Шпаргалка по "Иностранному языку"

 

Элементы семантической структуры  слова. Полисемия в английском языке

Semantic triangle

The account of meaning given by Ferdinand de Saussure implies the definition of a word as a linguistic sign. He calls it ‘signifiant’  (signifier) and what it refers to — ‘signifie’ (that which is signified).

Originally this triangular scheme was suggested by the German mathematician and philosopher Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925). Well-known English scholars C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards adopted this three-cornered pattern with considerable modifications. With them a sign is a two-facet unit comprising form regarded as a linguistic symbol, and reference which is more linguistic than just a concept. Several generations of writers, following C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, have in their turn taken up and modified this diagram. It is known under several names: the semantic triangle, triangle of signification, Frege semiotic triangle, Ogden and Richards basic triangle or simply basic triangle.

The scheme is still over-simplified and several things are left out. It is very important, for instance, to remember that the word is represented by the left-hand side of the diagram — it is a sign comprising the name and the meaning, and these invariably evoke one another.

Meaning and the sound complex

The sound form is not identical with the meaning and their connection is conventional. Different languages have different sound forms to convey the same meaning (“dog” - “собака” - “Hund” - “chien”). In different languages the same sound form possesses different meanings: “caught” - “кот”. Besides, homonyms exists in the language. The same sound form gives different meanings (e.g., “seal₁” vs. “seal₂”). Diachronically, change in the sound form does not cause a change in the meaning (e.g., O.E. “lufan” vs. M.E. “love”).

Meaning and the concept

Meaning is connected with concept, but it is not identical with it. Concept is a category of human cognition. Our concepts abstract and reflect the most common and typical features of different objects and phenomena of the world. Being the result of abstraction and generalization, concepts are almost the same for the whole humanity in one and the same period of its historical development. As for meanings, they are different in different languages. Thus, words expressing identical concepts may have different meanings and different semantical structure in different languages. E.g., some meanings of the Russian “идти” cannot be found in English (It rains; to go by bus). The difference between meaning and concept can be observed by comparing synonymous words and word-groups which are not identical in their meaning (cf.: “big” - “large” - “great”). The precise definition of a concept comes withing the sphere of logic. A word is a language unit while its concept is a unit of thinking.

Meaning and the referent

Meaning is a linguistic phenomenon while referent, or object, is an extra-linguistic one. Meaning is not identical with a referent because of the following considerations:

• We can denote in speech the same object differently. These words have the same referent (apple - fruit - food).
• If we take “water” and “H₂O”, they are not identical.
• Besides, words can have meaning but no actual referent, e.g. “phoenix”.

Meaning is closely connected but not identical with sound form, concept or referent.

Polysemy

When analysing the word-meaning we observe, however, that words as a rule are not units of a single meaning. Monosemantic words, i.e. words having only one meaning are comparatively few in number, these are mainly scientific terms, such as hydrogen, molecule and the like. The bulk of English words are polysemantic, that is to say possess more than one meaning. The actual 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. In polysemantic words, however, we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of one and the same word.

If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development of or, in general, as a change in the semantic structure of the word. Polysemy in diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and at the same time acquire one or several new ones. The terms secondary and derived meaning are to a certain extent synonymous. When we describe the meaning of the word as “secondary” we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning was in existence. When we refer to the meaning as “derived” we imply not only that, but also that it is dependent on the primary meaning and somehow subordinate to it. It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word.

Polysemy may also arise from homonymy. When two words become identical in sound-form, the meanings of the two words are felt as making up one semantic structure. Thus, the human ear and the ear of corn are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type.

Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period of the development of the English language. In this case the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of the word must be investigated along different lines. Intuitively we feel that the meaning that first occurs to us whenever we hear or see the word table, is ‘an article of furniture’. This emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and all other meanings are minor in comparison. It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, minor meanings are observed only in certain contexts. Thus we can assume that the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ occupies the central place in the semantic structure of the word table. As to other meanings of this word we find it hard to grade them in order of their comparative value. As synchronically there is no objective criterion to go by, we may find it difficult in some cases to single out even the basic meanings since two or more meanings of the word may be felt as equally “central” in its semantic structure.

Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as individual meanings may differ in their stylistic reference. Stylistic (or regional) status of monosemantic words is easily perceived. For instance the word daddy can be referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the word parent to the bookish. The word movie is recognisably American and barnie is Scottish. Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any such restrictive labels. To do it we must state the meaning in which they are used. There is nothing colloquial or slangy or American about the words yellow denoting colour, jerk in the meaning ‘a sudden movement or stopping of movement’ as far as these particular meanings are concerned. But when yellow is used in the meaning of ’sensational’ or when jerk is used in the meaning of ‘an odd person’ it is both slang and American. Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent.

From the discussion of the diachronic and synchronic approach to polysemy it follows that the interrelation and the interdependence of individual meanings of the word may be described from two different angles. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive but are viewed here as supplementing each other in the linguistic analysis of a polysemantic word. It should be noted, however, that as the semantic structure is never static, the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. The words of different languages which are similar or identical in lexical meaning, especially in the denotational meaning are termed correlated words. The wording of the habitual question of English learners, e.g. “What is the English for стол?”, and the answer “The English for стол is ‘table'” also shows that we take the words table стол to be correlated.

 

Полисемия и омонимия. Проблема разграничения полисемии и омонимии

One of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between different meanings of one word and the meanings of two homonymous words.

If homonymy is viewed diachronically then all cases of sound convergence of two or more words may be safely regarded as cases of homonymy, as, e.g., race₁ and race₂ can be traced back to two etymologically different words. The cases of semantic divergence, however, are more doubtful. The transition from polysemy to homonymy is a gradual process, so it is hardly possible to point out the precise stage at which divergent semantic development tears asunder all ties between the meanings and results in the appearance of two separate words.

Synchronically the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is as a rule wholly based on the semantic criterion. It is usually held that if a connection between the various meanings is apprehended by the speaker, these are to be considered as making up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a case of homonymy, not polysemy. Thus the semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the differentiation between related and unrelated meanings. This traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable, firstly, because various meanings of the same word and the meanings of two or more different words may be equally apprehended by the speaker as synchronically unrelated.

Secondly, in the discussion of lexico-grammatical homonymy it was pointed out that some of the meanings of homonyms arising from conversion are related, so this criterion cannot be applied to a large group of homonymous word-forms in Modern English. This criterion proves insufficient in the synchronic analysis of a number of other borderline cases, e.g. brother — brothers — ’sons of the same parent’ and brethren — ‘fellow members of a religious society’. The meanings may be apprehended as related and then we can speak of polysemy pointing out that the difference in the morphological structure of the plural form reflects the difference of meaning. Otherwise we may regard this as a case of partial lexical homonymy. It is sometimes argued that the difference between related and unrelated meanings may be observed in the manner in which the meanings of polysemantic words are as a rule relatable. It is observed that different meanings of one word have certain stable relationship which are not to be found between the meanings of two homonymous words. A clearly perceptible connection, e.g., can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one word (cf., e.g., foot of the man — foot of the mountain, loud voice — loud colours, etc., cf. also deep well and deep knowledge, etc.). Such semantic relationships are commonly found in the meanings of one word and are considered to be indicative of polysemy. It is also suggested that the semantic connection may be described in terms of such features as, e.g., form and function (cf. horn of an animal and horn as an instrument), or process and result (to run — ‘move with quick steps’ and a run — act of running).

Similar relationships, however, are observed between the meanings of two partially homonymic words, e.g. to run and a run in the stocking. Moreover in the synchronic analysis of polysemantic words we often find meanings that cannot be related in any way, as, e.g. the meanings of the word case discussed above. Thus the semantic criterion proves not only untenable in theory but also rather vague and because of this impossible in practice as in many cases it cannot be used to discriminate between several meanings of one word and the meanings of two different words.

The criterion of distribution suggested by some linguists is undoubtedly helpful, but mainly in cases of lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonymy. For example, in the homonymic pair paper <— (to) paper v the noun may be preceded by the article and followed by a verb; (to) paper can never be found in identical distribution. This formal criterion can be used to discriminate not only lexico-grammatical but also grammatical homonyms, but it often fails in cases of lexical homonymy, not differentiated by means of spelling.

