Two meanings of one and the same word

Seminar
3

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §27.
Diachronic Approach, §28. Synchronic Approach [pp. 34-36]

Diachronic
approach to polysemy

If polysemy is viewed
diachronically, it is understood as the growth and develop­ment
of or, in general, as a change in the semantic structure of the word.

Problems
in diachronic approach

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. Then the
problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual
meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulat­ed as
follows: did the word always possess all its meanings or did some of
them appear earlier than the others? are the new meanings dependent
on the meanings already existing? and if so what is the nature of
this dependence? can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the
mean­ings? and so on.

In the course of a diachronic
semantic analysis of the polysemantic word table we
find that of all the meanings it has in Modern English, the primary
meaning is ‘a flat slab of stone or wood’ which is proper to the word
in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L.
tabula); all other meanings are secondary as they are
derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later than
the primary meaning.

Secondary
and derived meanings

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
table, e.g., we may say that the meaning ‘the food
put on the table’ is a seconda­ry meaning as it is derived from
the meaning ‘a piece of furniture (on which meals are laid out)’.

It follows that the main
source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word.

Polysemy may also arise from
homonymy. When two words become identical in sound-form, the meanings
of the two words are felt as making up one semantic structure. Thus,
the human ear and the ear of corn are
from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically
related to L. auris, the other to L.
acus, aceris. Synchronically, however, they are
perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The ear of corn
is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type (cf. the eye of the
needle, the foot of the mountain) and consequently as one
of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic
word ear. Cases of this type are comparatively rare and, as a
rule, illustrative of the vagueness of the border-line between
polysemy and homonymy.

Semantic changes result as a
rule in new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the
semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become
obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of English words tend to an
increase in number of meanings.

Synchronic
approach to polysemy

Synchronically we understand
polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the same word at a
certain historical period of the development of the English language.
In this case the problem of the interrelation and in­terdependence
of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of the word
must be investigated along different lines.

Problems
of polysemy in synchronic approach

Context
as a way to distinguish between central and minor meanings

In connection with the
polysemantic word table discussed above we are mainly
concerned with the following problems: are all the nine mean­ings
equally representative of the semantic structure of this word? Is the
order in which the meanings are enumerated (or recorded) in
diction­aries purely arbitrary or does it reflect the comparative
value of individ­ual meanings, the place they occupy in the
semantic structure of the word table? Intuitively we
feel that the meaning that first occurs to us whenever we hear or see
the word table, is ‘an article of furniture’. This emerges as
the basic or the central meaning of the word and all other mean­ings
are minor in comparison.

It should be noted that
whereas the basic meaning occurs in various and widely different
contexts, minor meanings are observed only in cer­tain contexts,
e.g. ‘to keep the table amused‘, ‘table of contents’
and so on. Thus we can assume that the meaning ‘a piece of furniture’
occupies the central place in the semantic structure of the word
table. As to other meanings of this word we find it hard
to grade them in order of their com­parative value. Some may, for
example, consider the second and the third meanings (‘the persons
seated at the table’ and ‘the food put on the table’) as equally
«important», some may argue that the meaning ‘food put on
the table’ should be given priority. As synchronically there is no
objec­tive criterion to go by, we may find it difficult in some
cases to single out even the basic meanings since two or more
meanings of the word may be felt as equally «central» in
its semantic structure. If we analyse the
verb to get, e.g., which of the two meanings ‘to obtain’ (get
a letter, knowledge, some sleep) or ‘to arrive’
(get to London, to get into bed) shall we regard as the
basic meaning of this word?

Frequency
of occurrence in speech as a criterion of minor meanings

A more objective criterion of
the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the
frequency of their occurrence in speech. There is a tendency in
modern linguistics to interpret the concept of the central meaning in
terms of the frequency of occurrence of this meaning. In a study of
five million words made by a group of linguistic scientists it was
found that the frequency value of individual meanings is different.
As far as the word table is concerned the meaning ‘a
piece of furniture’ possesses the highest frequency value and makes
up 52% of all the uses of this word, the meaning ‘an orderly
arrangement of facts’ (table of contents) accounts for 35%,
all other meanings between them make up just 13% of the uses of this
word.

Stylistic
stratification of meanings in polysemantic word

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

Stylistically neutral meanings
are naturally more frequent. The poly­semantic words worker
and hand, e.g., may both denote ‘a man who does manual
work’, but whereas this is the most frequent and stylistically
neutral meaning of the word worker, it is observed only
in 2.8% of all occurrences of the word hand, in the
semantic structure of which the me­aning ‘a man who does manual
work’ (to hire factory hands) is one of its marginal
meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference.

