Word meaning sentence construction

Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic
meaning
Laura A. Michaelis
Abstract
The lexicon has long been assumed to be the source of all conceptual content ex-
pressed by sentences. Syntactic structures have correspondingly been seen only as
providing instructions for the assembly of the concepts expressed by words. Under
this view, sentences have meaning, but the syntactic structures which sentences
instantiate do not. This paper challenges this view: it uses the phenomenon of im-
plicit type-shifting to demonstrate that constructions have meanings distinct from
those of words and that, in cases of conflict, construction meaning overrides word
meaning; and it argues that such overrides are predictable by-products of the gen-
eral mechanism of construction-word integration. This mechanism will be de-
scribed with respect to three different kinds of constructions: argument-structure
constructions, which specify linkings of thematic roles to grammatical functions;
aspectual constructions, which encode the situation type denoted by the verb or
verb phrase; and sentence types, which pair a discourse function with a clausal
structure. On the basis of these three short case studies, I will argue that appeal to
constructional meaning greatly enhances the descriptive power of a theory of sen-
tence semantics.
Keywords: argument structure, aspect, concord construction, Construction Gram-
mar, implicit/explicit type-shifting, lexical projection, lexical semantics, sentence
types; shift construction.
Laura A. Michaelis 2
1. Introduction
1
In this paper, I will offer a general framework for understanding the
relationship between lexical and syntactic meaning. In merely stating
this intention, however, I have presupposed something controversial
– the existence of syntactic meaning. The lexicon has long been as-
sumed to be the source of everything conceptual expressed by sen-
tences. Syntactic structures have correspondingly been seen only as
providing instructions for the assembly of the concepts expressed by
words. Accordingly, sentences have meaning, but the syntactic
structures which sentences instantiate do not.
Strong challenges to this view, which is assumed either implicitly
or explicitly by the majority of formal theorists, have been offered by
cognitive-functional linguists. Section 2 will describe the nature of
this challenge, and the alternative model which underlies it. In this
model, grammatical constructions are viewed as the basis of syntax
(Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor 1988; Pullum & Zwicky 1991; Zwicky
1994; Goldberg 1995, 1997; Michaelis & Lambrecht 1996; Kay &
Fillmore 1999; Michaelis & Ruppenhofer 2001; Fillmore et al. to
appear). Grammatical constructions are not arcane things; they are
patterns of word combination that speakers use for specific commu-
nicative purposes – questioning, exclaiming, asserting, etc. – and the
very idea that syntacticians could debate the existence of something
so indispensable to language description and pedagogy must strike
many scholars of language as absurd. Grammatical constructions
have played a central role in linguistic description since ancient times
(Harris & Taylor 1997), and for most of that history they have been
treated no differently from words – forms with specific meanings and
functions. However, with the advent of generative grammar, con-
structions came to be seen as something of an embarrassment. It is
easy to understand why: the idea that principles of word combination
could be intrinsically meaningful simply cannot be accommodated

1. I would like to thank Adele Goldberg, Knud Lambrecht, Leonard Talmy, Ron
Langacker, Charles Fillmore, and Renaat Declerck for their many and signifi-
cant contributions to my understanding of this topic. They are not responsible
for any gaps thereof.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 3
within the logical structure of the projection-based view. If, for ex-
ample, we were to change the associations within an arithmetic se-
quence like 2 x (3 + 4) so as to create the sequence (2 x 3) + 4, we
would clearly change what the sequence denotes – from 14 to 10 –
but we would not thereby change what the numbers denote. Still, a
coherent worldview is not necessarily an accurate one, and we will
see that the lexicalist model of sentential meaning fails as an account
of both usage and interpretation. In what follows, we will review
findings which suggest that words do not designate in the way that
numbers do and that word meaning is in fact malleable – the kind of
event, property, or entity a word denotes shifts according to senten-
tial context. It is precisely this malleability of open-class words
which provides the strongest support for the construction-based view
of grammar.
In construction-based grammars, constructions mean what they
mean in the same way that words do: they denote types of things and
relations. And like words, grammatical constructions feature idiosyn-
cratic constraints on meaning and use. Given two sources of meaning
in a sentence – “bottom up” words and “top down” constructions –
we would predict that the potential for conflict exists, and this pre-
diction is borne out. The idiosyncratic constraints which define con-
structions have been shown to interact in specific ways with the se-
mantics of open-class words with which they combine. Section 3 will
describe this interaction with respect to three different kinds of con-
structions: argument-structure constructions (Goldberg 1995, 1997),
which specify linkings of thematic roles to grammatical functions,
aspectual constructions, which encode the situation type denoted by
the verb and verb phrase (Michaelis 1998, to appear), and sentence
types, which pair a discourse function with a clausal structure
(Zwicky 1994; Lambrecht 1994; Michaelis & Lambrecht 1996).
On the basis of these three short case studies, I will argue that ap-
peal to constructional meaning greatly enhances the descriptive
power of a theory of sentence semantics. First, it allows us to de-
scribe interpretation at all levels of linguistic combination – from
word morphology to phrase formation. Second, it makes possible an
account of sentence meaning in which one general interpretive
Laura A. Michaelis 4
mechanism underlies both elaboration (in which lexical meaning and
constructional meaning match) and conversion, in which semantic
features intrinsic to a content expression conflict with semantic fea-
tures intrinsic to the construction containing that expression. In the
course of this exposition, I will demonstrate that the scope of the
conversion phenomenon in grammar is very wide.
