WORD-MEANING 5 страница

The verb takein isolation has primarily the meaning ‘lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize’, etc. When combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (e.g. to take the tram, the bus, the train,etc.) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb go.

It can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing out this or that individual meaning of the words is the lexical meaning of the words with which heavyand takeare combined. This can be also proved by the fact that when we want to describe the individual meaning of a polysemantic word, we find it sufficient to use this word in combination with some members of a certain lexical group. To describe the meanings of the word handsome,for example, it is sufficient to combine it with the following words — a) man, person, b) size, reward, sum.The meanings ‘good-looking’ and ‘considerable, ample’ are adequately illustrated by the contexts.

The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically (or phraseologically) bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical contexts.

Some linguists go so far as to assert that word-meaning in general can be analysed through its collocability with other words. They hold the view that if we know all the possible collocations (or word-groups) into

which a polysemantic word can enter, we know all its meanings. Thus, the meanings of the adjective heavy,for instance, may be analysed through its collocability with the words weight, safe, table; snow, wind, rain; industry, artillery,etc.

The meaning at the level of lexical contexts is sometimes described as meaning by collocation.¹

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb make,e.g. ‘to force, to enduce’, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do somethingor in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb makeis followed by a noun and the infinitive of some other verb (to make smb. laugh, go, work,etc.). Another meaning of this verb ‘to become’, ‘to turn out to be’ is observed in the contexts of a different structure, i.e. makefollowed by an adjective and a noun (to make a good wife, a good teacher,etc.).

Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically (or structurally) bound meanings. Cases of the type she will make a good teacher may be referred to as syntactically bound meanings, because the syntactic function of the verb makein this particular context (a link verb, part of the predicate) is indicative of its meaning ‘to become, to turn out to be’. A different syntactic function of the verb, e.g. that of the predicate (to make machines, tables,etc.) excludes the possibility of the meaning ‘to become, turn out to be’.

In a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the 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 whiсh of its individual meanings the word in question is used. If we compare the contexts of different grammatical structures, e.g. totake+nown and to taketo+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 coffee, tea; books, pencils; the bus, the tram)that we can say that the context determines the meaning.

It is usual in modern linguistic science to use the terms pattern or struсture to denote grammatical contexts. Patterns may be represented in conventional symbols, e.g. to take smth.as take+N. to taketo smb. as take to+N.² It is argued that difference in the distribution of the word is indicative of the difference in meaning. Sameness of

¹ See also ‘Methods and Procedures of Lexicological Analysis’, § 4, p. 246.

² See ‘Semasiology’, § 3, p. 1-7. Conventional symbols habitually used in distributional patterns are as follows:

N — stands for nouns or their functional equivalents, e.g. personal pronouns. V — stands for verbs except auxiliary and modal verbs (be, have, shall,etc.). A — stands for adjectives or their functional equivalents, e.g. ordinal numerals. D — stands for adverbs or their functional equivalents, e.g. at home.

distributional pattern, however, does not imply sameness of meaning. As was shown above, the same pattern totake + N may represent different meanings of the verb to takedependent mainly on the lexical group of the nouns with which it is combined.

Dealing with verbal contexts we consider only linguistic factors: lexical groups of words, syntactic structure of the context and so on. There are cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by these linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used. The meanings of the noun ring, e.g.in to give somebody a ring,or of the verb getin I've got itare determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context, but much more so by the actual speech situation.

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

It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the connotational component of meaning may be affected by the context. Any word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain contexts acquire emotive implications. Compare, e.g., firein to insure one’s property against fireand fireas a call for help. A stylistically and emotively neutral noun, e.g. wall,acquires tangible emotive implication in Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream (Act V, Scene 1) in the context “O wall, О sweet and lovely wall".¹

Here we clearly perceive the combined effect of both the linguistic arid the extra-linguistic context. The word walldoes not ordinarily occur in combination with the adjectives sweetand lovely.So the peculiar lexical context accounts for the possibility of emotive overtones which are made explicit by the context of situation.

Another type of classification almost universally used in practical classroom teaching is known as thematic grouping. Classification of vocabulary items into thematic groups is based on the co-occurrence of words in certain repeatedly used contexts.

In linguistic contexts co-occurrence maу be observed on different levels. On the level of word-groups the word question,for instance, is often found in collocation with the verbs raise, put forward, discuss,etc., with the adjectives urgent, vital, disputableand so on. The verb acceptoccurs in numerous contexts together with the nouns proposal, invitation, planand others.