It should also be noted that
the meaning which has the highest frequen­cy is the one
representative of the whole semantic structure of the word. This can
be illustrated by analysing the words under
discussion. For example the meaning representative of the word
hand which first occurs to us is ‘the end of the arm
beyond the wrist’. This meaning accounts for at least 77% of all
occurrences of this word. This can also be observed by comparing the
word hand with its Russian equivalents. We take it for
granted that the English word hand is correlated with
the Russian рука, but
not with the Russian рабочий
though this particular equivalent may also be found, e.g. in the case
of to hire factory hands.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

POLYSEMY Lecture 4

POLYSEMY 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Polysemy Diachronic approach to polysemy Synchronic approach to polysemy Historical changeability of semantic structure Semantic structure of a polysemantic word Meaning & context Polysemy and context. Types of context.

1. POLYSEMY § Polysemy – is the ability of a word to possess several meanings or lexicosemantic variants (LSV), e. g. bright means “shining” and “intelligent”. § Monosemantic word — a word having only one meaning: hydrogen, molecule § Polysemantic word — a word having several meanings: table, yellow, etc.

Polysemy is not an anomaly Most English words are polysemantic. The wealth of expressive resources of a language largely depends on the degree to which polysemy has developed in the language. A well-developed polysemy is not a drawback but a great advantage in a language.

The number of sound combinations that human speech organs can produce is limited. § At a certain stage of language development the production of new words by morphological means becomes limited, and polysemy becomes increasingly important in providing the means for enriching the vocabulary. § The process of enriching the vocabulary does not consist merely in adding new words to it, but, also, in the constant development of polysemy.

The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually § The complicated process of polysemy development involves both the appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones. § The general tendency with English vocabulary is to increase the total number of its meanings and in this way to provide for a quantitative and qualitative growth of the language’s expressive resources.

The meanings of the word table in Modern English. table стол 1. a piece of furniture 1. предмет обстановки (сидеть за столом) 2. the persons seated at a table 2. Ср. арх. застолица 3. the food put on a table, meals; cooking 3. пища (подаваемая на стол), еда 4. a flat slab of stone or board 4. Ср. плита 5. slabs of stone (with words written on them or cut into them) 5. Ср. скрижали 6. Bibl. Words cut into slabs of stone (the ten tables). 6. Ср. заповеди 7. an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc. 7. Ср. таблица 8. part of a machine-tool 8. Ср. планшайба 9. a level area, plateau [‘pl 1 tq 4] 9. Ср. плато 10. Адресный стол 11. Стол заказов

Acad. V. V. Vinogradov § Meanings are fixed and common to all people, who know the language system. § The usage is only possible application of one of the meanings of a polysemantic word, sometimes very individual, more or less familiar. Meaning is not identical with usage.

Polysemy exists only in language, not in speech. § The meaning of the word in speech is contextual. Polysemy does not interfere with the communicative function of a language because in every particular case the situation or context, i. e. environment of the word, cancels all unnecessary meanings and makes speech unambiguous.

Prof. A. I. Smirnitsky § All the meanings of the word form identity supported by the form of the word. § A lexico-semantic variant (LSV) — a twofacet unit. § Words with one meaning are represented in the language system by one LSV, polysemantic words – by a number of LSV. § They are united together by a certain meaning – the semantic centre of the word.

2. DIACHRONIC APPROACH TO POLYSEMY § Polysemy in diachronic term implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and at the same time acquire one or several new ones.

Then the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows 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.

According to this approach there are two types of meaning can be singled out: 1. the primary meaning; 2. the secondary meaning (derived)

The main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word § Of all the meanings of table it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is ‘a flat slab of stone or wood’, which is proper to the word in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L. tabula); § All other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later.

Polysemy may arise from homonymy. The human ear (L. auris) and the ear of corn (L. acus, aceris) are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. Synchronically they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic word ear.

§ Semantic changes result as a rule in new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word. § Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of English words tend to an increase in number of meanings.

3. SYNCHRONIC APPROACH TO POLYSEMY § 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. § According to the approach there are two types of meaning can be singled out: 1. the central (basic) meaning – the most frequent; 2. marginal (minor) meanings – all other meanings.

§ The central meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, marginal meanings — only in certain contexts. § The central meaning – the most frequent meaning: table: 1. ‘a piece of furniture’ – 52%; 2. ‘an orderly arrangement of facts – 35%; all other meanings – 13%.

Stylistic stratification of meanings Daddy – colloquial; Parent – bookish Movie – American; Barnie – Scottish. Yellow – colour; Jerk – ‘a sudden movement or stopping of movement’. Slang and Americanisms: Yellow – ‘sensational’ Jerk – ‘an odd person’.

Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent § Worker & hand — ‘a man who does manual work’; § Worker – very frequent; § Hand – 2. 8% of all occurrences of the word ‘hand’ (to hire factory hands). § Hand – ‘the end of the arm beyond the wrist’ – 77%.

4. HISTORICAL CHANGEABILITY OF SEMANTIC STRUCTURE § The semantic structure is never static, the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. revolution (ME) – ‘the revolving motion of celestial bodies’ & ‘the return or recurrence of a point or a period of time’ (Modern E) ‘a complete overthrow of the established government or regime’ & ‘a complete change, a great reversal of conditions’

Evidence ‘significant appearance, token’ ‘information tending to establish fact’ Middle English diachronically synchronically primary central secondary marginal Modern English diachronically synchronically primary marginal secondary central

§ The primary meaning of the word may become synchronically one of its marginal meanings and diachronically a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of the word.

Semantic structure of a polysemantic word § When analyzing the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish between two levels of analysis.

The semantic structure of the noun ‘fire’ (1 st level) 1. Flame 2. 3. 4. 5. An instance of destructive burning; Burning material in a stove, fireplace; The shootings of guns; Strong feeling, passion, enthusiasm. On the 1 st level the semantic structure of a word is treated as a system of meanings

Semantic structure of the adjective ‘dull’ 1. Uninteresting, monotonous, boring: a dull book, a dull film. 2. Slow in understanding, stupid: a dull student. 3. Not clear or bright: dull weather, a dull day, a dull colour. 4. Not loud or distinct: a dull sound. 5. Not sharp: a dull knife. 6. Not active: Trade is dull. 7. Seeing badly: dull eyes (arch. ). 8. Hearing badly: dull ears (arch. ).

Transformational operation (2 nd level) 1. Uninteresting → deficient in interest or excitement. 2. … Stupid → deficient in intellect. 3. Not bright → deficient in light or colour. 4. Not loud → deficient in sound. 5. Not sharp → deficient in sharpness. 6. Not active → deficient in activity. 7. Seeing badly → deficient in eyesight. 8. Hearing badly → deficient in hearing.

The 2 nd level of analysis of the semantic structure of a word § The transformational operation with the meaning definitions of dull reveals: the semantic structure of the word is ‘divisible, as it were, not only at the level of different meanings, but also at a deeper level’.

The scheme of the semantic structure of dull shows that the semantic structure of a word is not a mere system of meanings, for each separate meaning is subject to further subdivision and possesses an inner structure of its own. Thus, the semantic structure of a word should be investigated at both levels: a) of different meanings; b) of semantic components within each separate meaning.

Meaning and context § Context is the minimum stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. § One of the most important ‘drawbacks’ of polysemantic words is that there is sometimes a chance of misunderstanding when a word is used in a certain meaning but accepted by a listener or reader in another.

§ § § Customer: I would like a book, please. Bookseller: Something light? Customer: That doesn’t matter. I have my car with me. In this conversation the customer is honestly misled by the polysemy of the adjective light taking it in the literal sense whereas the bookseller uses the word in its figurative meaning ‘not serious, entertaining’.

§ In the following joke one of the speakers pretends to misunderstanding his interlocutor basing his angry retort on the polysemy of the noun kick: § The critic started to leave in the middle of the second act of the play. § ‘Don’t go, ’ said the manager. “I promise there’s a terrific kick in the next act’. § ‘Fine’ was the retort, ‘give it to the author’

§ It is common knowledge, that context is a powerful preventative against any misunderstanding of meanings. E. g. the adjective dull, if used out of context, would mean different things to different people and nothing at all. It is only in combination with other words that it reveals its actual meaning: a dull pupil, a dull play, a dull razor-blade, dull weather, etc.

§ Sometimes a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word: § The man was large, but his wife was even fatter. § The word fatter here serves as a kind of indicator pointing that large describes a stout man and not a big one.

§ Current research in semantics is largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of investigating the semantic structure of a word is by studying the word’s linear relationships with other words in typical contexts, i. e. its combinability or collocability.

5. POLYSEMY AND CONTEXT § Context can be linguistic (verbal) or extralinguistic (non-verbal). Linguistic context can be subdivided into lexical and grammatical.

TYPES OF CONTEXT Linguistic contexts: I. In the lexical context of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word under consideration, e. g. heavy table (of great weight); heavy rain (abundant, falling with force); heavy industry (the larger kind of smth).

II. In grammatical context it is the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. § The meaning of the verb to make – ‘to force, to induce’ is found only in the grammatical context possessing the syntactic structure ‘to make+pronoun+verb (to make sb laugh, work, dance). Another meaning of this verb – ‘to become’ is observed in the context of a different syntactic structure – to make+adj+noun (to make a good wife, good teacher).

