Автор работы: Пользователь скрыл имя, 15 Сентября 2013 в 16:36, шпаргалка
Лексикология как наука. Предмет лексикологии и ее связь с другими разделами языкознания
Слово как основная единица языка. Отношения между словом и понятием
Проблема определения слова и его основные характеристики
Элементы семантической структуры слова. Полисемия в английском языке
Полисемия и омонимия. Проблема разграничения полисемии и омонимии
Антонимические отношения между словарными единицами. Некоторые общие и различительные черты синонимов и антонимов
Типы значения. Значение в синтагматике и парадигматике
Значение в сложных словах
Sometimes the spelling of some Modern English words as compared with their sound-form reflects the changes these words have undergone. The Modern English word cupboard judging by its sound-form ['kAbэd] is a monomorphic non-motivated simple word. Yet its spelling betrays its earlier history. It consisted of two bases represented by two monomorphic stems [kAр] and [bo:d] and was pronounced ['kAp,bod]; it signified 'a board to put cups on’; nowadays, however, having been structurally transformed into a simple word, it denotes neither cup nor board as may be seen from the phrases like boot cupboard, a clothes cupboard. A similar course of development is observed in the words blackguard ['blæg-a:d] traced to ['blæk,ga:d], handkerchief ['hæŋkэt∫if] that once was ['hænd,kэ:t∫if], etc.
In the process of historical development some word-structures underwent reinterpretation without radical changes in their phonemic shape; there are cases when simple root-words came to be understood as derived consisting of two ICs represented by two individual items, e.g. beggar, chauffeur, editor. The reinterpretation of such words led to the formation of simple verbs like to edit, to beg, etc.
It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combination with other words. The noun question, e.g., is often combined with such adjectives as vital, pressing, urgent, disputable, delicate, etc. This noun is a component of a number of other word-groups, e.g. to raise a question, a question of great importance, a question of the agenda, of the day, and many others. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability.
The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. This can be easily observed in the selection of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbs lift and raise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question. The verb take may be synonymically interpreted as ‘grasp’, ’seize’, ‘catch’, ‘lay hold of, etc. but it is only take that is found in collocation with the nouns examination, measures, precautions, etc., only catch in catch smb. napping and grasp in grasp the truth.
There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any departure from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic device. Such word-groups as for example a cigarette ago, shove a question and the like are illustrative of the point under discussion. It is because we recognise that shove and question are not normally collocable that the junction of them can be effective.
Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché. We observe, for example, that the verb put forward and the noun question are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verb put forward or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate the word question. So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual word-group, a kind of cliché. This is also true of a number of other word-groups, e.g. to win (or gain) a victory, keen sight (or hearing).
The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the English word flower and its Russian counterpart — цветок, for example, may be combined with a number of other words all of which denote the place where the flowers are grown, e.g. garden flowers, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. the Russian садовые цветы, оранжерейные цветы, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination with the word room to denote flowers growing in the rooms (cf. pot flowers — комнатные цветы).
One more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical valency — the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups.
Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups. The adjective heavy, e.g., is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’. But not all the words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is difficult to digest."
Secondly, it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through the lexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of the adjective heavy may be described through the word-groups heavy weight (book, table, etc.), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.), heavy drinker (eater, etc.), heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.), heavy industry (tanks, etc.), and so on.
From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word.
Words are used also in grammatical contexts. The minimal grammatical context in which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-group. For instance, the adjective heavy discussed above can be followed by a noun (e.g. heavy storm or by the infinitive of a verb (e.g. heavy to lift), etc. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is termed grammatical valency.
The grammatical valency of words may be different. To begin with, the range of grammatical valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each individual word is dependent on the grammatical structure of the language. This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical. This can be best illustrated by comparing the grammatical valency of any two words belonging to the same part of speech, e.g. of the two synonymous verbs suggest and propose. Both verbs can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan, a resolution). It is only propose, however, that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.); The adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adjective-Preposition at+Noun (clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.
Specific linguistic restrictions in the range of grammatical valency of individual words imposed on the lexical units by the inner structure of the language are also observed by comparing the grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages. The English verb influence, for example, can be followed only by a noun (to influence a person, a decision, choice, etc.). The grammatical valency of its Russian counterpart влиять is different. The Russian verb can be combined only with a prepositional group (cf. влиять на человека, на выбор, . . ., etc.).
