The development of word polysemy and translation of word polysemy

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

Ministry of education and science of Ukraine

Institute of foreign language

The development of word polysemy and translation of word polysemy

Perfomed by

the 4 th year student

of the Ukrain Philology Institute

group

Scientific supervisor

Kyiv - 2013



Table of Contents

Introduction

Chapter 1. The development and translation of word polysemy

1.1 The Diachronic aspect of developing word polysemy

1.2 Synchronic aspect of developing word polysemy

1.3 The translation of polysemantic words

Chapter 2. Analysis of sentences which contain polysemantic words

Conclusion

List of References

Appendix. Ways of practicing word polysemy



Introduction

Theoretical problems of linguistics form and meaning as relevant to the progressive development of language have attracted the attention of scholars, philosophers and grammarians since the times of Plato and Aristotle. From those times sameness of meaning was not very easy to deal with but there seemed nothing inherently difficult about difference of meaning. The situation is the same nowadays. Not only different words have different meanings; it's also the case that the same word may have a set of meanings. This phenomenon is called polysemy.

Polysemy is the coexistence of many possible meanings for a word or phrase. Most words of the English language are polysemantic. Highly developed polysemy is one of the characteristic features of the English language. The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over the centuries, as more and more new meanings are either added to old ones, or out some of them. We say that the word is polysemantic when it has many meanings. In the word the main and the secondary meanings are distinguished. Thus, the word is polysemantic in the language but in actual speech it is always monosemantic, that is, it has only one meaning. It is in the context that makes the polysemantic word monosemantic.

The researches of the multiplicity of meanings began in the eighteenth century and were continued in the nineteenth century. The most important investment in this century was made by Breмal whose research into polysemy marked a new starting point: he shifted the study of polysemy away from lexicography and etymology and investigated polysemy as the always synchronic pattern of meaning surrounding a word is itself he ever changing result of semantic change. word english polysemy semantic

The important researches in the sphere of polysemy were made by Lyon who considers polysemy and homonymy as two types of lexical ambiguity and introduce some criteria for deciding when it is polysemy and when it is homonymy. One criterion is etymological information about the lexical item in question.

The importance of studying the phenomenon of polysemy is obvious because it is the object of confusion and in order to provide a quantitative and qualitative growth of the language's expressive resources it is extremely important to investigate the semantic changes in the system of meanings in the English language.. To understand a text, learners need to know words and knowing a word involves knowing: its spoken and written contexts of use its patterns with words of related meaning.

In accordance with the importance the following tasks are:

1) to expose the general meaning of the word polysemy;

2) to trace the synchronic and diachronic development of polysemy;

3) to expose importance of context for translation of polysemantic words;

4) to describe the practical usage of the polysemy.



Chapter 1. The development and translation of word polysemy

Most words convey several and thus possess the corresponding number of meaning. A word having several meaning is called polysemantic, and the ability of words to have than one meaning is described by the polysemy.

Most English words are polysemy. It should be noted that the wealth of expressive resources of language largely depends on the degree to which polysemy has developed in the language.

Polysemy (/p??l?s?mi/ or /?p?l?si?mi/; from Greek: рплх-, poly-,"many and у?мб, sкma, "sign") is the capacity for a sign (e.g., a word, phrase, etc.) or signs to have multiple related meanings (sememes). It is usually regarded as distinct from homonymy, in which the multiple meanings of a word may be unconnected or unrelated.

Charles Fillmore and Beryl Atkins' definition stipulates three elements: (1) the various senses of a polysemous word have a central origin, (2) the links between these senses form a network, and (3) understanding the `inner' one contributes to understanding of the `outer' one.

Polysemy is the phenomenon when a single word has two or more meanings, no matter how meaning is defined in a given approach. Word is to be understood here as an element of the lexicon of a language, i.e. as lexeme, as opposed to word form (which is a realization of one or more lexemes) and word token (which is a concrete material realization of a word form in actual discourse). A further point that is frequently added to the above definition is that those two or more meanings should be related to each other. Though this addition is correct in principle, one may argue that it is redundant and therefore should be left out, since if a word has two or more unrelated meanings, it can no longer be a single lexeme, but it is in fact two or more lexemes that happen to be formally identical, i.e. realized by the same word form. In this latter case, we talk about homonymy, which is an ambiguity of a different kind from polysemy.