Extra-linguistic context § When the meaning of a word is ultimately determined by the actual speech situation in which the word is used, i. e. by the extralinguistic context (or context of situation), e. g. John was looking for the glasses, the meaning of word glasses has two readings ‘spectacles’ or to ‘drinking vessels’. It is possible to state the meaning of the word glasses only through the extended context or situation

Summary and conclusions: 1. The problem of polysemy is the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word. 2. Polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in disappearance of some meanings (or) and in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and also in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure.

3. Polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as coexistence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word. 4. The concepts of central (basic) and marginal (minor) meanings may be interpreted in terms of their relative frequency in speech. The meaning having the highest frequency is usually the one representative of the semantic structure of the word, i. e. synchronically its central (basic) meaning.

5. As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of the individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. 6. The semantic structure of polysemantic words is not homogeneous as far as the status of individual meanings is concerned. Some meaning (or meanings) is representative of the word in isolation, others are perceived only in certain contexts.

7. The whole of the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words of different languages can never be identical. Words are felt as correlated if their basic (central) meanings coincide.

References: 1. Зыкова И. В. Практический курс английской лексикологии. М. : Академия, 2006. – С. 29 -32. 2. Бабич Н. Г. Лексикология английского языка. Екатеринбург – Москва, 2006. – С. 62 -63. 3. Гинзбург Р. З. Лексикология английского языка. М. : Высшая школа, 1979. – С. 33 -38. 4. Антрушина Г. Б. , Афанасьева О. В. , Морозова Н. Н. Лексикология английского языка. М. : Дрофа, 2006. – С. – 131 -136.

Presentation on theme: «POLYSEMY Lecture 4.»— Presentation transcript:

1

POLYSEMY Lecture 4

2

POLYSEMY Polysemy Diachronic approach to polysemy
Synchronic approach to polysemy Historical changeability of semantic structure Semantic structure of a polysemantic word Meaning & context Polysemy and context. Types of context.

3

1. POLYSEMY Polysemy – is the ability of a word to possess several meanings or lexico-semantic variants (LSV), e.g. bright means “shining” and “intelligent”. Monosemantic word — a word having only one meaning: hydrogen, molecule Polysemantic word — a word having several meanings: table, yellow, etc.

4

Polysemy is not an anomaly
Most English words are polysemantic. The wealth of expressive resources of a language largely depends on the degree to which polysemy has developed in the language. A well-developed polysemy is not a drawback but a great advantage in a language.

5

The number of sound combinations that human speech organs can produce is limited.
At a certain stage of language development the production of new words by morphological means becomes limited, and polysemy becomes increasingly important in providing the means for enriching the vocabulary. The process of enriching the vocabulary does not consist merely in adding new words to it, but, also,in the constant development of polysemy.

6

The system of meanings of any polysemasntic word develops gradually
The complicated process of plysemy development involves both the appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones. The general tendency with English vocabulary is to increase the total number of its meanings and in this way to provide for a quantitative and qualitative growth of the language’s expressive resources.

7

The meanings of the word table in Modern English.
стол 1. a piece of furniture 1. предмет обстановки (сидеть за столом) 2. the persons seated at a table 2. Ср. арх. застолица 3. the food put on a table, meals; cooking 3. пища (подаваемая на стол), еда 4. a flat slab of stone or board 4. Ср. плита 5. slabs of stone (with words written on them or cut into them) 5. Ср. скрижали 6. Bibl. Words cut into slabs of stone (the ten tables). 6. Ср. заповеди 7. an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc. 7. Ср. таблица 8. part of a machine-tool 8. Ср. планшайба 9. a level area, plateau [‘pl1tq4] 9. Ср. плато 10. Адресный стол 11. Стол заказов

8

Acad. V.V. Vinogradov Meanings are fixed and common to all people, who know the language system. The usage is only possible application of one of the meanings of a polysemantic word, sometimes very individual, more or less familiar. Meaning is not identical with usage.

9

Polysemy exists only in language, not in speech.
The meaning of the word in speech is contextual. Polysemy does not interfere with the communicative function of a language because in every particular case the situation or context, i.e. environment of the word, cancels all unnecessary meanings and makes speech unambiguous.

10

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky All the meanings of the word form identity supported by the form of the word. A lexico-semantic variant (LSV) — a two-facet unit. Words with one meaning are represented in the language system by one LSV, polysemantic words – by a number of LSV. They are united together by a certain meaning – the semantic centre of the word.

11

2. DIACHRONIC APPROACH TO POLYSEMY
Polysemy in diachronic term implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and at the same time acquire one or several new ones.