¹ St. Ullmann. Semantics. Oxford, 1962, pp. 130, 131. See also ‘Semasiology’, § 8, p. 20.

As a rule, thematic groups deal with contexts on the level of the sentence. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking of things or events. Common contextual association of the words, e.g. tree — grow — green; journey — train — taxi — bags — ticketor sunshine — brightly — blue — sky,is due to the regular co-occurrence of these words in a number of sentences. Words making up a thematic group belong to different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning.

Contextual associations formed by the speaker of a language are usually conditioned by the context of situation which necessitates the use of certain words. When watching a play, for example, we naturally speak of the actorswho actthe main parts,of good (or bad) stagingof the play, of the wonderful sceneryand so on. When we go shoppingit is usual to speak of the prices,of the goodswe buy,of the shops,etc.¹

MEANING RELATIONS IN PARADIGMATICS AND SEMANTIC CLASSIFICATION OF WORDS

Modern English has a very extensive vocabulary. A question naturally arises whether this enormous word-stock is composed of separate independent lexical units, or it should perhaps be regarded as a certain structured system made up of numerous interdependent and interrelated sub-systems or groups of words. This problem may be viewed in terms of the possible ways of classifying vocabulary items.

Attempts to study the inner structure of the vocabulary revealed that in spite of its heterogeneity the English word-stock may be analysed into numerous sub-systems the members of which have some features in common, thus distinguishing them from the members of other lexical sub-systems. Words can be classified in various ways. Here, however, we are concerned only with the semantic classification of words. Classification into monosemantic and polysemantic words is based on the number of meanings the word possesses. More detailed semantic classifications are generally based on the semantic similarity (or polarity) of words or their component morphemes. The scope and the degree of similarity (polarity) may be different.

Words may be classified according to the concepts underlying their meaning. This classification is closely connected with the theory of conceptual or semantic fields. By the term “semantic fields” we understand closely knit sectors of vocabulary each characterised by a common concept. For example, the words blue, red, yellow, black,etc. may be described as making up the semantic field of colours, the words mother, father, brother, cousin,etc. — as members of the semantic field

¹ In practical language learning thematic groups are often listed under various headings, e. g. “At the Theatre”, “At School”, “Shopping”, and are often found in textbooks and courses of conversational English.

of kinship terms, the words joy, happiness,gaiety, enjoyment, etc. asbelonging to the fieldof pleasurable emotions, and so on.

The members of the semantic fields are not synonyms but all of them are joined together by some common semantic component — the concept of colours or the concept of kinship, etc. This semantic component common to all the members of the field is sometimes described as the common denominator of meaning. All members of the field are semantically interdependent as each member helps to delimit and determine the meaning of its neighbours and is semantically delimited and determined by them. It follows that the word-meaning is to a great extent determined by the place it occupies in its semantic field.

Thus the semantic field may be viewed as a set of lexical items inwhich the meaning of each is determined by the co-presence of the others*

It is argued that we cannot possibly know the exact meaning of the word if we do not know the structure of the semantic field to which the word belongs, the number of the members and the concepts covered by them, etc. The meaning of the word captain,e.g., cannot be properly understood until we know the semantic field in which this term operates — the army, the navy,or the merchant service.It follows that the meaning of the word captainis determined by the place it occupies among the terms of the relevant rank system. In other words we know what captainmeans only if we know whether his subordinate is called mateor first officer(merchant service), commander(‘navy’) or lieutenant(‘army’).

Semantic dependence of the word on the structure of the field may be also illustrated by comparing members of analogous conceptual fields in different languages. Comparing, for example, kinship terms in Russian and in English we observe that the meaning of the English term mother-in-lawis different from either the Russian тёща or свекровь as the English term covers the whole area which in Russian is divided between the two words. The same is true of the members of the semantic field of colours (cf. blue— синий, голубой), of human body (cf. hand, arm — рука) and others.

The theory of semantic field is severely criticised by Soviet linguists mainly on philosophical grounds since some of the proponents of the semantic-field theory hold the idealistic view that language is a kind of self-contained entity standing between man and the world of reality (Zwischenwelt). The followers of this theory argue that semantic fields reveal the fact that human experience is analysed and elaborated in a unique way, differing from one language to another. Broadly speaking they assert that people speaking different languages actually have different concepts, as it is through language that we ‘"see” the real world around us. In short, they deny the primacy of matter forgetting that our concepts are formed not only through linguistic experience, but primarily through our actual contact with the real world. We know what hotmeans not only because we know the word hot,but also because we burn our fingers when we touch something very hot. A detailed critical analysis of the theory of semantic fields is the subject-matter of general linguistics. Here we are concerned with this theory only as a means of semantic classification of vocabulary items.