This definition of polysemy is shared in most of the literature. However, although the intension of the term polysemy is therefore construed in basically the same way in the various approaches, its extension varies extremely. This variation derives from the fact that it is quite unclear intuitively, on the one hand, how strongly meanings should be allowed to differ so that they can still be considered to be related and, on the other hand, how strongly meanings have to differ so that they can indeed be considered to be two different meanings and not just variations of a single meaning. Since intuition cannot be relied upon here, the decision about these two questions eventually depends on two factors: the architecture of the lexicon that is assumed by a theory and how powerful the system of relations is that relate two possible meanings of a single word to each other. Therefore, the extension of the term polysemy is necessarily theory-dependent [7: 3 - 4].

The number of sound combination that human speech organs can produce is limited. Therefore at a certain stage of language development the production of new words by morphological means becomes limited, and polysemy becomes increasingly important in providing the means of enriching the vocabulary. The process of enriching the vocabulary does not consist merely in adding new words to it, but, also, in the constant development of polysemy.

For example, stone has the following meanings [18]:

1) hard compact nonmetallic material of which rocks are made, a small lump of rock;

2) pebble;

3) the woody central part of such fruits as the peach and plum, that contains the seed;

4) Jewellery, short for gemstone;

5) a unit of weight, used esp to express human body weight, equal to 14 pounds or 6.350 kilograms;

6) a calculous concretion in the body, as in the kidney, gallbladder, or urinary bladder.

Polysemy is very characteristic of the English vocabulary due to the monosyllable character of English words and the predominance of root words. The greater the frequency of the word, the greater the number of meaning that constitute its semantic structure. Frequency - combinability - polysemy are closely connected. A special formula known as Zipf`s law has been worked out to express the correlation between frequency, word length and polysemy: the shorter the word, the higher its frequency of use; the higher the frequency, the wider its combinability, i. e. the more word combinations it enters; the wider its combinability, the more meanings are realized in these contexts.

The word is one of its meaning is termed a lexico-semantic variant of this word. The problem in polysemy is that of interrelation of different lexico-semantic variants. There are may be no single semantic component common to all lexico-semantic variants but every variant has something in common with at least one of the others.

All the lexico-semanic variants of a word taken together form its semantic structure or semantic paradigm. The word face, for example, according to the dictionary data has the following semantic structure [14: 136 - 137].

1. The front part of the head: He fell on his face.

2. Look, expression: a sad face, she is a good judge of faces.

3. Surface, faзade: face of a clock. He laid his cards face down.

4. Impudence, boldness, courage: put a good/ brave/ boldface on smth, have the face to do.

5. Style of typecast for printing: bold-face type [18].

Polysemy is a phenomenon of language, not of speech. As a rule the contextual meaning represent only one of the possible lexico-semantic variants of the word. So polysemy does not interfere with the communicative function of the language because the situation and the context cancel all the unwanted meanings, as in the following sentences:

The steak is tough.

This is tough problem.

Prof. Holborn is a tough examiner.

The literature generally assumes at that there are two kinds of polysemy: regular (or systematic) polysemy and irregular (or non-systematic) polysemy. Systematic polysemy is that kind of polysemy where the relation between the interpretations a1 and a2 of a word A is the same as between the interpretations b1 and b2 of a word B, and there are parallel sets of meanings for several further words as well. So, for example, bottle can refer both to a container (of liquids) - as in This bottle is full of water - and to a quantity (of liquids) - as in I would like to buy a bottle of wine. Accordingly, bucket can have the same two interpretations, as can have glass, flask, box, crate etc. Therefore, bottle is to be considered to be systematically polysemous with respect to these two readings, as are the other words mentioned. Systematic polysemy is also systematic interlinguistically, i.e. it usually occurs with the same words in several languages. On the other hand, glass can both refer to a certain material, or to a certain kind of container and to a certain optical aid which are often made of this material. But although these three meanings of the word are therefore related to each other, the relations among them are not-systematic, since you can't give rules that would account for these three meanings of glass, but you rather have to include them in the lexicon. So, for example, it is impossible to say why it is glasses as containers and glasses as optical aids that are called glass and not, say, bottles or windows, even though they are often made of glass as well. Furthermore, non-systematic polysemy is specific to individual languages. It is quite accidental which of the objects that are usually made of glass are referred to by the same word as the material, if any at all, in a given language [7: 4].