2. The challenge to lexical projection
Theories of sentence meaning are designed to describe the relation-
ship between the meaning of a sentence and the meanings of the
words of that sentence, both lexical and grammatical. Those who
study this relationship have long focused on the connection between
the semantic requirements of the content verb (i.e., its argument
structure) and the event or state denoted by sentences in which that
verb serves as a syntactic head. Theories of this connection, whether
they are framed as models of phrase structure (Ritter & Rosen 1998),
the syntax-semantics interface (Jackendoff 1990), or the mapping
between syntactic and functional structure (Bresnan 1994, 2001),
have been based upon some version of what has come to be called
the projection principle. The projection principle holds that the basic
scene denoted by a sentence (the set of participant roles expressed)
derives from the argument structure of the head verb. Thus, for ex-
ample, it appears clear that sentence (1)
(1) We gave the account to her.
denotes a scene of transfer involving an agent, a theme, and a goal
because the semantic frame associated with the head verb give de-
notes a scene of transfer, and likewise requires the presence of these
three participants. The projection principle is intrinsic to a composi-
tional theory of semantics – a theory which has been deemed central
to any account of syntax-semantics isomorphism, including cogni-
tively oriented theories like that of Jackendoff, who states (1990: 9):
“It is widely assumed, and I will take for granted, that the basic units
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 5
out of which a sentential concept is constructed are the concepts ex-
pressed by the words in the sentence, that is, lexical concepts.” A
more recent version of this principle is stated by Jackendoff as the
principle of syntactically transparent composition: “All elements of
content in the meaning of a sentence are found in the lexical con-
ceptual structures of the lexical items composing the sentence”
(1997: 48).
2
The projection principle has often been associated with a theory of
syntax based on the autonomy of syntactic description. For example,
in Government and Binding theory, the level at which thematic roles
are represented (d-structure) represents those roles as grammatical
functions, i.e., positions in syntactic structure. This syntacticization
of semantic roles created the rationale for movement rules, by which,
e.g., the passive linking is represented as the “movement” of an ele-
ment from object to subject position. As Jackendoff (1997) has re-
cently observed, the current consensus embraces unification rather
than movement as the primary syntactic operation. However, whether
or not the projection principle is regarded as a constraint on mapping
between syntactic levels (e.g., d-structure and s-structure), it is cru-

2. This more recent compositional principle is framed within a model which al-
lows for an enriched conception of composition. In the enriched conception, the
principle of syntactically transparent composition is treated as a default. The
extended conception of composition allows for cases in which material that is
not expressed by lexical items of the sentence may nevertheless be part of the
conceptual content of the sentence. These are cases of coercion, in which extra
meaning is “added” in order to achieve well-formedness in conceptual structure
and/or to “satisfy the pragmatics of the discourse or extralinguistic context”
(1999: 49). For example, the “iteration” feature is added to a sentence like I
blinked for two minutes because a single blink cannot plausibly be viewed as
lasting two minutes. The problem with Jackendoff’s analysis, as I see it, is that
coercion does not seem to have anything to do with the meaning of the syntac-
tic pattern employed; Jackendoff does not posit a locus of association between
semantic properties and syntactic form, i.e., a construction. For this reason, it
would seem that coercion phenomena described by Goldberg (1995) and dis-
cussed in this paper with respect to examples like (5–8) could not be easily
handled by Jackendoff’s coercion principle – the verb meaning is not modu-
lated by particular co-occurring words or phrases, but by the particular linking
configuration with which the verb integrates.
Laura A. Michaelis 6
cial to a “rule-free” conception of universal grammar in which there
are no category-specific phrase-structure rules. Under this concep-
tion, sentence structure is a result of the projection of the valence
requirements of lexical heads modulo the constraints of X’-syntax.
Even among those syntacticians who, like Bresnan (1994, 2001),
have laid out strong objections to accounts of typological variation
based on constituent structure, the projection principle has remained
central to the description of argument structure, since Lexical-
Functional Grammar is also driven by the assumption that “argument
roles are lexically underspecified for the possible surface syntactic
functions they can assume” (Bresnan 1994: 91). Universal linking
rules map these argument roles to grammatical and pragmatic func-
tions, and these rules do not add to, subtract from, or alter the array
of thematic roles associated with the verb. For example, in Bresnan
1994, locative inversion in English and Chichewa is represented as
one linking possibility for verbs like stand, which subcategorize for
locative and theme arguments. Such verbs are subject both to the
linking rule which produces the configuration in (2) and to the link-
ing rule which produces the configuration in (3):
(2) Two women stood in the plaza.
(3) In the plaza stood two women.
The syntactic structures of (2) and (3) are equivalent to subcategori-
zation frames associated with the verb stand. However, assumption
of lexical projection here makes it difficult for Bresnan to account for
examples of locative inversion like the attested example in (4), which
involves an interpretive phenomenon which we will refer to (follow-
ing Talmy 1988) as implicit conversion:
(4) Down at the harbor there is teal-green clubhouse for so-
cializing and parties. Beside it sparkles the community pool.
(Vanity Fair, August 2001)
Examples like (4) are problematic in Bresnan’s framework because
the verb sparkle does not assign either a locative role or a theme role
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 7
– it is a monovalent verb of light emission – and yet it can appear in
the locative-inversion configuration. In examples like (4), Bresnan
argues (1994: 91), a locative-theme argument structure imposed by
the pragmatic requirement of presentational focus is “overlaid” on
the argument structure of the base verb. The problem with this type
of account is simply that it is not explicit. If argument structures are
products of the linkings licensed by given verbs, and not independent
form-meaning pairings, it is difficult to determine the source of the
“overlay”.
Adherence to the projection principle results not only in ad hoc
devices like an “overlay theme” in cases like (4), but also, as Gold-
berg points out (1995, 1997), appeal to implausible verb senses.
Goldberg discusses examples like the following:
(5) Most likely they were fellow visitors, just panting up to the
sky-high altar out of curiosity. (Lindsey Davis, Last Act in
Palmyra, p. 28)
(6) As they had waved us along the raised causeway and into
the rocky cleft… (op. cit., p. 31)
(7) If time is money, then save yourself rich at Snyder’s!