Another point should be discussed in this connection. Lexical groups described above may be very extensive and may cover big conceptual areas, e g. space, matter, intellect,etc.¹

Words making up such semantic fields may belong to different parts of speech. For example, in the semantic field of space we find nouns: expanse, extent, surface,etc.; verbs: extend, spread, span,etc.; adjectives’ spacious, roomy, vast, broad,etc.

There may be comparatively’small lexical groups of words belonging to the same part of speech and linked by a common concept. The words bread, cheese, milk, meat,etc. make up a group with the concept of food as the common’ denominator of meaning. Such smaller lexical groups consisting of words of the same part of speech are usually termed lexico-semantic groups. It is observed that the criterion for joining words together into semantic fields and lexico-semantic groups is the identity of one of the components of their meaning found in all the lexical units making up these lexical groups. Any of the semantic components may be chosen to represent the group. For example, the word saleswomanmay be analysed into the semantic components ‘human’, ‘female’, ‘professional’.² Consequently the word saleswomanmay be included into a lexico-semantic group under the heading of humantogether with the words man, woman, boy, girl,etc. and under the heading femalewith the words girl, wife, womanand also together with the words teacher, pilot, butcher,etc., as professionals.

It should also be pointed out that different meanings of polysemantic words make it possible to refer the same word to different lexico-semantic groups. Thus, e.g. makein the meaning of ‘construct’ is naturally a member of the same lexico-semantic group as the verbs produce, manufacture,etc , whereas in the meaning of compelit is regarded as a member of a different lexico-semantic group made up by the verbs force, induce,etc.

Lexico-semantic groups seem to play a very important role in determining individual meanings of polysemantic words in lexical contexts. Analysing lexical contexts ³ we saw that the verb take,e.g,, in combination with any member of the lexical group denoting means of transportation is synonymous with the verb go (take the tram, the bus,etc.). When combined with members of another lexical group the same verb is synonymous with to drink (to take tea, coffee,etc.). Such word-groups are often used not only in scientific lexicological analysis, but also in practical class-room teaching. In a number of textbooks we find words with some common denominator of meaning listed under the headings Flowers, Fruit, Domestic Animals,and so on.

Another approach to the classification of vocabulary items into lexico-semantic groups is the study of hyponymic relations between words. By hyponymy is meant a semantic relationship of inclusion. Thus, e.g., vehicleincludes car, bus, taxiand so on; oakimplies tree;

¹ See, e. g., Roget's Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, London, 1973.

² See ‘Methods ... ‘, § 6. p. 216.

³ See ‘Semasiology’, § 41, p. 48.

horseentails animal; tableentails furniture.Thus the hyponymic relationship may be viewed as the hierarchical relationship between the meaning of the general and the individual terms.

The general term (vehicle,tree, animal, etc.) is sometimes referred to as the classifier and serves to describe the lexico-semantic groups, e.g. Lexico-semantic groups (LSG) of vehicles, movement, emotions, etc.

The individual terms can be said to contain (or entail) the meaning of the general term in addition to their individual meanings which distinguish them from each other (cf. the classifier moveand the members of the group walk, run, saunter,etc.).

It is of importance to note that in such hierarchical structures certain words may be both classifiers and members of the groups. This may be illustrated by the hyponymic structure represented below.

Another way to describe hyponymy is in terms of genus and differentia.

The more specific term is called the hyponym of the more general, and the more general is called the hyperonym or the classifier.

It is noteworthy that the principle of such hierarchical classification is widely used by scientists in various fields of research: botany, geology, etc. Hyponymic classification may be viewed as objectively reflecting the structure of vocabulary and is considered by many linguists as one of the most important principles for the description of meaning.

A general problem with this principle of classification (just as with lexico-semantic group criterion) is that there often exist overlapping classifications. For example, personsmay be divided into adults(man, woman, husband, etc.) and children(boy, girl, lad, etc.) but also into national groups(American, Russian, Chinese, etc.), professional groups(teacher, butcher, baker, etc.), socialand economic groups,and so on.

Another problem of great importance for linguists is the dependence of the hierarchical structures of lexical units not only on the structure of the corresponding group of referents in real world but also on the structure of vocabulary in this or that language.

This can be easily observed when we compare analogous groups in different languages. Thus, e.g., in English we may speak of the lexico-semantic group of meals which includes: breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper,

snack,etc. The word mealis the classifier whereas in Russian we have noword for meals in general and consequently no classifier though we have several words for different kinds of meals.

