiation of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components--denotational or connotational.

It should be noted, however, that the difference in denotational meaning cannot exceed certain limits, and is always combined with some common denotational component. The verbslook, seem, appear, e.g., are viewed as members of one synonymic set as all three of them possess a common denotational semantic component "to be in one's view, or judgement, but not necessarily in fact" and come into comparison in this meaning (cf.he seems (looks), (appears),tired). A more detailed analysis shows that there is a certain difference in the meaning of each verb:seemsuggests a personal opinion based on evidence (e.g. nothingseems right when one is out of sorts);look implies that opinion is based on a visual impression (e.g.the city looks its worst in March), appear sometimes suggests a distorted impression (e.g.the setting sun made the spires appear ablaze). Thus similarity of denotational meaning of all members of the synonymic series is combined with a certain difference in the meaning of each member.

It follows that relationship of synonymity implies certain differences in the denotational meaning of synonyms. In this connection a few words should be said about the traditional classification of vocabulary units into ideographic and stylistic synonyms. This classification proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may differ either in the denotational meaning (ideographic synonyms) or the connotational meaning, or to be more exact stylistic reference. This assumption cannot be accepted as synonymous words always differ in the denotational componentirrespective of the identity or difference of stylistic reference. In the synonymous verbsseem, appear, look the stylistic reference may be regarded as identical though we observe some difference in their denotational component. Difference in the denotational semantic component is also found in synonymous words possessing different connotational components. The verbssee andbehold, e.g., are usually treated as stylistic synonyms;see is stylistically neutral andbehold is described as bookish or poetic. It can be readily observed, however, that the difference between the two verbs is not confined solely to their stylistic reference. Though they have a common denotational component 'to take cognizance of something by physical (or mental) vision', there is a marked difference in their comparable meanings. The verbbehold suggests only 'looking at that which is seen', e.g. "behold them sitting in their glory" (Shelley). The verbsee denotes 'have or use power of sight' (e.g.the blind cannot see), 'understand' (e.g.don't you see my meaning?), 'have knowledge or experience of' (e.g.he has seen a good deal in his long life) and others.

Consequently, the interrelation of the denotational and connotational meaning of synonyms is rather complex. Difference of the connotational semantic component is invariably accompanied by some difference of the denotational meaning of synonyms. Therefore it would be more consistent to subdivide synonymous words into purely ideographic (denotational) and ideographic-stylistic synonyms.

It should be pointed out that neither thetraditional definition of synonyms nor the modified version suggested here provide for any objective criterion of similarity ofmeaning.

It is sometimes argued that the meaning of two words is identical if they can denote the same referent, in other words, if an object or a certain class of objects can always be denoted by either of the two words.

This approach to synonymy does not seem acceptable because the same referent in different speech situations can always be denoted by different words which cannot be considered synonyms. For example, the same woman can be referred to asmy mother by her son andmy wife by her husband. Both words denote obviously the same referent but there is no semantic relationship of synonymy between them.

Attempts have been made to introduce into the definition of synonymity the criterion of interchangeability in linguistic contexts. It is argued that for the linguist similarity of meaning implies that the words are synonymous if either of them can occur in the same context.

The definition of synonyms proceeding from the contextual approach is often worded as follows: synonyms are words which can replace each other in any given context without the slightest alteration in the denotational or connotational meaning. The contextual approach invites criticism for many reasons. Words interchangeable in any given context are very rare.

Modern linguists generally assume that there are no complete synonyms, i.e. if two words are phonemically different then their meaningsare also different. Thusbuy andpurchase are similar in meaning but differ in their stylistic reference and therefore are not completely interchangeable. That department of an institution which is concerned with acquisition of materials is normally thePurchasing Department rather than theBuying Department. A wife however would rarely ask her husband to purchase a pound of butter. It follows that practically no words are substitutable for one another in all contexts.

This fact may be explained as follows: firstly, words synonymous in some lexical contexts may display no synonymity in others. As one of the English scholars aptly remarks, the comparison of the sentencesthe rainfall in April was abnormal andthe rainfall in April was exceptionalmay give us grounds for assuming thatexceptional andabnormal are synonymous. The same adjectives in a different context are by no means synonymous, as we may see by comparingmy son is exceptional andmy son is abnormal.

Secondly, it is evident that interchangeability alone cannot serve as a criterion of synonymity. We may safely assume that synonyms are words interchangeable in some contexts. But the reverse is certainly not true as semantically different words of the same part of speech are, as a rule, interchangeable in quite a number of contexts. For example, in the sentenceI saw a little girl playing in the garden the adjectivelittle may be formally replaced by a number of semantically different adjectives, e.g.pretty, tall, English, etc.