(= Goldberg 1997 (3a))
(8) They can’t just analyze away our data.
Goldberg points out that on the assumption that argument structure is
determined exclusively by head verbs, we would need to assume the
existence of a special verb sense for each of the usages exemplified
in (5–8). Sentence (5) would require a special sense of pant equiva-
lent to the formulation ‘move while panting’; (6) would require a
special sense of the verb wave whose definition would be ‘signal
permission to move to a place by waving’; (7) would require a sense
of the verb save which might be captured by the formulation ‘cause
to be in a state by saving’; and, finally, sentence (8) would require
one to view analyze as a verb which denotes (metaphorical) caused
motion. Such word senses, as Goldberg points out, are not only ad
hoc and unintuitive, but also compatible only with an assumption of
radical and unconstrained polysemy.
Laura A. Michaelis 8
Crucially, as Goldberg and Fauconnier and Turner (1996) have
demonstrated, examples like (5–8) cannot easily be viewed as mar-
ginal or special cases. Sentence (5), for example, exemplifies a lexi-
calization pattern – conflation of manner and motion – which Talmy
(1985) and Slobin (1997) have shown to be strongly entrenched in
Germanic languages. Further, the examples in (5–8) cannot be re-
garded merely as violations of selectional restrictions associated with
the verbal heads – or even as violations which might trigger manner-
based implicata. If, for example, sentence (8) merely exemplified a
violation of the selectional restrictions associated with the verb ana-
lyze, we would fail to predict its well-formedness – let alone the uni-
formity of its interpretation across speakers; sentence (8) is necessar-
ily interpreted as denoting metaphorical caused motion.
In addition, as Michaelis and Ruppenhofer (2001) argue, linking
accounts based exclusively on lexical projection cannot easily ac-
count for idiosyncratic semantic constraints associated with particular
linking patterns. Such constraints go beyond those which require the
input verb to license a certain theta frame. They include constraints
on animacy or configuration of certain arguments. Michaelis and
Ruppenhofer exemplify such constraints with respect to German be-
prefixation, an applicative construction whose core semantics in-
volves the thorough coverage of a location by a theme. They observe
with regard to an alternation regarding the verb wohnen ‘live’ that
one can express the assertion “Peter lives in an apartment” either
through the use of the be- linking pattern (Peter bewohnt ein Apart-
ment in München), in which the location is linked to the direct object
function, or through the use of the oblique-location pattern (Peter
wohnt in einem Apartment in München). They notice, however, that
if the denoted location is a large expanse of space relative to the de-
notatum of the theme argument, the be-pattern declines in felicity:
the sentence Peter bewohnt Schwabing ‘Peter occupies Schwabing’
is odd. The oblique-location alternative is, by contrast, acceptable:
Peter wohnt in Schwabing. In sum, they argue, if the location is large
enough that thorough coverage by the theme argument is not possi-
ble, the be- linking pattern is not permissible. Such constraints are
expected if linking patterns denote schematic scenes with specific
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 9
properties (like thorough coverage); they are unexpected if linking
patterns are transparent to verb meaning, and merely represent possi-
bilities for the realization of a verb’s arguments.
Cases like the German applicative alternation and the English ex-
amples in (4–8) give strong evidence that the projection principle,
despite providing a parsimonious account of default cases like (1), is
invalid. The alternative, construction-based model of argument
structure outlined by Goldberg is founded on a body of work, of
which Talmy 1988 is representative, which focuses on universal dif-
ferences in the inventory of concepts expressed by open-class versus
closed-class elements, and in particular on the nature of the semantic
interaction between grammatical and lexical elements. Crucially,
grammatical constructions are viewed as belonging to the general set
of meaning-bearing grammatical elements, which includes preposi-
tions and derivational markers, among others. An essential tenet of
these works is expressed in (9) as the override principle:
(9) Override principle. If lexical and structural meanings con-
flict, the semantic specifications of the lexical element con-
form to those of the grammatical structure with which that
lexical item is combined.
The operation of (9) can be illustrated with regard to nominal syntax
in examples (10-12):
(10) Give me some pillow!
(11) They have good soups there.
(12) Did you get a pudding?
These examples are closely analogous to those in (5–8), in that the
syntactic requirements of the lexical heads in (10–12) similarly fail to
determine the syntax of the phrasal projection of the category. As in
the case of verbal argument-structures, we find that it would be im-
plausible to propose special senses for each of the nouns involved in
cases like (10–12). We also find that we would fail to capture an im-
portant generalization about nominal syntax and semantics if we
Laura A. Michaelis 10
were to propose a special nominal construction for, e.g., (11), which
would license the combination of a mass noun and plural suffix. In-
stead, in accordance with Talmy and others, we can presume that
examples like (10–12) are licensed by the same constructions which
license ordinary nominal constructs like some water, cats, and a
watch. The accounts hinge on the presumption that nominal con-
structions have meaning independent of their nominal heads – they
denote types of entities.
Thus, the nominal construction which licenses the combination of
some and a nominal sister denotes a mass entity. It requires a nominal
head which is also a mass. Although the noun pillow canonically
denotes a count entity, it receives a mass construal in the context of
(10) via (9). The nominal construction which licenses the combina-
tion of a noun and plural suffix -s requires that its nominal head de-
note a count entity. While soup, as a liquid, is prototypically viewed
as a mass, the noun soup, when combined with the plural construc-
tion, as in (11), receives the individuated construal associated with
count entities, and is thereby seen, via (9), as denoting a portion or
type. Finally, (12) exemplifies an override involving that determina-
tion construction whose left daughter is the indefinite article. This
construction requires a noun denoting a count entity as its right
daughter. Via (9), the noun pudding receives the individuated con-
strual associated with the class of count nouns.