Homonyms differing in graphic form, e.g. such lexical homonyms as knight — night or flower — flour, are easily perceived to be two different lexical units as any formal difference of words is felt as indicative of the existence of two separate lexical units. Conversely lexical homonyms identical both in pronunciation and spelling are often apprehended as different meanings of one word.

It is often argued that in general the context in which the words are used suffices to establish the borderline between homonymous words, e.g. the meaning of case₁ in several cases of robbery can be easily differentiated from the meaning of case₂ in a jewel case, a glass case. This however is true of different meanings of the same word as recorded in dictionaries, e.g. of case, as can be seen by comparing the case will be tried in the law-court and the possessive case of the noun.

Thus, the context serves to differentiate meanings but is of little help in distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy. Consequently we have to admit that no formal means have as yet been found to differentiate between several meanings of one word and the meanings of its homonyms.

In the discussion of the problems of polysemy and homonymy we proceeded from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of language. Some linguists hold that the basic and elementary units at the semantic level of language are the lexico-semantic variants of the word, i.e. individual word-meanings. In that case, naturally, we can speak only of homonymy of individual lexico-semantic variants, as polysemy is by definition, at least on the synchronic plane, the coexistence of several meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

 

Антонимические отношения между  словарными единицами. Некоторые общие  и различительные черты синонимов  и антонимов

Antonyms may be defined as two or more words of the same language belonging to the same part of speech and to the same semantic field, identical in style and nearly identical in distribution, associated and often used together so that their denotative meanings render contradictory or contrary notions.

• Contradictory notions are mutually opposed and denying one another, e. g. alive means ‘not dead’ and impatient means ‘not patient’.
• Contrary notions are also mutually opposed but they are gradable, e. g. old and young are the most distant elements of a series like: old : : middle-aged : : young.

Another classification of antonyms is based on a morphological approach:

• root words form absolute antonyms (right : : wrong),
• the presence of negative affixes creates derivational antonyms (happy : : unhappy).

The important question of criteria received a new and rigorously linguistic treatment in V.N. Komissarov’s work. Keeping to the time-honoured classification of antonyms into absolute or root antonyms (love : : hate) and derivational antonyms, V.N. Komissarov breaks new ground by his contextual treatment of the problem. Two words, according to him, shall be considered antonymous if they are regularly contrasted in actual speech, that is if the contrast in their meanings is proved by definite types of contextual co-occurrence.

Another important criterion suggested by V.N. Komissarov is the possibility of substitution and identical lexical valency.

Members of the same antonymic pair reveal nearly identical spheres of collocation. For example the adjective hot in its figurative meaning of ‘angry’ and ‘excited’ is chiefly combined with names of unpleasant emotions: anger, resentment, scorn, etc. Its antonym cold occurs with the same words.

Unlike synonyms, antonyms do not differ either in style, emotional colouring or distribution. They are interchangeable at least in some contexts. The result of this interchange may be of different kind depending on the conditions of context. There will be, for instance, no change of meaning if ill and well change places within the sentence in the following: But whether he treated it ill or well, it loved nothing so much as to be near him (Wells). Or a whole sentence receives an opposite meaning when a word is replaced by its antonym, although it differs from its prototype in this one word only: You may feel he is clever : : You may feel he is foolish.

As antonyms do not differ stylistically, an antonymic substitution never results in a change of stylistic colouring.

In dealing with antonymic oppositions it may be helpful to treat antonyms in terms of “marked” and “unmarked” members. The unmarked member can be more widely used and very often can include the referents of the marked member but not vice versa. This proves that their meanings have some components in common. In the antonymic pair old : : young the unmarked member is old. It is possible to ask: How old is the girl? without implying that she is no longer young. Some authors, J.Lyons among them, suggest a different terminology. They distinguish antonyms proper and complementary antonyms. The chief characteristic feature of antonyms proper is that they are regularly gradable. Antonyms proper, therefore, represent contrary notions. The semantic polarity in antonymy proper is relative, the opposition is gradual, it may embrace several elements characterised by different degrees of the same property. The comparison they imply is clear from the context.