12

Then the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows Did the word always possess all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others? Are the new meanings dependent on the meanings already existing? and if so what is the nature of this dependence? Can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings? and so on.

13

According to this approach there are two types of meaning can be singled out:
the primary meaning; the secondary meaning (derived)

14

The main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word
Of all the meanings of table it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is ‘a flat slab of stone or wood’, which is proper to the word in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L. tabula); All other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later.

15

Polysemy may arise from homonymy.
The human ear (L. auris) and the ear of corn (L. acus, aceris) are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. Synchronicallythey are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic word ear.

16

Semantic changes result as a rule in new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of English words tend to an increase in number of meanings.

17

3. SYNCHRONIC APPROACH TO POLYSEMY
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. According to the approach there are two types of meaning can be singled out: the central (basic) meaning – the most frequent; marginal (minor) meanings – all other meanings.

18

The central meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, marginal meanings — only in certain contexts. The central meaning – the most frequent meaning: table: 1. ‘a piece of furniture’ – 52%; 2. ‘an orderly arrangement of facts – 35%; all other meanings – 13%.

19

Stylistic stratification of meanings
Daddy – colloquial; Movie – American; Parent – bookish Barnie – Scottish. Yellow – colour; Jerk – ‘a sudden movement or stopping of movement’ . Slang and Americanisms: Yellow – ‘sensational’ Jerk – ‘an odd person’.

20

Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent
Worker & hand — ‘a man who does manual work’; Worker – very frequent; Hand – 2.8% of all occurrences of the word ‘hand’ (to hire factory hands) . Hand – ‘the end of the arm beyond the wrist’ – 77%.

21

4. HISTORICAL CHANGEABILITY OF SEMANTIC STRUCTURE
The semantic structure is never static, the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. revolution (ME) – ‘the revolving motion of celestial bodies’ & ‘the return or recurrence of a point or a period of time’ (Modern E) ‘a complete overthrow of the established government or regime’ & ‘a complete change, a great reversal of conditions’

22

‘significant appearance, token’
Evidence ‘significant appearance, token’ ‘information tending to establish fact’ Middle English diachronically synchronically primary central secondary marginal Modern English

23

The primary meaning of the word may become synchronically one of its marginal meanings and diachronically a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of the word.

24

Semantic structure of a polysemantic word
When analyzing the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish between two levels of analysis.

25

The semantic structure of the noun ‘fire’ (1st level)
Flame An instance of destructive burning; Burning material in a stove, fireplace; The shootings of guns; Strong feeling, passion, enthusiasm. On the 1st level the semantic structure of a word is treated as a system of meanings

26

Semantic structure of the adjective ‘dull’
Uninteresting, monotonous, boring: a dull book, a dull film. Slow in understanding, stupid: a dull student. Not clear or bright: dull weather, a dull day, a dull colour. Not loud or distinct: a dull sound. Not sharp: a dull knife. Not active: Trade is dull. Seeing badly: dull eyes (arch.). Hearing badly: dull ears (arch.).

27

Transformational operation (2nd level)
Uninteresting → deficient in interest or excitement. … Stupid → deficient in intellect. Not bright → deficient in light or colour. Not loud → deficient in sound. Not sharp → deficient in sharpness. Not active → deficient in activity. Seeing badly → deficient in eyesight. Hearing badly → deficient in hearing.

28

The 2nd level of analysis of the semantic structure of a word
The transformational operation with the meaning definitions of dull reveals: the semantic structure of the word is ‘divisible, as it were, not only at the level of different meanings, but also at a deeper level’.

29

The scheme of the semantic structure of dull
shows that the semantic structure of a word is not a mere system of meanings, for each separate meaning is subject to further subdivision and possesses an inner structure of its own. Thus, the semantic structure of a word should be investigated at both levels: a) of different meanings; b) of semantic components within each separate meaning.

30

Meaning and context Context is the minimum stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word. One of the most important ‘drawbacks’ of polysemantic words is that there is sometimes a chance of misunderstanding when a word is used in a certain meaning but accepted by a listener or reader in another.

31

Customer: I would like a book, please.
Bookseller: Something light? Customer: That doesn’t matter. I have my car with me. In this conversation the customer is honestly misled by the polysemy of the adjective light taking it in the literal sense whereas the bookseller uses tha word in its figurative meaning ‘not serious, entertaining’.