So, a polysemy is a word or symbol that has more than one meaning. In order to be considered a polysemy, a word has to have separate meanings that can be different, but related to one another. The meanings and the words must have the same spelling and pronunciation and they must have the same origin.



1.1 The Diachronic aspect of developing word polysemy

The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops, mostly over the centuries, as more and more new meaning are either added to old ones, or oust some of them. So the complicated processes of polysemy development involve both ate appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones. Yet, the general tendency with English vocabulary at the modern stage of its history is to increase the total number of its meanings and in this way to provide for a quantitative and qualitative growth of the language`s expressive resources [14: 132].

A word which has more than one meaning is called polysemantic. Different meanings of a polysemantic word may come together due to the proximity of notions which they express e.g. the word “blanket” has the following meanings: a woolen covering used on beds, a covering for keeping a horse warm, a covering of any kind (a blanket of snow), covering all or most cases used attributively, e.g. we can say “a blanket insurance policy”. There are some words in the language which are monosemantic, such as most terms, synonym, some pronouns (this, my, both), numerals.

There are two processes of the semantic development of a word: radiation and concatenation. In cases of radiation the primary meaning stands in the centre and the secondary meanings proceed out of it like rays. Each secondary meaning can be traced to the primary meaning. For example, in the word “face” the primary meaning denotes “the front part of the human head”. Connected with the front position the meanings: the front part of a watch, the front part of a building, the front part of a playing card were formed. Connected with the word “face” itself the meanings: expression of the face, outward appearance are formed. In cases of concatenation secondary meanings of a word develop like a chain. In such cases it is difficult to trace some meanings to the primary one. For example, in the word “crust” the primary meaning “hard outer part of bread” developed a secondary meaning “hard part of anything (a pie, a cake)”, then the meaning “harder layer over soft snow” was developed, then “a sullen gloomy person”, then “impudence” were developed. Here the last meanings have nothing to do with the primary ones. In such cases homonyms appear in the language. It is called the split of polysemy. In most cases in the semantic development of a word both ways of semantic development are combined (prolifiration). In fact it is a comprehensive process in which a single primary meaning of a word developed to polysemic by means of radiation and concatenation or by extension, narrowing or transference [12: 19 - 21].

In polysemantic words we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of the same word. The problem may be approached from two different angles. If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development or, in general, a change in the semantic structure of the word [11: 176 - 177].

Thus, the diachronic approach in terms of special lexicology deals with changes and the development of vocabulary in the course of time. The two approaches in lexicology (synchronic and diachronic) should not be contrasted or set one against the other; in fact, they are interconnected and interdependent: every linguistic structure and system exist in a state of a constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evaluation, the result of the historical development of the language.

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

In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the polysemantic word table we find that of all the meanings it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is “a flat slab of stone or wood” which was proper to the word in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L. tabula); all other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning. The terms “secondary” and “derived” meaning are to a certain extent synonymous. When we describe the meaning of the word as “secondary” we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning was existence. When we refer to the meaning as “derived” we imply not only that, but also that it is dependent on the primary meaning and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the word table, e.g., we may say that the meaning “the food put on the table” is derived through metonymic transfer we can also describe it as secondary and metonymic [ 9; 203 ].

Polysemy may also arise from homonymy. When two words become identical in sound-form, the meanings of the two words are felt as making up one semantic structure. Thus, the human ear and the ear of corn are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically related to Latin auris, the other to Latin acus, aceris. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type (cf. the eye of the needle, the foot of the mountain) and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic word ear. Cases of this type are comparatively rare and, as a rule, illustrative of the vagueness of the border line between polysemy and homonymy.

Semantic changes result as a rule in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of English words tend to increase in a number of meanings [ 15; 43 ].

To conclusion, polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing and in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical developments of language.

1.2 Synchronic aspect of developing word polysemy

The synchronic approach analyzes a particular something at a given, fixed point in time. It does not attempt to make deductions about the progression of events that contributed to the current state, but only analyzes the structure of that state, as it is.

The synchronic approach studies language as a theoretical “point” in time. It refers to descriptive lexicology as branch of linguistics deals with the vocabulary and vocabulary units of language at a certain time. Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period of the development of the language. In that case the problem of interrelation and independence of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of the word must be investigated along different lines.