In discussing the conceptual underpinnings of nominal syntax,
Talmy (1988) introduces a distinction which has proven crucial to
our understanding of linguistic overrides and how they are accom-
plished. Talmy classifies overrides into cases of implicit and explicit
conversion. Cases of implicit conversion involve grammatical mark-
ers whose function is to signal a semantic feature intrinsic to the lexi-
cal item which serves as head. The marker and the head lexical ele-
ment have the same specification for a given semantic feature. Let us
call these constructions concord constructions. A nominal construc-
tion of this type is that which licenses indefinite NPs like a jar. This
construction flags the uniplex feature of its head noun, in this case
jar. As shown in (12), the uniplex feature associated with the indefi-
nite article a can also be combined with a mass specification: a ap-
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 11
pears as the right sister of the mass noun pudding. As discussed, this
situation creates conflict, which, via (9), is resolved in favor of the
meaning of the closed-class element.
Cases of explicit conversion involve grammatical constructions in
which the external semantics of the construction carries a value for a
given feature (say, boundedness) that is distinct from the value asso-
ciated with a lexical filler. Let us call these constructions shift con-
structions. Shift constructions do not signal concord between lexical
and grammatical specifications, as do concord constructions like the
indefinite article. The purpose of shift constructions is to alter the
conventional designation of the lexical filler. Semantic shift is en-
tailed by the semiotic function of the construction. The partitive con-
struction in English (a unit of x) is an example of an shift construc-
tion. It is designed to shift the unbounded value of the (necessarily
undetermined) lexical complement (say pie, as in a piece of pie) to
the bounded value associated with the head (piece). An essential
property of shift constructions is that they involve a distinction be-
tween internal and external semantics: the external semantics of the
construction is the “output value”, and the internal semantics is the
“input value”. The distinction between internal and external seman-
tics can be manifested linguistically: shift constructions are often
periphrastic, with the head of the construction representing the output
value and the complement representing the input value. In the case of
the partitive construction, for example, the head bears the count fea-
ture of the whole, while the complement (the niece of the head) de-
notes the mass feature called for as the internal semantics.
Because they have distinct internal and external semantics, shift
constructions, which, as we have seen, conventionally signal explicit
conversion, also perform implicit conversion. This is so because each
shift construction specifies something about the nature of the “input”
lexical item – the content word that occupies the conceptual slot
which Langacker (1987, 1991) refers to as the elaboration site of a
construction. For example, as we saw above, the English partitive
construction requires that the nominal complement of the PP headed
by of denote a mass entity. What happens when a count entity instead
Laura A. Michaelis 12
occupies the position reserved for a nominal complement denoting a
mass? Implicit conversion results, as in (13):
(13) Give me a shred of sheet.
In (13), the noun sheet, which conventionally denotes a bounded
entity, receives a mass construal. This is so because this mass con-
strual is associated with the PP-complement slot of the partitive con-
struction. Thus, shift constructions perform explicit conversion be-
cause the head of the construction (which in the case of the partitive
construction denotes a portion) has semantic features distinct from
those of the lexical complement; shift constructions perform implicit
conversion because, just like concord constructions, they constrain
the properties of the open-class words with which they combine.
Implicit and explicit conversion are concepts which both appeal to
constructional semantics. Both concord and shift constructions des-
ignate something, e.g., an entity. Shift constructions have the func-
tions they do because the entity designated by the construction is
distinct from the entity designated by the item which occupies the
elaboration site of the construction. It may be suggested that the ex-
istence of shift constructions does not provide a challenge to the
projection principle, since the argument structure of a partitive con-
struct
3
like a piece of pie can be attributed to the argument-structure
requirements of the head noun denoting the portion (pie). A strong
objection to this argument can be made by pointing to cases of im-
plicit conversion involving the head-noun role of the partitive con-
struction. Partitive constructs which exemplify this phenomenon are
a splash of coffee and French une larme de vin (lit. ‘a tear of wine’).
While the words splash and larme (unlike, e.g., the words slice and
piece) do not intrinsically designate units or portions, they do so in
the context of the partitive construction. Hence, the argument struc-
ture of the NP a splash of coffee cannot be attributed to the valence

3. A construct is a linguistic expression which is licensed by a construction or
combination of constructions (Kay & Fillmore 1999; Fillmore et al. to appear).
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 13
requirements of the word splash, but must instead be attributed to the
semantic requirements of the partitive construction.
While shift constructions and concord constructions overlap in
allowing instances of implicit conversion, shift constructions differ
from concord constructions in that explicit conversion does not in-
volve principle (9): explicit conversion does not hinge on the resolu-
tion of conflict between lexical and constructional specifications.
Unlike shift constructions, concord constructions, which do involve
conflict resolution of the type described in (9), are problematic for
implementations of construction-based grammar based on unification
grammar (Kay & Fillmore 1999). The reason for this is that in a uni-
fication-based grammar, the combination of lexical items and con-
structions, which can be understood as the superimposition of one set
of specifications upon another, requires lack of conflict between
those overlapping specifications. Thus, for example, the English de-
termination construction whose left daughter is the indefinite article a
requires a count noun as its right daughter. If a mass noun like pud-
ding were to be combined with this NP construction, the result would
be conflict, and therefore a failure of unification.
However, given the existence of well formed NP constructs like a
pudding, Fillmore and Kay (1993) must find a way to license such
constructs. Their solution to this problem within the unification
framework is to propose several type-shifting constructions. Type-
shifting constructions resemble shift constructions in that they per-
form conversions in a compositional fashion, but they are distinct
from shift constructions in that they do not have constituent structure
(i.e., branching structure). Each type-shifting construction has an
external semantic value which is distinct from that of its sole daugh-
ter node. For example, the construction which shifts a mass noun to a
count noun unifies with a mass noun, e.g., pudding. Its external se-
mantics is that of a count noun, which can of course unify with the
construction that licenses indefinite NPs.
