Polysemy in english language
Contents
Reference
Introduction
1. Word Meaning
1.1 Different Approaches to Meaning. Functional Approach
1.1.1 Referential approach
1.2 Types of Meaning. Grammatical Meaning
1.2.1 Lexical Meaning
1.2.2 Denotational and Connotational Meaning
1.3 Semantic Structure of polysemantic words
1.4 Types of Semantic Components
2. The meaning and Polysemy
2.1 Two approaches to the study of polysemy
2.1.1 Synchronic and Diachronic
2.2 Meaning and Context
2.3 The Lexical context
2.4 Grammatical Context
2.5 The development of new meanings of polysemantic words
Conclusion
Appendix to the course paper
Bibliography
Reference
The theme of the course paper is polysemy. The
work consists of introduction where the choice of the theme is substantiated
and the aim of the work with its dismemberment for intercommunicated complex of
tasks are defined which are subject to decision for opening of the theme. There
are two chapters in the main part. It observes the word meaning, the word - the
basic unit of language which unites the form and the meaning. Also it contains
approaches to meaning: the functional approach supports that a linguistic study
of meaning is the investigation of the relation of sign to sign only; the
referential approach seeks to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing
the interdependence between words and things or concepts they denote. Types of
the meaning: grammatical, lexical, connotational and denotational meanings.
Grammatical meaning is the element of plurality, tense endings, possessive case
and so on. Lexical meaning is the same semantic component which several words
have. Connotational and denotational meaning - the lexical meaning is not
homogeneous either and may be analysed as including denotational that component
of the lexical meaning which makes communication possible and connotational
component which consist of emotive charge that is one of the objective semantic
features proper to words as linguistic units and forms a part of the
connotational component of meaning and stylistic reference.part of all words
consists of specified words, which are connected with science, technical,
medical terms etc. - they have only one meaning. But the rest of the words have
two or more meanings. The choice of the necessary word in a sentence depends on
the context. Also there are grammatical and lexical contexts which are
considered. The object of researching is the word, its meanings, context and
developing of polysemantic words’ meanings. The aim of the work is to
investigate word meanings in speech, the role of context for solution of
polysemy in the text and to prove the importance of word meaning and its
researching.
polysemy english language polysemantic
Polysemy decorates the speech, literature texts,
but complicates a task for foreigners, who study another language, in our case,
the English language, a task of translation. A context in this situation gives
a lot, it helps to understand what the sentence, the text means in order to
make professional translation in a literal way. It is all about the second
chapter.the paper contains the conclusion where theoretical and practical
conclusions are given in account in logical succession; and appendix.
Introduction
Do you need a dog?", asked Tom
holding a puppy in his hands. “No”, answered John- “I have”, and, not turning
around lifted the arm with a dog in it, a tool for getting tacks out of the
wood.
There are plenty of languages in the world. There
are a lot of words in the language, and almost every (except scientific) word
has 2 and more meanings. And at the same time context appeared. Because only
with help of the context we know which of the meanings is more suitable in that
situation or text where we are or have. That is why it is necessary to study
the polysemy and more important to know so many meanings of one word as it is
possible.definition Lexicology deals with words, word - forming morphemes
(derivational affixes) and word-groups or phrases. All these linguistic units
may be said to have meaning of some kind: they are all significant and
therefore must be investigated both as to form and meaning. The branch of
lexicology that is devoted to the study of meaning is known as Semasiology.
Words, however, play such a crucial part in the structure of language that when
we speak of Semasiology without any qualification, we usually refer to the
study of word-meaning proper, although it is in fact very common to explore the
semantics of other elements, such as suffixes, prefixes, etc.is one of the most
controversial terms in the theory of language. At first sight the understanding
of this term seems to present no difficulty at all - it is freely used in
teaching, interpreting and translation. The scientific definition of meaning
however just as the definition of some other basic linguistic terms, such as
word, sentence, etc., has been the issue of interminable discussions. Since
there is no universally accepted definition of meaning we shall confine
ourselves to a brief survey of the problem as it is viewed in modern
linguistics both in our country and elsewhere.
1. Word Meaning
Word meaning. If is it necessary to discuss the
meaning, first of all we must say some words about the word. What is this?
The word may be described as the
basic unit of language. Uniting meaning and form, it is composed of one or more
morphemes, each consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written
representation. The combinations of morphemes within words are subject to certain
linking conditions.definition of a word is one of the most difficult in
linguistics because the simplest word has many aspects. All attempts to
characterize the word are necessarily specific for each domain of science and
are therefore considered one-sided by the representatives of all the other
domains and criticized for incompleteness. The variants of definitions were so
numerous that some authors collecting them produced works of impressive scope
and bulk.Hobbes (1588-1679), one of the great English philosophers, revealed a
materialistic approach to the problem of nomination when he wrote that words
are not mere sounds but names of matter. Three centuries later the great
Russian physiologist I. P. Pavlov (1849-1936) examined the word in connection with
his studies of the second signal system, and defined it as a universal signal
that can be substitute any other signal from the environment in evoking a
response in a human organism.runs as follows: a word is a sequence of graphemes
which can occur between spaces, or the representation of such a sequence on
morphemic level.semantic-phonological approach may be illustrated by A. H.