In connection with the polysemantic word table discussed above we are mainly concerned with the following problems: are all the nine meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of this word? Does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the word table? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that is actually representative of the word, the meaning that first occurs to us whether we hear or see the word table, is “an article of furniture”. This emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and other meanings are minor in comparison.

It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning is representative of the word table in isolation its minor meanings are observed only in certain contexts, e.g. to keep the table amused, a piece of contents etc. Thus we can assume that the meaning a piece of furniture occupies the central place in the semantic structure of the word table. As to other meanings of this word it's hard to grade them in order of their comparative value. Some may, for example, consider the second and the third meanings (the persons seated at the table and put food on the table) as equally important, some may argue that the meaning put food on the table should be given priority [ 17; 253-254 ]. As viewed synchronically there is no objective criterion to go by, it may be found difficult in some cases to single out even the basic meanings as two or meaning of the word may be felt as equally “central” in its semantic structure. If we analyse the verb to get, e.g., which of the two meanings “to obtain” (get to London, to get into bed) shall we regard as the basic meaning of this word?

A more objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in the speech. There is a tendency in a modern linguistics to interpret the concept of the central meaning in terms of the frequency of occurrence of this meaning. It a study of five million words made by a group of linguistic scientists it was found that the frequency value of individual meanings is different.

Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as not only words but individual meanings to may differ in their stylistic reference. Stylistic (or regional) -- status of monosemantic words is easily perceived. For instance, the word daddy can be referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the word parent to bookish. The word movie is recognizably American and barnie is Scotish. Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any such restrictive labels. To do it we must state the meaning in which they are used. There is nothing colloquial or slangy or American about the word yellow denoting colour, jerk in the meaning of a sudden or stopping movement as far as these particular meanings are concerned. But when yellow is used in the meaning of sensational or when jerk is used in the meaning of an odd person it's both slang and American [10: 47 - 48].

Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent. The polysemantic words worker and hand, for example, may both denote the man who does manual work. But whereas this is the most frequent and stylistically neutral meaning of the word worker, it is observed only in 2.8% of all occurrences of the word hand, in the semantic structure of which the meaning a man who does the manual work (to hire factory hands) is one of its marginal meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference. Broadly speaking the interdependence of style and frequency in meanings is analogous to that existing in words.

It should be noted that the meaning of the highest frequency value is the one representative of the whole semantic structure of the word. This can be illustrated by analyzing the two words under discussion. The meaning representative of the word worker is undoubtedly a man who does manual work. [17: 258]

In conclusion, polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as co-existence of various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

1.3 The translation of polysemantic words

One of the most important "drawbacks" of polysemantic words is that there is sometimes a chance of misunderstanding when a word is used in a certain meaning but accepted by a listener or reader in another.

Generally speaking, it is common knowledge that context is a powerful preventative against any misunderstanding of meanings. For instance, the adjective dull, if used out of context, would mean different things to different people or nothing at all. It is only in combination with other words that it reveals its actual meaning: a dull pupil, a dull play, a dull razor-blade, dull weather, etc. Sometimes, however, such a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word, and it may be correctly interpreted only through what Professor N. Amosova termed a second-degree context, as in the following example: The man was large, but his wife was even fatter. The word fatter here serves as a kind of indicator pointing that large describes a stout man and not a big one.

The task of distinguishing between the different meanings of a word and the different variations of combinability (or, in a traditional terminology, different usages of the word) is actually a question of singling out the different denotations within the semantic structure of the word.

1) a sad woman,

2) a sad voice,

3) a sad story,

4) a sad scoundrel (= an incorrigible scoundrel)

5) a sad night (= a dark, black night, arch, poet).

By the term context we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of word. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say that meaning is determined by the context. The meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are sometimes described as free or denominative meanings [14: 139 - 143].

Against the background of linguistic thought as it has developed in modern linguistics we define context as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal individual meaning of words. There are several types of context: linguistic and extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.

Linguistic context include lexical and grammatical context. These two types of contexts are differentiated depending on whether lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in making the meaning of the word explicit. The interaction between lexical and grammatical aspects in the semantic structure of the word is most complex and needs special comments.