Having noted the difference between complementary antonyms and antonyms proper, we must also take into consideration that they have much in common so that in a wider sense both groups are taken as antonyms. Complementaries like other antonyms are regularly contrasted in speech and the elements of a complementary pair have similar distribution. The assertion of a sentence containing an antonymous or complementary term implies the denial of a corresponding sentence containing the other antonym or complementary:

The poem is good → The poem is not bad (good : : bad — antonyms proper)

This is prose → This is not poetry (prose : : poetry — complementaries)

As to the difference in negation it is optional with antonyms proper: by saying that the poem is not good the speaker does not always mean that it is positively bad. Thus, the second group of antonyms is known as derivational antonyms. The affixes in them serve to deny the quality stated in the stem. E. g. appear : : disappear; happiness : : unhappiness; logical : : illogical; pleasant : : unpleasant; prewar : : postwar; useful : : useless, etc. There are typical affixes and typical patterns that go into play in forming these derivational antonyms. It is significant that in the examples given above prefixes prevail. The regular type of derivational antonyms contains negative prefixes: dis-, il-/im-/in-/ir-, nоn- and un-. Other negative prefixes occur in this function only occasionally.

As to the suffixes, it should be noted that modern English gives no examples of words forming their antonyms by adding a negative suffix, such as, for instance, -less. The opposition hopeless : : hopeful or useless : : useful is more complicated, as the suffix -less is not merely added to the contrasting stem, but substituted for the suffix -ful.

The difference between absolute and derivational antonyms is not only morphological but semantic as well. To reveal its essence it is necessary to turn to logic. A pair of derivational antonyms form a privative binary opposition, whereas absolute antonyms, as we have already seen, are polar members of a gradual opposition which may have intermediary elements, the actual number of which may vary from zero to several units, e. g. beautiful : : pretty : : good-looking : : plain : : ugly.

Many antonyms are explained by means of the negative particle: clean — not dirty, shallow — not deep. Syntactic negation by means of this particle is weaker than the lexical antonymy. Compare: not happy : : unhappy; not polite : : impolite; not regular : : irregular; not to believe : : to disbelieve.

Almost every word can have one or more synonyms. Comparatively few have antonyms. This type of opposition is especially characteristic of qualitative adjectives. Like synonyms they occupy an important place in the phraseological fund of the language: backwards and forwards, far and near, from first to last, in black and white, play fast and loose, etc. Not only words, but set expressions as well, can be grouped into antonymic pairs. The phrase by accident can be contrasted to the phrase on purpose.

Antonyms form mostly pairs, not groups like synonyms: above : : below; absent : : present; absence : : presence; alike : : different; asleep : : awake; back : : forth; bad : : good; big : : little, etc. Cases when there are three or more words are reducible to a binary opposition, so that hot is contrasted to cold and warm to cool.

Polysemantic words may have antonyms in some of their meanings and none in the others. Also in different meanings a word may have different antonyms. Compare for example: a short story : : a long story but a short man : : a tall man; be short with somebody : : be civil with somebody.

Semantic polarity presupposes the presence of some common semantic components in the denotational meaning. Thus, while ashamed means ‘feeling unhappy or troubled because one has done something wrong or foolish’, its antonym proud also deals with feeling but the feeling of happiness and assurance which also has its ground in moral values. A synonymic set of words is an opposition of a different kind: its basis is sameness or approximate sameness of denotative meaning, the distinctive features can be stylistic, emotional, distributional or depending on valency.

The relation to which the name of conversives is usually given may be exemplified by such pairs as buy : : sell; give : : receive; ancestor : : descendant; parent : : child; left : : right; cause : : suffer; saddening : : saddened. Conversives denote one and the same referent or situation as viewed from different points of view, with a reversal of the order of participants and their roles. The interchangeability and contextual behaviour are specific. The relation is closely connected with grammar, namely with grammatical contrast of active and passive. The substitution of a conversive does not change the meaning of a sentence if it is combined with appropriate regular morphological and syntactical changes and selection of appropriate prepositions: He gave her flowers. She received flowers from him. = She was given flowers by him.