Thus a more acceptable definition of synonyms seems to be the following: synonyms are words different in their sound-form, but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts.

The English word-stock is extremelyrich in synonyms which can be largely accounted for by abundant borrowing. Quite a number of words in synonymic sets are usually of Latin or French origin. For instance, out of thirteen words making up the set see, behold, descry, espy, view, survey, contemplate, observe, notice, remark, note, discern, perceive onlysee andbehold can be traced back to Old English (OE.sзon andbehealdan), all others are either French or Latin borrowings.

Thus a characteristic pattern of English synonymic sets is the pattern including the native and the borrowed words. Among the best investigated are the so-called double-scale patterns: native versus Latin (e.g. bodily--corporal, brotherly--fraternal); native versus Greek or French (e.g.answer--reply, fiddle--violin). In most cases the synonyms differ in their stylistic reference, too. The native word is usually colloquial (e.g.bodily, brotherly), whereas the borrowed word may as a rule be described as bookish or highly literary (e.g.corporal, fraternal).

Side by side with this pattern there exists in English a subsidiary one based on a triple-scale of synonyms; native--French and Latin orGreek (e.g.begin (start)--commence (Fr.)--initiate (L.); rise--mount(Fr.)--ascend (L.). In most of these sets thenative synonym is felt as more colloquial, the Latin or Greek one is characterized by bookish stylistic reference, whereas the French stands between the, two extremes.

There are some minor points of interest that should be discussed in connection with the problem of synonymy.It has often been found that subjects prominentinthe interests of a community tend to attract a large number of synonyms--is common knowledge that in "Beowulf" there are37 synonyms forhero and at least a dozen forbattle andfight. The same epic contains 17 expressions forsea to which 13 more may be added from other English poems of that period. In Modern American English there are at least twenty words used to denote money:beans, bucks, the chips, do-re-mi, the needful, wherewithal, etc. This linguistic phenomenon is usually described as the law of synonymic attraction.

It has also been observed that when a particular word is given a transferredmeaning its synonyms tend to develop along parallel lines. We know that in early New English the verboverlook was employed in the meaning of 'look with an evil eye upon, cast a spell over' from which there developed the meaning 'deceive' first recorded in 1596. Exactly half a century later we findoversee a synonym ofoverlook employed in the meaning of 'deceive'. This form of analogy active in the semantic development of synonyms is referred to as radiation of synonyms.

Another feature of synonymy is that the bulk of synonyms may be referred to stylistically marked words, i.e. they possessa peculiar connotational component of meaning. This can be observed by examining the synonyms for the stylistically neutral wordmoney listed above. Another example is the set of synonyms for the wordgirl (young female):doll, flame, skirt, tomato, broad, bag, dish, etc. all of which are stylistically marked. Many synonyms seem to possess common emotive charge.

Thus it was found that according to Roget 44 synonyms of the wordwhiteness imply something favourable and pleasing to contemplate (purity, cleanness, immaculateness, etc.).

Questions:

What is the difference between synonymy and semantic equivalence?

Give the traditional definition of synonymy. Prove that it is not satisfactory.

Where can we observe differentiation of synonyms? Give examples.

What are ideographic and stylistic synonyms?

What is the definition of synonyms given by R.S. Ginzburg?

What is the main cause of abundance of synonyms in English?

What are double-scale and triple-scale patterns? Give examples.

What is the correlation between source of borrowing and stylistic reference of synonyms?

What is the law of synonymic attraction?

What is the radiation of synonyms?

Antonyms

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §50. Semantic Contrast and Antonymy [pp. 59-61]

Antonymy in general shares many features typical of synonymy. Like synonyms, perfect or complete antonyms are fairly rare.

It is usual to find the relations of antonymy restricted to certain contexts. Thusthick is only one of the antonyms ofthin (a thin slice--a thick slice), another isfat (a thin man--a fat man).

The definition of antonyms as words characterized by semantic polarity or opposite meaning is open to criticism on the points discussed already in connection with synonymy. It is also evident that the term opposite meaning is rather vague and allows of essentially different interpretation.

If we compare the meaning of the wordskind--'gentle, friendly, showing love, sympathy or thought for others' andcruel--'taking pleasure in giving pain to others, without mercy', we see that they denote concepts that are felt as completely opposed to each other. Comparing the adjective kind andunkind we do not find any polarity of meaning as here semantic opposition is confined to simple negation.Unkind may be interpreted asnot kind which does not necessarily meancruel, just asnot beautiful does not necessarily meanugly.

It is more or less universally recognized that among the cases that are traditionally described as antonyms there are at least the following […] groups.