1) Lexical context is best illustrated by the fact that there are groups of words in any language that are semantically compatible only with certain classes of agents. Lexical incongruity of words often serves to make the necessary meaning clear narrowing down the various potential meanings of the word, and no ambiguity arises [4: 126 - 127].

The verb to run, for instance, has primarily the meaning to move swiftly or with quick action, as a stream, wagon, person; with words denoting something written, inscribed, worded, or the like the verb run means to sound (e. g. This is how the verse runs); with agents denoting various plants the verb run is synonymically correlated to grow -- to become bigger; with agents denoting engines or machines by which physical power is applied to produce a physical effect, the verb to run means -- to turn off the engine (to leave the engine running).

In all the examples given above the meaning of the verb to run is signaled by the lexical meanings of the nouns in the position of the subject. The predominance of the lexical contexts in determining the meaning of the verb in such uses is quite evident.

Further typical examples of lexical context determining the word meaning will be found in the distribution of various classes of adjectives.

For example, the use of the following phrases with the adjective warm whose meaning in each case is signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun involved: warm milk, warm climate, warm clothing, warm welcome, warm temper, warm support, warm imagination, warm colours.

As can be seen from above examples, the lexico-semantic variation of the adjective warm makes it synonymous with such words as mild, heated, cordial, enthusiastic, eager, keen, responsive.

2) Grammatical context. Instances are not few when the individual lexical meaning of a polysemic word is determined by the grammatical structure in which it occurs, syntactic patterns in the main. Familiar examples of grammatical context will be found in cases like the following:

1) The horse stopped drinking.

The horse stopped to drink.

In the first example stop+ing -- finish doing something, in the second--stop+to+ infinitive -- stop temporarily in order to.

Highly indicative in this respect are verbs of generic force, such as do, make and the verbs of the “move and change” class: go, come, grow, get, fall, run, take, turn.

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb to make, e. g. “to force, to enduce”, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do something or in simpler terms this practical meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun and the infinitive of some other verb (to make somebody laugh, work, etc).

In a number of contexts, however, we find both the lexical and grammatical aspects should be taken into consideration. The grammatical structure of the context although indicative of the difference between the meaning of the word in this structure and the meaning of the same word in a different grammatical structure may be insufficient to indicate in which of its individual meaning the word in question is used [ 4: 126 - 127].

Dealing with linguistic contexts we consider only linguistic factors: lexical groups of words, syntactic structure of context, etc. There are cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by this linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation.

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

Instances are not few when the meaning of a word is signaled by the context much larger than a given sentence or by a whole situation of the utterance, in other words, by the actual situation in which this word occurs. Numerous examples of such utterance will be found in syntactic structures including idioms of different types.

Another important aspect to consider is sociocultural group which refers to the fact that the language used by a sociocultural group is closely connected with its values, attitudes and beliefs. Consequently, learning a language involves understanding and interpreting the culture of which it is part. It is important, therefore, for pupils to develop the ability to interpret texts from perspectives other than their own. Some of the activities to deal with sociocultural context are the following: asking pupils to compare words and expressions used in various English-speaking contexts with those used in their own language context; pupils comment on the sociocultural associations of lexis in a given text; quizzes; true or false questions; explaining newspaper headlines, advertisements, graffiti.

The two or more less universally recognized main types of linguistic contexts serve to determine individual meanings of words are the lexical and grammatical contexts. These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning [16: 16 - 17].

Meaning should always be understood as involving the relation of language to the rest of the world and such meaningfulness is an essential part of the definition of language.



Chapter 2. Analysis of sentences which contain polysemantic words

І. Сlose:

1. One would fly to the nest, press close, feed a young one, and off again. - Одна влетить, до гніздечка припаде, діток накормить і відлітає знов.

2. That's because she wanted Justin to be there, and we're very close right now. - Це через те, що вона хотіла, щоб Джастін був поряд, а ми з ним зараз дуже близькі.

3. All these expressions exhibit the perfectly sound tendency to emphasize the close connection between basic statements and our perceptual experiences. - Всі твердження такого типу виражають тенденцію підкреслювання тісного зв'язку між основним висказуванням та нашим чуттєвим досвідом.

4. Don't close your eyes to the flowers; otherwise you will never find the fruits. - Не закривай своїх очей перед квітами, тому що тобі ніколи не знайти плодів.

5. What I'd like to close with then today is the first look at "Sleep" by Virtual Choir. - Чим би я хотів закінчити сьогодні, так це першим показом «Сна» Віртуального хору.

ІІ. Fine:

1.The fine shall be established in an amount from 25 to 1,000 minimum wages, and salaries or in an amount of any other income for a period from two weeks to one year. - Штраф встановлюється в розмірі від двох тисяч п'ятисот до одного мільйону рублів, або у розмірі одної заробітної плати, або іншого доходу засудженого за період від двох тижнів до п'яти років.

2.Fine place - little window - somebody else's head off there, eh, sir? - he didn't keep a sharp look-out enough either - eh, Sir, eh? - Прекрасне місце - маленьке вікно - там також комусь голову знали, а сер? - він зазівав - а сер, а?

3.I'll be fine. - stay with Damali. - Зі мною все буде гаразд. - Залишайся з Дамалі.

The house was utterly still and the stillness soaked into her like a fine chill rain. - В будинку була повна тиша. І ця тиша проникала в неї, немов мілкий, все пропитуючий дощ.

4.He opened the book thoughtfully, and in his fine calligraphy marked five for Woloda for diligence, and the same for good behavior. - Він відкрив зошит, обережно вмокнув перо і гарним, каліграфічним почерком написав Володі п'ять у графі успіхів і поведінки.

ІІI. Lead:

1. The guards lead their prisoner to the close, gloomy vaulted prison - in the ancient palace of the Holy, inquisition and shut him in it. - Охорона проводить арештанта до тісної та похмурої в'язниці, що знаходиться в давньому палаці святої інквізиції, і запирають його там.

2. So I'll follow your lead when it comes to handling people. - Тому, коли мова йде про керування людьми, я цілковито покладаюся на самого себе.

3. Statements were made by the lead discussants. - Зі своїми заявами виступили лідери дискусії.

4. The mechanism with lead tetra acetate is generally accepted to be of the free-radical type. - Зазвичай вважають, що реакція з чотириоцетним свинцем проходить по вільнорадикальному механізму.

5. But he had already partly shown his hand, and no one knew better than Raskolnikov how terrible Porfiry's "lead" had been for him. - Але частина гри була вже відкрита, і тому, звичайно, ніхто краще нього не міг зрозуміти, який страшний для нього був цей «хід» у грі Портфіля.

IV. Mark:

1. The mark on my left shoulder tingled faintly. - Позначка на моєму лівому плечі почав трішки поколювати.

2. If I saw someone buying up all the offers in the Swiss franc, I would buy the offers in the Deutsche mark. - Якщо б я побачив, що хтось купує всі пропозиції по швейцарському франку, то я купував би пропозиції по німецькій марці.

3. I wish you to buy a pistol and practise every day, and you must learn to hit a mark for certain. - Я хотів би, щоб Ви купили пістолета та практикувались кожного дня, і Ви маєте навчитись точно влучати в ціль.

4. By today's standards, "garbage in, garbage out" is the mark of a sloppy, nonsecure program. - За сьогоднішніми стандартами «сміття на вході, сміття на виході» є ознака неохайного, небезпечного коду.

5. Maria never will, child - mark my words! - cried the old lady. - Марія ні в якому випадку… запам'ятай мої слова, дитино! - закричала стара леді.

6. It was the scent mark of a predator. - Запах, яким хижаки помічають свою територію.

7. At last they send him away and mark him a nought. - В кінці кінців, його виганяють та ставлять нуль.

V. Meal:

1. Breakfast-meal in London almost unknown, greedily devoured in Brighton! - Якщо для лондонця ранкова трапеза майже не існує, то в Брайтоне на неї кидаються з неймовірним апетитом.

2. Light music is a nice addition to delicious meal. - Легка музика доповнює задоволення від прекрасних страв.

3. He said, "Yeah, feathers, skin, bone meal, scraps, dried and processed into feed." - «Так, пір'я, шкіра, кісткова мука, залишки, висушені та перероблені в корм», - він сказав.



Conclusion

Polysemy is characteristic of most words in many languages. All the lexical and lexico-grammatical variants of the word taken together form its semantic structure or semantic paradigm. The phenomenon of polysemy was broadly investigated in the historical development of the language. The word “polysemy” comes from Latin, but the roots of the concept of polysemy lie in Greek philosophy.