32

In the following joke one of the speakers pretends to misunderstanding his interlocutor basing his angry retort on the polysemy of the noun kick: The critic started to leave in the middle of the second act of the play. ‘Don’t go,’ said the manager. “I promise there’s a terrific kick in the next act’. ‘Fine’ was the retort, ‘give it to the author’

33

It is common knowledge, that context is a powerful preventative against any misunderstanding of meanings. E.g. the adjective dull, if used out of context, would mean different things to different people and nothing at all. It is only in combination with other words that it reveals its actual meaning: a dull pupil, a dull play, a dull razor-blade, dull weather, etc.

34

Sometimes a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word:
The man was large, but his wife was even fatter. The word fatter here serves as a kind of indicator pointing that large describes a stout man and not a big one.

35

Current research in semantics is largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of investigating the semantic structure of a word is by studying the word’s linear relationships with other words in typical contexts, i.e. its combinability or collocability.

36

5. POLYSEMY AND CONTEXT Context can be linguistic (verbal) or extra-linguistic (non-verbal). Linguistic context can be subdivided into lexical and grammatical.

37

TYPES OF CONTEXT Linguistic contexts:
In the lexical context of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word under consideration, e.g. heave table (of great weigh); heavy rain (abundant, falling with force); heavy industry (the larger kind of smth).

38

In grammatical context it is the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. The meaning of the verb to make – ‘to force, to induce’ is found only in the grammatical context possessing the syntactic structure ‘to make+pronoun+verb (to make sb laugh, work, dance). Another meaning of this verb – ‘to become’ is observed in the context of a different syntactic structure – to make+adj+noun (to make a good wife, good teacher).

39

Extra-linguistic context
When the meaning of a word is ultimately determined by the actual speech situation in which the word is used, i.e. by the extra-linguistic context (or context of situation), e.g. John was looking for the glasses, — the meaning of word glasses has two readings ‘spectacles’ or to ‘drinking vessels’ . It is possible to state the meaning of the word glasses only through the extended context or situation

40

Summary and conclusions:
The problem of polysemy is the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word. Polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in disappearance of some meanings (or) and in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and also in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure.

41

Polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as coexistence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word. The concepts of central (basic) and marginal (minor) meanings may be interpreted in terms of their relative frequency in speech. The meaning having the highest frequency is usually the one representative of the semantic structure of the word, i.e. synchronically its central (basic) meaning.

42

As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of the individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. The semantic structure of polysemantic words is not homogeneous as far as the status of individual meanings is concerned. Some meaning (or meanings) is representative of the word in isolation, others are perceived only in certain contexts.

43

The whole of the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words of different languages can never be identical. Words are felt as correlated if their basic (central) meanings coincide.

44

References: Зыкова И.В. Практический курс английской лексикологии. М.: Академия, – С Бабич Н.Г. Лексикология английского языка. Екатеринбург – Москва, – С Гинзбург Р.З. Лексикология английского языка. М.: Высшая школа, – С Антрушина Г.Б., Афанасьева О.В., Морозова Н.Н. Лексикология английского языка. М.: Дрофа, – С. –

POLYSEMY

• Влавацкая Марина Витальевна
• к.фил.н. доцент

POLYSEMY

• Polysemy
• Diachronic approach to polysemy
• Synchronic approach to polysemy
• Historical changeability of semantic structure
• Semantic structure of a polysemantic word
• Meaning & context
• Polysemy and context. Types of context.

1. POLYSEMY

• Polysemy – is the ability of a word to possess several meanings or lexico-semantic variants (LSV), e.g. bright means “shining” and “intelligent”.
• Monosemantic word — a word having only one meaning: hydrogen, molecule
• Polysemantic word — a word having several meanings: table, yellow, etc.

Polysemy is not an anomaly

• Most English words are polysemantic.
• The wealth of expressive resources of a language largely depends on the degree to which polysemy has developed in the language.
• A well-developed polysemy is not a drawback but a great advantage in a language.

The number of sound combinations that human speech organs can produce is limited.

• At a certain stage of language development the production of new words by morphological means becomes limited, and polysemy becomes increasingly important in providing the means for enriching the vocabulary.
• The process of enriching the vocabulary does not consist merely in adding new words to it, but, also,in the constant development of polysemy.

The system of meanings of any polysemasntic word develops gradually

• The complicated process of plysemy development involves both the appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones.
• The general tendency with English vocabulary is to increase the total number of its meanings and in this way to provide for a quantitative and qualitative growth of the language’s expressive resources.