No departure from the norm of grammatical valency is possible as this can make the word-group unintelligible to English speakers. Thus e.g. the word-group mathematics at clever is likely to be felt as a meaningless string of words because the grammatical valency of English nouns does not allow of the structure Noun+at+Adjective. It should also be pointed out that the individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be described through its grammatical valency. Thus, different meanings of the adjective keen may be described in a general way through different structures of the word-groups keen+N, — keen sight (hearing, etc.), keen + on + N — keen on sports (on tennis, etc.), keen+V(inf.) — keen to know (to find out, etc.).
From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as minimal syntactic (or syntagmatic) structures that operate as distinguishing clues for different meanings of a polysemantic word
Phraseology deals with stable word-combinations characterized by a certain transference of meaning, such as "to beat about the bush", "to take a bull by horns" etc. The term phraseology was introduced by Charles Bally, a Swiss scholar, then professor PPolivanov first raised the question of Phraseology in Soviet Linguistics. Then academician Vinogradov was the first to work out a classification of Russian phraseological units which gave rise to further investigation of Phrseology in other languages. A profound studies of English phraseology was undertaken by professors Amosova and Kunin. It's necessary to stress that the main contribution to the development of Phraseology as a branch of Linguistics has been made by Soviet linguists.
Kunin gives the definition of phraseological units: they are stable word combinations with completely or partially transferredmeaning. The criteria of ph.un-s:
Ph. units have several functions:
It has been repeatedly pointed out that word-groups viewed as functionally and semantically inseparable units are traditionally regarded as the subject matter of phraseology. It should be noted, however, that no proper scientific investigation of English phraseology has been attempted until quite recently. English and American linguists as a rule confine themselves to collecting various words, word-groups and sentences presenting some interest either from the point of view of origin, style, usage, or some other feature peculiar to them. These units are habitually described as idioms but no attempt has been made to investigate these idioms as a separate class of linguistic units or a specific class of word-groups.
American and English dictionaries of unconventional English, slang and idioms and other highly valuable reference-books contain a wealth of proverbs, sayings, various lexical units of all kinds, but as a rule do not seek to lay down a reliable criterion to distinguish between variable word-groups and phraseological units. Paradoxical as it may seem the first dictionary in which theoretical principles for the selection of English phraseological units were elaborated was published in our country.
The term itself phraseological units to denote a specific group of phrases was introduced by Soviet linguists and is generally accepted in our country.
Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed phraseological units.
The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member-words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hand there are innumerable border-line cases.
However, the existing terms, e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack cf motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country. The term word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.
Thus differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and a specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology. These criteria and the ensuing classification are briefly discussed below.
Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. This definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential features of phraseological units are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation.1 It is consequently assumed that unlike components of free word-groups which may vary according to the needs of communication, member-words of phraseological units are always reproduced as single unchangeable collocations.
Thus, for example, the constituent red in the free word-group red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other adjective denoting colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentially changing the denotational meaning of the word-group under discussion (a flower of a certain colour). In the phraseological unit red tape (bureaucratic “methods) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the adjective would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group. A blue (black, white, etc.) tape would mean ‘a tape of a certain colour’. It follows that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its lexical components. It is also argued that non-variability of the phraseological unit is not confined to its lexical components. Grammatical structure of phraseological units is to a certain extent also stable. Thus, though the structural formula of the word-groups red flower and red tape is identical (A + +N), the noun flower may be used in the plural (red flowers), whereas no such change is possible in the phraseological unit red tape; red tapes would then denote ‘tapes of red colour’ but not ‘bureaucratic methods’. This is also true of other types of phraseological units, e.g. what will Mrs. Grundy say?, where the verbal component is invariably reproduced in the same grammatical form.
The definition is felt to be inadequate as the concept ready-made units seems to be rather vague. In fact this term can be applied to a variety of heterogeneous linguistic phenomena ranging from word-groups to sentences (e.g. proverbs, sayings) and also quotations from poems, novels or scientific treatises all of which can be described as ready-made units.
Frequent discussions have also led to questioning this approach to phraseology from a purely semantic point of view as the criterion of idiomaticity is found to be an inadequate guide in singling out phraseological units from other word-groups. Borderline cases between idiomatic and non-idiomatic word-groups are so numerous and confusing that the final decision seems to depend largely on one’s “feeling of the language". This can be proved by the fact that the same word-groups are treated by some linguists as idiomatic phrases and by others as free word-groups. For example, such word-groups as take the chair — ‘preside at a meeting’, take one’s chance — ‘trust to luck or fortune’, take trouble (to do smth) — ‘to make efforts’ and others are marked in some of the English dictionaries as idioms or phrases, whereas in others they are found as free word-groups illustrating one of the meanings of the verb to take or the nouns combined with this verb.