Gardiner’s definition:
”A word is an articulate sound-symbol in its
aspect of denoting something which is spoken about. ”eminent French
linguist A. Meillet combines the semantic, phonological and grammatical
criteria and gives the following definition of the word:
“A word is defined by the association of a
particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular
grammatical employment. ”
Still, the main point can be summarized:
“The word is the fundamental unit of
language. It is a dialectal unity of form and content. ”
The linguistic science at present is not able to
put forward a definition of meaning which is conclusive. However, there are
certain facts of which we can be reasonably sure, and one of them is that the
very function of the word as a unit of communication is made possible by its
possessing a meaning. Therefore, among the word's various characteristics,
meaning is certainly the most important.speaking, meaning can be more or less
described as a component of the word through which a concept (mental phenomena)
is communicated. Meaning endows the word with the ability of denoting real
objects, qualities, actions and abstract notions. The relationships between
“referent" (object, etc. denoted by the word), “concept” and “word"
are traditionally represented by the following triangle:
By the "symbol" here is meant
the word; “thought” or “reference” is concept. The dotted line suggests that
there is no immediate relation between “word" and “referent”: it is
established only through the concept. /Antrushina English Lexicology p.130/the
other hand, there is a hypothesis that concepts can only find their realization
through words. It seems that thought is dormant till the word wakens it up. It
is only when we hear a spoken word or read a printed word that the
corresponding concept springs into mind. The mechanism by which concepts (i. e.
mental phenomena) are converted into words (i. e. linguistic phenomena) and the
reverse process by which a heard or a printed word is converted into a kind of
mental picture are not yet understood or described.branch of linguistics which
specializes in the study of meaning is called semantics. As
with many terms, the term "semantics" is ambiguous for it can stand,
as well, for the expressive aspect of language in general and for the meaning
of one particular word in all its varied aspects and nuances (i. e. the
semantics of a word = the meaning (s) of a word).unit which most people would
think of as ‘one word’ may carry a number of meanings, by association with
certain contexts. Thus pipe can be any tubular object, a musical
instrument or a piece of apparatus for smoking; a hand can be on a clock
or watch as well as at the end of the arm. Multiple meaning or polysemy is
of considerable linguistic importance, and the process of extension is a
concern of historical linguistics. Most of the time, we are able to distinguish
the intended meaning by the usual process of mental adjustment to context and
register: we don’t expect to find tobacco pipes in the school recorder band.
The literary language, however, again refuses to give us comfortable divisions
of meaning beyond which imagination need not stray. It often forces us to
accept polysemy not as a feature from which we select but as one in
which we meet the writer’s intention without restriction.writer may indeed call
in the aid of context to distinguish the meanings of polysemantic words; but
his intention is not necessarily to elucidate a single meaning but rather to
emphasize the uncertainties of daily usage and to point from this to an
ironical comment on the human predicament.may allow a writer to work on two
levels concurrently, apparently relating one set of events while really
indicating something different. We move here towards metaphor, which must be a
separate concern, but it is interesting to see how a chosen image can be
maintained by word-choice appropriate to the register in which we should
normally expect to find it, while the metaphorical relation to hidden meaning
is deferred. For example, George Herbert sustains the image of God as the
landlord in the poem ‘Redemption’ by use of legal terms which are in perfect
register-agreement with the opening statement:been tenant long to a rich
Lordthriving, I resolved to be bold,make a suite into him, to affordnew
small-rented lease, and cancel th’oldheaven at his manor I him sought:told me
there that he was lately gonesome land, which he had dearly boughtsince on
earth, to take possession.writer may not confine himself to any normal register
but rather create his own by choices that would seem odd or questionable in
that context in everyday use. It is useful, though without attempting to draw
any impassable line, to distinguish between two ways in which a writer’s
selection of a single word may seem admirable. We will assume that there is no
syntagmatic deviation and that the choice is paradigmatic within a context that
is free from apparent ambiguity. Of course, the associations and figurative
applications of words may still operate even when there is no obvious
polysemy.the first way, there is no deviation; the achievement is in tackling
the problem of synonymous words. It may well be argued that there are no
perfect synonyms, since choice must be conditioned by register, dialect and
emotive association. However, the problem of word-selection is difficult and is
not much aided by the brief definitions of a dictionary or the listings of a
thesaurus. One of the most effective ways of finding out what a word means in
current usage is by asking people whether they would readily use it in a given
sentence.