The meanings of the word table in Modern English.

table	стол
1. a piece of furniture	1. предмет обстановки (сидеть за столом)
2. the persons seated at a table	2. Ср. арх. застолица
3. the food put on a table, meals; cooking	3. пища (подаваемая на стол), еда
4. a flat slab of stone or board	4. Ср. плита
5. slabs of stone (with words written on them or cut into them)	5. Ср. скрижали
6. Bibl. Words cut into slabs of stone (the ten tables).	6. Ср. заповеди
7. an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.	7. Ср. таблица
8. part of a machine-tool	8. Ср. планшайба
9. a level area, plateau [‘pl1tq4]	9. Ср. плато
	10. Адресный стол 11. Стол заказов

Acad. V.V. Vinogradov

• Meanings are fixed and common to all people, who know the language system.
• The usage is only possible application of one of the meanings of a polysemantic word, sometimes very individual, more or less familiar.
• Meaning is not identical with usage.

Polysemy exists only in language, not in speech.

• The meaning of the word in speech is contextual. Polysemy does not interfere with the communicative function of a language because in every particular case the situation or context, i.e. environment of the word, cancels all unnecessary meanings and makes speech unambiguous.

Prof. A.I. Smirnitsky

• All the meanings of the word form identity supported by the form of the word.
• A lexico-semantic variant (LSV) — a two-facet unit.
• Words with one meaning are represented in the language system by one LSV, polysemantic words – by a number of LSV.
• They are united together by a certain meaning – the semantic centre of the word.

2. DIACHRONIC APPROACH TO POLYSEMY

• Polysemy in diachronic term implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and at the same time acquire one or several new ones.

Then the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows

• Did the word always possess all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others?
• Are the new meanings dependent on the meanings already existing? and if so what is the nature of this dependence?
• Can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings? and so on.

According to this approach there are two types of meaning can be singled out:

• the primary meaning;
• the secondary meaning (derived)

The main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word

• Of all the meanings of table it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is ‘a flat slab of stone or wood’, which is proper to the word in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L. tabula);
• All other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later.

Polysemy may arise from homonymy.

• The human ear (L. auris) and the ear of corn (L. acus, aceris) are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms.
• Synchronicallythey are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word.
• The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic word ear.

Semantic changes result as a rule in new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word.

• Semantic changes result as a rule in new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word.
• Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of English words tend to an increase in number of meanings.

3. SYNCHRONIC APPROACH TO POLYSEMY

• 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.
• According to the approach there are two types of meaning can be singled out:
• the central (basic) meaning – the most frequent;
• marginal (minor) meanings – all other meanings.

The central meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, marginal meanings — only in certain contexts.

• The central meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts, marginal meanings — only in certain contexts.
• The central meaning – the most frequent meaning: table:
• 1. ‘a piece of furniture’ – 52%;
• 2. ‘an orderly arrangement of facts – 35%;
• all other meanings – 13%.

Stylistic stratification of meanings

• Daddy – colloquial; Movie – American;
• Parent – bookish Barnie – Scottish.
• Yellow – colour;
• Jerk – ‘a sudden movement or stopping of movement’ .
• Slang and Americanisms:
• Yellow – ‘sensational’
• Jerk – ‘an odd person’.

Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent

• Worker & hand — ‘a man who does manual work’;
• Worker – very frequent;
• Hand – 2.8% of all occurrences of the word ‘hand’ (to hire factory hands) .
• Hand – ‘the end of the arm beyond the wrist’ – 77%.

4. HISTORICAL CHANGEABILITY OF SEMANTIC STRUCTURE

• The semantic structure is never static, the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings may be different in different periods of the historical development of language.
• revolution (ME) – ‘the revolving motion of celestial bodies’ & ‘the return or recurrence of a point or a period of time’ (Modern E)
• ‘a complete overthrow of the established government or regime’ & ‘a complete change, a great reversal of conditions’

Evidence	‘significant appearance, token’	‘information tending to establish fact’
Middle English diachronically synchronically	primary central	secondary marginal
Modern English diachronically synchronically	primary marginal	secondary central

The primary meaning of the word may become synchronically one of its marginal meanings and diachronically a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of the word.

• The primary meaning of the word may become synchronically one of its marginal meanings and diachronically a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of the word.

Semantic structure of a polysemantic word

• When analyzing the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish between two levels of analysis.

The semantic structure of the noun ‘fire’ (1st level)

• Flame
• An instance of destructive burning;
• Burning material in a stove, fireplace;
• The shootings of guns;
• Strong feeling, passion, enthusiasm.
• On the 1st level the semantic structure of a word is treated as a system of meanings

Semantic structure of the adjective ‘dull’

Transformational operation (2nd level)

The 2nd level of analysis of the semantic structure of a word

• The transformational operation with the meaning definitions of dull reveals: the semantic structure of the word is ‘divisible, as it were, not only at the level of different meanings, but also at a deeper level’.