The use of type-shifting constructions appears to be motivated en-
tirely by a theory-internal consideration – the need to circumvent
positive exceptions to unification. Type-shifting constructions are not
only ad hoc mechanisms but ones which conflict with the goal of
Laura A. Michaelis 14
parsimony. If we do not assume a strict model of unification, we
need not resort to extra mechanisms to explain away well-formed
constructs which represent failures of unification. In accordance with
Talmy, Langacker, and Goldberg, we will assume that lexical speci-
fications and constructional specifications can conflict, and that this
conflict is resolved as per principle (9).
3. Case studies in conflict resolution
3.1. Argument-structure constructions
As described in the previous section, the constructional analysis of
argument structure offered by Goldberg (1995, 1997) is founded on
the assumption that linking patterns are “directly correlated with one
or more semantic structures” (1997: 83). Among the linking patterns
considered by Goldberg are the ditransitive pattern (whose core se-
mantics she captures with the formula ‘X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE Z’), the
caused-motion pattern (‘X CAUSES Y TO MOVE WITH RESPECT TO Z’) and
the resultative pattern (‘X CAUSES Y TO BECOME Z’). Examples of each
of these patterns are given in (14–16):
(14) We gave her the account.
(15) She put the checkbook on the counter.
(16) We painted the walls white.
Goldberg uses the term sentence type to refer to these linking pat-
terns. In accordance with Fillmore et al. (to appear), however, we
will regard linking patterns not as sentence structures but as verb-
level constructions, which unify with the lexical entries of verbs. The
rationale for this terminological decision is twofold. First, we prefer
to reserve the term sentence type for structural patterns like declara-
tive, imperative, interrogative, with which speech-act functions are
associated (see section 3.3.). Second, if we were to view patterns like
the ditransitive linking pattern as sentence types, we would lose a
generalization regarding passive instances of those patterns, as in the
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 15
sentence She was given the account by us. Since this sentence has the
same semantics as its active counterpart We gave her the account
(viz., ‘X CAUSES Y TO RECEIVE Z’), we would not wish to regard ditran-
sitive semantics as uniquely associated with the active-form pattern.
Instead, as per the practice of Fillmore et al. (to appear), we will as-
sume the existence of an “nominal oblique theme” linking construc-
tion, which will add to the minimal valence of an appropriate verb
the specification that the theme argument is linked to an oblique role
that is necessarily encoded by a NP (rather than a PP). Via instantia-
tion constructions (see Fillmore et al. to appear: chap. 5), this role
will be realized in postverbal position in the case of the passive sen-
tence and in the position following the direct object in the case of the
active sentence. This unification has the effect of augmenting what
Fillmore et al. (to appear) refer to as the minimal valence of the verb
(the repertoire of semantic roles inherent to the meaning of the verb).
The fully specified verbal valence which results from unification of a
verb’s lexical entry with a linking construction is one in which each
semantic role is assigned a grammatical function.
Crucial to Goldberg’s account is the idea that the repertoire of
thematic roles assigned by the linking construction may properly
include the repertoire of thematic roles in the verb’s minimal valence.
Examples of this phenomenon are given for each of the linking pat-
terns exemplified in (14–16) in (17–19):
(17) We painted them a landscape.
(18) She blew the dust off the picture.
(19) We cried our throats ragged.
The verb paint, a verb of creation, denotes a two-place relation, in-
volving the creator and a created item. However, sentence (17), an
instance of the ditransitive linking pattern, adds an additional partici-
pant to the making scenario – a potential recipient. This recipient is
not intrinsic to the making scenario; it is instead instrinsic to the
transfer scenario with which the ditransitive pattern is associated.
Likewise, while the verb blow is a one-place relation, involving an
agent, (18) adds two additional participants – a theme and a goal.
Laura A. Michaelis 16
These participants are intrinsic to the caused-motion construction
which the sentence instantiates. Finally, in (19), the verb cry appears
with two more participants than it ordinarily has – a patient and a
resultant state. The additional participants are intrinsic to the resul-
tant-state construction which licenses (19).
4
The examples in (17–19) strongly resemble the examples in (5-8),
which were used to undermine the validity of the projection princi-
ple. Both sets of examples involve implicit conversion. We can re-
gard linking patterns like the ditransitive and caused-motion patterns
as concord constructions. These patterns may, and indeed typically
do, reflect the inherent semantics of the verbal head. Examples of
concord, given in (14–16) are those which provide the motivation for
the projection principle. Goldberg (1997) refers to these kinds of

4. Goldberg argues (1995: chap. that the so-called fake objects found in the
resultative and caused-motion constructions are in fact semantic arguments – of
the construction. That the transitivity of the verbal head is irrelevant to the well-
formedness of a resultative or caused-motion sentence becomes evident when
one considers sentences like the following:
(a) I just can’t seem to drink you off my mind. (The Rolling Stones, “Honky
Tonk Woman”)
Although the verb drink is transitive, the NP you is not of a semantic type
which would generally allow it to serve as the object of drink. Instead, the sense
of drink which is found in (a) is the same intransitive activity sense found in
sentence (b):
(b) They drank all night.
Therefore drink in (a) denotes an activity which provides the means by which
metaphorical motion occurs. The same point can be made for examples like that
in (c), in which the object-denotatum is clearly not the theme argument of the
verb eat:
(c) They ate themselves sick.
Instead, in (c), as in (a–b), the theme argument of the verb is null-instantiated
and has a non-specific interpretation. The crucial role played by null instantia-
tion emerges clearly when one compares sentences (d) and (e). The anomaly of
(d) is a function of the anomaly of (e): as shown by (e), the verb devour does
not permit null complementation; it accordingly lacks the intransitive activity
sense necessary for its successful use with a reflexive object in the resultative
construction, as shown in (d):
(d) *They devoured themselves sick.