The term idiomaticity is also regarded by some linguists as requiring clarification. As a matter of fact this term is habitually used to denote lack of motivation from the point of view of one’s mother tongue. A word-group which defies word by word translation is consequently described as idiomatic. It follows that if idiomaticity is viewed as the main distinguishing feature of phraseological units, the same word-groups in the English language may be classified as idiomatic phraseological units by Russian speakers and as non-idiomatic word-groups by those whose mother tongue contains analogous collocations. Thus, e.g., from the point of view of Russian speakers such word-groups as take tea, take care, etc. are often referred to phraseology as the Russian translation equivalents of these word-groups (пить чай, заботиться) do not contain the habitual translation equivalents of the verb take. French speakers, however, are not likely to find anything idiomatic about these word-groups as there are similar lexical units in the French language.
The criterion of stability is also criticised as not very reliable in distinguishing phraseological units from other word-groups habitually referred to as phraseology. We observe regular substitution of at least one of the lexical components. In to cast smth in smb’s teeth, e.g. the verb cast may be replaced by fling; to take a decision is found alongside with to make a decision; not to care a twopenny is just one of the possible variants of the phrase, whereas in others the noun twopenny may be replaced by a number of other nouns, e.g. farthing, button, pin, sixpence, fig, etc.
It is also argued that stability of lexical components does not presuppose lack of motivation. The word-group shrug one’s shoulders, e.g., does not allow of the substitution of either shrug or shoulders; the meaning of the word-group, however, is easily deducible from the meanings of the member-words, hence the word-group is completely motivated, though stable. Idiomatic word-groups may be variable as far as their lexical components are concerned, or stable.
Another angle from which the problem of phraseology is viewed is the so-called functional approach. This approach assumes that phraseological units may be defined as specify word-groups functioning as word-equivalents. The fundamental features of phraseological units thus understood are their semantic and grammatical inseparability which are regarded as distinguishing features of isolated words.
It will be recalled that when we compare a free word-group, e.g, heavy weight, and a phraseological unit, e.g. heavy father, we observe that in the case of the free wordgroup each of the member-words has its own denotational meaning. So the lexical meaning of the word-group can be adequately described as the combined lexical meaning of its constituents. In the case of the phraseological unit, however, the denotational meaning belongs to the word-group as a single semantically inseparable unit. The individual member-words do not seem to possess any lexical meaning outside the meaning of the group. The meanings of the member-words heavy and father taken in isolation are in no way connected with the meaning of the phrase heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’.
A certain humorous effect is attained because one of the member-words (commence, valiant) is felt as belonging to the bookish stylistic layer, whereas the other (scrub, chap) is felt as stylistically neutral or colloquial. When we say, however, that kick the bucket is highly colloquial or heavy father is a professional term, we do not refer to the stylistic value of the component words of these phraseological units kick, bucket, heavy or father, but the stylistic value of the word-group as a single whole. Taken in isolation the words are stylistically neutral. It follows that phraseological units are characterised by a single stylistic reference irrespective of the number and nature of their component words. Semantic inseparability of phraseological units is viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity 3 which enables us to regard them as semantically equivalent to single words.
he term grammatical inseparability implies that the grammatical meaning or, to be more exact, the part-of-speech meaning of phraseological units is felt as belonging to the word-group as a whole irrespective of the part-of-speech meaning of the component words. Comparing the free word-group, e.g. a long day, and the phraseological unit, e.g. in the long run, we observe that in the free word-group the noun day and the adjective long preserve the part-of-speech meaning proper to these words taken in isolation. The whole group is viewed as composed of two independent units (adjective and noun). In the phraseological unit in the long run the part-of-speech meaning belongs to the group as a single whole. In the long run is grammatically equivalent to single adverbs, e.g. finally, ultimately, firstly, etc. In the case of the phraseological unit under discussion there is no connection between the part-of-speech meaning of the member-words (in — preposition, long — adjective, run — noun) and the part-of-speech meaning of the whole word-group. Grammatical inseparability of phraseological units viewed as one of the aspects of idiomaticity enables us to regard them as grammatically equivalent to single words.
It is argued that the final test of the semantic and grammatical inseparability of phrases is their functional unity, i.e. their aptness to function in speech as single syntactic units. Proceeding from the assumption that phraseological units are non-motivated word-groups functioning as word-equivalents by virtue of their semantic and grammatical inseparability, we may classify them into noun equivalents (e.g. heavy father), verb equivalents (e.g. take place, break the news), adverb equivalents (e.g. in the long run), etc.