Facets of the word

As
it follows from what has been said above the word is characterized by
complexity. It involves various aspects and relations. The word
denotes an object and gives a name to it, it has some sense, i.e. it
signifies something, the sense, or content represents certain
properties, or qualities of the object in people’s minds.

The
outer facet (external structure, plane of expression), the phonetic
and graphical shape of the word, is the sign of its sense – inner
facet (internal structure, plane of content). The word as the unity
of its outer and inner facets represents the object, or referent.

The
word’s relation to object, its being a sign makes it possible to
use words for giving names to things, phenomena, qualities, actions,
etc. Words come into being when there is a need to give names to
things. Hence
the
main function of the word is
nominating.


“… Nоmination
is the process of converting the facts of extra-linguistic reality to
the facts of language-as-a-system, its structure and meanings
reflecting the human experience in the people’s minds” [Языковая
номинация
I 1977: 13].
Onomasiology
is the science of names, the nature and types of nomination.

The
peculiarity of the nominative aspect of the language is first of all
that the linguistic signs, unlike all other ones, have twofold
reference to the objects: 1) as nominative signs – words and word
combinations – in language-as-a-system, its paradigmatic relations;
2) as predicative signs – phrases or utterances – in actual
speech – language-in-action, its syntagmatic relations [Языковая
номинация
I, 1977:8].

There
are distinguished the following types of nomination according to the
language units employed in each case: a) lexical
nomination
– nomination
by word, phraseological unit or word combinations; b) propositional
nomination
– nomination
by sentence; c) discourse
nomination
– nomination
by text.

The
objects of lexical
nomination, or nominants are such elements of reality as object
(thing), quality (property), process, relations, any real or
imaginary object. Nominants make up a system, nomenclature, which
along with some semantic and functional peculiarities, serves as the
basis of subdividing all the words primarily into the classes of
notional and formal words.

Further
on the notional words are subdivided according to the qualitative
characterization of the objects into those naming the objects
(substantival) – the nouns; and those naming the features, or
manifestations of the objects – the verbs, naming processes,
actions and states; the adjectives, naming qualities and properties;
the adverbs, naming certain circumstances and conditions. The
quantitative characterization of the objects is realized by numerals.
Pronouns, prepositions, connectives, conjunctions, particles,
articles refer to formal words. Thus the elements of nomination form
the basis for the main classes of words – the categories of parts
of speech, known since the times of Aristotle.

The
object of propositional
nomination
by sentence is a microsituation (an event, a fact), involving certain
substances and elements.

The
object of
discourse
nomination
– nomination
by text – is a more complicated string of situations.

The
complexity of nominating means increases with the increase of the
complexity of the nominated object. More complex nominations (word
combinations, sentences and texts) are constructed by combinations of
words – the initial and simple nominating units.

The
nominant of the sentence, or utterance, is a complex referent, a
certain interrelation of real phenomena (objects, qualities,
processes) in various combinations. Even the simplest sentence, e.g.
The
child is playing presents
a combination of two elements: the agent of the action and the
action itself.

Text
is a complex multi-structural integrity arranged in accordance with
the communicative intention, genre specifics. The nominants of the
text are information blocks.

A
new name comes into being when a certain sound complex is associated
with meaning. This meaning refers to some fragment of
extra-linguistic reality, a new object, phenomenon, quality, action,
etc. When such act of nomination happens for the first time it is
known as direct
or
primary
nomination.
By
primary
lexical nomination is understood the interrelation of a fragment of
extra-linguistic reality reflected in one’s mind and the sound
complex, which has got the function of a name for the first time
[Языковая
номинация
I 1977: 73]. Such primary meanings of the words were called by
Academician V.V.Vinogradov ‘direct nominative meaning’.

There
is a constant need in new names with new developments in the life of
speech communities. The process of nomination is endless. But it is
impossible to create an entirely new name for each new object,
phenomenon, etc. It would make the language system too bulky and
unmanageable. Human memory would not be able to cope with such a
great amount of names. That is why a name of a certain object can be
used for naming another object, phenomenon, quality, action, etc.
Secondary
/ indirect nomination
is using the name of one object for naming another object. Of course,
secondary nomination cannot be done at random. There must be
something in common between the two objects, certain associations (of
similarity or contiguity, see ch. 2).

For
example the word ‘hand’ in its primary function means 1) part of
the human arm beyond the wrist. As a result of secondary nomination
it got the meanings: 2) (pl) power, possession, responsibility: The
property is no longer in my hands;
3) influence or agency: The
hand of an enemy has worked here;
4) person from whom news, etc. comes: I
heard the news at first hand;
5) skill in using one’s hands: She
has a light hand at pastry;
6) person who does what is indicated by the context, performer: He
is a good hand at this sort of work; 7)
workman, e.g. in a factory or dockyard: All
hands on deck!;
turn, share in an activity: Let
me have a hand now; 9)
pointer or indicator on the dial of a watch, clock or other
instrument: hands
of a watch; 10)position
or direction (to right or left): on
all hands
11) handwriting: He
writes a good hand
and other meanings.
The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English by
A.S.Hornby registers 16 meanings of this word and many derivatives
and idioms with ‘hand’. This is an example of language economy
and flexibility.

To
cases of secondary lexical nomination also refer lexemes, coined by
compounding, joining together two derivational bases (see ch. 4):
such as
arm-chair,
keyhole,
red-haired,
affixation (coining words by means of derivational affixes): uneasy,
kindness, musician and
also many other words coined by various means of word-formation.
Secondary nomination plays a very important role in language
functioning as it a) enables to use the means available in the
language for giving a name to an object that had no name before, e.g.
a
mouse ‘device
used to control a cursor on a computer monitor’; b) creates a
stylistic effect: lexical stylistic devices such as metaphor,
metonymy, irony and others are based on making use of already
existing names to characterize some other objects, for instance,
names of animals can be used to characterize people possessing some
negative traits: cat
‘excitable woman’, goose
‘simpleton’; c) provides the means for functioning of various
communicative types of sentences: the usage of the verbs be,
have, do
etc. as auxiliaries.

The
relation between the external structure of the word (its phonetic
shape, morphological composition, structural pattern) and its meaning
is called motivation.
Three
basic kinds of motivation are distinguished: phonetic,
morphological
and semantic.

To
phonetically motivated words refer examples as bang,
buzz, cuckoo, giggle, gurgle, hiss, purr, whistle,
etc., i.e. onomatopoetic words. Such words are phonetically motivated
because there can be traced the relation between the sound form of
the word and its meaning, they are coined by imitation of natural
sounds.

To
morphologically motivated words refer lexical units with a complex
morphological structure, i.e. consisting of more than one morpheme.
The meaning of such words can be deduced from the meanings of the
morphemes constituting them and the structural pattern which
determines the order of the components. For example, the word
reread
is morphologically motivated inasmuch as its meaning can be deduced
from the meanings of its component morphemes and the structural
pattern. This is the case with affixal derivatives and compound words
like: winner,
coolness, employee, mispronounce, discomfort, hairdo, nightwatch,
theatre-goer, sky-blue,
etc.

Semantic
motivation is conditioned by the synchronic co-existence of the
direct nominative and nominative-derivative meanings. The word is
semantically motivated if its derivative meaning (metaphoric,
metonymical) is perceived through the direct nominative one. For
instance the word head
in
the contexts Heads
or tales?, the head of the family,
at
the head of the page is
semantically motivated inasmuch as its meaning is perceived through
the direct nominative meaning of this word. Unlike the phonetic
motivation, the morphological and semantic motivations are relative
as the direct nominative meanings of the word and meanings of
morphemes are not motivated.

If
there cannot be traced the connection between the phonetic or
morphological structure of the word and its meaning or the direct and
derivative meanings of the word, the word is unmotivated. The
overwhelming majority of simple non-derivative words are like cat,
dog, man, girl, good, young, take, read,
etc. are unmotivated. It is considered that initially such words were
motivated but in the course of time motivation was lost.

1. The
   Notion of Lexeme. Variants of Words

Besides
the term ‘word’ there exists a scientific term lexeme.
This term emerged from the necessity to differentiate a word-form and
the word as a structural element of the language. Thus in the
sentence My
friend has got a lot of books and I borrowed an interesting book
from him the
words
books and
book
are perceived as two words but actually these are the grammatical
variants of one lexeme. The term lexeme was introduced to avoid such
kind of ambiguity. Besides it is in line with the terms of units of
other levels: phoneme, morpheme, phraseme.

Lexeme
is a structural element of the language, word in all its meanings and
forms (variants). Lexeme is an
invariant
(from Lat. invarians
‘unchangeable’),
i.e. “the common property inherent in classes of relatively
homogeneous classes of objects and phenomena” (Сoлнцев,
p. 214). This common property is realized in all the variants of a
lexeme’s use in actual speech.

When
used in actual speech the word undergoes certain modifications and
functions in one of its grammatical forms, e.g.
singer, singer’s, singers, singers’ (He is a good singer. I like
the singer’s voice,
etc.) or
to take, takes, took, took, taking.
Grammatical forms of words are called word-forms, or grammatical
variants of
words. In the above example these are variants of the lexemes
singer and
take.
The system showing a word in all its word-forms is called its
paradigm.
The lexical meaning of the word remains unchanged throughout its
paradigm. All the word-forms are lexically identical but they differ
in their grammatical meanings. Actually in each particular context we
deal with particular grammatical variants of lexemes.

Besides
paradigms of particular words, such as boy,
boy’s, boys, boys’
there is an abstract notion of paradigms of parts of speech. For
instance, the paradigm of the noun is ( ), (-’s), (-s), (-s’),
the paradigm of the verb is ( ), -s, -ed, -ed, -ing. The sign ( )
stands for a zero morpheme, i.e. its meaningful absence.

Besides
the grammatical forms (variants) of words, lexical varieties of the
word are distinguished, which are called lexico-semantic
variants (LSVs).
The overwhelming majority of English words are polysemantic, i.e.
they have more than one meaning but in actual speech a word is used
in one of its meanings. Such a word used in oral or written speech in
one of its meanings is called a lexico-semantic variant.

E.g.
to
call —
1) say in a loud voice: She
called for help,
2) pay a short visit: I
called on Mr. Green,
3) name: We
call him Dick,
4) consider, regard as: I
call that shame,
5) summon, send a message to: Please
call a doctor.
The verb
to call is
presented here by five LSVs.

Many
lexemes have more than one variants of pronunciation. They are
phonetic variants of lexemes. Phonetic
variants are
different ways of pronouncing certain lexemes, e.g. again
[ə`gein,
ə`gen], interesting
[`intristiŋ,
intə`restiŋ], often
[`o:fn,
`ofn, `ofən, `oftən], etc. There are also graphical
variants,
i.e. different ways of spelling one and the same lexeme:
inquire/enquire.

To
morphological
variants belong
the cases of certain differences in the morphological composition of
words not accompanied by differences in meaning. These are the cases
of the two variants of the Past Indefinite tense: to
learn – learnt, learned, to leap – leapt, leaped; to spoil –
spoilt, spoiled; to dream – dreamt, dreamed, to broadcast
– broadcast,
broadcasted,
etc. Also to morphological variants belong parallel formations like:
phonetic
– phonetical, geologic – geological,
etc. Phonetic and morphological variants are modifications of the
same lexeme as the change in the composition of a word is not
followed by a change in meaning. In case of different meanings we
deal with different lexemes. Compare for instance economic
‘экономический‘
and
economical
‘экономный’
which
are different lexemes.

Thus,
within the language system the word or lexeme exists as a system and
unity of all its forms and variants. It is an invariant
–
the structural unit of the language.

1. Referential
   and functional approaches to meaning.

Semasiology
(Greek
semasia
‘meaning’)
is
a branch of lexicology investigating meaning of language units. It is
universally accepted that language units having meanings are
morphemes (the smallest meaningful units), words (lexemes), word
combinations (phrases), sentences. The problem of phonetic meaning is
controversial [Журавлев
1974]. There is also the term semantics
which
refers to the content of language and speech units. It is used in the
following word combinations: semantics
of the word, semantics of the sentence, semantics of the text, etc.
Also
this term refers to logical semantics.

As
it was mentioned above, meaning is the inner facet of the word as a
linguistic sign, its content. The very function of the word as a unit
of communication is made possible by its possessing a meaning.
Besides, meaning is a linking element between the objects of
extra-linguistic reality (also qualities, processes) and the sound
sequences which are the names of the objects.

Therefore,
meaning is the most important property of the word.

The
problem of meaning has a long tradition in linguistics. Philosophers
of ancient Greece and Rome were interested in relations between the
name and the thing named and what role meaning plays in these
relations.

There
are two main approaches to the problem of meaning in modern
linguistics: referential
and
functional.

The
referential approach
(or theory) has a long tradition. It proceeds from the assumption
that the word as a name is related to a thing (object) it names,
which is called a referent
(denotatum).
The word ‘referent’ allows twofold interpretation. It denotes
either a certain object, quality, process (real or imaginary) in
actual situations of speech as in sentences: ‘The
pen is
on the
table’ or
‘The
book is
interesting’, or a class of objects as pen
(a
class of pens)
different
from pencil
(a class of pencils)
or
table
different
from
chair,
etc. It
means that the word has a generating function.

The
classes of things having names are distinguished by certain features,
or properties, inherent in them. These features make up the concept
of the object in our minds. The generating function of the word is
most obvious in such contexts as The
dog is a domestic animal,
where the objects named refer to a class.

In
order to give a name to an object, one should form the notion, or
concept of it, i.e. one must know the salient features of the object
which differentiate it from other objects. Hence there is
interrelation between word (its outer facet — a sound or graphic
form), concept and referent which is represented by the so-called
semantic triangle offered by the British linguists C.K.Ogden and
I.A.Richards [Ogden, Richards 1946]:

By
‘linguistic symbol’ here is meant the sound or graphic form of
the word.

The
dotted line suggests that there is no immediate relation between word
and referent: it is established only through context.

Hence,
meaning in referential approach is a component of the word through
which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with
the ability of denoting objects, qualities, phenomena, actions and
abstract notions. One should bear in mind that though meaning is
related both to referent and concept, it is not identical to either
of them.

Meaning
is not identical to referent (denotatum) as the latter, be it a
single object referred to, or a class of objects belongs to
extra-linguistic reality while meaning is a linguistic category. One
and the same object can be named by different words, having different
meanings. A woman can be called
mother, sister, lady, doctor,
etc. Not every word is related to really existing objects, some of
the referents are fantastic or imaginary ones (e.g. dragon,
devil).

Meaning
is neither identical to concept as the latter is a category of
cognition, i.e. it is a mental but not a linguistic phenomenon.
Concepts reflect general and prominent features of objects and
phenomena while meanings mostly fix features differentiating objects.
Concepts are more or less identical for peoples speaking different
languages, but meanings may be different. For example, the concept of
house

is identical for people speaking English and Russian languages as it
is ‘a
place for human habitation’,

but the Russian word дом
has
a wider volume of meaning than the English word house
as it embraces meanings of both the words house
and
home.

Synonyms
more often than not reflect one and the same concept but differ in
components of meaning. Thus the concept which refers to the initial
phase of certain activities is reflected in the meanings of
synonymous lexemes to
begin
(to start, take the first step), to
start
(to begin to do sth., begin an action), to
commence
(formal – begin, start), to
initiate
(set a scheme, etc working),
to inaugurate
(introduce a new official at a special ceremony). Each of these
synonyms has its own meaning which brings to light a certain aspect
of the underlying concept.

The
above-mentioned correlation of word, concept and referent underlies
certain definitions of meaning. Though the users of the language
freely operate with the notion of meaning, giving a satisfying
definition to meaning is no less easy matter than giving a
definition to the word due to complexity of both notions. Definitions
based on relations of the word and the referent are called ostensive,
or referential. Such definitions are illustrative. In fact an
ostensive definition is pointing at the corresponding referent and
this method of defining words is widely used in teaching languages.

Ostensive
definitions, however, are not free of shortcomings. Mere pointing at
the object is not enough to give a satisfying definition of the word.
Besides, the meanings of such abstract nouns as, for example,
beauty,
idea,
verbs and adjectives as think,
interesting,
conjunctions, etc. are impossible to define by pointing at their
referents. Thus ostensive definitions are applicable only to a
relatively limited number of words, the so-called denotative, or
identifying words, i.e. the words referring to material objects. The
so-called predicative, or characterizing names, referring to
properties and manifestations of objects or relations between the
objects, cannot be defined ostensively [Харитончик
1992: 31]

A
number of conceptual
definitions of meaning based on interrelations between the word and
the concept were put forward by linguists. For instance
V.V.Vinogradov defines “lexical meaning of the word as its
conceptual content, which is formed according to grammatical norms of
the given language and is an element of the lexico-semantic system of
the language” [Виноградов
1953].

Professor
A.I.Smirnitsky proceeded from the basic assumption of the objectivity
of language and meaning, and understanding the linguistic sign as a
two-facet unit. He defined meaning as “a certain reflection in our
mind of objects, phenomena or relations (or imaginary constructions
as mermaid,
goblin, witch)
that makes part of the linguistic sign – its so-called inner facet,
whereas the sound form functions as its outer facet, its material
shape…” [Смирницкий
1956: 152].

O.N.Sеliverstova
defines meaning as information contained in the word [Селиверстова
1975].

Conceptual
definitions were subject to criticism on the grounds that they are
not purely linguistic and to a certain extent subjective. Besides
some linguists claim that despite the obvious interrelation between
the word meaning, the referent and the concept, it is not sufficient
to elucidate the linguistic essence of the word meaning.

The
functional
approach
aims at giving a purely linguistic definition of meaning thus
overcoming the shortcomings of the above-mentioned definitions.
According to this approach “meaning of the word is its functioning
in speech” (Witgenstein) [Витгенштейн
1985].

This
approach is based on the assumption that the meaning of a linguistic
unit should be investigated in actual speech through its relations
to other linguistic units and not through its relation to either
concept or referent. For instance, the word black
has
different meanings in contexts: a
black hat, black sorrow, Black Death.

The
functional approach helps us determine meanings of words in different
contexts. However, it would be erroneous to fully identify the
meaning and function of the word. Contexts indicate the meaningful
differences of word meanings, but words have meanings outside
contexts and it is not always possible to determine word meaning
without correlating the word with its referent no matter how many
contexts of its usage might be produced [Харитончик
1992: 34].

The
referential and functional approaches should not be opposed to one
another. The best way to have better understanding of meaning would
be using both approaches in combination. They supplement each other
and will provide a deeper understanding of such a complex linguistic
phenomenon as meaning.

At
present one more trend in semantic theory initiated by foreign
linguists W.Chafe, Ch.Fillmore, J.Lakoff, R.Jackendoff, R.Langacker
and others is being developed within the cognitive linguistic theory
which got the name of theory
of prototypes.
It proceeds from the cognitive function of the language. Language
is a very important instrument of human cognition with the help of
which people get knowledge of the world and fix the new facts they
learn in the language. Linguistic categories are conceptual
categories of cognition. The interpretation of semantic phenomena is
based on the sense underlying the word meaning which comes to light
in the course of human experience and is important for distinguishing
one object from another.

The
word meaning in the cognitive approach is treated as the prototype
of the object it refers to. This understanding of word meaning
proceeds from human experience and perception of the reality and
tends to reflect the peculiarities of human cognition of the world.
The prototype of the object is formed in the course of observations
and experiments when a human being discovers certain cognitive, or
prototypical features of objects which distinguish this object from
others and make up its prototype. For example, in order to
distinguish fish
from
other living creatures one must know that the fish are animals living
in water having gills and fins, etc. – these are the prototypical
features of the object which got the name of fish.
This theory differs from other semantic theories inasmuch as it takes
into account the human factor in the processes of cognition and the
language.

1. Types
   of Meaning

Word
meaning is not homogeneous but is made of various components, the
combination and interrelation of which determine to a great extent
the inner facet of the word. These components are described as types
of meaning. The two main types of meaning are lexical
and
grammatical.
In actual speech words impart simultaneously two main types of
information: the information of the referent or concept the word
relates to, and the information relevant for the word’s proper
functioning in speech. The word cats,
for instance, used in the sentence They
have two cats expresses
two kinds of meaning — the lexical one, denoting a certain kind of
animal, and the grammatical one, denoting plurality.

The
component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit,
recurrent in all the forms of this word is described as its lexical
meaning. This meaning serves to differentiate lexemes and it remains
unchanged throughout the paradigm of the word (e.g. cat, cat’s,
cats, cats’).

The
grammatical meaning is defined as the component of meaning recurrent
in identical sets of individual forms of different words [Ginzburg
1979:18]. Grammatical meaning is the meaning proper to grammatical
classes or categories of words which embrace sets of word-forms
common to all words of a certain class. For instance, the grammatical
meaning of plurality can be expressed in the forms of various words
irrespective of their lexical meaning:
boys, books, cats,
children,
etc.; the tense meaning by asked,
thought, walked, etc.

Сomparing
lexical and grammatical meanings one cannot fail to notice that the
lexical meaning is concrete and individual, sometimes it is called
the material meaning of the word, while the grammatical meaning is
much more abstract and generalized. The grammatical classes of words
are singled out not only on the basis of the grammatical meaning but
also certain formal features, e.g. the inflection —s
for
the plural of nouns, —ed
for
the Past Indefinite Tense. That’s why it is also called formal, or
structural. However, it is not quite correct to say that the lexical
meaning is only concrete and individual. The word through its lexical
meaning also performs a generalizing function, as it nominates not
only a particular individual object when used in a speech situation,
but a class of objects as in the above-mentioned example, the word
house
in
its lexical meaning
‘a place for human habitation’ is
generalization from any particular building where people live.
However, this generalization is of lower level compared with the
generalizing power of the grammatical meaning which embraces not one
class of objects.

Both
the lexical and the grammatical meanings make up the word meaning as
neither can exist without the other. Both of these meanings are
formed simultaneously in the process of nomination. The object not
only gets its name in the process of nomination but also is referred
to a certain grammatical class. For example, a relatively new word
computer
imparts
the information of the individual meaning of the word ‘electronic
machine which calculates and keeps information automatically’ but
also the meaning of substantivity, ‘thingness’ which refers the
word to the class of nouns.

Lexemes
are classified into major (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) and
minor (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, particles) word classes
known as parts of speech. Classes of lexemes possess the
part-of-speech
meaning
which includes lexical and grammatical components of meaning. A
lexical component of part-of-speech meaning is very abstract and it
is the component of meaning common to all the lexemes of the given
part of speech. For instance, the part-of-speech meaning of nouns is
‘thingness’ or ‘substantivity’, adjectives — ‘quality’,
verbs — ‘processes’. The grammatical aspect of the part-of-speech
meaning is conveyed by a set of forms. If the lexeme is a noun, it is
bound to possess a set of forms expressing the grammatical meaning of
number (joy-joys),
case (boy,
boy’s).
A verb possesses grammatical meanings of tense, aspect, etc.

The
interrelation of the grammatical and lexical meanings and the role
each of them plays varies in different word classes and even in
different groups of words within the same class. In minor word
classes (articles, pronouns, conjunctions, etc.) grammatical meaning
is prominent. The lexical meaning of prepositions may be
comparatively distinct (in,
on, under the table).
In verbs the lexical meaning usually comes to the fore, although in
some of them (to
be, to have)
the grammatical meaning of a linking element prevails.

Lexical
meaning is not homogeneous. It is characterized by complexity which
is stipulated by the complexity of the nomination processes and the
multifarious character of communication.

The
basis of the lexical meaning is the word’s reference, the ability
of the word to be used for denoting the objects and phenomena of
reality and also the objects and phenomena of cognition (thinking)
[Беляевская
1987: 45]. The word’s reference forms its material content. The
content of the word includes the denotational (denotative)
and
significative
aspects
(components) of meaning. Distinguishing of these aspects proceeds
from understanding the word as a linguistic sign in the referential
approach to meaning.

The
word possesses the denotational
aspect
of meaning as it denotes things, phenomena, etc. It points at the
word’s connection with the object or phenomenon of the reality. The
denotational meaning makes communication possible. People understand
each other’s speech because they know what words denote, i.e. their
denotational meanings. The denotational component of meaning in most
cases underlies dictionary definitions of words. For example, the
denotational aspect of the word table
reflects the features of the object of a certain type and having
certain functions. The referent of the word table
represents a particular class of objects. The prominent features and
functions of the object are reflected in its definition: ‘piece of
furniture consisting of a flat top with (usu. four) supports (called
legs)’ (ALD).

The
significative
aspect
of the lexical meaning of the word is the conceptual content of the
word, its ability to reflect the corresponding concept underlying the
word’s meaning. While investigating the lexical meaning which is
formed in the process of nomination, it is important to determine the
correlation between denotation and signification. The investigation
of language material proves that here there are certain
possibilities: the denotatum might come close to the concept,
embracing the most significant features of the class of the objects
or be much narrower than the concept [Беляевская
1987: 46]. There is an opposition between what the word signifies and
what it denotes. “Signifying”, the word reflects the most common
features (the concept) of the object named; “denoting”, the word
fixes certain particular features of the object and it is related to
the referent through denotation.

For
instance, the English verb
to sit
is related to the concept of occupying a certain position in space
(the significative
aspect
of the lexical meaning) but it denotes the position occupied only by
people and some animals
(the
denotational aspect of meaning), unlike the Russian сидеть.
Cf. Rus. : Пчела
сидит
на
ветке.
Пирог
сидит
в
печи,
which is rendered in English by the verb to
be:
The
bee is on a twig. The pie is in the oven.

Along
with the denotational and significative aspects of lexical meaning
some words possess connotational and pragmatic aspects. Connotation
is
an additional component of meaning which contains information of the
speaker’s emotional-evaluative attitude to things and phenomena
(the emotive charge). The connotational component may be found in
certain words along with the denotational one.

The
emotive
charge
is one of the objective semantic features proper to words. There
exist words containing positive or negative emotive evaluation.
Comparing synonyms well-known
– famous – notorious we
observe that the word famous
possesses
a positive connotation, meaning someone who is ‘well-known for some
good deeds or achievement’, while the word notorious
‘well
known for doing sth. bad’ is marked by negative
emotional-evaluative connotation. Thus, these three words have one
and the same denotational component of meaning but differ in their
connotations.

The
connotational component of meaning includes such parameters as
emotiveness, evaluation, intensity which in actual use are closely
interwoven.

Emotiveness
as a component of the connotational meaning presents the information
of the emotional attitude to things or phenomena fixed up in the word
meaning. Besides the above example of the synonyms, the emotive
component can be found in the meanings of the words garish,
showy.
The denotational component of the lexical meaning of garish
is ‘bright’. However, brightness implied by the word garish
is
unpleasant to eye, and this emotive connotation is fixed in the
word’s dictionary definition ‘unpleasantly bright’, e.g. garish
light,
garish
colours
‘over-coloured’, garish
clothes
‘over-coloured
or over-decorated’. Hence, the meaning of the word garish
besides its denotational component contains a negative connotation.
The word striking
is marked by the positive emotive charge and is defined as ‘arousing
great interest, drawing the attention, esp. because of being
attractive or unusual’.

The
evaluative
component of connotation fixes in the lexical meaning of the word the
information of positive or negative attitude (approval or
disapproval) to objects or phenomena. Evaluation is subdivided into
intellectual (logical) and emotional.

Positive
intellectual evaluation is found in such words as hero,
prodigy,
to succeed etc.
For example, in the definition of the word prodigy
‘person
who has unusual
or remarkable
abilities or who is a remarkable
example of sth.’ the italicized words are the components of meaning
which express the positive intellectual evaluation. Negative
intellectual evaluation is contained in the words like
thief, liar, to deceive, to intrude, etc. For
example, to
deceive –
cause (sb.) to believe sth. that is false.

Emotional
evaluation also expresses positive or negative attitude to the object
but in this case, however, the attitude is based not on the logical
categories but emotions which are caused by the object, process or
phenomenon which the word denotes. Emotional evaluation is contained
in the meanings of the words to
whine
‘make a high
sad
sound’, a
smirk
‘silly
proud smile’, to
beam
‘(fig) smile happily,
cheerfully’.

The
emotive and evaluative components are so closely interwoven that
sometimes it is rather difficult to differentiate them, so in most
cases they are referred to as emotive-evaluative components.

By
the same token the emotive and evaluative components are closely
interwoven with the component of intensity
which
is another component of the connotational meaning. Intensity can be
defined as the connotational component which denotes the measure of
size, strength or depth of certain qualities of the object. It is
present, for instance, in the words enormous,
gigantic, huge as
compared to words big,
large
where we observe different intensity of the quality ‘large’. Also
comparing small
and little
with
tiny
and minute
we observe different intensity of smallness. The interrelations of
emotiveness and intensity can be traced in the set of words: to
like, to love, to adore, to worship.

The
pragmatic
value of the word contains information of the participants and
conditions of the speech situation which is also an additional
component to the denotational meaning. For instance, the lexical
meaning of the word contains information of whether the word belongs
to neutral, formal, informal registers or styles of the language;
also to slang, jargon, poetic, archaic words – that is the
stylistic
reference
of the word. Compare words child
(neutral),
kid
(informal),
infant
(formal).
The status of participants of a speech situation is identified by the
words they use. Certain words used by the speaker might point to
his/her territorial appurtenance. For instance, if someone uses words
subway,
candy, elevator,
he/she uses words belonging to American English and might be an
American, contrary to British English underground,
sweets, lift used
by the British. Here also belong dialectal words, e.g. bonny
‘pretty’,
wee ‘small’,
lass ‘girl’

used by those speaking the Scotch dialect.

The
pragmatic aspect of the lexical meaning includes information of the
role a speaker plays in particular speech situations which occur in
the course of various contacts and interrelations of the
communicators, such as friendly, informal, formal, the relations
which reflect attitudes of people to each other: respect, politeness,
subordination, etc. For instance, hi
and
hello
belong
to the formal register and signalize of friendly relations between
the communicators.

The
information of the communicators relating to the pragmatic aspect of
the word meaning may also concern the so-called stratificational
status of the communicators: age (a little child would call his
mother mummy;
a teenager mum,
mom),
gender (e.g. the exclamations Lovely!
Terrific! Admirable!
are more often used by women), education, social status.

And
finally, one more constituent of the pragmatic aspect points to the
professional sphere the speaker belongs to. If he uses such words as
e.g. larceny
‘an act of stealing’, to
indict ‘to
accuse’, he might be a lawyer, or the one using words like neutron,
positron, etc.
might be a physicist.

The
components of the pragmatic aspect are also closely related as is the
case of other components of the connotational meaning, and in the
majority of cases combinations of various pragmatic factors are
observed in the meaning of one and the same lexeme. All the aspects
of the lexical meaning of the word are interconnected and might be
singled out only for descriptive purposes. They make up a single
structure, which determines the systematic and functional properties
of the word.

1. Causes,
   types and results of semantic change.

Word-meaning
is liable to change in the course of the historical evolution of the
language. Changes of lexical meaning are determined by diachronic
semantic analyses of many commonly used English words. Thus the word
silly
(OE
sælig) meant ‘happy’, the word glad
(OE
glæd) had the meaning of ‘bright, shining’, etc. Polysemy is the
result of semantic change, when new LSVs emerge on the basis of
already existing ones according to certain patterns of semantic
derivation.

It
is necessary to discriminate between the causes, the nature and the
results of semantic change. Discussing the causes
of
semantic change we attempt to find out why the word changed its
meaning. The factors accounting for semantic changes are of two
kinds: a) extra-linguistic and b) linguistic causes. By
extra-linguistic
causes are meant changes in the life of a speech community, various
spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings.
Historical, economic, political, cultural, technological, etc.
changes result in either appearance of new objects which require new
names or the existing objects undergo changes to such an extent that
it causes semantic changes. Although objects, concepts, institutions,
etc. change in the course of time, in many cases the sound form of
the word is retained. The word car
from
Latin carrus
which meant ‘a four-wheeled wagon’ now denotes ‘a motor-car’
and ‘a railway carriage’. The meaning of the word ship
(OE scip) also considerably changed from the primary ‘vessel with
bowsprit and three, four or five square-rigged masts’ to modern
‘any sea-going vessel of considerable size’ and ‘spacecraft’.

Social
factors play a very important part in semantic change, especially
when the words become jargonisms and professionalisms, i.e. used by
certain social or professional groups. Each group uses its own
denominations, and in consequence words acquire new content, new LSVs
emerge, developing the words’ polysemy. Such are the polysemantic
lexemes ring
and pipe.
The
lexeme ring
developed such professionalisms as ‘circular enclosure of space for
circus-riding’, ‘concentric circles of wood when the trunk is cut
across’, ‘space for the showing of cattle, dogs, etc (at farming
exhibitions, etc) and others; pipe
‘musical wind instrument’, geol. cylindrical vein of ore, ‘cask
for wine, esp. as measure’ and others.

To
linguistic
causes
of semantic change refer changes of meaning due to factors acting
within the language system. They are as follows: a) ellipsis:
in a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its
meaning is transferred to another, e.g. the meaning of the word daily
was
habitually used in collocation with the word newspaper.
Later
the noun
newspaper
was omitted and the adjective daily
acquired
the meaning of the whole phrase ‘daily
newspaper’;
b) discrimination
of synonyms:
when a new word is borrowed or coined in the language, it sometimes
influences meanings of its synonyms, e.g. the Old English word hlaf
which
had the meaning of modern bread
changed
its meaning under the influence of the word bread,
and
now the OE hlaf
is
loaf
which means ‘mass of bread cooked as a separate quantity’; the
word fowl
(OE fugol) had the meaning of modern bird
but
under the influence of its synonym bird
[OE
brid
‘young
bird’] the word fowl
developed a new LSV ‘domestic cock or hen’;
c)
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
meaning too, for instance, verbs synonymous with catch,
e.g.
grasp,
get,
etc. acquired another meaning — ‘to understand’ [Ginzburg 1979:
29].

Change
of meaning presupposes using the existing name of a certain
particular object for nominating another object. Such processes
lately have got the name of secondary nomination. The processes of
secondary nomination are also called transference of meaning, though
it is more correct to speak of the transference of names and emerging
of new meanings.

Changes
in meaning become possible because there is a certain connection,
association between the old meaning and the new or the two objects
(referents) involved in the processes of nomination. Associations of
meanings reflect our perception and understanding of things. There
are two main types of association involved in semantic change:
similarity of meanings and contiguity of meanings.

1. A
   very productive type of semantic change is metaphor
   which
   is based on similarity of meanings. This
   is
   a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in
   some ways resembles the other. Similarity of meaning may be based on
   different aspects of objects: similarity of their forms — the
   nose of a kettle, the bridge of the nose, the lip of a crater, the
   eye of a potato;
   similarity
   of position in space — the
   leg of the table, the foot of the hill, the mouth of a river, etc.
   In
   many languages there are regular patterns which serve as basis for
   metaphoric transference. The above examples illustrate the most
   obvious pattern of transfer of terms for parts of the human body to
   external objects in nature. Another obvious pattern is the case when
   names of animals through metaphoric transference are used to give
   names to people whose behaviour resembles that of animals, e.g. cat
   – (fig.)
   an excitable woman,
   goose –
   simpleton,
   cow –
   awkward woman,
   cuckoo –
   crazy person, chicken
   –
   coward
   etc.
   

A
subtype of metaphoric transferences is the so-called
synesthesia.
Synesthetic transferences are based on similarities of the physical
and emotional perception of two objects. Adjectives denoting physical
properties (temperature, light, size, taste, etc.) come to denote
emotional or intellectual properties: a
sharp smell,
a
warm feeling, a cold reception, a sharp pain, soft music,
a
bright idea, etc.
Within
verbs synesthetic transferences are observed in lexemes denoting
physical qualities which come to denote emotions and intellectual
activity: to
grate ‘have
an irritating effect’, to
rasp on one’s nerves ‘to
annoy’,
to crack a code ‘to
decipher a code’,
to smash a theory ‘to
disprove a theory’.

1. The
   above examples in no way exhaust all the multitude of metaphoric
   transferences, which result in appearance of many new LSVs in
   polysemantic lexemes. The role of metaphor is extremely important in
   the processes of cognition and nomination. In their book “Metaphors
   We Live By” [Lakoff, Johnson 1980] the authors contend that
   metaphor is not only a language phenomenon but also a daily
   conceptual reality when we are thinking about one sphere in the
   terms of another one. Based on similarity of objects, metaphor is
   closely linked with man’s cognitive activity, as it presupposes
   cognition through comparing objects.

Metonymy
or contiguity of meanings
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. There are various patterns of metonymy based on
spatial, temporal relations, relations of cause and result.

1. There
   are distinguished certain patterns of metonymic transferences. Thus,
   to examples of metonymy based on spatial
   relations belongs the pattern when people or objects placed in the
   proximity of some other object, on or within the object get the name
   of that object. In the sentence Keep
   the table amused,
   the word table
   denotes
   people sitting around the table. In the example The
   hall applauded people
   got the name hall
   according
   to their location inside the hall at the moment. This pattern of
   spatial relations can be described as the relations between ‘the
   container and the thing contained’.

1. In
   the semantic structure of the lexeme
   school we
   find the following LSVs: school
   — 1) institution for educating children; 2) process of being
   educated in a school: Is he old enough for school?;
   3) time when teaching is given, lessons: School
   begins at 9 a.m.; 4) all the pupils in a school: The whole school
   was present at the football match. LSVs 2 and 3 express metonymic
   transferences based on temporal
   relations, LSV4 – those based on spatial relations.

To
regular patterns of metonymic transferences also refer instrumental
relations: the lexeme tongue
‘the organ of speech’ developed the meaning ‘language’: e.g.
‘mother tongue’,
because tongue is an instrument which produces speech; the relations
between the
material and the thing made of this material:
silver,
bronze,
e.g. ‘table silver:
spoons, forks, teapots, dishes’; ‘the
quality – the subject of this quality’:
beauty
— 1) combination of qualities that give pleasure to the senses; 2)
person, thing, feature that is beautiful: Isn’t she a
beauty!;
talent
— 1) special, aptitude, faculty, gift; 2) persons of talent; ‘action
– the agent of the action’:
support
as a noun: 1) supporting or being supported; 2) sb. or sth. that
supports;
and
some other patterns.

1. A
   variety of metonymy is synechdoche,
   that is the transference of meaning from part to whole, e.g. the
   case when the nouns denoting the parts of human body come to denote
   human beings, as the word hand
   meaning
   ‘a
   workman’ (Hands
   wanted)
   and ‘a sailor’ (All hands
   on deck!), the word head
   meaning
   cattle
   (a
   hundred head
   of cattle) and others.

The
diachronic approach to the word meaning makes it possible to point
out the results of semantic change. Results
of semantic change can
be observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word
and also its connotational component.

Changes
in the denotational
meaning may
result in either restriction or extension of meaning. Restriction
or
narrowing
of
meaning
is
transference
of meaning from a wider, more general meaning to a narrower one: the
modern verb
to starve
‘suffer or die of hunger’ in Old English meant ‘to die’,
disease
‘illness’ previously had the meaning ‘discomfort of any kind’,
Restriction of meaning can be also illustrated by the example deer
(Old
English deor) which previously denoted ‘any animal’ and now it
denotes ‘(kind of) graceful, quick-running animal, the male of
which has horns’. This is also the case with the word fowl
which
in Old English denoted ‘any bird’ but in Modern English denotes
‘a domestic hen or rooster’. The word meat,
which is today limited to ‘flesh food’ originally meant food in
general, as is indicated in the archaic phrase meat
and drink ‘food
and drink’.

If
the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized
vocabulary, it is usual to speak of specialization
of meaning.
For instance we can observe restriction and specialization in the
verb to
glide which
had the meaning ‘to move gently and smoothly’ and has now
acquired a restricted and specialized meaning ‘to fly with no
engine’.

Changes
in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the
word to a wider variety of referents. This is described as extension
of meaning and
may be illustrated by the word target
which
originally meant ‘a small round shield’ but now means ‘anything
that is fired at’ and also ‘any result aimed at’. The word to
help previously
meant ‘to treat, to cure’, it has undergone extension of meaning,
at present it means ‘do sth. for the benefit of’. If the word
with the extended meaning passes from the specialized vocabulary into
common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the
generalization
of meaning.
“Numerous examples of this process have occurred in the religious
field, where office,
doctrine, novice and
many other terms have taken on a more general, secular range of
meanings” (Crystal, p.138). Here also belong such examples as the
word camp
previously
belonging to military terms which at present denotes ‘place where
people live in tents or huts for a time’.

To
semantic change based on extension also refers desemantization
[Гак
1977: 32 — 34], that is weakening of the lexical meaning of the word
and its grammaticalization. Many verbs of motion lost their meaning
‘manner of moving’ in such examples as to
run a risk, to fall into disuse, to fly into a temper, to come to a
conclusion. In
word combinations like to
keep alive, to grow angry,
etc. the first components keep,
grow have
undergone desemantization.

Changes
in the denotational component of meaning can be accompanied by
changes in the connotational component of meaning which include: a)
pejorative
development or
the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge, e.g.
the word silly
originally
denoted ‘happy, blessed’ and then gradually it acquired
a
derogatory meaning ‘foolish, weak-minded’; Modern English villain
‘wicked
man’ in Middle English neutrally described a serf; b) ameliorative
development
or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning, e.g.
minister
which
in one of its meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an
attendant’, but now — ‘a civil servant of higher rank, a person
administering a department of state’; angel
initially having the meaning ‘a messenger’ developed positive
connotational semes ‘lovely, innocent, kind, thoughtful’.

Sure
enough, not every word changed its meaning in the course of history
of the language. But the diachronic analysis of various types of
semantic changes proves that the lexical meaning is one of the most
dynamic, changeable elements of the language system, its flexibility
is conditioned by the necessity to adequately reflect the constantly
changing world.

1. Synonymy

Lexical
units may be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and
semantic contrasts. Such lexemes are either synonyms or antonyms.
Synonyms
(Greek
‘same’ + ‘name’) are traditionally defined as words similar
or equivalent (identical) in meanings. This definition is open to
criticism and requires clarification. Synonymy, as D.N. Shmelyov puts
it, begins with total identity of word meanings of lexemes relating
to one and the same object, and passes through various gradations of
semantic affinity to expressing differences in lexical meanings, so
that it is difficult to decide whether the words similar in meanings
are synonyms or not.

Investigating
the problems of synonymy Yu.D.Apresyan considers that the objective
difficulties in analysing synonyms stem from the fact that the
existing criteria are not sufficient to distinguish synonyms [Апресян
1957: 85].

Linguists
point out two main criteria
of synonymy: 1) equivalence or similarity of meaning (e.g.
pleasure, delight, joy, enjoyment, merriment, hilarity, mirth);
2) interchangeability in a number of contexts, e.g. I’m
thankful (grateful) to
you.
It is a hard
(difficult)
problem.

However,
these criteria are not reliable enough for distinguishing synonyms.
First of all it is not clear what degree of similarity is sufficient
to determine synonymy. Secondly, one should distinguish both identity
and similarity of referents and meanings. One and the same referent
might be identified by words which are not synonyms (e.g. оne
and the same person can be named mother,
wife,
daughter,
doctor,
etc).

It
should be noted concerning the criterion of interchangeability that
there is little number of lexemes interchangeable in all the
contexts. Words broad
and
wide
are very close in meaning, but they cannot substitute each other in a
number of contexts, e.g. in the contexts
broad daylight, broad accent the
substitution of
broad by
wide is
impossible.
It
is difficult to say how many interchangeable contexts are enough to
speak of synonymy.

L.M.
Vasilyev writes that synonyms are identified according to their
lexical meaning and all their denotational grammatical meanings
excluding syntactical meanings; synonyms might differ in other
components of their content: conceptual, expressive, stylistic
[Васильев
1967].

D.N.Shmelyov
gives the following definition of synonyms: “Synonyms may be
defined as words belonging to the same part of speech, their meanings
have identical components, and differing components of their meanings
steadily neutralize in certain positions, i.e. synonyms are words
which differ only in such components which are insignificant in
certain contexts of their usage” [Шмелев
1977: 196].

N.Webster’
definition is close to the previous one: “in the narrowest sense a
synonym may be defined as a word that affirms exactly the meaning of
a word with which it is synonymous… Words are considered to be
synonyms if in one or more of their senses they are interchangeable
without significant alteration of denotation but not necessarily
without shifts in peripheral aspects of meaning (as connotations and
implications)” [Webster, 1973].

It
is erroneous to speak of synonymy of words or lexemes as such, as
this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words.
Each meaning (LSV) of a polysemantic word has its own synonymic set,
for example, LSV1 of the word party
is synonymous with words gathering,
social, fun: ‘Are you coming to our party?’; LSV
2 is synonymous with group,
company, crowd: ‘A party of tourists saw the sights of London’;
LSV 3 is synonymous with block,
faction, body, organization: You don’t have to join a political
party to vote in an election.

Secondly,
if we take into account that lexical meaning falls into denotational
and connotational components, it follows that we cannot speak of
similarity or equivalence of these two components of meanings. It is
only the denotational component may be described as identical or
similar. If we analyse words that are considered synonyms, e.g. to
leave (neutral) and
to desert (formal or poetic) or
insane (formal) and
loony (informal), 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. Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations
the compilers of the book “A Course in Modern English Lexicology”
R.S.Ginzburg and others formulate the definition of synonyms as
follows: “synonyms are words different in sound form but similar in
their denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least
in some contexts [p.58].”

Differentiation
of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components —
denotational and connotational. Linguists (W.E.Collinson, D.Crystal,
Yu.D.Apresyan) point out differences in the denotational component,
e.g. one word has a more general meaning than another: to
refuse, to reject; differences
in the connotational component, e.g. one word is more emotional than
another: youth
and
youngster
are
both synonyms but youths are less pleasant than youngsters, or one
word is more intense than another, e.g. to
repudiate vs.
to
reject, one
word contains evaluative connotation: stringy,
niggard
(negative
– ‘mean, spending, using or giving unwillingly; miserly’) while
the other is neutral: economical,
thrifty. Differences
in connotational meaning also include stylistic differences: one word
is formal, e.g. parent
while
another is neutral father
or
informal dad;
there
may be a dialect difference: butcher
and
flesher
(Scots)
Synonyms
differ in collocation: rancid
and rotten
are
synonyms, but the former is used only of butter
or
bacon
while
the latter collocates with a great number of nouns, and frequency of
occurrence: turn
down is
more frequently used than refuse.

It
should be noted that the difference in denotational meaning cannot
exceed certain limits. There must be a certain common or integral
component of denotational meaning in a synonymic set. Componential
analysis of word meaning enables linguists to distinguish integral
and differential components of synonymous words. Differential
components show what synonyms differ in, if compared with one
another. For instance, synonyms: to
leave, to abandon, to desert, to forsake have
an integral component
‘to go away’.
The verb to
abandon is
marked by a differential component ‘not intending to return’, to
desert
(informal or poetic) means ‘leaving without help or support,
especially in a wrong or cruel way’, to
forsake presupposes
‘irrevocable breaking away from some place, people, habits, etc.,
severing all emotional and intellectual contacts’. There is a great
variety of differential components. They denote various properties,
qualities of nominated objects; they express positive and negative
evaluation.

Academician
V.V.Vinogradov worked out the follow classification
of synonyms which is based on differences between synonyms:

1)
ideographic
synonyms
which differ to some extent in the denotational meaning and
collocation, e.g. both to
understand and
to
realize refer
to the same notion but the former reflects a more concrete situation:
to
understand sb’s words
but to
realize one’s error.
Ideographic synonyms belong to one and the same, usually neutral
stylistic layer.

2)
stylistic
synonyms
— words similar or identical in meaning but referring to different
stylistic layers, e.g. to
expire
(formal)
— to die
(neutral)
— to kick the bucket
(informal, slang).

3)
absolute
(complete)
synonyms
are identical in meaning and interchangeable in all the contexts.
T.I.Arbekova gives the following examples of perfect synonyms: car
—
automobile, jail — gaol — prison, to begin — to start, to finish — to
end [Арбекова
1977: 22]. There is much controversy on the issue of existence of
absolute synonyms. The above and other examples seem to be complete
synonyms only at a first superficial glance. A more profound analysis
proves that such examples differ in certain connotations and
collocability. It is assumed that close to absolute synonyms are
terms, e.g. fricative
and
spirants
as
terms denoting one and the same type of consonants in phonology.
However this understanding is also open to criticism [Arnold 1973].

This
classification was subject to alterations and additions. Thus,
V.A.Zvegintsev considers that there are no non-stylistic synonyms,
but there are synonyms stylistically homogeneous (ideographic) and
stylistically heterogeneous (stylistic). According to this point of
view ideographic synonyms are pairs like excellent
— splendid and
stunning
— topping
(colloq. splendid, ravishing) because they are stylistically
homogeneous : the first pair are stylistically neutral synonyms,
while the second pair are stylistically coloured; if the above words
are put together into one synonymic set, they will be stylistic
synonyms.

V.A.Zvegintsev
considers that the synonymic set face
– countenance – mug – puss – smacker (cf.
Rus. лицо
– лик
– морда
– рыло
– харя)
contains stylistic synonyms while the synonyms in the set mug
– puss – smacker (cf.
Rus.
морда
– рыло
– харя)
are ideographic, because the first set contains stylistically
heterogeneous lexemes while the second one includes stylistically
homogeneous lexemes [Звегинцев
1968]; it follows that one and the same lexeme can be a stylistic
synonym in one set of lexemes (face
– mug)
and ideographic in another set (mug
– puss).

According
to the authors of “A Course in Modern English Lexicology” R.S.
Ginzburg and others, V.V.Vinogradov’s classification cannot be
accepted “as synonymous words always differ in the denotational
component irrespective of the identity or difference of stylistic
reference” [Ginzburg 1979:56-57 ]. For instance, though the verbs
see
(neutral) and
behold (formal,
poetic) are usually treated as stylistic synonyms, there could be
also observed a marked difference in their denotational meanings. The
verb behold
suggests
only ‘looking at that which is seen’. The verb see
is
much wider in meaning.

Difference
of the connotational semantic component is invariably accompanied by
some difference of the denotational meaning of synonyms. Hence, it
would be more consistent to subdivide synonymous words into purely
ideographic
(denotational)
and ideographic-stylistic
synonyms.

Synonyms
are also subdivided into traditional
or language
synonyms and
contextual or
speech
synonyms.
Some words which are not traditionally considered synonyms acquire
similarity of meanings in certain contexts due to metaphoric or
metonymic transferences. In the sentence ‘She was
a chatterer, a magpie’
the italicized words are not traditional synonyms but the word magpie
in
this context becomes a synonym to the word chatterer
through a metaphoric transference: a
magpie-(fig)
person who chatters very much.
Also
in the sentence It
was so easy, so simple, so foolproof
words easy,
simple
are traditional language synonyms but
foolproof (tech.
‘so simple that it does not require special technical skills or
knowledge’) is their contextual
synonym.

There
is a special type of synonyms — euphemisms
(Greek
‘sound well’). They come into being for reasons of etiquette with
the purpose of substitution of vulgar, unpleasant, coarse words by
words with milder, more polite connotations. For instance, among
synonyms drunk,
merry, jolly, intoxicated the
last three words
are
euphemisms as they are less offensive than the first one. Euphemisms
in various languages are used to denote such notions as death,
madness, some physiological processes, diseases, crimes, etc.

Examples
of euphemistic synonyms to the verb
die
are:
breathe one’s last, be no more, be gathered to one’s fathers,
deep six, give up the ghost, get one’s ticket punched, go belly up,
go down the tube, go home in a box, go the way of all flesh, go to
one’s last account, go to one’s resting place, go to one’s
long home, go north, go west, go to the wall, head for the hearse,
head for the last roundup, join the (silent) majority, kick off, kick
the bucket, meet one’s maker, meet Mr. Jordan, pay the debt of
nature, pass beyond the veil, quit the scene, shuffle off this mortal
coil, take the ferry, take the last count, turn up one’s toes;
euphemistic
synonyms
to the word
mad: insane, mentally unstable, unbalanced, unhinged, not (quite)
right, not all there, off one’s mind (head, hinges, nut, rocker,
track, trolley), wrong(off) in the upper storey, having bats in one’s
belfry, cracked, cracked-up crackpot, crazy as a bedbug, cuckoo,
cutting out paper dolls, nobody home, lights on but nobody home,
nutty, just plain nuts, nutty as a fruitcake, out of one’s mind
(brain, skull, gourd, tree), loony, head (mental) case, mental
defective, gone ape, minus (missing) some buttons, one sandwich short
of picnic, belt doesn’t go through all the loops, section 8, etc;
euphemisms
synonymous to
lavatory: powder room, washroom, restroom, retiring room, (public)
comfort station, ladies’ (room), gentlemen’s (room),
water-closet, w.c., public conveniences, etc.;, euphemistic
synonyms to
pregnant: in an interesting condition, in a delicate condition, in
the family way, with a baby coming, (big) with child. Looking
through the above list of examples one can’t fail to notice that
euphemisms include items belonging to formal, neutral, informal
registers, even some jocular examples.

Оne
of the sources of euphemisms are religious taboos, i.e. as it is
forbidden to pronounce God’s name, the word God was substituted by
a phonetically similar one goodness:
for
goodness sake! Goodness gracious! Goodness knows!
To religious euphemisms also belong: Jove!
Good Lord! By Gum!
Тhere
is also a taboo concerning the usage of the word devil
instead
of which deuce,
fiend, hellion, the Dickens, Old Nick ( Bendy, Blazes, Clootie, Dad,
Harry, Horny, Ned, Poker, Scratch, Gentleman, Gooseberry) are
used.

The
so-called political correctness “p.c.” has become the source of
euphemisms in recent years in the U.S.A. and Canada. It is considered
politically incorrect to use the word poor
instead of which
socially underprivileged
is used. One should not use words Negroes
or
blacks
but Afro-Americans
or Afro-Canadians,
not Red
Indians but
native
Americans. Instead
of invalids
one
should say special
needs people, pensioners turned
into senior
citizens, etc.

1. Synonyms
   constitute synonymic
   sets,
   which include a certain number of synonymous lexemes with a dominant
   word. A
   synonymic dominant is
   a word which represents the integral (invariant) meaning, i.e. the
   component of meaning common to all the lexemes of a particular
   synonymic set. Such words are usually stylistically neutral; they
   have high frequency of occurrence and mostly belong to native
   English words. The presentation of a synonymic set usually starts
   with a synonymic dominant: hate,
   loathe,
   detest, despise, abominate, abhor.
   While defining the word’s meaning we usually compare it with the
   synonymic dominant and only then with other synonyms, e.g. detest
   – hate
   strongly (ALD).
   

The
English language is very rich in synonyms. It can be partially
explained by intensive borrowing of words from many languages:
French, Latin, Greek and others. For instance in the synonymic set
with the dominant hate
only two lexemes hate
and
loathe
are native English words, others are borrowings from Latin and
French. Due to borrowings from these languages there appeared certain
synonymic patterns. For instance, a double-scale pattern, where one
of the synonyms is a native English word, and another is a Latin
borrowing: motherly-maternal,
fatherly — paternal, brotherly — fraternal, heavenly — celestial,
world -universe, etc.;
a triple-scale pattern, where one word is native English, the second
one is a French borrowing and the third is borrowed from Latin or
Greek: begin
— commence — initiate, end — finish — conclude, ask — question —
interrogate, etc.
In such patterns the first word is stylistically neutral and has a
high frequency of usage while others are more formal.

1. Antonymy

The
traditional definition of antonyms as lexemes opposite in meaning
sounds straightforward and needs clarification. To antonyms belong
such pairs of lexemes as love
/ hate, early /late, unknown / known,
etc. The word ‘opposite’ presupposes quite a variety of semantic
contrasts: polarity, exclusion, negation of one concept by another,
etc. Cf.: kind/cruel
where
the opposition expresses contradictory notions and kind/unkind
where
the opposition expresses negation, i.e. unkind
means
the same as not
kind.
Hence, antonyms are lexemes characterized by various kinds of
contrasts in their denotational meaning. Antonymy refers to very
important semantic relations which form a simple type of structure –
contrastive multitude [Харитончик
1992: 105].

Different
kinds of contrast make it possible to present a semantic
classification of antonyms and point out the following types of
antonyms:

1.
Contradictory
antonyms.
Here belong such opposites as single/married,
first/last, dead/alive,
true
/ false, perfect / imperfect,
etc.
To use one lexeme of the pair is to contradict the other: to be
alive
is not
to be dead;
to be single
is not
to
be married;
to use not
before
one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other. The
affirmation of one lexeme of the pair implies the negation of the
other. When we state that John
is single we
imply that John
is not married.
D.Crystal calls such antonyms complementary
[Crystal 1995:165]. The items complement each other in their
meanings.

2.
Contraries,
which
are also called gradable
antonyms
[Crystal 1995:165]. These are opposites, such as large/small,
happy/sad, wet/dry, cold/hot, young/old, etc.
These are items (adjectives) capable of comparison; they do not refer
to absolute qualities. We can say that something is very
wet or
quite
dry, or
wetter
or
drier than
something else. It is as if there is a scale of wetness/dryness, with
wet
at
one end and dry
at the other. Such antonyms presuppose a certain starting point or
norm in regard to which a certain degree of quality is ascertained.
Adjectives like big/small,
old/young,
allow different interpretation depending on what object is meant.
Compare for instance a
small elephant and
a
big mouse.
Each object has its norm of size: the smallest elephant is bigger
than the biggest mouse. The negation of a certain quality in case of
contraries does not imply the opposite quality: ‘our town is
not big’
does not mean ‘our town is small’.

1. Contraries
   unlike contradictories admit possibilities between them. This is
   observed in pairs like cold/hot
   where extreme opposite qualities are expressed. Intermediate members
   make up pairs cold/warm,
   hot/cool,
   warm/cool.
   Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or presence
   of one of the components of meaning like sex or age: man
   / woman, man / boy, boy / girl.

3.
Incompatibles.
Semantic relations of incompatibility exist among antonyms with the
common component of meaning and may be described as relation of
exclusion but not of contradiction. A set оf
words with the common component ‘part of the day’: morning,
evening, day, night, afternoon
may constitute antonymous pairs based on exclusion: morning/evening,
day/night,
morning/night,
etc. To say morning
is
to say not
afternoon, not evening, not night. The
negation of this set does not imply semantic equivalence with the
other but excludes the possibility of the other words of this set.
Relations of incompatibility are also observed between colour terms.
Thus black/white
exclude red,
green, blue,
etc.

4.
Conversives
or
converse
terms
are
antonyms denoting one and the same referent viewed from different
points of view.
This
type of oppositeness, where one item presupposes the other, is
called converseness. Here belong verbs buy/sell,
give/receive,
cause/suffer,
win/lose;
nouns:
teacher/student,
doctor/patient,
husband/wife,
parent/child.
These antonyms are mutually dependent on each other. There cannot be
a wife without a husband. We cannot buy something without something
being sold. Close to conversives are antonyms denoting reverse
actions: tie
/ untie, wind / unwind.

5.Vectorial

are antonyms such as over/under,
inside/outside,
North/South,
East/West
which denote oppositeness of directions referring to spatial
relations, actions. Here belong verbs like come/leave,
arrive/depart
and also those denoting relations of cause and effect: learn
/ know, know / forget.

It
is obvious that not every lexeme has an antonym. A vast majority of
lexemes in the language have no opposites at all. It does not make
sense to ask ‘What is the opposite of rainbow? Or of chemistry? Or
of sandwich?’ Most antonyms are adjectives which is only natural
because qualitative characteristics are easily compared: old
– new, strong – weak, easy – difficult, high – low, etc.

Verbs take the second place, then come nouns and adverbs.

The
other point to note is that we ought to differentiate between
oppositeness of concepts and meanings. For instance, big
and
large
are
very similar in meaning, as are little
and
small,
but the antonym of little
is
big,
and of large
is small.
Large
is not the antonym of little,
even though they are conceptually opposed [Crystal 1995:165].

Antonyms
are also differentiated as to their structure.
The majority of antonyms are the so-called absolute
antonyms
which have different stems: love/hate,
early/late, clever/stupid,
etc. Others formed by adding
derivational
affixes to the stem are
derivational (affixal) antonyms.
The affixes in them serve to deny the quality stated in the stem:
kind/unkind,
moral/amoral, useful/useless.

One
should bear in mind that in case of polysemantic antonyms as well as
synonyms we cannot speak of antonymy of a lexeme as a whole, as
different LSVs have
different
antonyms: thin
1/thick, (a
thin/thick slice of bread), thin
2/fat
(a thin/fat man).

1. Homonymy

Words
identical in their sound form and/or graphic form (spelling) but
different in meaning are traditionally called homonyms,
(Gk. homos
‘similar’ and onoma
‘name’). Cf.: bank1
‘land along each side of a river or canal’ and bank
2 ‘establishment for keeping money and valuables’, write
‘make letters or other symbols on a surface’ and right
‘just, morally good’. Homonymy exists in many languages but
Mоdern
English is exceptionally rich in homonyms. It is presumed that
languages where short words prevail have more homonyms than those
with longer words. O.Jespersen calculated that there are
approximately four times as many monosyllabic as polysyllabic
homonyms. It might be inferred that the abundance of homonyms in
Modern English is accounted for by the monosyllabic structure of
English words.

The
similarity of form in majority of cases is occasional. Homonyms may
hinder understanding the sense of the utterance. It is the lexical
context that discloses meanings of homonymous words. In the following
example several homonyms are used: I
could not bear the sight of the poor bear in the bare forest near the
construction site
‘Я
не
мог
вынести
вида
бедного
медведя
в
оголенном
лесу
возле
строительной
площадки’
(the еxample
is borrowed from [Харитончик,
p.72]). Homоnyms
are: bear
1 ‘endure, tolerate’, bear
2 ‘large, heavy animal with thick fur’, bare
‘without clothing, covering, protection, decoration’, sight
1 ‘sth. seen’, site
2
‘place where a building is or going to be’. However, the cоntеxt
does not always help determine the word meaning. Тhe
example light
blue summer dress
can be translated either as ‘легкое
голубое
летнее
платье’
or ‘светло-голубое
летнее
платье’
because of homonyms light
1
‘not heavy’ and light
2 ‘opposite of darkness’.

Homonyms
are often used in jokes and puns which are based on play on words. In
the example: “Mine
is a long and a sad tale!”
said
the Mouse, turning to Alice, and sighing. “It is a long tail,
certainly,” said Alice, looking down with wonder at the Mouse’s
tail; but why do you call it sad?”(L.Carrol.
Alice in Wonderland) the play on words is based on homonymous nouns:
tale
‘story’ and tail
‘movable part of an animal at the rear of its body’. Also: “What
do you do with the fruit? — “We eat what we can, and what we can’t
we can”,
the pun is based on homonymous verbs can1
‘be able to’ and can 2 ‘preserve food by putting in a
tin-plated airtight container’.

Clаssificаtion
of Homonyms

The
traditional classification of homonyms is based on the formal
criterion of the sound/graphic
form.
Accordingly homonyms are classified into:

1.
Homophones
–
words identical in sound form but different in spelling (graphic
form) and meaning. Examples: son
:: sun, see :: sea, piece :: peace, knight :: night, write :: right,
I :: eye, two :: too :: to.

2.
Homographs
– words
identical in spelling but different in sound form and meaning.
Examples: bow,
v., n. [bau]
‘bending of head or body’,
bow, n. [bou]
‘a
weapon for shooting arrows’,
lead, v.
[li:d] ‘guide’,
lead, n. [led]
‘soft,
heavy, easily melted metal, Rus.
свинец,
tear,
v. [teə]
‘pull
apart by force’,
tear, n. [tiə]
‘drop
of salty water coming from the eye’, row,
n. [rou]
‘line
of benches, people, etc., row,
n. [rau]
‘noisy quarrel’.

3.
Proper
homonyms (full, absolute)
— words identical in sound and graphic form but different meaning.
Besides the above examples bank
1, bank 2 there
are
a
lot of others:
ball 1
‘dancing party’,
ball 2
‘round sphere used in games,
pupil 1 ‘child
at a school’, pupil
2 ‘hole
in the central part of the eye, through which the light passes, seal
1 ‘sea
animal’, seal
2,
n.
‘design
printed on paper by means of a stamp’ seal
3, v.
‘close tightly’,
case 1 ‘box,
container’,
case 2 ‘something
that happens’, etc.

1. By
   the type
   of meaning
   homonyms are classified into lexical, lexico-grammatical and
   grammatical:

1.
Lexical
homonyms
are
words of the same part of speech, differing in their lexical
meanings: bank
1:: bank 2,
ball 1:: ball 2;
piece
::
peace,
knight
::
night,
air :: heir and
many others.

2.
Lexico-grammatical
homonyms
differ
in
lexical and part-of-speech meanings, i.e. they belong to different
parts of speech: sea,
n. :: see, v.,

red, a. :: read, v.,
mean, a. :: mean, v.,

paw, n. :: pour, v. etc.

3.
Grammatical
homonyms
are
word-forms belonging to the same paradigm, differing in their
grammatical meanings. For example, in the paradigm of the noun:
brothers,
pl.
— brother’s,
sing.
possessive case — brothers’,
pl.
possess.
or
in the verb paradigm: to
cut, infinitive
— cut,
past
indefinite

— cut,
past participle.

1. А.I.Smirnitsky
   singled out two big classes of homonyms: I. full
   and
   II.
   partial homonyms
   [1956]. To full homonyms refer words coinciding in all grammar
   forms, i.e. having identical paradigms. It implies that full
   homonyms either belong to the same part of speech as, for instance,
   pupil1
   and pupil
   2: pupil
   — pupil’s — pupils — pupils’,
   or have no paradigms: too
   ::
   too
   ::
   to.

1. Partial
   homonyms
   fall into three subgroups:

1. А.
   Simple
   lexico-grammatical partial homonyms
   are words of the same part of speech. Their paradigms have words
   with identical sound and/or graphic forms (differing in meanings).
   Examples:

(to)
found, v.
(Infinitive)
:: found , v.
(Past Indef., Past Part. of to
find);

(to)
lay, v.
(Infinitive)
:: lay,
v.
(Past
Indef. of
to lie);

(to)
bound, v.
(Infinitive)
:: bound,
v.
(Past
Indef., Past Part.of
to bind).

Б.
Complex
lexico—grammatical
partial homonyms
are words of different parts of speech, having identical sound and/or
graphic forms, differing in meanings:

rose,
n.
:: rose, v.
(Past
Indef., Past Part. of
to rise);

maid,
n.
:: made, v.
(Past
Indef., Past Part. of to
make);

left,
adj.
:: left, v.
(Past
Indef., Past Part.of
to leave);

one,
num.
:: won, v.
(Past
Indef., Past Part. of to
leave).

В.
Partial
lexical homonyms
are
words of the same part of speech, identical in sound and/or graphic
form used in the same grammar form, differing in lexical meanings:

to
lie (lay, lain), v.
‘лежать’
:: to lie (lied, lied), v.,
‘лгать,
обманывать’;

to
hang (hung, hung), v.,
‘висеть’
:: to hang (hanged, hanged), v.,
‘вешать’;

to
can (canned, canned), v.,
‘консервировать’
:: (I) can (could), v.,
‘мочь,
быть
в
состоянии’.

One
should not confuse homonymy
and
polysemy.
In homonyms unlike polysemantic words there are no sematic links
between various lexemes.

Basic problems of lexicology:
Semasiology and semantic classification of words;
Word groups and phraseological units;
Word structure;
Word formation;
Etymological survey of the English vocabulary;
aspects of vocabulary units and ways of
replenishment of Modern English word-stock;
• Variants and dialects of Modern English;
• Fundermentals of the English Lexicography;
• Methods and proceedures of lexicological analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
The word as a basic unit of language
(semasiology)
• The definition of the word is one of the
most difficult questions in Linguistics.
• A word has different aspects: it is
simultaneously a phonological,
grammatical / morphological and
semantic unit.
Jackson and Z. Amvela:
Presented three approaches to a word
definition:
1) Word as a unit made up of letters with
spaces before and after it. But….
(phonograph record = one unit of
meaning);
2) Psycological approach: word is a unit of
thought , but ….phono – graph re-cord.
3) Formal analysis suggested by Bloomfield
in the 1920s does not handle relational
words, (conjunctions, particles,
prepositions, interjactions) and
grammatical morphems very well.
9 facets of the word:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Phonology – the sound form
Orthography a word’s written form
Reference – what the word indicates
Semantics – word meaning
Register – how a word is used appropriately
Collocation – words that go together
• Word association – the network of
mental word links
• Syntax – how a word fits into grammar
• Morphology – the units that make up the
form of a word
Defining «word»
Jackson and Ze Amvela, 2007
«We shall consider a word as an
uninterruptible unit of structure consisting
of one or more morphemes and which
typically occurs in the structure of
phrases».
WORD
• A group of sounds with a grammatical
function. It is a semantic, phonological
and grammatical unit.
• Constantly changing in form and meaning
• Lexicologists study the contrasts and
similarities between words (and phrases)
and how these change over time.
Arthur Meillet:
«The word is the basic unit of a given
language, resulting from the association of
a particular meaning with a particular group
of sounds capable of a particular
grammatical
empolyment».
(how
to
distinguish a word from phrase?)
The word is the smallest unit of a given
language capable of functioning
independently /alone and characterized by
positional mobility within a sentence,
morphological uninterruptability and
semantic integrity.
A word is the smallest communicative unit
of a language, characterized by certain
syntactic distribution/ position in a
sentence, morphological unity and
semantic integrity.
• A word is the largest unit on the
morphological level and the smallest on
the syntactic level of the linguistic
analysis.
• A word is a two-facet unit, possessing a
form and a content (meaning), which is
used ready-made and not created in
speech.
Word as grammatical unity
A word possesses an ability to exist as a
system/unity of all its forms creating its
paradigm and variants: lexical-semantic,
morphological, phonetic and graphic.
PARADIGM
• The system showing a word in all its
word-forms;
• The lexical meaning of a word is the
same throughut its paradigm: give-givesgave-giving,given; ……
Lexical varieties = variants of
words
• A polysemantic word in one of its
meanings in which it is used in speech is
described as a lexiccal-semantic variant
(A.I.Smernitsky):
Lexical-semantic variants of a word:
•
•
•
•
Learn
Learn
Learn
Learn
at school
the news
a language
about something/somebody
variants of a word:
• Often [often]/[ofen] – phonetic
• Birdy/birdie – graphic
• Phonetic/ phonetical – morphological,
(but : historic / historical)
lexeme
Within the language system the word
exists as a system and unity of all its forms
and variants:
to go- went- gone, have gone; good –
better – the best; badly – worse – the
worst.
• In actual speech a polyemantic word is
used in one of its variants.
• A slight change in its morphemic or
phonemic form does not affect its lexical
meaning.
Semantic relations in English
• Polysemy
• Homonymy
POLYSEMY
is a situation when a word has two or more
related meanings: mark (22)
HOMONYMY
• the words have the same form – written
identically and/or sound the same but
have entirely different meanings: bank,
TYPES OF HOMONYNY
• Homographs – bored (бурить)/bored
(скучающий): same spelling, same sound
form but different meaning;
• Homophones – board (доска)/bored
(бурить): same sound form, but the
spelling and meaning are different.
Determine relationships between these
homonyms
• Lead pipe
• Led the troops
• Led Zeppelin
SEMASIOLOGY
A branch of Lexicology devoted to the
study of meaning.
Lexical units: words, morphemes,
phraseological units, word-groups or
phrases – all have form and meaning and
therefore treated by semasiology
WORD-MEANING
• Referential approach seeks to establish
interdependence between words and
objects or notions of the objective reality
they denote.
• Functional approach studies the function
of the word in speech and is less
concerned with what the meaning is
than with how it works.
REFERENTIAL APPROACH
COMPONENTS
• THE SOUND FORM OF THE LINGUISTIC
SIGN
• THE CONCEPT
• THE ACTUAL REFERENT (belongs to
the actual reality)
• The meaning is in some form or other
connected with the referent.
Conventional and arbitrary
nature
• [kot] = cot / кот / cod
• Seal [si:l] = a sea animal / a piece of
wax = homonyms
•
•
•
•
Sound form – concept- referent
Symbol- thought of reference – referent
Sign – meaning – thing meant
Sign – designatum — denotatum
Meaning and sound form are arbitrary
connected:
Sound form may change in the course of
time but it does not really change the
meaning:
Lufian [luvian] – love [lˆv] = hold dear,
cherish.
Meaning is not identical with concept or
concepts:
Fixed residence of family or household –
home (not house, which is a building)/ дом
Concept is a category of human cognition.
Synonyms express one and the same
concept but have different meanings: look,
stare, glare, gaze, watch, peep, etc.
Meaning and referent
• Meaning is a linguistic matter and
referent belongs to the extralinguistic
reality.
• We can denote one and the same object
or phenomenon by more than one word
of a different meaning: apple = fruit –
something , this, it; summer = season,
holiday time, part of the year,
june+july+august.
Meaning cannot be equated with the
actual properties of the referent
Water =H2O the meaning of water as a
substance we all know is not identical by
its chemical formular; salt = NaCl;
Angel, demon, phoenix, unicon – the
meanings are understood by the speakerhearer, but the objects they denote do not
exist. Hobbit, troll, ogre, …..
• Meaning is not to be identified with any
points of the referential/semantic
triangle
MEANING IN THE REFERENTIAL
APPROACH
A.I. Smirnitsky: «meaning ia a certain
reflection in our mind of objects,
phenomena or relations that makes part of
the linguistic sign – it’s so called inner
facet, whereas the sound form functions as
its outer facet».
The outer facet of a linguistic sign is
indispensable to meaning and
communication.
FUNCTIONAL APPROACH
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.
To move / movement – are two different
words because they occupy different
positions in relation to other words and
function differently in communication:
• Move a chair; move house; do not move;
move slowly/ fast;
• Movement of something/sb; someone’s
movement, slow/fast; akward/graceful
movement, etc.
• But: indispensible = indispensable;
realize/realise
• As the distribution of the two words is
different, and they belong to different
word classes, their meanings are
different too:
• the birds are pecking at their food.
• finally Sandie understood the pecking
order in the family.
In the functional approach
1)semantic investigation is confined to the
analysis of the sameness or difference of
meaning; 2)
meaning is understood esentially as the
function of the use of linguistic units.
• Distribution = the position of a linguistic
unit in relation to other linguistic units.
Which approach to choose?
• The two approaches are applied together
and complement each other:
Fauw pas – commit a major faux pas;
Now came the moment to commit his
major faux pas – he asked David how his
wife was doing, not knowing they had
divorsed last week.
TYPES OF MEANING

Last Updated:
10 Apr 2023
— Updated example sentences