(e) *They devoured last night.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 17
examples as instances of elaboration, in which the verb codes a more
specific instance of the action designated by the construction.
Examples of implicit conversion, given in (5–8) and (17–19),
show, as Goldberg points out, that while the head verb typically does
elaborate the meaning of the construction, there are other relations
which the verb may bear to the construction. A prominent relation,
both across constructions and languages, is means: the verb may code
the means by which the action designated by the construction occurs.
Examples of the means relation are given in (18–19), in which, re-
spectively, blowing is the means by which the dust is moved from
one location to another and crying is the means by which the hoarse-
ness is effected.
Because the means by which an action is accomplished is intrinsic
to the causal event denoted by the linking constructions we have
looked at, the means relation and the elaboration relations may often
be difficult to distinguish. This is evident when we look at the verbs
which combine with the German be-construction (Michaelis & Rup-
penhofer 2001). An example of a be-construct is given in (20):
(20) Auch die Höhen um Fulda bebauten die Mönche des frühen
Klosters mit Kapellen, Kirchen und Propsteien. (Pörtner,
Die Erben Roms)
‘The monks of the early period of the monastery also be-
built the hills around Fulda with chapels, churches, and pro-
vosts’ residences.’
It would be difficult to determine for (20) whether the verb denotes
the means by which coverage is effected or an elaboration of the con-
structional meaning ‘Theme covers location thoroughly’, since
erecting structures on a piece of land is a type of covering. Because
both a means and an elaboration analysis would entail that the verb
denotes an aspect of the causal sequence denoted by the construction,
they are equivalent. In fact, it appears that the means and manner and
elaboration relations are equally prototypical of verb-construction
integration, despite the fact that the latter is compositional while the
former is not. The prototypicality of the means relation is under-
Laura A. Michaelis 18
scored by the fact that, as Goldberg observes (1997), the interpreta-
tion of denominal verbs is frequently instrumental, as in (21) and
(22):
(21) She nailed the poster up.
(22) Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Also *m.E.* regelt 41, wie ein Radweg zu beschildern ist
und wer darauf was zu suchen hat und wer nicht…
‘Well, *in my opinion* [paragraph] 41 regulates how a bike
path needs to be be-trafficsigned and who has any business
on it and who doesn’t.’
The examples in (21–22) again illustrate implicit conversion. In these
cases, the construction does not merely augment the argument struc-
ture of the word which appears in the head-verb slot, but in fact cre-
ates an argument structure for that word. The creation of valence is
strongly correlated with invocation of the means relation: the nail is
understood to denote the means of causing motion, just as the traffic
sign is understood to be the means by which coverage is effected. To
account for the conceptual shift from noun to verb in contexts like
(21–22), Goldberg (1997) proposes that denominal verbs like ham-
mer metonymically stand for actions involving the source nouns.
Notice, however, that it would be a mistake to claim, as Clark and
Clark (1979) do, that denominal verbs denote a participant in the
scene designated by the construction. According to this line of rea-
soning, for example, the denominal verb beschildern denotes the
theme argument in the coverage scenario denoted by the construc-
tion. The theme argument, if present, would be denoted by a nominal
expression, as we would expect, and the only reason that it is missing
in (21–22) is that its type is recoverable from the syntactic context. If
it were not, it would be expressed, as in the example She nailed the
poster up with antique brass nails. Hence, there is a difference be-
tween identification of the theme argument, which is something that
the verb can do, and expression of the theme argument, which is
something that a verb cannot do.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 19
The relationships that nouns and verbs may bear to constructional
meanings are not as limited as the foregoing discussion has implied.
Goldberg points out that verbs can designate preconditions for ac-
tions denoted by constructions. An example is found in (17): the act
of creation denoted by paint represents a precondition to transfer. It
is also evident that some of Goldberg’s denominal examples can be
viewed in terms of the precondition relation. A nominal example of
this kind is found in (23) (= Goldberg 1997, (23a)):
(23) They planned to vacation in Spain.
In (23), the noun vacation metonymically denotes a precondition
(having a vacation) for one’s being located in Spain. As Goldberg
argues, the concept of a precondition is intrinsic to the causal sce-
nario – every causal sequence involves preconditions. Therefore,
examples involving preconditions give support to Goldberg’s con-
tention, expressed in her 1997 paper, that verbs tend to denote as-
pects of the causal sequence denoted by a construction.
The various relationships (precondition, means, etc.) that con-
structions bear to verbs and nouns can be seen as distinct senses of
the construction, with elaboration representing the core sense of each
construction. Thus, ‘Agent successfully causes Recipient to receive
Patient’ can be seen as the central sense of the ditransitive construc-
tion,
5
while the precondition reading exemplified in (17), which
Goldberg (1995: chap. 2) represents by the formula ‘Agent intends to
cause Recipient to Receive Patient’, can be seen as another sense of
that construction. However, Goldberg (1995) maintains a distinction
between (i) the set of relationships that verbs can bear to a given con-
structional meaning and (ii) the set of meanings that can be associ-
ated with that construction. She maintains this distinction because,
for example, successful transfer is an entailment of both the means
reading and the elaboration reading of ditransitive sentences. That is,
the difference between a means reading (as in She handed him the

5. Goldberg demonstrates the basic-level status of the ‘successful receipt’ sense by
reference to interpretation of nonce forms, among other diagnostics.
Laura A. Michaelis 20
report) and an elaboration reading (as in She gave him the report)
does not accord with a difference in constructional meaning. (By
contrast, the precondition reading in (17), which does not entail
transfer, does represent a distinct meaning of the ditransitive pattern.)