The scheme of the semantic structure of dull

• shows that the semantic structure of a word is not a mere system of meanings, for each separate meaning is subject to further subdivision and possesses an inner structure of its own.
• Thus, the semantic structure of a word should be investigated at both levels:
• a) of different meanings;
• b) of semantic components within each separate meaning.

Meaning and context

• Context is the minimum stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word.
• One of the most important ‘drawbacks’ of polysemantic words is that there is sometimes a chance of misunderstanding when a word is used in a certain meaning but accepted by a listener or reader in another.

Customer: I would like a book, please.

• Customer: I would like a book, please.
• Bookseller: Something light?
• Customer: That doesn’t matter. I have my car with me.
• In this conversation the customer is honestly misled by the polysemy of the adjective light taking it in the literal sense whereas the bookseller uses tha word in its figurative meaning ‘not serious, entertaining’.

In the following joke one of the speakers pretends to misunderstanding his interlocutor basing his angry retort on the polysemy of the noun kick:

• In the following joke one of the speakers pretends to misunderstanding his interlocutor basing his angry retort on the polysemy of the noun kick:
• The critic started to leave in the middle of the second act of the play.
• ‘Don’t go,’ said the manager. “I promise there’s a terrific kick in the next act’.
• ‘Fine’ was the retort, ‘give it to the author’

It is common knowledge, that context is a powerful preventative against any misunderstanding of meanings.

• It is common knowledge, that context is a powerful preventative against any misunderstanding of meanings.
• E.g. the adjective dull, if used out of context, would mean different things to different people and nothing at all. It is only in combination with other words that it reveals its actual meaning:
• a dull pupil, a dull play, a dull razor-blade, dull weather, etc.

Sometimes a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word:

• Sometimes a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word:
• The man was large, but his wife was even fatter.
• The word fatter here serves as a kind of indicator pointing that large describes a stout man and not a big one.

Current research in semantics is largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of investigating the semantic structure of a word is by studying the word’s linear relationships with other words in typical contexts, i.e. its combinability or collocability.

• Current research in semantics is largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of investigating the semantic structure of a word is by studying the word’s linear relationships with other words in typical contexts, i.e. its combinability or collocability.

5. POLYSEMY AND CONTEXT

• Context can be linguistic (verbal) or extra-linguistic (non-verbal). Linguistic context can be subdivided into lexical and grammatical.

TYPES OF CONTEXT

• Linguistic contexts:
• In the lexical context of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word under consideration, e.g.
• heave table (of great weigh);
• heavy rain (abundant, falling with force);
• heavy industry (the larger kind of smth).

In grammatical context it is the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word.

• In grammatical context it is the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word.
• The meaning of the verb to make – ‘to force, to induce’ is found only in the grammatical context possessing the syntactic structure
• ‘to make+pronoun+verb (to make sb laugh, work, dance).
• Another meaning of this verb – ‘to become’ is observed in the context of a different syntactic structure –
• to make+adj+noun (to make a good wife, good teacher).

Extra-linguistic context

• When the meaning of a word is ultimately determined by the actual speech situation in which the word is used, i.e. by the extra-linguistic context (or context of situation), e.g. John was looking for the glasses, —
• the meaning of word glasses has two readings ‘spectacles’ or to ‘drinking vessels’ .
• It is possible to state the meaning of the word glasses only through the extended context or situation

Summary and conclusions:

• The problem of polysemy is the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word.
• Polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in disappearance of some meanings (or) and in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and also in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure.

Polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as coexistence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

• Polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as coexistence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word.
• The concepts of central (basic) and marginal (minor) meanings may be interpreted in terms of their relative frequency in speech. The meaning having the highest frequency is usually the one representative of the semantic structure of the word, i.e. synchronically its central (basic) meaning.

As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of the individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical development of language.

• As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of the individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical development of language.
• The semantic structure of polysemantic words is not homogeneous as far as the status of individual meanings is concerned. Some meaning (or meanings) is representative of the word in isolation, others are perceived only in certain contexts.

The whole of the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words of different languages can never be identical. Words are felt as correlated if their basic (central) meanings coincide.

• The whole of the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words of different languages can never be identical. Words are felt as correlated if their basic (central) meanings coincide.

References:

• Зыкова И.В. Практический курс английской лексикологии. М.: Академия, 2006. – С.29-32.
• Бабич Н.Г. Лексикология английского языка. Екатеринбург – Москва, 2006. – С. 62-63.
• Гинзбург Р.З. Лексикология английского языка. М.: Высшая школа, 1979. – С. 33-38.
• Антрушина Г.Б., Афанасьева О.В., Морозова Н.Н. Лексикология английского языка. М.: Дрофа, 2006. – С. – 131-136.

Do’stlaringiz bilan baham: