In contrastive lexicology of the english and ukrainian languages

All major works on semantic theory have so far been based on referential concepts of meaning. The essential feature of this approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning: the sound form of the linguistic sign, the concept underlying this sound form and the referent, i.e. that part or that aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers. The best known referential model of meaning is the so-called “basic triangle”.

As can be seen from the diagram the sound form of the linguistic sign, e.g. [teibl] , is connected with our concept of the piece of furniture which it denotes and through it with the referent, i.e. the actual table. The common feature of any referential approach is the implication that meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent.

Meaning and Sound Form

The sound form of the word is not identical with its meaning, e.g. [d v] is the sound form used to denote a pearl-grey bird. There are no inherent connections, however, between this particular sound cluster and the meaning of the word dove. The connections are conventional and arbitrary. This can be easily proved by comparing the sound forms of different languages conveying the same meaning: стіл- стол- table - tisch.

It can also be proved by comparing almost identical sound forms that possess different meanings in different languages. E.g.: [ ni:s] - a daughter of a brother or a sister (English); ніс - a part of a face (Ukrainian).

For more convincing evidence of the conventional and arbitrary nature of the connection between sound form and meaning all we have to do is to point to homonyms. The word case means something that has happened and case also means a box, a container.

Besides, if meaning were inherently connected with the sound form of a linguistic unit, it would follow that a change in the sound form of the word in the course of its historical development does not necessarily affect its meaning.

Meaning and Concept

When we examine a word we see that its meaning though closely connected with the underlying concept or concepts is not identical with them.

Concept is the category of human cognition. Concept is the thought of the object that singles out its essential features. Our concepts reflect the most common and typical features of different objects. Being the result of abstraction and generalisation all concepts are thus almost the same for the whole of humanity in one and the same period of its historical development. That is to say, words expressing identical concepts in English and Ukrainian differ considerably.

e.g.: The concept of the physical organism is expressed in English by the word body, in Ukrainian by тіло, but the semantic range of the English word is not identical with that of Ukrainian. The word body is known to have developed a number of secondary meanings and may denote: a number of persons and things, a collective whole (the body of electors) as distinguished from the limbs and the head; hence, the main part as of an army, a structure of a book (the body of a book). As it is known, such concepts are expressed in Ukrainian by other words.

The difference between meaning and concept can also be observed by comparing synonymous words and word-groups expressing the same concepts but possessing a linguistic meaning which is felt as different in each of the units under consideration.

e.g.: - to fail the exam, to come down, to muff;

- to be ploughed, plucked, pipped.

Meaning and Referent

Meaning is linguistic whereas the denoted object or the referent is beyond the scope of language. We can denote the same object by more than one word of a different meaning.

e.g.: a table can be denoted by the words table, a piece of furniture, something, this as all these words may have the same referent.

Meaning cannot be equated with the actual properties of the referent. The meaning of the word water cannot be regarded as identical with its chemical formula H₂O as water means essentially the same to all English speakers including those who have no idea of its chemical composition.

Among the adherents of the referential approach there are some who hold that the meaning of a linguistic sign is the concept underlying it, and consequently they substitute meaning for concept in the basic triangle. Others identify meaning with the referent. Meaning is closely connected but not identical with the sound form, concept or referent. Yet, even those who accept this view disagree as to the nature of meaning. Some linguists regard meaning as the interrelation of the three points of the triangle within the framework of the given language, but not as an objectively existing part of the linguistic sign. Others proceed from the basic assumption of the objectivity of language and meaning and understand the linguistic sign as a two-facet unit. They view meaning as a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations that makes part of the linguistic sign - its so-called inner facet, whereas the sound form functions as its outer facet.

Functional Approach to Meaning

The functional approach maintains that a linguistic study of meaning is the investigation of the relation of sign to sign only. In other words, they hold the view that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to either concept or referent.

e.g.: We know that the meaning of the two words a step and to step is different because they function in speech differently. To step may be followed by an adverb, a step cannot, but it may be proceeded by an adjective.

The same is true of the different meanings of the same word. Analysing the function of a word in linguistic contexts and comparing these contexts, we conclude that meanings are different (or the same): to take a tram, taxi as opposed to to take to somebody. Hence, meaning can be viewed as the function of distribution.

When comparing the two approaches described above we see that the functional approach should not be considered as alternative, but rather a valuable complement to the referential theory. There is absolutely no need to set the two approaches against each other; each handles its own side of the problem and neither is complete without the other.

3. Types Of Meaning

The two main types of meaning are the grammatical and lexical meanings.

Grammatical Meaning

We notice, for example, that word-forms such as tables, chairs, bushes though denoting widely different objects of reality have something in common. This common element is the grammatical meaning of plurality.

Thus, grammatical meaning may be defined as the component of meaning recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of different words. e.g.: the tense meaning in the word-forms of verbs (asked, spoke) or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (the girl's, the night's).

In modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some elements of grammatical meaning can be identified by their distribution. The word-forms asks, speaks have the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in identical distribution (e.g. only after the pronouns he, she but before such adverbs and phrases as yesterday, last month, etc.). It follows that a certain component of the meaning of a word is described when you identify it as a part of speech, since different parts of speech are distributionally different. The part-of-speech meaning of the words that possesses but one form, as prepositions, is observed only in their distribution (cf: to come in (here) and in (on, under) the table.

Lexical Meaning

Unlike the grammatical meaning this component of meaning is identical in all the forms of the word. e.g.: the words write - writes - wrote - written possess different grammatical meanings of tense, person but in each of these forms we find the same semantic component denoting the process of putting words on the paper. This is the lexical meaning of the word which may be described as a linguistic unit recurrent in all the forms of the word and in all possible distributions of these forms.

The difference between the lexical and the grammatical component of meaning is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts underlying the two types of meaning rather in the way they are conveyed. The concept of plurality, for example, may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the word plurality. It may also be expressed in the forms of different words irrespective of their lexical meaning (girls, boards).

The interrelation of the lexical and the grammatical meaning and the role played by each varies in different word classes and even in different groups of words within one and the same class. In some parts of speech the prevailing component is the grammatical type of meaning. The lexical meaning of prepositions is, as a rule, relatively vague (to think of somebody, independent of somebody, some of the students). The lexical meaning of some prepositions is however comparatively distinct (in, on, under the table).

The lexical meaning of the word can be of two types: denotational and connotational.

One of the functions of the words is to denote things, concepts, etc. Users of a language cannot have any knowledge or thought of the objects or phenomena of the real world around them unless this knowledge is ultimately embodied in words which have essentially the same meaning for all speakers of that language. This is the denotational meaning, i.e. that component of the lexical meaning which makes communication possible. There is no doubt that a doctor knows more about pneumonia than a dancer does but they use the word and understand each other.

The second component of the lexical meaning is the connotational component which has some stylistic value of the word, the emotive charge.

Words contain an element of emotive evaluation as part of the connotational meaning. The word hovel denotes a small house or cottage and besides implies that it is a miserable dwelling place, dirty, in bad repair and unpleasant to live in.

Many connotations associated with names of animals, birds, insects are universally understood and used.

e.g.: calf (теля)- a young inexperienced person;

donkey (осел)- a foolish person;

monkey (мавпа)- a mischievous child;

serpent (змія)- a treacherous, malicious person.

But it should be mentioned here that different peoples structure the world differently. E.g.: the word bug has such figurative meanings in the English language as a crazy, foolish person and an enthusiast, the word shark means a swindler. In the Ukrainian language the words жук and акула do not have such meanings. Sometimes words in different languages can have different meanings. E.g.: the word gull means a fool, a swindler, in the Ukrainian language the word чайка can be applied to a woman or a girl. The word hawk possesses a negative meaning in the English language (a deceiver), the word сокіл is applied to a handsome and strong young man.

Metals possess well-established connotations, derived from their individual qualities. The word gold is associated with great worth. Iron and steel connote strength, brass - audacity, lead - sluggishness or weight.

Words may also contain an element of emotive force as part of the connotational meaning. This is in fact one of the objective semantic features proper to some words as linguistic units and forming part of the connotative value. Such are, for example, stylistically coloured words synonymous with their neutral counterparts: child - kid - kiddie; girl - lass - girlie - lassie.

In interjections this meaning is known to prevail.

We must naturally distinguish between the emotive element as inherent in some words forming part of the connotation and the subjective use of words that are not otherwise emotionally coloured.

In actual speech expressive nuances may be obtained in different ways. In various contexts, linguistic or situational, words devoid of any emotive element may be endowed with a distinct expressive function depending on the speaker's attitude towards his interlocutor or to the thing spoken about.

There are some other types of lexical meaning. They are abstract and concrete (hope, love - window, book); primary and secondary (wall of the room - wall of misunderstanding); bookish and colloquial (young man - chap, lad).

4. Polysemy of Words

A word that has more than one meaning in the language is called polysemantic. Its meanings form its semantic structure. It is an organised set of recurrent variants and shades of meaning a given sound complex can assume in different contexts, together with their emotional colouring, stylistic peculiarities and other typical connotations, if any. The semantic structure of the word is a fact of language, not of speech. It is developed and fixed in the course of the history of the language.

Since the number of lexical units is not necessarily increased with the appearance of new ideas and objects it is usually achieved by making an already existing word do this work. Change of meaning is a commonplace and indeed it would appear to be fundamental in the living language.

Examples to illustrate the statement are not far to seek. When watches were invented no new words were invented to denote this object and its parts. The word face meaning front part of a human head was made to serve as the name of the front part of the watch where all the changes of time were shown; the word hand meaning part of a human body used to work and indicate things with was made to serve as the name of the indicator.

Or the Ukrainian word лінія - вузька смужка, що тягнеться на якій-небудь поверхні. Closely connected with it are the following meanings: уявна смужка (лінія горизонту), шлях (трамвайна лінія), послідовний ряд кровно споріднених осіб (по материнській лінії), спосіб дії (лінія поведінки).

Thus words develop plurality of meanings, or, in other words, become polysemantic.

In polysemantic words we are faced not with the problem of the analysis of different meanings but primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of the same word.

Some questions can arise in this connection.

- Are all meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of the word?

- Is the order in which the meanings are enumerated in dictionaries purely arbitrary or does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the word?

The most objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in speech.

Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as not only words but individual meanings too may differ in their stylistic reference. The stylistic status of monosemantic words is easily perceived.

e.g.: daddy can be referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the word parent - to bookish.

Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any much restrictive labels. There is nothing colloquial or slangy about the word jerk in the meaning of a sudden movement or stopping of movement. But when jerk is used in the meaning of an odd person it is slangy.

Stylistically neutral words are more frequent.

It should be mentioned that some meanings are representative of the word in isolation, i.e. they invariably occur to us when we hear the word or see it written. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used in certain contexts. The meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are described as free or denominative meanings.

By the word context we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word.

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

In lexical contexts of primary importance are the lexical groups combined with the polysemantic word under consideration.

e.g.: The verb to take in isolation has the meaning to lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize. When combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (to take a bus, a train) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb to go. The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically or phraseologically bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical contexts.

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word.

e.g.: One of the meanings of the verb to make (to force, to induce) is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure make + N+Infinitive ( to make somebody do something). Another meaning to become is observed when make is followed by an adjective or noun (to make a good teacher) . Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically or structurally bound meanings.

In a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the grammatical aspect should be taken into consideration. If, for example, we compare the contexts of different grammatical structures (to take+N and to take to+N) we can assume that they represent different meanings of the verb to take, but it is only when we specify the lexical context, i.e. the lexical group with which the verb is combined in the structure to take+N (to take tea, books, a bus) that we can say that the context determines the meaning.

The same pattern to take+N may represent different meanings of the verb to take dependent mainly on the lexical group of the nouns with which it is combined.

There are cases when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by linguistic factors but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used. The meaning of the phrase I've got it is determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context but by the actual speech situation. To get may mean to possess or to understand.

Monosemantic words are comparatively rare in the English language. These are pronouns and numerals. The greatest number of monosemantic words can be found among terms, the very nature of which requires precision. But even here we must mention that terms are monosemantic only within one branch of science.

e.g.: to dress - to bandage a wound (medical terminology);

to dress - to prepare the earth for sowing (terminology of agriculture);

to dress - to decorate with flags (naval terminology).

Words belonging to the most active, vitally important and widely used part of the English vocabulary are generally polysemantic.

5. The Main Semantic Processes

Extension of meaning means extension of the word range. In most cases it is naturally combined with a higher degree of abstraction than implied in the earlier meaning of the word.

Most words begin as specific names for things. however, this precise denotation is lost ant the meaning of the word gets extended and generalised.

e.g.: Season once had the meaning spring, time for sowing. Now it embraces all parts of the year.

Salary once had the meaning the money to buy salt for. Now it means money to buy anything.

Thing once meant anything that can be agreed on in trade. Now it has a generic meaning.

Town once meant fence. Now it denotes a settlement.

Arrive once meant to land, to reach the shore. Now any place of destination is presupposed.

Free once meant dear. Then according to the process of generalisation it acquired the meaning free. At first it was used in regard to someone from the family of a slave-owner, who he loved and respected. Then it was applied to any relative of a slave-owner. The opposition - free and slave - brought to the extension and change of meaning of the word.

Стріляти meant випускати стрілу. Now it is used in a broader sense.

Столяр meant той, що виготовляє столи. Now it means той, хто виготовляє вироби з дерева.

Поле meant порожній великий простір. Now it means ділянка землі відведена під що-небудь, простір, у межах якого відбувається якась дія, сфера діяльності, смужка вздовж краю аркуша паперу, відігнуті краї капелюха.

Narrowing of meaning is the process when a word acquires a specialised sense in which it is applicable only to some of the objects it had previously denoted or a word of wide usage is restricted in its application and comes to be used only in a special sense.

e.g.: In Shakespeare's „King Lear“ there is a reference made to mice and rats and such small deer. In Old English deer meant any beast.

Coffin once meant a box. Then it began to mean a special box for the dead.

These are the cases in which narrowing took place due to the concretization of meaning. Sometimes narrowing takes place due to the differentiation of concepts. This is the case when two words were synonyms once and then they acquired different meanings.

e.g.: Stool once meant табурет і стілець. After the word chair was borrowed from French, the word stool began to be used only for табурет.

Attributes when used continuously with a word may lead to the narrowing of meaning: corn (Indian corn), private (private soldier).

Narrowing can take place when the name of the material is transferred onto the thing made of this material: iron, kids.

It is a well-known fact that people tend to specialise and thus to narrow the meanings of words connected with their special activities.

e.g.: The word operation(операція) has quite different meanings to a financial worker, to a mathematician, to a military man and to a physician.

Печиво meant усе спечене з борошна. Now it means кондитерські вироби з борошна.

Квас meant усе кисле. Now the word means кислуватий напій з житнього хліба або житнього борошна.

Elevation of meaning presupposes the following thing. Words often rise from humble beginnings to positions of greater importance. Such changes are not always easy to account for in detail, but, on the whole, we may say that social changes are of the very first importance with words that acquire better meanings.

Some highly complimentary words were originally applied to things of comparatively slight importance.

e.g.: Fame meant news (good or bad). Now it means glory.

Nice meant foolish. The word was gradually specialised in the sense foolishly particular about trifles. Then the idea of folly was lost and particular about small things, accurate came into existence.

To adore had the meaning to speak with, to greet, to address. Now it means to love, to worship.

The words офіс, менеджмент, кур'єр are considered to have better meanings than контора, управління, посильний.

Degradation of meaning is the process whereby for one reason or another a word falls into disrepute. Words once respectable may become less respectable. Some words reach such a low point that it is considered improper to use them at all.

e.g.: Idiot meant private in Greek and uneducated in Latin. Now it has a negative meaning of a fool in both languages.

Greedy meant hungry. Now it means stingy.

Villain meant a person living in the country. Now it means a scoundrel.

Metaphor is a transfer of name based on the association of similarity and thus is actually a hidden comparison. It presents a method of description which likens one thing to another by referring to it as if it were some other one. In actual usage the motivation of the word meaning may be obscured or completely lost. The latter leads to the development of the so-called fossilised or trite metaphors by origin. Fossilised metaphors belong to the vocabulary of a given language as a system. In such cases the connection between the original and transferred word meaning is lost. Such transpositions may lead to a complete semantic change of a word, wherein the secondary figuratively derived meaning becomes, in fact, primary. The word metaphor itself is a metaphor, meaning to carry over, across a term or expression from its normal usage to another.

Metaphors may be created on the similarity of different physical properties, such as:

- similarity of shape : needle's eye, table's leg; вушко голки, павутина доріг;

- similarity of size: midget, elephantine; карликовий;

- similarity of colour: orange, violet; трояндовий, бузковий;

- similarity of function: hand, finger-post; рушниця стріляє, металеве перо;

- similarity of position: back of the chair, foot of the mountain; підніжжя гори;

- similarity of firmness: egg-shell china, steel resolution; метал у голосі.

It must be borne in mind that linguistic metaphor is different from metaphor as a literary device. When the latter is offered and accepted both the author and the reader are to a greater or lesser degree aware that this reference is figurative, that the object has another name. The relationship of the direct denotative meaning of the word and the meaning it has in the literary context in question is based on the similarity of some features in the objects compared. The poetic metaphor is the result of the author's creative imagination. In a linguistic metaphor, especially if it is dead as a result of long usage, the thing named often has no other name. In a dead metaphor the comparison is completely forgotten. The meaning of such expressions as a sun beam or beam of light are not explained by allusions to a tree, although the word is actually derived from Old English beam (tree).

One can speak of different degrees of deadness as it were taking for illustration such metaphors as to ruminate (to think), originally applied to a cow's cud chewing or, say, such metaphors as time flies, a cold look which are quite faded. Such adjective metaphors as orange, violet are no longer felt as figurative.

Metonymy is a device in which the name of one thing is changed for that of another to which it is related by association of ideas as having close relationship to one another. The simplest case of metonymy is synecdoche. Synecdoche means giving a part for the whole or vice versa.

e.g.: foot (infantry), town may be applied to the inhabitants of it. The word violin is often used to denote not the instrument but the musician who plays it.

In the Ukrainian language the examples of synecdoche can be represented by the following examples: носа не показувати, роботящі руки, білява куделя оглянулася.

Faded metonymy can be found in the political vocabulary when the place of some establishment is used not only for the establishment itself or its staff but also for its policy: the White House, the Pentagon, Інститут святкує своє десятиріччя.

Other examples of metonymy include:

1. The sign for the thing signified: grey hair (old age).

2. The instrument for the agent: the best pens of the day (the best writers).

Він - перша скрипка.

3. The container for the thing contained: He drank a cup. Чайник закипів.

4. The names of various organs can be used in the same way: head can be used for brains; heart often stands for emotions. Honey tongue, a heart of gall.У неї золоте серце.

5. A part of species substituted for a whole or genus: He manages to earn his bread (the necessaries of life).

6. A whole or genus substitutes for a part or species: He is a poor creature (man). Він - бідне створіння.

7. The name of the material which stands for the thing made of this material: iron, kid, фарфор, фаянс.

Due to a great variety of associations there are a lot of cases where metonymy is disguised.

e.g.: sandwich is named after John Montague, earl of Sandwich, who invented this kind of meal;

champagne - a white sparkling wine made in the province of Champagne (France);

nicotine - a poisonous alkaloid which got its name after Jean Nicot, who introduced tobacco into France.

SYNONYMS. ANTONYMS. HOMONYMS

Synonyms

the definition of synonyms;

classifications of synonyms;

sources of synonymy;

d) criteria of synonymy.

2. Antonyms

the definition of antonyms;

classifications of antonyms;

criteria of antonyms.

Homonyms

the definition of homonyms;

sources of homonymy;

classifications of homonyms.

Synonyms

The Definition of Synonyms

Grouping of words is based upon similarities and contrasts. Taking up similarity of meaning and contrasts of phonetic shape we observe that every language has in its vocabulary a variety of words kindred in meaning but different in morphemic composition, phonemic shape and usage. The more developed the language is, the richer the diversity and therefore the greater the possibilities of lexical choice enhancing the effectiveness and precision of speech.

Synonyms can be defined as two or more words of the same language, belonging to the same part of speech and possessing one or more identical or nearly identical denotational meanings, interchangeable at least in some contexts, without any alteration on the denotational meaning, but differing in the morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotations, affective value, style, valency and idiomatic use.

The words to annoy, to vex, to irk, to bother are synonyms. To annoy, to vex may mean both a non-intentional influence and an intentional one. To irk, to bother presuppose only the intentional influence. To annoy is a neutral word. To vex has a stronger shade. To bother presupposes the slightest reaction. The denotational meaning of all these words is the same: to make somebody a little angry by especially repeated acts. As it is seen from the example the synonymic group comprises a dominant element. This is the synonymic dominant, the most general term of its kind potentially containing the specific features rendered by all the other members of the group. Or in the Ukrainian language the word бридкий is a synonymic dominant in the synonymic row: бридкий, огидний, гидкий, потворний, осоружний, негарний.

The majority of English words are polysemantic. The result of it is that one and the same word may belong in its various meanings to several synonymic groups.

e.g.: to appear may have the synonyms, to emerge, to come into sight and to look, to seem.

b) Classifications of Synonyms

Absolute synonyms are very rare in the language. They are mostly different names for one and the same plant, animal, disease etc.

e.g.: luce - pike, compounding - composition, castor - beaver, алфавіт - абетка, буква - літера, процент - відсоток, площа - майдан, нагідки - календула.

In the course of time absolute synonyms come to have either a different shade of meaning or different usage. If two words exactly coincide in meaning and use the natural tendency is for one of them to change its meaning or drop out of the language.

Ideographic synonyms differ from each other in shades of meaning. Synonyms of this kind are very numerous in the English language. In such synonyms we can easily find the general and the particular. The general connects such synonyms into one group, makes them representatives of one concept whereas the particular allows every synonym of the group to stress a certain feature of the concept. Thus all the synonyms express the concept in all its many-sided variety and completeness.

Not all ideographic synonyms are of the same kind. We can distinguish between those which are very close in their meanings (horrible - terrible, screech - shriek), synonyms which differ in meaning considerably. Thus, interpreter and translator denote the same concept of a person rendering the expressions of one language into the expressions of another but the oral side of the work is associated with the interpreter whereas the translator is connected with writing. Both ladder and stairs denote a set of parallel bars used for climbing up but ladder is associated with a rope contrivance or a portable device consisting of two beams crossed by a set of parallel bars while stairs represents a permanent arrangement mostly within a building, of blocks of wood or slabs of marble joined to form a long series of steps, stairway or staircase.

Among verbs we find ideographic synonyms which differ in the manner of the action expressed by the verb: to look (the synonymic dominant), to glance (to look quickly), to gaze (to look with surprise, curiosity), to stare (to look fixedly), to regard (to look attentively), to view (to look searchingly), to eye (to look from head to foot), to peep (to look stealthily).

Synonyms can differ in the degree of a given quality, in the intensity of the action performed or the intensity of the emotions: to want - to desire - to long for; to ask - to beg - to pray; to work - to toil - to slave.

Synonyms can also differ in the emotional colouring: big - great; boy - lad.

Synonyms can differ in the volume of the concept they express: border - frontier. Border is wider in meaning than frontier for the latter means mostly a state border whereas border is any limit, edge, etc. Happy is wider than lucky which implies only happy circumstances attending one's undertakings.

There are synonyms where one expresses continuity of action or state while the other expresses a momentary action of the same nature: to speak - to say; to remember - to memorise.

Ukrainian scholars call such synonyms semantic: хата - дім - будинок, череда - отара - зграя.

Stylistic synonyms do not differ in shades of their common meaning. They differ in usage and style: doctor (official) - doc (familiar); to commence (official) - to begin (neutral). They also show the attitude of the speaker towards the event, object or process described: to die - to depart, to expire - to kick the bucket; говорити - балакати, базікати; ходити - шкандибати, дибати, пхатися, читальний зал - читалка, здібний - кмітливий.

Ukrainian scholars distinguish between semantic-stylistic synonyms: архітектор - зодчий.

Phraseological synonyms are those which do not necessarily differ materially in their meanings or stylistic value. They differ in their combinative power. Thus, in such groups as few - little, many - much we can speak not so much of any immediate difference in the meanings of words as of their difference in application (much time - little water; many children - much air). We say a sunny day, a moonlit night but we should use the solar system, a lunar eclipse.

Phraseological synonyms can replace each other in some combinations but are not interchangeable in others. Use and benefit are synonyms in such expressions as public use, public benefit whereas they are no longer synonyms and cannot replace each other in expressions like I have no use for such books, or He was given the benefit of the doubt. Перед, напередодні cease to be synonyms if they are used in the context: перед мостом, напередодні свята.

Contextual synonyms are similar in meaning only under some specific distributional conditions. The verbs to bear, to suffer and stand are semantically different and not interchangeable except when used in the negative form.

c) Sources of Synonymy

One of the sources of synonymy is borrowings. In Modern English a great number of synonyms serve to differentiate the meanings of words, their colloquial or bookish character. Most of bookish synonyms are of foreign origin, while popular and colloquial words are mostly native. Many native synonyms were either restricted or ousted by foreign terms.

e.g.: The native word heaven has been more and more restricted to the figurative and religious use for the Danish word sky began to be used exclusively in the meaning of the blue above us though originally sky meant only cloud. The Danish word call has ousted the Old English word heitan, the French word army ousted the native word here.

Shifts of meaning can lead to the appearance of synonyms: knave and villain once were not synonyms but their meanings degradated and they became synonyms.

Shortening can result in the appearance of synonyms: advertisement - ad; examination - exam.

Conversion can be a source of synonymy: a corner - to corner.

d) Criteria of synonymy

Notional criterion: Synonyms are words of the same category of parts of speech conveying the same notion but differing either in shades of meaning or in stylistic characteristics.

Semantic criterion: In terms of componential analysis synonyms may be defined as words with the same denotation or the same denotative component but differing in connotations or in the connotative component.

The criterion of interchangeability: Synonyms are words which are interchangeable at least in some contexts without any considerable alteration in the denotational meaning.

2. Antonyms

a) The Definition of Antonyms

Words with diametrically opposite meanings are called antonyms. We find antonyms among words denoting:

- quality: hard - soft; good - bad; здоровий - кволий;

- state: clean - dirty; wealth - poverty; чистий - брудний;

- manner: quickly - slowly; willingly - unwillingly; швидко - повільно;

- direction: up - down; here - there; тут - там;

- action or feeling: to smile - to frown; to love - to hate; любити - ненавидіти;

- features: tall - short; beautiful - ugly; високий - низький.

Words which do not have relative features do not have antonyms.

Classifications of Antonyms

Antonyms can be divided into two groups: those which are formed with the help of negative affixes (derivational) and those which are of different roots. There are affixes in English which impart to the root the meaning of either the presence or the absence of a certain quality, property or state.

The most productive antonym-forming negative prefixes are un- (unhappy, unimportant), mis-(misfortune, misunderstanding). In the Ukrainian language that is the prefix не-(неправда, неволя). The prefix без- is also rather productive: безстрашний, безлад).

Antonym-forming suffixes impart to the word the meaning of the presence or absence of the quality or feature indicated by the root. The most productive antonym-forming suffixes are -ful,-less: fruitful - fruitless; hopeful - hopeless.

The second group (antonyms proper) includes words of different roots: day - night; rich - poor, радість - горе, дружити - ворогувати.

Considered in meaning antonyms can be divided into absolute, phraseological and complex.

Absolute antonyms are diametrically opposite in meaning and remain antonyms in any word-combinations. These are mostly found among negative affix-formed antonyms.

Phraseological antonyms. When they become components of phraseological groups or compound words they sometimes lose their absolutely antonymic nature.

e.g.: to give -to take: to give a book - to take a book but to give way will not have to take way as its antonym.

Phraseological antonyms cannot be used in parallel antonymic expressions indiscriminately. We can say The books are alike - The books are different but we cannot say an alike book though we do say a different book.

Complex antonyms are those polysemantic words that have different antipodes for their various meanings.

e.g.: Soft has such meanings as

- not hard, yielding (soft seat, soft nature);

- not loud, subdued (soft voice, soft colours);

- mild, not severe (soft climate, soft punishment).

Naturally all these meanings will find different words for antipodes:

- hard (hard seat, hard nature);

- loud, harsh (loud voice, harsh colours);

- severe (severe climate, severe punishment).

The Ukrainian word сухий can have the following antonyms: мокрий, м'який, повний, емоційний.

с)Criteria of Antonyms

Antonyms have traditionally been defined as words of opposite meanings. This definition is not sufficiently accurate, as it only shifts the problem to the question of what words may be regarded as words of opposite meanings. Two words are considered antonyms if they are regularly contrasted in actual speech. A regular and frequent co-occurrence in such contexts is the most important characteristic feature of antonyms.

Another criterion is the possibility of substitution and identical lexical valency. Members of the same antonymic pair reveal nearly identical spheres of collocation.

e.g.: The adjective hot in its figurative meanings angry and excited is chiefly combined with unpleasant emotions (anger, scorn) . Its antonym cold occurs with the same words. But hot and cold are used in combinations with the emotionally neutral words fellow, man, but not with the nouns implying positive evaluation friend, supporter.

Antonyms form binary oppositions, the distinctive feature of which is semantic polarity; its basis is regular co-occurrence in typical contexts combined with approximate sameness of distribution and stylistic and emotional equivalence.

3. Homonyms

The Definition of Homonyms

Considering the word from the viewpoint of its semantic relations with other words we submit to our examination words having the same form but quite differing in meaning or homonyms. Saying the same form we must add that the identity of form may be complete or partial.

There are perfect homonyms, that is words having entirely different meanings but absolutely identical in spelling and sound: ball - м'яч; ball - тюлень; деркач - птах, деркач - віник; бал - вечір танців, бал - оцінка.

Partial homonyms are of two types: homographs and homophones. Homographs are words identical in spelling but different in sound and meaning: bow [bou] - bow [bau], row [rou] - row [rau], о'бід - 'обід, за'мок -'замок. Homophones are the words identical in sound but different in spelling and meaning: knight - night; piece - peace; цеглина - це глина, потри - по три.

c) Classifications of Homonyms

From the viewpoint of their origin homonyms are divided into historical and etymological.

Historical homonyms are those which result from the breaking up of polysemy; then one polysemantic word will split up in two or more separate words.

e.g.: plant (рослина) - plant (завод); pupil (учень) - pupil (зрачок).

But sometimes it is difficult to decide whether all connection between the meanings of such words is lost and even the compilers of dictionaries hesitate how to treat such words.

Etymological homonyms are words of different etymology which come to be alike in sound or spelling. Various causes explain their appearance. Among these phonetical changes both in native and borrowed words played a great role.

e.g.: can (могти) - Old English cunnan (знати);

can (банка) - Old English canne (банка);

here (тут) - Old English her (тут);

to hear (чути) - Old English hieran (чути).

Sometimes a native word and a borrowed word coincide in form, thus producing homonyms.

e.g.: to bark (гавкати) - Old English beorcan and bark (кора дерева) from Scandinavian borkr (баркас). Or the Ukrainian word мул (дрібні частинки у водоймах) coincided with мул (назва тварини, which is a Latin word).

In other cases homonyms are a result of borrowing when several different words became identical in sound and/or in spelling.

e.g.: The Latin word vitim (wrong, an immoral habit) has given the English vice (порок), the Latin word vitis (a spiral) has given the English word vice (лещата). The Latin word vice (instead, in place) is found in vice-president.

In the Ukrainian language the word гриф (міфічна істота, which is a borrowing from Greek), гриф (частина струнного музичного інструмента, a borrowing from German), гриф (штемпель на документі,a borrowing from French).

Considering homonyms in their morphological aspect prof. Smirnitsky classifies them into lexical and lexico-grammatical. Lexical homonyms are of two types: perfect and partial. Perfect homonyms belong to the same part of speech with all forms coinciding: case (випадок) - case (сумка). Partial homonyms belong to the same part of speech but coincide only in some of their forms: to lie --lay - lain; to lie - lied - lied. Lexico-grammatical homonyms are represented by:

a) words belonging to the same part of speech but homonymic in their grammatical forms (excluding their initial forms): bore -to bore (the Past Indefinite of to bear);

b) words belonging to different parts of speech and homonymic only in some of their forms: I - to eye; nose - knows.

WORD COMBINATIONS AND PHRASEOLOGY IN MODERN ENGLISH AND UKRAINIAN LANGUAGES

Free and non-free word combinations.

2. Classifications of phraseological units.

3. Synonyms in phraseology.

4. Antonyms in phraseology.

5. Proverbs, sayings.

1. Free and Non-Free Word Combinations

The vocabulary of a language includes not only words but also stable word combinations which also serve as a means of expressing concepts. They are phraseological word equivalents reproduced in speech the way words are reproduced and not created anew in actual speech.

An ordinary word combination is created according to the grammatical rules of the language in accordance with a certain idea. The general meaning of an ordinary free word combination is derived from the conjoined meanings of its elements. Every notional word functions here as a certain member of the sentence. Thus, an ordinary word combination is a syntactical pattern.

A free word combination is a combination in which any element can be substituted by another.

e.g.: I like this idea. I dislike this idea. He likes the idea. I like that idea. I like this thought.

But when we use the term free we are not precise. The freedom of a word in a combination with others is relative as it is not only the syntactical pattern that matters. There are logical limitations too.

The second group of word combinations is semi-free word combinations. They are the combinations in which the substitution is possible but limited.

e.g.: to cut a poor/funny/strange figure.

Non-free word combinations are those in which the substitution is impossible.

e.g.: to come clean, to be in low water.

2. Classifications of Phraseological Units

A major stimulus to intensive studies of phraseology was prof. Vinogradov's research. The classification suggested by him has been widely adopted by linguists working on other languages. The classification of phraseological units suggested by V.V. Vinogradov includes:

- standardised word combinations, i.e. phrases characterised by the limited combinative power of their components, which retain their semantic independence: to meet the request/requirement, подавати надію, страх бере, зачепити гордість, покласти край;

- phraseological unities, i.e. phrases in which the meaning of the whole is not the sum of meanings of the components but it is based on them and the motivation is apparent: to stand to one's guns, передати куті меду, прикусити язика, вивести на чисту воду, тримати камінь за пазухою;

- fusions, i.e. phrases in which the meaning cannot be derived as a whole from the conjoined meanings of its components: tit for tat, теревені правити, піймати облизня, викинути коника, у Сірка очі позичити.

Phraseological unities are very often metaphoric. The components of such unities are not semantically independent, the meaning of every component is subordinated to the figurative meaning of the phraseological unity as a whole. The latter may have a homonymous expression - a free syntactical word combination.

e.g.: Nick is a musician. He plays the first fiddle.

It is his wife who plays the first fiddle in the house.

Phraseological unities may vary in their semantic and grammatical structure. Not all of them are figurative. Here we can find professionalisms, coupled synonyms.

A.V. Koonin finds it necessary to divide English phraseological unities into figurative and non-figurative.

Figurative unities are often related to analogous expressions with direct meaning in the very same way in which a word used in its transferred sense is related to the same word used in its direct meaning.

Scientific English, technical vocabulary, the vocabulary of arts and sports have given many expressions of this kind: in full blast; to hit below the belt; to spike smb's guns.

Among phraseological unities we find many verb-adverb combinations: to look for; to look after; to put down; to give in.

Phraseological fusions are the most synthetical of all the phraseological groups. They seem to be completely unmotivated though their motivation can be unearthed by means of historic analysis.

They fall under the following groups:

Idiomatic expressions which are associated with some obsolete customs: the grey mare, to rob Peter to pay Paul.

Idiomatic expressions which go back to some long forgotten historical facts they were based on: to bell the cat, Damocles' sword.

Idiomatic expressions expressively individual in their character: My God! My eye!

Idiomatic expressions containing archaic elements: by dint of (dint - blow); in fine (fine - end).

Semantic Classification of Phraseological Units

1. Phraseological units referring to the same notion.

e.g.: Hard work - to burn the midnight oil; to do back-breaking work; to hit the books; to keep one's nose to the grindstone; to work like a dog; to work one's fingers to the bone.

Compromise - to find middle ground; to go halfway.

Independence - to be on one's own; to have a mind of one's own; to stand on one's own two feet.

Experience - to be an old hand at something; to know something like the back of one's palm; to know the rope.Ледарювати - байдики бити, ханьки м'яти, ганяти вітер по вулицях, тинятися з кутка в куток, і за холодну воду не братися.

2. Professionalisms

e.g.: on the rocks; to stick to one's guns; breakers ahead. 3. Phraseological units having similar components

e.g.: a dog in the manger; dog days; to agree like cat and dog; to rain cats and dogs. To fall on deaf ears; to talk somebody's ear off; to have a good ear for; to be all ears. To see red; a red herring; a red carpet treatment; to be in the red; з перших рук; як без рук; горить у руках; не давати волі рукам.

4. Phraseological units referring to the same lexico-semantic field.

e.g.: Body parts - to cost an arm and leg; to pick somebody's brain; to get one's feet wet; to get off the chest; to rub elbows with; not to have a leg to stand on; to stick one's neck out; to be nosey; to make a headway; to knuckle down; to shake a leg; to pay through the noser; to tip toe around; to mouth off; без клепки в голові; серце з перцем; легка рука.

Fruits and vegetables - red as a beet; a couch potato; a hot potato; a real peach; as cool as a cucumber; a top banana;гриби після дощу; як горох при дорозі; як виросте гарбуз на вербі.

Animals - sly as a fox; to be a bull in a china shop; to go ape; to be a lucky dog; to play cat and mouse; як з гуски вода, як баран на нові ворота; у свинячий голос; гнатися за двома зайцями.