Lexical units may also be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and semantic contrasts. The terms generally used to denote these two types of semantic relatedness are synonymy and antonymy.

Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence. Semantic equivalence however can exist between words and word-groups, word-groups and sentences, sentences and sentences. For example, John is taller than Billis semantically equivalent to Bill is shorter than John. John sold the book to Billand Bill bought the book from Johnmay be considered semantically equivalent.

As can be seen from the above these sentences are paraphrases and denote the same event. Semantic equivalence may be observed on the level of word-groups, Thus we may say that to win a victoryis synonymous with to gain a victory,etc.

Here we proceed from the assumption that the terms synonymy and synonyms should be confined to semantic relation between words only. Similar relations between word-groups and sentences are described as semantic equivalence.¹ Synonyms may be found in different parts of speech and both among notional and function words. For example, thoughand albeit, onand upon, sinceand asare synonymous because these phonemically different words are similar in their denotational meaning.

Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but identical or similar in meaning. This definition has been severely criticised on many points. Firstly, it seems impossible to speak of identical or similar meaning of words as such as this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. It is inconceivable that polysemantic words could be synonymous in all their meanings. The verb look, e.g., is usually treated as a synonym of see, watch, observe,etc., but in another of its meanings it is not synonymous with this group of words but rather with the verbs seem, appear (cf. to look at smband to look pale).The number of synonymic sets of a polysemantic word tends as a rule to be equal to the number of individual meanings the word possesses.

In the discussion of polysemy and context² we have seen that one of the ways of discriminating between different meanings of a word is the interpretation of these meanings in terms of their synonyms, e.g. the two meanings of the adjective handsomeare synonymously interpreted as handsome — ‘beautiful’ (usually about men) and handsome — ‘considerable, ample’ (about sums, sizes, etc.).

Secondly, it seems impossible to speak of identity or similarity of lexical meaning as a whоle as it is only the denotational component that may be described as identical or similar. If we analyse

¹ See also ‘Methods ...’,§ 5, p. 214.

² See ‘Semasiology’, §§ 40-42, p. 47-50.

words that are usually considered synonymous, e.g. to die, to pass away; to begin, to commence,etc., we find that the connotational component or, to be more exact, the stylistic reference of these words is entirely different and it is only the similarity of the denotational meaning that makes them synonymous. The words, e.g. to die, to walk, to smile,etc., may be considered identical as to their stylistic reference or emotive charge, but as there is no similarity of denotational meaning they are never felt as synonymous words.

Thirdly, it does not seem possible to speak of identity of meaning as a criterion of synonymity since identity of meaning is very rare even among monosemantic words. In fact, cases of complete synonymy are very few and are, as a rule, confined to technical nomenclatures where we can find monosemantic terms completely identical in meaning as, for example, spirantand fricativein phonetics. Words in synonymic sets are in general differentiated because of some element of opposition in each member of the set. The word handsome,e.g., is distinguished from its synonym beautifulmainly because the former implies the beauty of a male person or broadly speaking only of human beings, whereas beautifulis opposed to it as having no such restrictions in its meaning.

Thus it seems necessary to modify the traditional definition and to formulate it as follows: synonyms are words different in sound-form but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings. Synonymous relationship is observed only between similar denotational meanings of phonemically different words.

Differentiation of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components — denotational or connotational.

It should be noted, however, that the difference in denotational meaning cannot exceed certain limits, and is always combined with some common denotational component. The verbs look, seem, appear,e.g., are viewed as members of one synonymic set as all three of them possess a common denotational semantic component “to be in one’s view, or judgement, but not necessarily in fact” and come into comparison in this meaning (cf. he seems(looks), (appears), tired).A more detailed analysis shows that there is a certain difference in the meaning of each verb: seemsuggests a personal opinion based on evidence (e.g. nothing seems right when one is out of sorts); lookimplies that opinion is based on a visual impression (e.g. the city looks its worst in March), appearsometimes suggests a distorted impression (e.g. the setting sun made the spires appear ablaze).Thus similarity of denotational meaning of all members of the synonymic series is combined with a certain difference in the meaning of each member.

It follows that relationship of synonymity implies certain differences in the denotational meaning of synonyms. In this connection a few words should be said about the traditional classification of vocabulary units into ideographic and stylistic synonyms. This classification proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may differ either in the denotational meaning (ideographic synonyms) оr the connotational meaning, or to be more exact stylistic reference. This assumption cannot be accepted as synonymous words always differ in the denotational component

??? ??? ???e?e?. Thus buyand purchaseare similar in meaning but dif-