Шпора 4_1

[Shurei]

A Course in Modern English Lexicology
Examination Topics
1.Lexicology as a branch of linguistics. Links with other branches of linguistics. Two approaches to language study.
2.The subject-matter of semasiology. Two approaches to word-meaning. Types of word-meaning.
3.Word-meaning and motivation.
4.Causes of semantic change. Nature and results of semantic change.
5.Meaning in morphemes.
6.Polysemy. The diachronic and synchronic approaches to polysemy.
7.Homonymy. Full and partial homonymy. Homographs and homophones. Polysemy and homonymy.
8.Semantic classification of words. Conceptual (semantic) fields. Hyponymy.
9.Semantic classification of words. Synonymy.
10.Semantic classification of words. Antonymy. Word-Families.
11.Word-groups. Types of word-groups. Lexical Valency. Grammatical Valency.
12.The meaning of word-groups. Lexical and grammatical components of meaning.
13.Syntactic Structure and Pattern of word-groups.
14.Phraseological Units. Classification of Phraseological Units.
15.Causes of the appearance of Phraseological Units. The loss of motivation of free word-groups.
16.Word-Structure. Classification of morphemes.
17.Word-Formation. Affixation.
18.Word-Formation. Prefixation.
19.Word-Formation. Suffixation.
20.Word-Formation. Conversion.
21.Word-Formation. Word-Composition.
22.Variants and dialects of the English language. Lexical differences of territorial variants.
23.Variants and dialects of the English language. Local varieties in the British Isles and in the USA.
24.Lexicography. Main types of English dictionaries.
25.Lexicography. Classification of linguistic dictionaries.
26.Lexicography. Learner's dictionaries.


1
1.Lexicology is a branch of linguistics, the science of language.
The term Lexicology is composed of two Greek morphemes: lexis which means ‘word, phrase’ and logos which means 'the study of, learning'.
2.Each of the branches of linguistic studies words, but from a different angle.
Phonetics study the sound form of the word. It investigates the phonetic structure of language, i.e. its system of phonemes and intonation patterns.
Grammar deals with the grammatical structure of language and it studies the various means of expressing grammatical relations between words and the patterns after which words are combined into word-groups and sentences.
Lexicology is concerned with the nature, meaning, history (origin and development) and use of words and words' elements, i.e., morphemes which make up words; it also studies variable word-groups and phraseological units.
3.Linguists generally differentiate between General Lexicology and Special Lexicology.
4.In linguistic science there are two principal approaches to the study of language material. They are the synchronic approach and the diachronic approach.
For Special Lexicology the synchronic approach means a study of the vocabulary of a language as it exists at a given time, for instance, at the present time;
the diachronic approach presupposes a study of the changes and the development of vocabulary in the course of time.
5.Closely connected with Historical Lexicology is Contrastive and Comparative Lexicology whose aims are to study the correlation between the vocabularies of two or more languages.
6.Lexicology is closely linked with other linguistic sciences. lexicography – the art or practice of writing, dictionaries.
There is a close relationship between Lexicology and Stylistics (Linguo-Stylistics, Linguistic Stylistics). Linguo-Stylistics is concerned with the study of the nature, functions and structure of stylistic devices, on the one hand, and with the investigation of the aim, structure and characteristic features of each functional style of language on the other. Linguo-Stylistics makes use of the findings of Lexicology.
Lexicology studies various lexical units: morphemes, words, variable word-groups and phraseological units. We proceed from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of language system, the largest on the morphologic and the smallest on the syntactic plane of linguistic analysis. The word is a structural and semantic entity within the language system.
13.The system showing a word in all its word-forms is called its paradigm. The lexical meaning оf а word is the same throughout the paradigm, i.e. all the word-forms of one and the same word are lexically identical. The grammatical meaning varies from one form to another (cf. to run, runs, ran, running or student, student’s, students, students’).
15.There are two approaches to the paradigm: (a) as a system of forms of one word it reveals the differences and relationships between them; (b) in abstraction from concrete words it 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. Compare the noun paradigm — ( ), -’s, -s, -s’ as distinct from that of the regular verb — ( ) ,-s, -ed1, -ed2, -ing, etc.
16.Besides the grammatical forms of words, i.e. word-forms, some scholars distinguish lexical varieties which they term variants of words. Distinction is made between two basic groups of variants of words.
17.Group One comprises lexico-semantic variants, i.e. polysemantic words in each of their meaning, for example, the verb to look in word-groups to look for, to look after presents its lexico-semantic variants.
18.Group Two comprises phonetic and morphological variants. As examples of phonetic variants the pronouncing variants of the adverbs often and again can be given, cf. ['ɔfn] and ['ɔ:ftən], [ə'geɪn] and [ə'gen]. The two variant forms of the past indefinite tense of verbs like to learn illustrate morphological variants, cf. learned [-d] and learnt [-t]. Parallel formations of the geologic — geological, syntactic – syntactical type also belong to the group of morphological variants.