Polysemy is the phenomenon when a single word has two or more meanings, no matter how meaning is defined in a given approach. And it is a phenomenon of language, not of speech. As a rule the contextual meaning represent only one of the possible lexico-semantic variants of the word.

The literature generally assumes at that there are two kinds of polysemy: regular (or systematic) polysemy and irregular (or non-systematic) polysemy.

In my investigation I touched upon the problem of polysemy in diachronic and synchronic dimensions. Diachronic approach considers polysemy as historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. While synchronic one understands it as a co-existence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word. As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical development of language.

There are three processes of the diachronic development of a word: radiation, concatenation and combined (prolifiration).

By the term context we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of word. The context individualises the meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say that meaning is determined by the context. The meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are sometimes described as free or denominative meanings.

Against the background of linguistic thought as it has developed in modern linguistics we define context as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal individual meaning of words.

There are several types of context: linguistic and extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts. But linguistic context is necessary for translation polysemantic words. It include lexical and grammatical context. These two types of contexts are differentiated depending on whether lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in making the meaning of the word explicit.



List of References

1. Антрушина Г. Б. Лексикология английского языка: Учебное пособие. - Москва, 2001. - 288 с.

2. Бабич Г. Н. Лексикология английского языка: Учебное пособие. - Москва, 2005. - 176 с.

3. Barskaya D.J. Words and how to use them. A text reference book of word meaning and combinations. -- L.: Lviv University Press, 1972. -- 256 p.

4. Bunskuy D.

5. I. Common difficulties for students of English. -- M.: High School, 1976. -- 224 p.

6. Ginsburg R. S., Khidekel S. S., Knyazeva G. Y., Sanken A. A. A Cource in modern English lexicology. - Moscow, 1979. - 269 p.

7. Crossley S., Salsbury T., McNamara D. The Development of Polysemy and Frequency Use in English Second Language Speakershttp://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/Files/ALSL/crossley_polysemy_final.pdf

8. Gergely Petho. What is polysemy? -- a survey of current research and results. http://193.6.132.75/honlap/whatispolysemy.pdf

9. Falcum I. L. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Polysemy: A Relevance Theoretic Account. - London, 2011. - 295.

http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/Files/ALSL/crossley_polysemy_final.pdf

10. Grinberg L.E., Kusnets M.D. Exercise in modern English lexicology. -- M.: Foreign language publishing house, 1960. -- 258 p.

11. Kashcheyeva M.A., Potapova I.A. Practical lexicology. -- L.: Lviv University Press, 1974. -- 235 p.

12. Minayeva L. V. English lexicology and lexicography. -- M.: High school, 2003. -- 224p.

13. Мостовий М. І. Лексикологія англійської мови. - Х.: Основа, 1993. - 256 с.

14. Мэдникова Э. М. Значение слова и методы его описания. - Москва, 1974. - 204 с.

15. Nicolenco A. G. English lexicology - Theory and practice - Vinnytsya, 2007. - 521 p.

16. Ravin Y. Leacock C. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. -- Oxford University Press, 2000. -- 105 p. http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.com/pdf/13/9780198238423.pdf

17. Schmidt G. Polysemy in Transletion - Selectin the Right Sence. - http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/376872.Schmidt_-_Polysemy_in_translation.pdf

18. Shread J.A. The words we use. -- London, 2001 -- 344 p.

19. Переводчик ABBYY Lingvo. - http://radugaslov.ru/abbyy.htm

20. Словарь. Русско-aнглийский, англо-русский. - Collins Gem. An Imprint of Harper Collins Publishers, 2009. - 751 p.



Appendix. Ways of practicing word polysemy

Exercise 1. Match the sentences in column A to a translation from column B which has the same meaning.

1. “It's not fair,” my brother said.

2. It is fair to say that in the area of internal communications the Firm as a whole has no new insights to offer.

3. Sonia was a small thin girl of eighteen with fair hair, rather pretty, with wonderful blue eyes.

4. I'm the fair-haired boy right now.

5. His suggestions for advisable insurance included free education and the "provision of healthy decent dwellings in our large towns at fair rents."

6. I've got forty million dollars in cash and stocks and bonds that are as negotiable as Standard Oil, preferred, at a church fair.

A. Чесно кажучи, сфера внутрішньої комунікації у Фірмі, в цілому не пропонує якихось нових розумінь.

B. Я маю сорок мільйонів доларів готівкою, в паперах та облігаціях, таких же обігових, я привілейовані «Стандарт-Ойл» на церковній ярмарці.

C. Я зараз є його улюбленцем.

D. Виходить якось несправедливо, - сказав мій брат.

E. Соня було близько вісімнадцяти років, низенького росту, худенька, але доволі хорошенька блондинка, з чудовими блакитними очима.

F. Пропозиція Чемберлена про розумне забезпечення включало безкоштовне навчання та надання пристойних, великих помешкань за помірною платою у великих містах.

Exercise 2. Remember the meaning of the noun line.

1) Piece or length of thread, string, rope or wire;

2) Long narrow mark made on a surface;

3) Mark made to limit a court (in games);

4) Outline, contour;

5) Row of persons or things;

6) Direction, course, track;

7) Row of words on a paper;

8) Way of behaviour;

9) Conditions of life.

1. It must have cost him a lot of money to run the place on these lines. 2. But are you sure it`s your line? 3. Charles did not answer. He hesitated. He was embarrassed, Sharply he went to a new line: “I`ve told you there`s a perfectly good practical reason.” 4. They did not read my lines, but they took the trouble to send me the questions they would ask, together with a note saying: “We thought you might like to consider your answer a little in advance.” 5. Telephone cables, water pipes and gas lines have been seriously damaged. 6. I can`t see the line of demarcation between these two phenomena. 7. It`s time to raw the line, I suppose. 8. The ball crossed the line and was out. 9. The train was passing by a line of low hills. 10. Hold the line! Go ahead! 11. There is no air line between Kiev and Dellhi. 12. To understand it one must read between lines. 13. “What is his line?” ”He studies the Humanities.” 14. Send me a few lines, just to say that everything goes well.

Exercise 3. Look at the sentences and think about how you would translate the words in italics in your own language.

1.What are the company's ledger balance and payment float?

2. I believe our future depends on how well we know this Cosmos in which we float like a mote of dust in the morning sky.

3. “Eventually I puzzled out something I could build that would float.

4. Public float at least 25% of issuer's total issued share capital;

5. On the horizon float the bright yellow, sunlit observation-balloons, and the many little white clouds of the anti-aircraft shells.

6. «Will it float her or will we have to kedge off?»

Exercise 4. Comment on the polysemy of the verb to draw.

1. Use your estimates to draw a graph like Figure. 2. I only wanted to draw your attention to something. 3. Most North American washing machines draw from the home's hot water supply. 4. He tried to draw and his revolver got caught in his scrape. 5. I do so wish you or somebody else could draw it, you, if possible. 6. “I think holes in the earth draw on some pretty primal fears.” 7. They didn't from first to last draw blood. 8. But when your sword breaks, you draw your dagger. 9. And at the sound of that laugh, which rang false, like a cracked bell, my lord looked at him again across the table, and I saw his old lips draw together close. 10. But let us draw a veil over this scene.

Exercise 5. Write simple definitions to illustrate the meanings of the following polysemantic words.

Bright (adj), smart (adj), paper (n), point (n), board (n), do (v), make (v)/

Exercise 6. Are the following examples of polysemy or homophony?

a) grass herbage for grazing animals / marijuana

(polysemy)

b) leech bloodsucking worm / hanger-on seeking advantage

(polysemy)

c) range cooking stove / series of mountains

(homophony)

d) key instrument for unlocking / answer sheet for a test

(polysemy)

e) steal/steel rob / type of metal

(homophony)

f) race running competitively / people of same genetic group

(homophony)

g) flower/flour type of plant with blossom/ finely ground wheat

(homophony)

Exercise 7. Read the following sentences; find the words that are related either by form (spelling and/or pronunciation) or by meaning. Explain how they are related:

1. There is enough food to feed an army.

Feed the plants once a week.

You need to feed coins into the meter.

2. The chair is made of wood.

I would read a lot if I had more free time.

3. She left the room silently.

Fewer people write with their left hand than with their right.

4. I've just had a tooth out at the dentist.

The saw does not cut well because it lost two teeth.

Choose an essay topic you can really get your teeth into.

5. You never know the value of water until the well is dry.