1. Contradictories which represent the type of semantic relations that exist between pairs likedead andalive, single andmarried, perfect andimperfect, etc.

To use one of the terms is to contradict the other and to usenot before one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other, cf.not dead=alive, not single=married.

Among contradictories we finda subgroup of words of the typeyoung-- old, big--small, and so on. The difference between these and the antonymicpairs described above lies in the fact that to saynot young is not necessarily to sayold. In fact terms likeyoung andold, big and small orfew andmany do not represent absolute values. To use one of the terms is to imply comparison with some norm:young means 'relatively young'. We can sayShe is young but she is older than her sister. To be older does not mean 'to be old'.

It is also usual for one member of each pair to always function as the unmarked or generic term for the common quality involved in both members:age, size, etc.

This generalized denotational meaning comes to the fore in certain contexts. When we askHow old is the baby?we do not imply that the baby is old. The questionHow big is it? may be answered byIt is very big orIt is very small.

It is of interest to note that quality nouns such aslength, breadth, width, thickness, etc. also are generic, i.e. they cover the entire measurement range while the corresponding antonymous nounsshortness, narrowness, thinness apply only to one of the extremes.

2. Contraries differ from contradictories mainly because contradictories admit of no possibility between them. One is eithersingle or married, eitherdead oralive, etc. whereas contraries admit such possibilities. This may be observed incold--hot, andcool andwarm which seem to be intermediate members. Thus we may regard as antonyms not onlycold andhot but alsocold andwarm.

Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or presence of one of the components of meaning like sex or age. This can be illustrated by such pairs asman--woman, man--boy.

3. Incompatibles. Semantic relations of incompatibility exist among the antonyms with the common component of meaning and may be described as the reverse of hyponymy, i.e. as the relations of exclusion but not of contradiction. To saymorning is to saynot afternoon, not evening, not night. The negation of one member of this set however does not imply semantic equivalence with the other but excludes the possibility of the other words of this set. A relation of incompatibility may be observed between colour terms since the choice ofred, e.g., entails the exclusion ofblack, blue, yellow and so on. Naturally not all colour terms are incompatible. Semantic relations betweenscarlet and red are those of hyponymy.

We know that polysemy may be analysed through synonymy. For example, different meaning of the polysemantic wordhandsome can be singled out by means of synonymic substitution a handsome man--a beautiful man; but a handsome reward--a generous reward. In some cases polysemy may be also analysed through antonymy (e.g.a handsome man--an ugly man, a handsome reward--an insufficient reward, etc.). This is naturally not to say that the number of meanings of a polysemantic word is equal to the number of its antonyms. Not all words or all meanings have antonyms (e.g.table, book, etc. have no antonyms). In some cases, however, antonymy and synonymy serve to differentiate the meanings as in the word handsome discussed above.

Interchangeability in certain contexts analysed in connection with synonyms is typical of antonyms as well. In a context where one member of the antonymous pair can be used, it is, as a rule, interchangeable with the other member. For instance, if we take the wordsdry andwetto be antonymous, they must be interchangeable in the same context (e.g.a wet shirt--a dry shirt). This is not to imply that the same antonyms are interchangeable in all contexts. It was pointed-out above that antonyms that belong to the group of contraries are found in various antonymic pairs. Thus, for instance there are many antonyms ofdry- damp, wet, moist, etc.

The interchangeability of each of them withdry is confined to certain contexts. In contrast todry air we selectdamp air and in contrastto dry lips--we would probably usemoist lips.

It is therefore suggested that the term "antonyms" should be used as a general term to describe words different in sound-form and characterized by different types of semantic contrast of denotational meaning and interchangeability at least in some contexts.

Questions:

What are antonyms?

Prove that opposite meaning doesn't always mean polar meaning.

What are contradictories? Give examples.

What are contraries? Give examples.

What are incompatibles? Give examples.

Give example of polysemy analysis through antonymy.

Prove that interchangeability of antonyms depends on the context.



Tasks:

Find out where do we observe a) root-words b) derivatives c) compounds d) compound - derivatives?

day

undone

daybook

blue-eyed

do

bookish

notebook

blackbird

daily

left-handed

table

Refer the words to following groupings a) thematic b) semantic c) lexico-semantic d) homonymic e) synonyms f) antonyms

election, to nominate, nominee, polling station, voters, ballot

eye, leg, foot, ear, mouth

to get, to understand, to realize

car, bus, rickshaw, scooter, bicycle

big - fat, big - great

war - peace

up - down

Name the type of the following synonyms

idle, lazy, indolent

father - daddy

motherland - fatherland

to get - to buy

to surprise - to astonish

to say - to speak

alone -lonely - single

famous - well-known - notorious

refreshment - feast

money - cabbage - bax - beans - brass

to visit (the museum) - to attend (a lecture)