1.1 Different Approaches to Meaning. Functional Approach
functional approach supports 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 other linguistic units and not thorough its
relation to either concept or referent. The meaning of the words ‘move’
and ‘movement’ is different because they function in speech
differently.comparing the contexts in which we find these words we cannot fail
to observe that they hold different positions in relation to other words. (To)
move, e. g., can be succeed by a noun (move the chair)
preceded by a pronoun (we move). The position occupied by
the word movement is different: it may be followed by a preposition (movement
of smth.) preceded by an adjective (slow movement) and
so on. As the distribution of the two words is different, we are entitled to
the conclusion that not only do they belong to different classes of words, but
that their meanings are different too. /R. S. Ginsburg p.28/, meaning may be
scanned as the function of distribution. It follows that in the functional
approach (1) semantic investigation is confined to the analysis of the
difference or sameness of meaning; (2) meaning is understood essentially as the
function or the use of linguistic signs. As a matter of fact, this line of
semantic investigation is the primary concern, implied or expressed, of all
structural linguists.
1.1.1 Referential approach
The referential approach seeks to formulate the
essence of meaning by establishing the interdependence between words and things
or concepts they denote.essential feature of this approach is that it
distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning: the
sound-form, and the actual 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 it was mentioned above) which,
with some variations, underlies the semantic systems of all the adherents of
this school of thought. In a simplified form the triangle may be represented as
shown above, second page, the concept is on the top of the triangle, sound-form
[d v] is the left corner and referent is the right corner. As can be seen from
the diagram the sound-form of the linguistic sign, e. g. [d v], is connected
with our concept of the bird which it denotes and through it with the referent,
i. e. the actual bird. The common feature of any referential approach is the
implication that meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent.
1.2 Types of Meaning. Grammatical Meaning
We notice, e. g., that words-forms, such as girls,
winters, joys, tables, etc. though denoting widely different objects of
reality have something in common. This common element is the grammatical
meaning of plurality which can be found in all of them.grammatical meaning may
be defined as the component of meaning recurrent in identical sets of
individual forms of different words, as, e. g., the tense meaning in the
word-forms of various nouns (girl’s, boy’s, night’s etc).a broad sense it may
be argued that linguists who make a distinction between lexical and grammatical
meaning are in fact, making a distinction between the functional meaning which
operates at various levels as the interrelation of various linguistic units and
referential (conceptual) meaning as the interrelation of linguistic units and
referents (or concepts).modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some
elements of grammatical meaning can be identified by the position if the
linguistic unit in relation to other linguistic units, i. e. by its
distribution. Word-forms ‘speaks, reads, writes’ have one and the same
grammatical meaning as they can all be found in identical distribution, e. g.
only after the pronouns ‘he, she, it’ and before adverbs like’ well, badly,
to-day etc. it follows that a certain component of the meaning of the word is
described when you identify it as a part of speech, since different parts of
speech are distributionally different.
1.2.1 Lexical Meaning
Comparing word-forms of one and the same word we
observe that besides grammatical meaning, there is another component of meaning
to be found in them. Unlike the grammatical meaning this component is identical
in all the forms of the word thus e. g. the word-forms ‘go, goes, went, going,
gone’ possess different grammatical meanings of tense, person and so on, but in
each of these forms we find one and the same semantic component denoting the
process of movement. This is the lexical meaning of the word which may be
described as the component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit,
i. e. recurrent in all the forms of this word. /Ginsburg p.30/difference
between the lexical and the grammatical components of meaning is not to be
sought in the different of the concepts underlying the two types of meaning but
rather in the way they are conveyed the concept of plurality, e. g., may be
expressed by the lexical meaning of the world plurality, it may also be
expressed in the forms of various words irrespective of their lexical meaning,
e. g. ‘boys, girls, balls, joys, etc. The concept of relation may be expressed
by the lexical meaning of the word relation and also by any of the
prepositions, e. g. ‘in, on, behind, under, etc.follows that by lexical meaning
we designate the meaning proper to the given linguistic unit in all its forms
and distributions, while by grammatical meaning we designate the meaning proper
to sets of word-forms common to all words of a certain class. Both the lexical
and the grammatical meaning make up the word-meaning as neither can exist without
order.can be also observed in the semantic analysis of correlated words in
different languages. E. g. the Russian word "сведения" is not
semantically identical with the English equivalent “information” because unlike
the Russian "сведения" the English word doesn’t possess the
grammatical meaning f plurality which is part of the semantic structure of the
Russian word.
1.2.2 Denotational and Connotational Meaning
Lexical meaning is not homogenous and includes
denotational and connotational components. The functions of words are to
denote things, concepts and so on. 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 physicist knows more about the atom than a
singer does, or that a cooker possesses a much deeper knowledge of how to
prepare for example shrimps than a person who cannot cook professionally.
Nevertheless they use the words atom, shrimps, etc. and understand each
other.second component of the lexical meaning is the connotational component,
i. e. the emotive charge and the stylistic value of the word.charge is one of
the objective semantic features proper to words as linguistic units and forms a
part of the connotational component of meaning. The emotive charge varies in different
word-classes. In some of them, in interjection, e. g., the emotive element
prevails, whereas in conjunctions the emotive charge is as a rule practically
non-existence.differ not only in their emotive charge but also in their
stylistic reference and subdivided into literary, neutral and colloquial
layers.greater part of the literary layer of Modern English vocabulary are
words of general use, possessing no specific stylistic reference and known as
neutral words. Against the background of neutral words we can distinguish two
major subgroups - standard colloquial words and literary or bookish words.
‘Parent, father, dad’. In comparison with the word father which is
stylistically neutral, dad stands out as colloquial and parent is
felt as bookish. Or chum-friend, rot-nonsense, etc.
1.3 Semantic Structure of polysemantic words
It is generally known that most words convey
several concepts and thus possess the corresponding number of meanings. A word
having several meanings is called polysemantic, and the
ability of words to have more than one meaning is described by the term polysemy.
Polysemy is certainly not an anomaly. Most
English words are polysemantic. It should be noted that the wealth of
expressive resources of a language largely depends on the degree to which
polysemy has developed in the language. Sometimes people who are not very well
informed in linguistic matters claim that a language is lacking in words if the
need arises for the same word to be applied to several different phenomena. In
actual fact, it is exactly the opposite: if each word is found to be capable of
conveying at least two concepts instead of one, the expressive potential of the
whole vocabulary increases twofold. Hence, a well-developed polysemy is a great
advantage in a language.the other hand, it should be pointed out that the
number of sound combinations that human speech organs can produce is limited.
Therefore at a certain stage of language development the production of new
words by morphological means is limited as well, and polysemy becomes
increasingly important for enriching the vocabulary. From this, it should be
clear that the process of enriching the vocabulary does not consist merely in
adding new words to it, but, also, in the constant development of polysemy.system
of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over the
centuries, as more and more new meanings are added to old ones, or oust some of
them. So the complicated processes of polysemy development involve both the
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.analysing the
semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish
between two levels of analysis. On the first level, the semantic structure of a
word is treated as a system of meanings. For example, the semantic structure of
the noun “fire" could be roughly presented by this scheme (only the most
frequent meanings are given):
I
The above scheme suggests that meaning (I)
holds a kind of dominance over the other meanings conveying the concept in the
most general way whereas meanings (II) - (V) are associated with special
circumstances, aspects and instances of the same phenomenon.(I) (generally
referred to as the main meaning) presents the centre of
the semantic structure of the word holding it together. It is mainly through
meaning (I) that meanings (II) - (V) (they are called secondary meanings)
can be associated with one another, some of them exclusively through
meaning (I) - the main meaning, as, for instance, meanings (IV) and (V).
It would hardly be possible to establish
any logical associations between some of the meanings of the noun “bar” except
through the main meaning:
Bar, n
Meaning's (II) and (III) have no logical
links with one another whereas each separately is easily associated with
meaning (I): meaning (II) through the traditional barrier dividing a court-room
into two parts; meaning (III) through the counter serving as a kind of barrier
between the customers of a pub and the barman., it is not in every polysemantic
word that such a centre can be found. Some semantic structures are arranged on
a different principle. In the following list of meanings of the adjective
“dull" one can hardly hope to find a generalized meaning covering and
holding together the rest of the semantic structure., adj.
1.
A dull book, a dull film - uninteresting, monotonous, boring.
2.
A dull student - slow in understanding, stupid.
3.
Dull weather, a dull day, a dull colour - not clear or bright.
4.
A dull sound - not loud or distinct.
5.
A dull knife - not sharp.
6.
Trade is dull - not active.
7.
Dull eyes (arch.) - seeing badly.
8.
Dull ears (arch.) - hearing badly.
There is something that all these seemingly
miscellaneous meanings have in common, and that is the implication of
deficiency, be it of colour (m. III), wits (m. II), interest (m. I), sharpness
(m. V), etc. The implication of insufficient quality, of something lacking, can
be clearly distinguished in each separate meaning., adj.
1.
Uninteresting - deficient in interest or excitement.
2.
. Stupid - deficient in intellect.
3.
Not bright - deficient in light or colour.
4.
Not loud - deficient in sound.
5.
Not sharp - deficient in sharpness.
6.
Not active - deficient in activity.
7.
Seeing badly - deficient in eyesight.
8.
Hearing badly - deficient in hearing.
The transformed scheme of the semantic structure
of “dull" clearly shows that the centre holding together the complex
semantic structure of this word is not one of the meanings but a certain component
that can be easily singled out within each separate meaning.the second level
of analysis of the semantic structure of a word: each separate meaning is a
subject to structural analysis in which it may be represented as sets of
semantic components.scheme of the semantic structure of “dull" shows that
the semantic structure of a word is not a mere system of meanings, for each
separate meaning is subject to further subdivision and possesses an inner
structure of its own., the semantic structure of a word should be
investigated at both these levels:
) of different meanings,
1.4 Types of Semantic Components
The leading semantic component in the semantic
structure of a word is usually termed denotative component (also,
the term referential component may be used). The denotative component
expresses the conceptual content of a word.following list presents denotative
components of some English adjectives and verbs:
Denotative components
lonely, adj. - alone, without company …, adj. -
widely known, adj. - widely knownglare, v. - to lookglance, v. - to lookshiver,
v. - to trembleshudder, v. - to trembleis quite obvious that the definitions
given in the right column only partially and incompletely describe the meanings
of their corresponding words. They do not give a more or less full picture of
the meaning of a word. To do it, it is necessary to include in the scheme of
analysis additional semantic components which are termed connotations
or connotative components.
The above examples show how by singling
out denotative and connotative components one can get a sufficiently clear
picture of what the word really means. The schemes presenting the semantic
structures of “glare”, “shiver”, “shudder” also show that a meaning can have
two or more connotative components.given examples do not exhaust all the types
of connotations but present only a few: emotive, evaluative connotations, and
also connotations of duration and of cause.
2. The meaning and Polysemy
We became more profound in studying of meaning.
We discussed the concept of meaning, different types of word-meanings and the
changes they undergo in the course of the historic development of the English
language. Analysing the semantic structure of the word we can see that words as
the rule don’t have only single meaning. They are called monosemantic words, i.
e. words have only one meaning are few in their amount, they are from science,
scientific terms. But all the rest of English words are polysemantic, it means
they don’t have only one single meaning, they possess more than one meaning.
The real number of meanings of the commonly used words ranges from five to
about a hundred. In fact, the commoner the word the more meanings it has.word
“polysemy" means “plurality of meanings” it exists only in the language,
not in speech.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”.are
some words in the language which are monosemantic, such as most terms,
/synonym, molecule, bronchitis/, some pronouns /this, my, both/, numerals.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. E. g. 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.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.
E. g. 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.most cases in the semantic development of a word
both ways of semantic development are combined.
.1 Two approaches to the study of polysemy
2.1.1 Synchronic and Diachronic
There are two principle approaches in linguistic
science to the study of language material: synchronic & diachronic.
With regard to Special lexicology the synchronic approach is
concerned with the vocabulary of a language as it exists at a given time. It’s
Special Descriptive lexicology that deals with the vocabulary & vocabulary
units of a particular language at a certain time.diachronic
approach in terms of Special lexicology deals with the changes in the
development of vocabulary in the coarse of time. It is Special Historical
lexicology that deals with the evaluation of the vocabulary units of a language
as the time goes by.two approaches shouldn’t be set one against the other. In
fact, they are interconnected & interrelated because every linguistic
structure & system exists in a state of constant development so that the
synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of
linguistic evaluation, of its historical development. Closely connected with
the Historical lexicology is Contrastive & Comparative lexicology whose
aims are to study the correlation between the vocabularies of two or more
languages & find out the correspondences between the vocabulary units of
the languages under comparison. Lexicology studies various lexical units. They
are: morphemes, words, variable word-groups & phraseological units. We
proceed from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of
the language system, the largest on morphological & the smallest on
syntactic plane of linguistic analyses. The word is a structural
& semantic entity within the language system. The word as
well as any linguistic sign is a two-faced unit possessing both form &
content or, to be more exact, sound-form & meaning.. g. boy - бой
When used in actual speech the word undergoes
certain modification & functions in one of its forms. The system showing a
word in all its word-forms is called a paradigm. The lexical meaning of a word
is the same throughout the paradigm. The grammatical meaning varies from one
form to another. Therefore when we speak on any word as used in actual speech
we use the term “word" conventionally because what is manifested in the
utterances is not a word as a whole but one of its forms which is identified as
belonging to the definite paradigm. Words as a whole are to be found in the
dictionary (showing the paradigm n - noun, v - verb, etc). There are two
approaches to the paradigm: as a system of forms of one word revealing the
differences & the relationships between them.
e. g. to see - saw - seen - seeing
( different forms have different relations )
In abstraction from concrete words the paradigm
is treated as a pattern on which every word of one part of speech models its
forms, thus serving to distinguish one part of speech from another.
-s -‘s
-s’ -ed -ing
nouns,
of-phrases verbs
the grammatical forms of words there are lexical
varieties which are called “variants" of words. Words seldom possess only
one meaning, but used in speech each word reveals only that meaning which is
required.. g. to learn at school to make a dresslearn about smth. ⁄smbd.
to make smbd. do smth.are lexico-semantic variants.are also phonetic &
morphological variants.. g. “often” can be pronounced in two ways, though the
sound-form is slightly changed, the meaning remains unchangeable. We can build
the forms of the word “to dream" in different ways:dream - dreamt - dreamt
dreamed-dreamedare
morphological variants. The meaning is the same but the model is different.
Like words-forms variants of words are identified in the process
of communication as making up one & the same word. Thus, within the
language system the word exists as a system & unity of all its forms &
variants.
2.2 Meaning and Context
It’s important that there is sometimes a chance
of misunderstanding when a polysemantic word is used in a certain meaning but
accepted by a listener or reader in another.is common knowledge that context
prevents from 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”, “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 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.research in semantics is
largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of
investigating the semantic structure of a word is by studying the word's linear
relationships with other words in typical contexts, i. e. its combinability
or collocability.
Scholars have established that the semantics of
words which regularly appear in common contexts are correlated and, therefore,
one of the words within such a pair can be studied through the other.are so
intimately correlated that each of them casts, as it were, a kind of permanent
reflection on the meaning of its neighbor. If the verb “to compose" is
frequently used with the object “music”, so it is natural to expect that certain
musical associations linger in the meaning of the verb “to composed”., also,
how closely the negative evaluative connotation of the adjective “notorious” is
linked with the negative connotation of the nouns with which it is regularly
associated: “a notorious criminal”, “thief”, “gangster", “gambler”,
“gossip”, “liar”, “miser”, etc.this leads us to the conclusion that context is
a good and reliable key to the meaning of the word.’s a common error to see a
different meaning in every new set of combinations. For instance: “an angry
man”, “an angry letter”. Is the adjective “angry” used in the same meaning in
both these contexts or in two different meanings? Some people will say
"two" and argue that, on the one hand, the combinability is different
(“man" - -name of person; “letter" - name of object) and, on the
other hand, a letter cannot experience anger. True, it cannot; but it can very
well convey the anger of the person who wrote it. As to the combinability, the
main point is that a word can realize the same meaning in different sets of
combinability. For instance, in the pairs “merry children”, “merry laughter”,
“merry faces”, “merry songs" the adjective “merry” conveys the same
concept of high spirits.task of distinguishing between the different meanings
of a word and the different variations of combinability 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.)the first three contexts have the common denotation of sorrow whereas in
the fourth and fifth contexts the denotations are different. So, in these five
contexts we can identify three meanings of “sad”.
2.3 The Lexical context
In lexical contexts of primary importance are the
lexical groups combined with the polysemantic word under consideration. This
can be shown by analysing different lexical contexts in which polysemantic words,
e. g. heavy or come, are used. The adjective heavy in isolation
is understood as meaning ‘ of great weight, weighty’ (heavy cargo, heavy
book, etc.). When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural
phenomena such as wind, storm, snow, etc., it means ‘striking, falling
with force, abundant’ as can be seen from the contexts, e. g. heavy rain,
wind, snow etc. In combination with the words industry, arms, artillery
and the like, heavy has the meaning ‘ the larger kind of something’ as in heavy
artillery, etc.word come in isolation has primarily the meaning ‘to
arrive, move toward, etc. When we join it the lexical group of prepositions we
have more meanings we can imagine, even one preposition, for example ‘in’, and
we have nine meanings; come in: a) to enter, b) sport to get finish, c)
to become fashionable, d) to be found as useful, etc. it acquires the meaning
synonymous with the meaning of the verb to be found (to be found somewhere, at
finish, in fashion, as useful etc.).can be easily observed that the main factor
in bringing out this or that individual meaning of the words heavy and to
come is the lexical group with which the word in question is
combined.meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as
lexically bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only
in certain lexical contexts. / Ginsburg p.56/
2.4 Grammatical Context
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 make, e. g. ‘to
force,’ is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to
make smb to do smth or in simpler terms this particular meaning occurs only
if the verb make is followed by a noun and the infinitive of some other
verb (to make smb laugh, go, write, etc.). Another meaning of this verb ‘ to
become’, to turn out to be’ is observed in the contexts of a different
structure, e. g. make followed by an adjective and a noun (to make a
good wife, a good teacher, etc.).a number of contexts, however, we find
that 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 of the word in
question is used. If we compare the contexts of different grammatical structures,
e. g. to take+noun and to take to+noun, we can safely 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+noun (to take tea; books; the bus) that
we can say that the context determines the meaning. /Ginsburg p.57/
2.5 The development of new meanings of polysemantic words
The systems of meanings of polysemantic words
evolve gradually. The older a word is, the better developed is its semantic
structure. The normal pattern of a word’s semantic development is from monosemy
to a simple semantic structure encompassing only two or three meanings, with a
further movement to an increasingly more complex semantic structure.are two
causes of development of new meanings. First is the historical one: different
kinds of changes in a nation’s social life, in its culture, knowledge, technology,
arts lead to gaps appearing in the vocabulary which beg to be filled. Newly
created objects, new concepts and phenomena must be named: word-building and
borrowing foreign ones. New meanings can also be developed due to linguistic
factors - the second cause. Linguistically speaking, the development of new
meanings, and also a complete change of meaning, may be caused through the
influence of other words, mostly of synonyms.process of development of a new
meaning (or a change of meaning) is traditionally termed transference. Some
scholars mistakenly use the term “ transference of meaning" which is a
serious mistake. It is very important to note that in any case of semantic
change it is not the meaning but the word that is being transferred from one
referent into another (from a horse-drawn vehicle into a railway car). The
result of such a transference is the appearance of new meaning.are two types of
transference based on resemblance and contiguity.type of transference is also
referred to as linguistic metaphor. A new meaning appears as a result of
associating two objects (phenomena, qualities, etc) due to their outward
similarity. The noun eye, for instance, has for one of its meanings
‘hole in the end of a needle’ which also developed through transference based
on resemblance.meanings formed through this type of transference are frequently
found in the informal strata of the vocabulary, especially in slang. A
red-headed boy is almost certain to be nicknamed carrot or ginner
by his schoolmates, and the one who is given to spying and sneaking gets the
derogatory nickname of rat. Both these meanings are metaphorical,
though, of course, the children using them are quite unconscious of this
fact.type is linguistic metonymy. The association is based upon subtle psychological
links between different objects and phenomena, sometimes traced and identified
with much difficulty. The two objects may be associated together because they
often appear in common situations, and so the image of one is easily
accompanied by the image of the other; or they may be associated on the
principle of cause and effect, of common function, of some material and an
object which is made of it, etc. The Old English adjective glad meant
“bright, shining" (it was applied to the sun, to gold and precious stones,
to shining armour, etc.). the later (and more modern) meaning “joyful"
developed on the basis of the usual association (which is reflected in most
languages) of light with joy.
Conclusion
The phenomenon of polysemy exists not in the
speech but in the language.problem of polysemy is mainly the problem of
interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word.
Polysemy viewed diachronically is a 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 on its semantic structure.viewed
synchronically is understood as coexistence 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.the present work there was viewed polysemy,
meaning of the word, some “words” about the notion “word”, because it is really
very important to know what the word is. It is impossible to speak about the
role of the meaning without understanding the “word”, the basic unit of
language that unites meaning and form. The context was observed. Attention
should be paid to it.is a sentence, it must be translated, for example from
English to Russian, theoretically if that who translates is not a professional
translator it is not necessary to know the types of context, and in general and
to professional translator too. During the whole studying a student is taught
by teachers to understand the sentence and then to translate it with the
context’s help. He chooses the necessary meaning intuitively. But the observing
context types explains a lot, for example the choice of the necessary meaning.
Sometimes you don’t know all the meanings of translated word, and…you guess by
context. Context is the minimal stretch of speech necessary to find out
individual meanings. Linguistic contexts comprise lexical and grammatical
contexts and are contrasted to extra-linguistic contexts. In extra-linguistic
contexts the meaning of the experiment is determined not only by linguistic
factor but also by the actual situation in which the word is used.most
interesting moment is the development of new meanings of polysemantic words,
the causes and the process.meaning incurs to alter in the course of the
historical development of language. Changes of lexical meaning may be viewed by
a diachronic semantic analysis of many commonly used English words.the origins
of semantic altering one may distill on the factors bringing about this change
and try to discover why the word altered its meaning. Analysing the nature of
semantic change one may search for to clarify the process of this change and
describe how diversified changes of meaning were brought about.is certainly not
an anomaly. Most English words are polysemantic. It should be commented that
the wealth of representative resources of a language largely depends on the
extent to which polysemy has developed in the language.uninformed in linguistic
people claim that a language is lacking in words if the need arises for the
same word to be laid on to several different phenomena. In real fact it is
exactly the opposite: if each word is found to be capable of conveying at least
two concepts instead of one, the expressive potential of the whole vocabulary
increases twofold. Hence, well-developed polysemy is a great advantage in a
language.
Appendix to the course paper
“Polysemy in the speech”
I n 1) разрешение, позволение
2) отпуск 3) воен. увольнение 4) отъезд уход, прощание;
Leave II v 1) покидать 2) уезжать,
переезжать 3) оставлять 4) покидать, бросать 5) оставлять после смерти (жену,
детей и т.д.) 6) оставлять завещание, наследство 7) предоставлять 8)
оставлять в том же состоянии 9) передавать, оставлять 10) приводить в
какое-либо состояние 11) проходить мимо 12) прекращать;
Leave III v покрываться листвой;
Mean I a 1) скупой, скаредный 2)
низкий, подлый, нечестный 3) посредственный, скупой, слабый 4) убогий, бедный,
жалкий 5) низкого происхождения 6) разг. придирчивый, недоброжелательный
7) амер. трудный, неподдающийся 8) разг. скромный, смущающийся;
Mean II 1. n 1) середина;
) мат. среднее число 2. а средний; mean line мат.
биссектриса; mean water нормальный уровень воды à in the mean time - тем временем; между тем;
Mean III v 1) намереваться; иметь
ввиду; to mean business разг. а) браться (за что-л.)
серьезно, решительно; б) говорить всерьез;
) думать, подразумевать;
) предназначаться;
) означать, предвещать;
значить, означать, иметь значение Context n 1) контекст 2) ситуация,
связь, фон; обстановка.
Pink I 1. n 1) розовый цвет 2) бот.
Гвоздика 3) (the pink) верх, высшая степень; in the pink - в прекрасном состоянии
(о здоровье); the pink of perfection - верх совершенства 4) красный камзол охотника
на лисицу 6) умеренный радикал;
2. а 1) розовый 2) либеральничающий;
Pink II v 1) протыкать,
прокалывать 2) украшать дырочками, фестонами, зубцами;
Pink III v работать с детонацией (о
двигателе);
Pink IV n молодой лосось Levee I n 1) ист. дневной прием при
дворе с присутствием одних мужчин 2) ист. амер. прием (у главы у главы госуд.)
3) прием гостей Levee II амер.1. n 1) дамба, гать 2)
набережная 3) пристань 4) береговой (намывной) вал реки 2. v воздвигать дамбы The choice of the necessary meaning depends on the context.
The darkness whirled and roared. I have lost
something. It is gone. What was it? It was terribly important, I must remember
it. He began to struggle, reaching for consciousness, and a long way off
heard himself groan. - n темнота, мрак, тьма, неведение.
Whirl - v вертеться, кружиться, произноситься.
Roar - v реветь, орать, гудеть, рычать; храпеть (о
больной лошади); прокричать, проорать.
Lose - v 1) терять, лишаться, утрачивать (свойство,
качество) 2) упустить, не воспользоваться 3) проигрывать 4) пропустить,
опоздать 5) вызывать потерю, стоить (чего-либо) лишать (чего-либо).
Go - v 1) идти, ходить, быть в движении 2) ехать, путешествовать 3)
пролегать, тянуться 4) отправляться 5) уезжать, уходить 6) быть в
действии, работать, ходить (о часах, механизме) 7) быть в обращении, переходить
из уст в уста 8) направляться, руководствоваться 9) звучать, звонить (о
колоколе, звонке); бить, отбивать (о часах) 10) умирать, гибнуть, теряться 11)
проходить, исчезать, рассеиваться 12) гласить, говорить (о тексте) 13)
подходить, быть под стать 14) класть (ся), ставить (ся) на определенное место;
постоянно храниться 15) умещаться, укладываться 16) окончиться определенным
результатом
) быть принятым, получить признание (о плане, проекте) 18)
расходоваться, тратиться 19) переходить в собственность 20) рухнуть, сломаться
21) потерпеть крах 22) уничтожаться, отменяться 23) регулярно ходить в школу
24) быть присужденным 25) стать (кем-либо)
Terribly - внушающее, ужасно, страшно, громадно.
Important - важный, значительный, существенный,
напыщенный, важничающий.
Remember - помнить, вспоминать, дарить, завещать,
давать на чай, передавать привет.
Begin - начинать (ся), браться за что-либо, брать
начало от чего-либо
Struggle - биться, отбиваться, бороться, делать усилия, стараться
изо всех сил, пробиваться
Reach - протягивать, вытягивать, доставать,
дотягиваться, доезжать до, достигать, доходить, трогать, оказывать влияние
передавать, подавать, застать, настигнуть, простираться, составлять
(сумму)
Hear - слышать, слушать, внимать,
выслушивать, услышать (узнать), получить известие.
Groan - тяжелый вздох, стон, скрип,
треск
Перевод.
Мрак кружился и гудел." Я потерял что-то. Это ушло. Что
это было? Это было ужасно важно. Я должен вспомнить это". Он старался изо
всех сил вспомнить, ухватить сознание, но лишь вздох отчаяния пробился к его
сознанию.
Bibliography
1. Арнольд
И.В. "Лексикология современного английского языка"
2. Литвин
А.А. "Многозначность в английском языке и речи"
3. R.
S. Ginsburg “A course in modern English Lexicology”
4. Ворно
Е.Ф., Кащеева М.А. "Лексикология английского языка
. Антрушина
Г.Б. Лексикология английского языка"`
6. F.
R. Palmer “Semantics. A new outline”
. John
Lyons “Language and linguistic”
8. Дубенец
Э.М. "Современный английский язык. Лексикология"
9. E.
M. Mednikova “Seminars in English Lexicology”
11. Berezin
“Lectures on Linguistics”
. Александрова
О.В. "Хрестоматия по английской филологии"
. Минаева
"Слово в языке и речи"
. Сборник
научных трудов. Выпуск 333. "Формальная и семантическая организация
текста"