2
The branch of lexicology that is devoted to the study of meaning is known as Semasiology.
In present-day linguistics there are two approaches to the problem of word-meaning: the referential approach, and the functional approach. The referential approach is trying to explain what meaning is by establishing the interdependence between words and the things or concepts which they denote. The functional approach studies the functions of a word in speech and is less concerned with what meaning is than with how it works.
1. The essential feature of the referential approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning:
1.the sound-form of the linguistic sign,
2.the concept underlying this sound-form, and
3.the actual referent, i.e. that aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers, be it an object or a phenomenon
The important feature of the referential approach is the implication that meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent.
When we examine a word we see that its meaning though closely connected with the underlying concept or concepts is not identical with them. Concept is the thought of the object that singles out its essential features. Our concepts reflect the most common and typical features of the different objects and phenomena of the world. The difference between meaning and concept can be observed if we compare synonymous words and word-groups which express essentially the same concepts but possess linguistic meaning which is felt as different in each of the units under consideration, e.g. big, large; to watch, to keep an eye on; child, baby, kid.
2. The functional approach maintains that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to other linguistic units and not through its relation to either concept or referent. In a very simplified form this view may be illustrated by the following: we know, for instance, that the meaning of the two words define and definition is different because they function in speech differently. If we compare the contexts in which we come across these words we will observe that they occupy different positions in relation to other words. Analysing the function of a word in linguistic contexts and comparing these contexts, we conclude that meanings are different (or the same) and this fact can be proved by an objective investigation of linguistic data. 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 of the use of linguistic units.

3.Types of meaning
The two main types of word-meaning are the grammatical and the lexical meanings found in all words. The interrelation of these two types of meaning may be different in different groups of words.
Lexical meaning is viewed as possessing denotational and connotational components.
The denotational component is actually what makes communication possible. The connotational component comprises the stylistic reference and the emotive charge proper to the word as a linguistic unit in the given language system. The subjective emotive implications acquired by words in speech lie outside the semantic structure of words as they may vary from speaker to speaker but are not proper to words as units of language.
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 verbs (played, sold, learned, etc.) or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (student’s, child’s, yesterday’s, etc.).
In 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 (linguistic) 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).

3
Morphological motivation
The main criterion in morphological motivation is the relationship between morphemes. Hence, all one-morpheme words, e.g. write, read, buy are by definition non-motivated.
In words composed of more than one morpheme the carrier of the word-meaning is the combined meaning of the component morphemes and the meaning of the structural pattern of the word. This can be illustrated by the semantic analysis of different words composed of phonemically identical morphemes with identical lexical meaning. Each of the words: outlet and let-out; finger-ring and ring-finger, contain two morphemes, the combined lexical meaning of which is the same; the difference in the meaning of these words can be accounted for by the difference in the arrangement of the component morphemes.
If we can observe a direct connection between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning, we say that this word is motivated. Consequently, words such as writer, reconsider, homeless, etc., are described as motivated. If the connection between the structure of the lexical unit and its meaning is completely arbitrary and conventional, we speak of non-motivated or idiomatic words, e.g. letter, remit (to send money to smb as payment for goods or services).
Phonetic Motivation
Some linguists, however, argue that words can be motivated in more than one way and suggest another type of motivation which may be described as a direct connection between the phonetic structure of the word and its meaning. They say that speech sounds may associate with shape, size, colour, weight etc. Experiments carried out by a group of linguists showed that back open vowels are suggestive of big size, heavy weight, dark colour, etc/ Another type of phonetic motivation is represented by such words as hiss, murmur, bump, grumble, splash and many more. These words may be defined as phonetically motivated because the sound clusters [hɪs, mɜ:mə, bʌmp, grʌmbl, splæ∫] imitate the sounds produced by man, nature, inanimate objects that is the sounds which these words denote. It is also suggested that sounds themselves may be emotionally expressive which accounts for the phonetic motivation in certain words. The sound-cluster [iŋ] is associated with the sound of swift movement as can be seen in words swing, fling, etc. Thus, phonetically such words may be considered motivated.
Semantic Motivation
The term motivation is also used to denote the relationship between the central and the coexisting meaning or meanings of a word which are understood as a metaphorical extension of the central meaning.
Metaphorical extension may be viewed as generalisation of the denotational meaning of a word permitting it to include new referents which in some way are similar to the original class of referents. For example, parent is someone who brings forth an offspring; by extension, it comes to denote one who or that which produces; source, origin, cause. e.g. Caution is the parent of safety (Осторожность — матьбезопасности). Envy is the parent of all evils. Parent company (a company that owns or controls a smaller company).

4
The factors accounting for semantic changes may be roughly subdivided into two groups: extra-linguistic and linguistic causes.
extra-linguistic causes- various changes in the life of the speech community, changes in economic and social life,etc. as reflected in word meanings. Objects change in the course of time in many cases the soundform of the words which denote them remains the same but the meaning of the words is changed.
Some changes of meaning happen because of purely linguistic causes.
The commonest form which this influence takes is the so-called ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to its partner.(a daily (paper), a weekly (magazine), a musical (show)). Here the meaning of one word is transferred to another because they habitually occur together in speech.
Another linguistic cause is discrimination of synonyms.
Sometimes the stylistic reference of the word changes when a new, borrowed word finds its way into the language.
Some semantic changes may be accounted for by the influence of a factor usually referred to as linguistic analogy. It was found out, that if one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning other members of this set change their meanings too. (verbs synonymous with catch, grasp, get, etc., by semantic extension acquired another meaning — ‘to understand’)

2. Nature of Semantic Change
a necessary condition of any semantic change, no matter what its cause, is some connection, some association between the old meaning and the new. There are two kinds of association involved as a rule in various semantic changes, namely:
a) similarity of meanings, and
b) contiguity of meanings (смежность значений).
Similarity of meanings or metaphor may be described as a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. Since metaphor is based on the perception of similarities it is only natural that when an analogy is obvious, it should give rise to a metaphoric meaning.
Contiguity of meanings or metonymy may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it.

3. Results of Semantic Change
Results of semantic change can be generally observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word (restriction and extension of meaning) or in the alteration of its connotational component (amelioration and deterioration of meaning).
Changes in the denotational meaning may result in the restriction of the types or range of referents denoted by the word.
Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents.
If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialised vocabulary into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the generalisation of meaning.

4. Interrelation of Causes, Nature and Results of Semantic Change

There are other cases, however, when the changes in the connotational meaning come to the fore. These changes, as a rule accompanied by a change in the denotational’ component, may be subdivided into two main groups:
a) pejorative development or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge,
b) ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning.

5

the morpheme is the smallest two-facet language unit possessing both sound-form and meaning. The problem of types of meaning and semantic peculiarities of morphemes is a complex one so we will dwell upon a few basic points concerning the nature of the morpheme as the smallest meaningful element of language.
Lexical meaning
It is generally recognized that one of the semantic features of some morphemes which distinguishes them from words is that they do not possess grammatical meaning. Let's have a look, for example, at the word child – in A child came into the room, and the morpheme child - in the words childish, childishly, childhood. We see that the word child has the grammatical meaning of case and number. But we cannot find these meanings in the morpheme child which is an element of the above words. On these grounds morphemes are regarded as devoid of grammatical meaning.
We know from our experience as English language-learners that many English words consist of only one morpheme - a root-morpheme. So when we say that most morphemes possess lexical meaning we imply mainly the root-morphemes in such words. We can easily observe that the lexical meaning of the word child and the lexical meaning of the root-morpheme child — in the above words childhood, childish etc. is very much the same.
in the lexical meaning of words we distinguish denotational and connotational components. In the lexical meaning of morphemes we may also distinguish denotational and connotational components. (What is the denotational component of meaning of child in childish ?)
The connotational component of meaning may be found not only in root-morphemes. It is very clearly felt in affixational morphemes. Endearing and diminutive suffixes have a heavy emotive charge. Compare: - kitchen and kitchenette; laundry and laundrette;
-dear and dearie; girl and girlie; duck and ducky;
-duck and duckling; under – underling (an insulting word for someone who is less important in an organisation than someone else). Thus, the suffixes -ette, -ie(y), -ling clearly carry a connotational meaning.
Comparing the derivational morphemes with the same denotational meaning we see that they sometimes differ in connotation only. In the words childlike, childish the morphemes -like, -ish have the denotational meaning of similarity, but the connotational component is different: -like carries positive evaluation (childlike excitement) -ish carries derogatory connotation (It's simply childish to behave like that)
Stylistic reference may also be found in morphemes of different types. The stylistic value of such derivational morphemes as -ine (chlorine), -oid (humanoid), -ence (transcendence) is clearly perceived to be bookish or scientific.
Part of speech meaning
The lexical meaning of the affixal morphemes is, as a rule, of a generalising character:
- the suffix - er - carries the meaning ‘the agent, the doer of the action’ (to act - actor, to write - writer),
- the suffix - less - denotes lack or absence of something (countless, timeless, boundless),
- the suffix - ful - denotes presence of some quality (beautiful, wonderful).
In derivational morphemes the lexical and the part-of-speech meaning may be so blended that it is almost impossible to separate them. In the cases discussed above we perceive the lexical meaning of the morphemes -er, -less, -ful also as their part-of-speech meaning: teacher, driver, runner, etc; homeless, restless; awful, careful.
In some morphemes, however, for example, -ment or -ous (as in: development or notorious, advantageous) it is the part-of-speech meaning that prevails, the lexical meaning is but vaguely felt.
Morphemes may possess specific meanings of their own, namely, the differential and the distributional meanings.
Differential meaning
Differential meaning is the semantic component that serves to distinguish one word from all others containing identical morphemes. In words consisting of two or more morphemes, one of the constituent morphemes always has differential meaning.
In such words as, for example, teacup, the morpheme -cup serves to distinguish the word from other words containing the morpheme tea-, e.g. from tearoom, teapot, teaspoon.
In toothache the morpheme -ache distinguishes the word from toothbrush, toothpaste, toothpick.
In other compound words, for example, toothache, the morpheme tooth- distinguishes it from backache, stomachache, headache; in fireproof the morpheme fire- has the differential meaning which distinguishes fireproof from waterproof, childproof, foolproof.
Denotational and differential meanings are not mutually exclusive. Naturally the morpheme -cup in teacup possesses denotational meaning which is the dominant component of meaning. There are cases, however, when it is difficult or even impossible to assign any denotational meaning to the morpheme. For example, we cannot assign any denotational meaning to cran- in cranberry, yet it clearly bears a relationship to the meaning of the word as a whole through the differential component (cranberry and strawberry, gooseberry) which in this particular case comes to the fore.
Distributional meaning
Distributional meaning is the meaning of the order and arrangement of morphemes making up the word. It is found in all words containing more than one morpheme. The word writer, e.g., is composed of two morphemes write- and -er both of which possess the denotational meaning and namely ‘to use a pen to put words on paper’ (write-) and ‘the doer of the action’ (-er). There is one more element of meaning, however, that enables us to understand the word and that is the pattern of arrangement of the component morphemes. A different arrangement of the same morphemes, e.g. *erwrite, would make the word meaningless. Compare also normally and *lynormmal in which a different pattern of arrangement of the three morphemes norm-al-ly turns it into a meaningless string of sounds.
But here is an example of how the meaning of the word changes when the component morphemes remain the same and only their arrangement changes: backfall (падениее на спину в спортивной борьбе) and fallback (отступление, отход; падение осколков от взрыва, радиоактивные осадки).

6

Words having only one meaning, i.e. monosemantic words, are not so numerous. These are mainly scientific terms, such as oxygen, molecule, penicillin, computer and the like or for example, loudmouth (a person who says a lot of stupid or offensive thing that annoy people), lorry (a truck) The bulk of English words are polysemantic, which means that they 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.
Diachronic approach
If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development of or, 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.
So, when dealing with the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings of a polysemantic word we have to answer the following questions:
1.did the word always possess all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others? 2.are the new meanings dependent on the meanings already existing? and if so what is the nature of this dependence? 3.can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings? and so on.
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. In the case of the word box, we may say that the meaning ‘a small enclosed space with seats’ is a secondary meaning as it is derived from the meaning ‘a rectangular container with straight sides’.
Synchronical approach
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 we address the issue along different lines. .Synchronically polysemy is understood as the coexistence of various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period of the development of the English language. When viewed synchronically a word may have a central meaning – the one which occupies the central place in the semantic structure of the word - and some minor meanings, which cannot be easily graded in order of their comparative value.
7

Homonyms are words identical in sound-form but different in meaning. Modern English is rich in homonymous words and word-forms which can be accounted for by the fact that the structure of commonly used English words is monosyllabic.
There are different approaches to the classification of homonyms.
All cases of homonymy may be classified into full and partial homonymy — i.e. homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms. This classification is based on the assumption that words are two-facet units possessing both sound-form and meaning, and in this classification the graphic form is disregarded.
Accordingly, they classify homonyms into homographs, homophones and perfect homonyms.
Homographs are words identical in spelling, but different both in their sound-form and meaning
Homophones are words identical in sound-form but different both in spelling and in meaning.
Perfect homonyms are words identical both in spelling and in sound-form but different in meaning.
One of the sources of homonymy is polysemy.
Homonyms appear as a result of:
1)diverging meaning development of a polysemantic word, (loss of semantic bond) and
2) converging sound development of two or more different words.
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.
Synchronically the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is as a rule wholly based on the semantic criterion, which means that if a connection between the various meanings is felt, perceived by the speaker, these are to be considered as making up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, if it is not felt by the native speaker it is a case of homonymy, not polysemy. But this traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable (e.g. the word case).
Homonyms identical both in pronunciation and spelling are often considered to be different meanings of one word: bat (a flying animal) – bat (a flat object for hitting the ball in baseball, cricket, table-tennis).
Some scholars say that the range of collocability of the word may help to distinguish between polysemy and homonymy.
One more factor - derivation capacity - may help distinguish between polysemy and homonymy, that is to say whether we deal with different meanings of a polysemantic word or with homonyms. Some linguists argue that potential homonyms typically develop their own sets of derivatives.

8
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.
In spite of its heterogeneity the English word-stock may be classified 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 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. The members of the semantic fields are joined together by some common semantic component, (e.g. 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 (знаменатель) of meaning.
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.
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.
Different meanings of polysemantic words make it possible to refer the same word to different lexico-semantic groups.
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. 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. The individual terms can be said to contain (or entail) the meaning of the general term.
There is another way to describe hyponymy. The more specific term is called the hyponym of the more general which is called the hyperonym or the classifier.
A general problem with this principle of classification is that there often exist overlapping classifications.

9

Semantic Equivalence and Synonymy
Lexical units may also be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and semanticcontrast. The terms generally used to denote these two types of semantic relatedness are synonymy and antonymy.
Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence.
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.
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 ofidentical or similar meaning of words as such because this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. 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.
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.
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.
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.
Relationship of synonymity implies certain differences in the denotational meaning of synonyms(to happen – to occur - to chance).
There is a 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 –to mount – to climb) оrthe connotational meaning, or, to be more exact, stylistic reference (child – infant – kid)
Practically no words are substitutable for one another in allcontexts. Words synonymous in some lexical contexts may display no synonymity in others.
A more acceptable definition of synonyms seems to be the following: synonyms are words different in their sound-form, but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts.
The English word-stock is extremely rich in synonyms which can be largely accounted for by abundant borrowing.
A characteristic pattern of English synonymic sets is the pattern including the native and the borrowed words.There are at least two types of such patterns:
1) a double-scale pattern: native versus Latin (e.g. bodily — corporal, brotherly — fraternal); native versus Greek or French (e.g. answer — reply, fiddle — violin). In most cases the synonyms differ in their stylistic reference, too. The native word is usually colloquial (e.g. bodily, brotherly), whereas the borrowed word may as a rule be described as bookish or highly literary (e.g. corporal, fraternal)
2) a triple-scale pattern: native — French, and Latin or Greek (e.g. begin (start) — commence (Fr.) — initiate (L.); rise — mount (Fr.) — ascend (L.). In most of these sets the native synonym is felt as more colloquial, the Latin or Greek one is characterised by bookish stylistic reference, whereas the French stands between the two extremes.

10

Semantic Contrasts and Antonymy
Like synonyms, perfect or complete antonyms are fairly rare.
The definition of antonyms as words characterised by semantic polarity or opposite meaning is open to criticism. One of the reasons is that the term 'opposite meaning' is rather vague and allows of essentially different interpretations.
It is more or less universally recognised that among the cases that are traditionally described as antonyms there are at least the following two groups:
1/Contradictories which represent the type of semantic relations that exist between pairs like dead and alive, single and married, perfect and imperfect, etc.
To use one of the terms is to contradict the other and to use not before one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other, for example,not dead=alive, not single=married.
2/Contraries differ from contradictories mainly because contradictories admit of no possibility of existence of intermediate members between them. One is either single or married, either dead oralive, etc. whereas contraries admit of such possibilities. This may be observed in cold — hot, with cool and warm being intermediate members. Thus, we may regard as antonyms not only cold and hot but also cold and warm.
It is therefore suggested that the term "antonym" should be used as a general term to describe words different in sound-form and characterised by different types of semantic contrast of denotational meaning.
Semantic Similarity of Morphemes and Word-Families
Lexical groups composed of words with semantically and phonemically identical root-morphemes are usually defined as word-families or word-clusters.
Such are word-families of the type: lead, leader, leadership; dark, darken, darkness; form, formal, formality and others.
It should be noted that members of a word-family as a rule belong to different parts of speech and are joined together only by the identity of root-morphemes. In the word-families discussed above the root-morphemes are identical not only in meaning but also in sound-form.
There are cases, however, when the sound-form of root-morphemes may be different, as forexample in sun, sunny, solar; mouth, oral, orally; brother, brotherly, fraternal, etc.; their semantic similarity however, makes it possible to include them in a word-family. In such cases related words of a word-family are formed from phonemically different roots.
As a rulein the word-families of this type we encounter etymologically different words, e.g. thewords brother and mouth are of Germanic origin,whereasfraternal and oral can be traced back to Latin.We frequently come across synonymic pairs of the type fatherly— paternal, brotherly—fraternal.
Semantic and phonemic identity of affixational morphemes can be observed in the lexical groups of the type darkness, cleverness, calmness, etc.; teacher, reader, writer, etc. In such word-groups as, e.g. teacher, musician, etc., only semantic similarity of derivational affixes is observed. As derivational affixesimpart to the words a certain generalised meaning, we may single out lexical groups denoting the agent, the doer of the action— teacher, reader, etc. or lexical groups denoting actions — movement, transformation, etc. and others.

11

Word-Groups
Words put together to form lexical units make phrases or word-groups. The largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more than one word is the word-group.
There are various ways in which words are joined together to make up single self-contained lexical units. The degree of structural and semantic cohesion of word-groups may vary.
The functionally and semantically inseparable word-groups are called phraseological units or set-phrases.
The word-groups, the components of which possess greater semantic and structural independence, are known as free or variable word-groups or phrases.
The two main linguistic factors that are active in uniting words into word-groups are the lexical and the grammatical valency of words.
It is a well-known fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combination with other words. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability.
Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché.
There are two more important points connected with the problem of lexical valency —1) the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups. Here we come across the so called restrictions of lexical valency of words - the polysemantic members of word-groups – can often be observed (e.g. the adjective heavy is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’ but it cannot be combined with the words ham or soup in the same meaning);
2)different meanings of a word can be described through the lexical valency of the word (e.g. heavy meals, a heavy storm, a heavy weight, a heavy drinker, heavy industry )
Words are also used in grammatical contexts. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is called grammatical valency.
The grammatical valency of words may be different. The range of grammatical valency is delimited (ограничен) by the part of speech the word belongs to. So, the grammatical valency of each individual word is dependent on the grammatical structure of the language. But the grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is not nessesarily identical (e.g. the verbs to propose, to suggest to offer).
No departure from the norm of grammatical valency is possible as this can be regarded just as a mistake and besides, it may make the word-group unintelligible to English speakers.
The meaning of word-groups includes lexical and grammatical components.
The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. As a rule, the meanings of the component words are mutually dependent and the meaning of the word-group predominates over the lexical meaning of its constituents.
Interdependence of the lexical meanings of the constituent members of word-groups can be easily observed in word-groups made up of polysemantic words. (e.g. blind man (cat, horse) vs blind type, copy, print). Polysemantic words are used in word-groups only in one of their meanings.
The connotational meaning, stylistic reference of word-groups may be essentially different from that of the words making up these groups (man, boy – neutral; old man, old boy – colloquial).
Word-groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents that is the structural meaning (e.g. school grammar vs grammar school).
As both structure and meaning are parts of the word-group as a linguistic unit, the interdependence of these two facets is the subject-matter of lexicological analysis.
Word-groups may be generally described through the pattern of arrangement of the constituent members:
1)to do that we use the term syntactic structure (formula) which implies the description of the order and arrangement of member-words as parts of speech. These formulas can be used to describe all the possible structures of English word-groups. We can say, e.g., that the verbal groups comprise the following structural formulas: V+N (to create smth),
V+prp+N (to depend on somebody),
V+N+prp+N (to convince smb of smth, to inform smb of smth, to remind smb of smth),
V+N+V(inf.) (to order somebody to do smth),
V+ V(inf.) (to come to know, to help to do smth), and so on;
2)the structure of word-groups may be also described in relation to the head-word, so the above examples can be represented in the following way:
to depend +on+N,
to convince +N+of+N, to inform+N+of+N, and so on. In this case we usually speak of the patterns of word-groups but not of formulas.
The interdependence of the pattern and meaning of head-words can be easily seen if we compare word-groups of different patterns in which the same head-word is used.
e.g. make +N (create smth - make a film, make a TV programme);
make+N+V+N (force or cause smth to happen - make smb do smth – This film makes me cry);
make+N+Adj (change to another state - The noise makes learning difficult; this graphical user interface makes it easy to produce high quality results);
make+Num (to give a total when added together - Two and two make four).
We can make a conclusion that as a rule the difference in the meaning of the head-word is conditioned by a difference in the pattern of the word-group in which this word is used.
Word-groups like words may also be analysed from the point of view of their motivation.
Word-groups are said to be lexically motivated if the meaning of the groups is easily deduced (легко выводится) from the meaning of their components: red flower, take lessons are motivated while red tape (bureucracy), take place (occur) are non-motivated - represent single indivisible semantic entities.
The degree of motivation may be different. Between the extremes of complete motivation and lack of motivation there are innumerable intermediate cases. The degree of lexical motivation in the nominal group black market or black hole is higher than in black death (бубонная чума — ХIV в) but lower than in black dress, though none of the groups can be considered as completely non-motivated.
It is of interest to note that completely motivated word-groups are, as a rule, correlated with certain structural types of compound words.
Verbal groups having the structure V+N, e.g. to read books, to love music, etc., are habitually correlated with the compounds of the pattern N+(V+er) (book-reader, music-lover)
Adjectival groups such as Adj. + prp + N (e.g. rich in oil, shy before girls) are correlated with the compounds of the pattern N+Adj., e.g. oil-rich, girl-shy.
To conclude, word-groups may be classified into motivated and non-motivated units. Non-motivated word-groups are habitually described as phraseological units or idioms.

12

Meaning of word-groups
As with word-meaning, the meaning of word-groups may be analysed into lexical and grammatical components.
Lexical Meaning
The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group red flower may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red andflower.It should be pointed out, however, that the term combined lexical meaning is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive result of all the lexical meanings of the component members. As a rule, the meanings of the component wordsare mutually dependent andthe meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the lexical meaning of its constituents.
Interdependence of the lexical meanings of the constituent members of word-groups can be readily observed in word-groups made up of polysemantic words. For example, in the nominal group blind man (cat, horse) only one meaning of the adjective blind, i.e. ‘unable to see’, is combined with the lexical meaning of the noun man (cat, horse) and it is only one of the meanings of the noun man — ‘human being’ that is perceived in combination with the lexical meaning of this adjective. The meaning of the same adjective in blind type (print, handwriting) is different.
Another example: in the word group a rich man (woman, merchant) only one meaning of the adjective rich – owing a lot of money, property or valuable possessions is combined with the lexical meaning of the noun man, (woman, merchant) and it is only one meaning of the noun man – human being that is perceived in combination with the lexical meaning of the adjective rich. The meaning of rich in combination with other nouns – a rich chocolate dessert, a rich fruit cake, - is different.
As can be seen from the above examples,polysemantic words are used in word-groups only in one of their meanings. These meanings of the component words in such word-groups are mutually interdependent and inseparable. Semantic inseparability of word-groups that allows us to treat them as self-contained lexical units is also clearly perceived in the
Let's have a look at the connotational component of the lexical meaning of word-groups. Stylistic reference of word-groups, for example, may be essentially different from that of the words making up these groups. There is nothing colloquial or slangy about suchwordsas old, boy, bag, fun, etc. when taken in isolation. The word-groupsmade up of these words, e.g. old boy, bags of fun, are without doubt colloquial.
Or: ocean(informal)–Park there, you have got oceans of space.
sea – The crowd stood under a sea of brightly coloured umbrellas, a sea of smiling faces.

13
Structural Meaning

Word-groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents that is the structural meaning.
A certain parallel can be drawn between the meaning conveyed by the arrangement of morphemes in words and the structural meaning of word-groups. It will be recalled that two compound words made up of lexically identical stems may be different in meaning because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the stems. For example, the meaning of such words as dog-house and house-dog is different though the lexical meaning of the components is identical.
This is also true of word-groups. Such word-groups as school grammar and grammar school are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words.
Other examples: Sunday best - In their Sunday best they set out to church. That was the best Sunday of the whole year.
Interdependence of structure and meaning in word- groups
As both structure and meaning are parts of the word-group as a linguistic unit, the interdependence of these two facets is naturally the subject matter of lexicological analysis.
Syntactic Structure and Patterns of Word-Groups
Word-groups may be generally described through the pattern of arrangement of the constituent members. The term syntactic structure (formula) properly speaking implies the description of the order and arrangement of member-words as parts of speech.
We may, for instance, describe the word-group as made up of an Adjective and a Noun (clever man, red flower, etc.),
a Verb and a Noun (take books, build houses, etc.),
ora Noun, a Preposition and a Noun (a touch of colour, a matter of importance, etc.).
The syntactic structure (formula) of the nominal groupsclever manand red flower may be represented as A +N, that of the verbal groups take books and build houses as V + N, and so on.
These formulas can be used to describe all the possible structures of English word-groups. We can say,for example, that the verbal groups comprise the following structural formulas:
V+N (to build houses),
V+prp+N(to rely on somebody),
V+N+prp+N(to hold something against somebody),
V+N+V(inf.) (to make somebody work),
V+ V(inf.) (to get to know), and so on.
The structure of word-groups may be also described in relation to the head-word, and the structure of the same verbal groups (to build houses, to rely on somebody) is represented as
to build + N,
to rely + on + N. In this case it is usual to speak of the patterns of word-groups but not of formulas. The term pattern implies that we are speaking of the structure of the word-group in which a given word is used as its head.
The interdependence of the pattern and meaning of head-words can be easily perceived by comparing word-groups of different patterns in which the same head-word is used. For example, in verbal groups the head-word meanis semantically different in the patterns mean+N (mean something) and mean + V(inf.) (mean to do something). Three patterns with the verb get as the head-word represent three different meanings of this verb, e.g.
get+N (get a letter, information, money, etc.),
get+ to +N (get to Moscow, to the Institute, etc.),
get+N+V(inf.) (get somebody to come, to do the work, etc.).
This is also true of adjectival word-groups, for example:
clever+N(clever man) and
clever+at+N (clever at arithmetic);
keen+N(keen sight, hearing),
keen+on+N (keen on sports, tennis).
Notional member-words in such patterns are habitually represented in conventional symbols (N, V, Adj) whereas prepositions and other form-words are given in their usual graphic form.
This is accounted for by the fact that individual form-words may modify or change the meaning of the word with which it is combined, as in, e.g., anxious+for+ N (anxious for news), anxious+about+N (anxious about his health).
Broadly speaking we may conclude that as a rule the difference in the meaning of the head-word is conditioned by a difference in the pattern of the word-group in which this word is used.
Motivation of word-groups
Word-groups like words may also be analysed from the point of view of their motivation.
Word-groups may be described as lexically motivated if the meaning of the groups can be easily perceived from the meaning of their components. The nominal groups, e.g. red flower, heavy weight and the verbal group, e.g. take lessons, are from this point of view motivated, whereas structurally identical word-groups red tape — ‘official bureaucratic methods’, heavy father — ’serious or solemn part in a theatrical play’, and take place — ‘occur’ are lexically non-motivated. In these groups the constituents do not possess, at least synchronically, the denotational meaning found in the same words outside these groups or, to be more exact, do not possess any individual lexical meaning of their own, as the word-groups under discussion seem to represent single indivisible semantic entities.
Word-groups are said to be structurally motivated if the meaning of the pattern is deducible from the order and arrangement of the member-words of the group. Red flower, e.g., is motivated as the meaning of the pattern quality — substance can be deduced from the order and arrangement of the words red and flower, whereas the seemingly identical pattern red tape cannot be interpreted as quality — substance.
The degree of motivation may be different. Between the extremes of complete motivation and lack of motivation there are innumerable intermediate cases. For example, the degree of lexical motivation in the nominal group black marketis higher than inblack death,but lower than in black dress, though none of the groups can be considered as completely non-motivated.
Black Maria – a vehicle used by the police for carrying people
black pepper, black pudding; black mark, black sheep,
curtain rail, curtain raiser – a short performance put before a more important one, curtain line — заключительнаярепликапьесы; curtain speech - монологподзанавес, curtain call — вызовактеранасцену.
This is also true of other word-groups, e.g. old man and old boy both of which may be regarded as lexically and structurally motivated though the degree of motivation in old man is noticeably higher.
It is of interest to note that completely motivated word-groups are, as a rule, correlated with certain structural types of compound words. Verbal groups having the structure V+N, e.g. toread books, to love music, to go to the theatre etc., are habitually correlated with the compounds of the pattern N+(V+er) (book-reader, music-lover, theatre goer);
adjectival groups such as A+prp+N(e.g. rich in oil, shy before girls) are correlated with the compounds of the pattern N+A, e.g. oil-rich, girl-shy.
It should also be noted that seemingly identical word-groups are sometimes found to be motivated or non-motivated depending on their semantic interpretation. Thus apple sauce, e.g., is lexically and structurally motivated when it means ‘a sauce made of apples’ but when used to denote ‘nonsense’ it is clearly non-motivated. In such cases we may even speak of homonymy of word-groups and not of polysemy.
It follows from the above discussion that word-groups may be also classified into motivated and non-motivated units. Non-motivated word-groups are habitually described as phraseological units or idioms.

14

запись создана: 06.06.2012 в 11:06

@темы: Полезно