Make a synonym set for the given word:

fear, …

to love, …

Find euphoniums for the following words:

to die

burial

to kill

grave digger

pregnancy

to be poor

What type of antonyms do we observe here?

round - square

friend - enemy

left - right

like - dislike

good - bad

in the dry tree - in the green tree

to swim like a fish - to swim like a stone



Seminar 6.Syntagmatic Relations of Words

Lexical and Grammatical Valency

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §1. Lexical Valency (Collocability), §2. Grammatical Valency [pp. 64-67]

To get a better insight into the essentials of structure and meaning of word-groups we must begin with a brief survey of the main factors active in uniting words into word-groups. The two main linguistic factors to be considered in this connection are the lexical and the grammatical valency of words.

It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combination with other words. Thenounquestion, e.g., is often combined with such adjectives asvital, pressing, urgent, disputable, delicate, etc. This noun is a component of a number of other word-groups, e.g.to raise a question, a question of great importance,a question of the agenda, of the day, and many others.

The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability.

The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. This can be easily observed in the selection of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbslift andraise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the nounquestion. The verbtake may be synonymically interpreted as 'grasp', 'seize', 'catch', 'lay hold of, etc. but it is onlytake that is found in collocation with the nounsexamination, measures, precautions, etc., onlycatch incatch smb. nappingandgrasp ingrasp the truth.

There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any departure from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic device. Such word-groups as for examplea cigarette ago, shove a question and the like are illustrative of the point under discussion. It is becausewerecognize thatshove andquestion are not normally collocable that the junction of them can be effective.

Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a clichй. We observe, for example, that the verbput forward and the nounquestion are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verbput forwardor see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate the word question. So we may conclude thatput forward a question constitutesahabitual word-group, a kind of clichй. This is also true of a number of other word-groups, e.g.to win (or gain) a victory, keen sight (or hearing). Some linguists hold that most of the English in ordinary use is thoroughly saturated with clichйs.

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the English wordflower and its Russian counterpart-- цветок, for example, may be combined with a number of other words all of which denote the place where the flowers are grown, e.g.garden flowers, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. the Russianсадовыецветы, оранжерейныецветы, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination with the wordroom to denote flowers growing in the rooms (cf. pot flowers --комнатныецветы).

One more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical valency--the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups.

Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members ofword-groups. The adjectiveheavy, e.g., is combined with the wordsfood, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning 'rich and difficultto digest'. But not all the words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance,heavy cheese orheavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausageis difficult to digest.

Secondly, it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through thelexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of the adjectiveheavy may be described through the word-groupsheavy weight (book, table, etc.),heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.),heavy drinker (eater, etc.),heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.),heavy industry (tanks, etc.), and so on.

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word.

Words are used also in grammatical context. The minimal grammatical contextin which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-group. For instance, the adjectiveheavy discussed above can be followed by a noun (e.g.heavy storm or by the infinitive of a verb (e.g.heavy to lift), etc. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is termed grammatical valency.

The grammatical valency of words may be different. To begin with, the range of grammatical valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each individual word is dependent on the grammatical structure of the language.

This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical. This can be best illustrated by comparing the grammatical valency of any two words belonging to the same part of speech, e.g. of the two synonymous verbssuggestandpropose. Both verbs can be followed by a noun(to propose orsuggest a plan, a resolution). It is onlypropose, however, that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb(to propose to do smth.). The adjectivescleverandintelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency asclevercan be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adjective+Preposition at+Noun(clever at mathematics), whereasintelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.

Specific linguistic restrictions in the range of grammatical valency of individual words imposed on the lexical units by the inner structure of the language are also observed by comparing the grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages. The English verbinfluence, for example, can be followed only by a noun(to influence a person, a decision, choice, etc.). The grammatical valency of its Russian counterpartвлиять is different. The Russian verb can be combined only with a prepositional group (cf.влиятьначеловека,навыбор,…, etc.).

No departure from the norm of grammatical valency is possible as this can make the word-group unintelligible to English speakers. Thus e.g. the word-groupmathematics at clever is likely to be felt as a meaningless string of words because the grammatical valency of English nouns does not allow of the structure Noun+at+Adjective.

It should also be pointed out that the individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be described through its grammatical valency. Thus, different meanings of the adjectivekeen may be described in a general way. through different structures of the word-groups keen+N,--keen sight (hearing,etc.),keen + on + N -- keen on sports (on tennis,etc.), keen+V(inf.)--keen to know (to find out, etc.).

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as minimal syntactic (or syntagmatic) structures that operate as distinguishing clues for different meanings of a polysemantic word.

Questions:

What is lexical valency?

What is norm of lexical valency?

What are clichйs?

Give example of using lexical valency to single out different meanings of polysemantic word.

Grammatical valency.

Prove that words belonging to the same part of speech may have different grammatical valency.

Give example of using grammatical valency to single out different meanings of polysemantic word.



Types of Word-Groups

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, Part III. Word-Groups and Phraseological Units, §11. Free Word-Groups Versus Set-Phrases. Phraseological Units, Idioms, Word-Equivalents [pp. 64, 73-75]

Words put together to form lexical units make phrases or word-groups, It will be recalled that lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups. We assume that the word is the basic lexical unit. The smallest two-facet unit to be found within the word is the morpheme which is studied on the morphological level of analysis. The largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more than one word is the word-group observed on the syntagmatic level of analysis of the various ways words are joined together to make up single self-contained lexical units.

The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary. Some word-groups, e.g.at least, pointof view, by means of, take place, seem to be functionally and semantically inseparable. Such word-groups are usually described as set-phrases, word-equivalents or phraseological units and are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of the branch of lexicological science that studies phraseology.

The component members in other word-groups, e.g.a week ago, man of wisdom, take lessons, kind to people, seem to possess greater semantic and structural independence. Word-groups of this type are defined as free or variable word-groups or phrases and are habitually studied in syntax.

It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of phraseology. It should be noted, however, that no proper scientific investigation of English phraseology has been attempted until quite recently. English and American linguists as a rule confine themselves to collecting various words, word-groups and sentences presenting some interest either from the point of view of origin, style, usage, or some other feature peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as idioms but no attempt has been made to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.

American and English dictionaries of unconventional English, slang and idioms and other highly valuable reference-books contain a wealth of proverbs, sayings, various lexical units of all kinds, but as a rule do not seek to lay down a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word- groups and phraseological units. Paradoxical as it may seem the first dictionary in which theoretical principles for the selection of English phraseological units were elaborated was published in our country.

The term itself phraseological units to denote a specific group of phrases was introduced by Soviet linguists and is generally accepted in our country.

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed phraseological units. The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member-words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hand there are innumerable border-line cases.

However, the existing terms, e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country. The term word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.

Thus differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and a specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology.

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §9.2. Set Expressions, Semi-Fixed Combinations and Free Phrases [pp. 166-169]

Set expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semi-fixed combinations. All these are but different stages of restrictions imposed upon co-occurrence of words, upon the lexical filling of structural patterns which are specific for every language. The restrictions may be independent of the ties existing in extra-linguistic reality between the objects spoken of and be conditioned by purely linguistic factors, or have extra-linguistic causes in the history of the people. In free combinations the linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties of words.

A free phrase such as to go early permits substitution of any of its elements without semantic change in the other element or elements. The verb go in free phrases may be preceded by any noun or followed by any adverbial. Such substitution is, however, never unlimited.

In semi-fixed combinations we are not only able to say that such substitutes exist, but fix their boundaries by stating the semantic properties of words that can be used for substitution, or even listing them. That is to say, in semi-fixed combinations these lexico-semantic limits are manifest in restrictions imposed upon types of words which can be used in a given pattern. For example, the pattern consisting of the verb go followed by a preposition and a noun with no article before it (go to school, go to market, go to courts, etc.) is used only with nouns of places where definite actions or functions are performed.

If substitution is only pronominal, or restricted to a few synonyms for one of the members only, or impossible, i.e. if the elements of the phraseare always the same and make a fixed context for each other, the word-group is a set expression.

No substitution of any elements whatever is possible in the following stereotyped (unchangeable) set expressions, which differ in many other respects: all the world and his wife, the man in the street, red tape, calf love, heads or tails, first night, to gild the pill, to hope for the best, busy as a bee, fair and square, stuff and nonsense, time and again, to and fro. These examples represent the extreme of restrictions defined by probabilities of co-occurrence of words in the English language. Here no variation and no substitution is possible, because it would destroy the meaning or the euphonic and expressive qualities of the whole. Many of these expressions are also interesting from the viewpoint of their informational characteristics, i.e. the sum total of information contained in the word-group including expressiveness and stylistic and emotional colouring is created by mutual interaction of elements. The expression red tape, for instance, as a derogatory name for trivial bureaucratic formalities originates in the old custom of Government officials and lawyers tying up their papers with red tape. Heads or tails comes from the old custom of deciding a dispute or settling which of two possible alternatives shall be followed by tossing a coin.