Therefore, different constructional meanings may each license sev-
eral verb-construction relationships. An additional example of this
principle comes from Goldberg’s analysis of the caused-motion con-
struction. This construction, as Goldberg observes (1995: chap. 7),
has an enablement sense, in which the agent does not cause but
merely permits directed motion by the theme. This sense can license
both an elaboration reading (She allowed him onto the stage) and a
means reading (She invited him backstage).
Thus, the interpretive latitude which characterizes linking patterns
in context stems from two sources: the set of verb-construction rela-
tionships and constructional polysemy. The claim that linking con-
structions may be polysemous accords with the general idea, ad-
vanced here, that syntactic structures represent Saussurean signs –
form-meaning pairs – and therefore have meanings assigned by lin-
guistic convention rather than computed via composition. Thus, the
fact that constructions, like words, exhibit polysemy makes sense. As
shown by Michaelis (1994) with respect to the Latin correlative con-
ditional, constructions, like words, are subject to systematic semantic
extension over time, and like words, may denote an array of concepts
whose interrelationships seem opaque from the perspective of syn-
chrony.
The linking constructions which we have looked at in this section
represent concord constructions. Like the set of nominal construc-
tions, the set of linking constructions also includes shift construc-
tions. Those linking constructions which are shift constructions do
not license an elaboration relationship; verb meaning and construc-
tion meaning never match. Instead, the verb frame must invariably
accommodate to the construction’s frame. One example of an over-
ride construction is the Way-construction, analyzed in detail by Jack-
endoff (1990), Goldberg (1995), and Israel (1996). This construction
is exemplified in (24–25):
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 21
(24) She chatted her way down the receiving line.
(25) He slashed his way through the brush.
The meaning of the Way-construction, as described by the aforemen-
tioned authors, involves the notion of an agent creating a path by
means of some activity – in the case of (24–25), chatting and slash-
ing, respectively.
6
The verbal head, an intransitive, denotes an activ-
ity which does not involve directed motion (that is, neither chatting
nor slashing intrinsically involves directed motion). The scene de-
noted by the construction as a whole denotes an act of motion along a
path. As a shift construction, the Way-construction necessarily per-
forms conversion. This is shown by the fact that verbs which do de-
note directed motion inherently are not welcomed by the construc-
tion, as shown in (26–27):
(26) ??He walked his way into the meeting.
(27) ??She ran her way along the shore.
As an override construction, the Way-construction also allows for
implicit conversion. Since the verb which enters into the construction
is necessarily construed as an activity (i.e., a process), verbs which
do not otherwise have processual readings receive such readings in
the context of the construction. Examples of implicit conversion in-
volving the Way-construction are given in (28–29):

6. As Goldberg points out, the Way-construction is polysemous. In addition to a
‘means’ interpretation, the construction also has a ‘manner’ interpretation, ex-
emplified in (a):
(a) …anyone who has ever had the occasion to observe the average American
family as they snack their way toward the departure gate… (Fran Lebowitz,
Vanity Fair, October 1997)
The interpretation of (a) is one in which eating activity attends movement along
a path. Since the Way-construction is polysemous, instances of it may be am-
biguous:
(b) He shmoozed his way through the meeting.
Sentence (b) is ambiguous as to whether shmoozing is the means or the manner
of his getting through the meeting.
Laura A. Michaelis 22
(28) She blinked her way into the light.
(29) He dove his way into the hearts of millions of viewers
(??with a single dive).
While the verbs blink and dive have momentaneous (semelfactive or
achievement) readings under ordinary circumstances, they are inter-
preted as iterated, and therefore processual events in the context of
the Way-construction: the subject-denotatum in (28) is necessarily
construed as having blinked numerous times; the subject-denotatum
in (29) is necessarily understood as having performed a series of
dives.
Thus, it can be shown that argument-structure constructions, like
nominal constructions, are used to perform explicit and implicit con-
version operations. And as is the case of nominal syntax, implicit
conversion is achieved both through concord constructions and over-
ride constructions.
3.2. Aspectual constructions
The effects of grammatical context on the interpretation of verb se-
mantics has long been of interest to investigators of aspectual mean-
ing. Aspectologists have in fact often argued that aspectual categori-
zation does not concern verbs by themselves, but instead verb-plus-
argument combinations (Dowty 1979; Foley & Van Valin 1984; Van
Valin & LaPolla 1997). In particular, it has been claimed, e.g. by
Dowty (1986), that the Aktionsart classes originated by Vendler
(1967) (activity, accomplishment, etc.) are classes of situations rather
than of verbs. Dowty (1986), among others, assumes a distinction
between the lexical aspect of the verb and the situation type denoted
by the sentence as a whole, as well as a mechanism by which, e.g.,
the boundedness of an argument may impose a bounded construal on
the verb. An alternative to a model based on feature passing is one
based on conceptual gestalts. In accordance with Langacker (1991)
and Smith (1986, 1991), Michaelis (1998) adopts the view that dis-
tinctions like telic-atelic, bounded-unbounded and dynamic-static
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 23
arise from scene construal, and are not lexical features. Thus, while
(30–32) denote events without intrinsic stopping points (i.e., activi-
ties), (33–34) denote scenes which have inherent points of culmina-
tion (accomplishments and achievements):
(30) He scrubbed dishes.
(31) She walked.
(32) Tourists entered the temple.
(33) He scrubbed the dishes.
(34) She walked home.
(35) A tourist entered the temple.
While the examples in (30–35) concern the telicity distinction, the
examples in (36) show that argument structure also influences a more
fundamental distinction made in scene construal: the event-state (or,
equivalently, dynamic-static) distinction:
(36) a. She reminded me of my mother.
b. She reminded me of my dentist’s appointment.
Sentence (36a) denotes a state – a situation which does not involve
change over time and which has no intrinsic endpoint. Sentence (36b)
denotes an event – a situation which does involve change over time
and which does have an inherent stopping point (in the case of (36b),
a resultant state in which the speaker recalls the appointment). Stative
situations can be said to obtain at a single moment alone, while
events can only be said to be instantiated over a period of time (how-
ever small that period might be). In English, as observed by Lan-
gacker, Smith, and others, the (simple) present tense is understood, as
a matter of linguistic convention, to denote full instantiation now.
7

7. There is evidence to suggest that the prohibition on present-tense reporting of
events does not, as claimed here, arise from the momentaneous conceptualiza-
tion of the present tense per se, but instead more generally from a momentane-
ous conceptualization of the time of encoding, be is past or present. The evi-
dence for this broader semantic analysis comes from the interpretation of
Laura A. Michaelis 24
Therefore, only states can be reported by means of the simple present
tense, as shown by the contrast between (37a) and (37b), where (37b)
is assigned a star only on the ‘ongoing right now’ reading (and not,
e.g., on a habitual reading):
(37) a. She reminds me of my mother.
b. *She reminds me of my dentist’s appointment.
The contrast in (37) can be explained by reference to the subinterval
or distributivity property of states (Herweg 1991a, 1991b): any tem-
poral subpart of a state is equivalent to the whole. An event is only
instantiated over the course of time. Therefore, to report an event is
to report its completion; events require past-tense reporting.
8
Further,
when events are reported in the past, they are viewed as wholly con-
tained within the relevant past interval, while states reported in the

clausal complements of verba sentendi ac declarandi, in which those clausal
complements exhibit secondary sequence of tense:
(a) I said that she reminded me of my mother.
(b) I said that she reminded me of my dentist’s appointment.
In (a), the stative clause She reminded me of my mother can receive either a
past-in-past or a present-in-past interpretation. That is, either the speaker is pur-
ported to have said “She reminds me of my mother” or “She reminded me of
my mother”. As Declerck (1995) observes, the eventive clause She reminded
me of my dentist’s appointment can receive only a past-in-past interpretation.
That is, one cannot reconstruct the speaker’s past speech act as either “She re-
minds me of my dentist’s appointment” or “She is reminding me of my den-
tist’s appointment”, but only as “She reminded me of my dentist’s
appointment”. This restriction on the interpretation of (b) parallels that restric-
tion which is manifested as a well-formedness constraint in (37b). The parallel
suggests that the time of encoding, whether past or present, has a punctual in-
terpretation in English, and therefore cannot accommodate the temporal profile
of an event.
8. In this discussion, I am focusing on default reporting contexts, and not such
special-case reporting contexts as the so-called play-by-play context, the per-
formative context, or historical-present narrative; see Langacker 1991 and
Michaelis 1998, e.g., for discussion of these special-case reporting contexts. (I
thank an anonymous referee for pointing out the need to circumscribe the class
of cases I have in mind here.)
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 25
past are viewed as including that past point: since states are internally
homogenous, a momentaneous ‘sample’ is sufficient to verify the
presence of a state.
Given the fundamental analogy between space and time (Talmy
1988), aspectologists have been inclined to exploit the parallels be-
tween entities, which occupy space, and situations, which obtain or
occur over time. The postulation of parallels between mass entities
and states, on the one hand, and count entities and events, on the
other, has been fundamental to explanation in aspectology
(Mourelatos 1978; Langacker 1991; Michaelis 1998). And since
nominal syntax reflects the distinction between implicit and explicit
conversion, it should come as no surprise that aspectual syntax does
as well. In this section, we will briefly look at concord and shift con-
structions whose meanings hinge on the event-state distinction. Con-
cord constructions are discussed in section 3.2.1., and shift construc-
tions in section 3.2.2.
3.2.1. Aspectual concord constructions
In this section, we will look at two classes of aspectual concord con-
structions: adverbial constructions and tense constructions. The ad-
verbial constructions which we will consider are VP-level construc-
tions which pair a V’ with an aspectually sensitive adjunct. We will
examine two such constructions: the frame-adverb construction and
the frequency-adverb construction. The tense constructions that we
will consider are verb-level constructions which pair a verb with a
suffix that expresses past tense. We will look at two such construc-
tions: that past tense which selects for a state verb, the so-called im-
perfective past, and that past-tense which selects for an event verb,
the so-called perfective past. Examples of concord involving the two
aspectually sensitive adjuncts at issue are given in (38–39):
(38) a. She recognized him in a minute.
b. We fixed it in an hour.
(39) They went to France twice.
Laura A. Michaelis 26
As shown in (38), the frame adverbial can be paired with an
achievement predicate like recognize him, in which case it has a
reading in which the event occurred after the denoted period of time
elapsed. This durative phrase can also be paired with an accomplish-
ment predicate like fix it, in which case it has a reading in which the
event denoted occupied the period, culminating at the end of it. Via
the logic of containment, (38b) entails that the fixing event can fit
within any interval larger than an hour, and (via quantity implicature)
implies that this event cannot fit into an interval smaller than an hour.
Stative predications are not compatible with in-phrases of dura-
tion. The reason for this is that states, unlike events, have the subin-
terval property: any interval at which a state goes on might on might
also be a subinterval of a larger interval at which that state goes on
(see Herweg 1991a, 1991b). As Michaelis argues (1998: chap. 1), a
sentence like He was in London yesterday can always be interpreted
in such a way that the state of being in London is not circumscribed
by (and in fact contains) the temporal boundaries denoted by yester-
day. Since the in-phrase of duration (by the logic of containment)
entails that the situation denoted is wholly circumscribed by the ex-
pressed interval, state predications are incompatible with in-phrases
of duration.
The frequency adjunct exemplified in (39) can be viewed, in ac-
cordance with Herweg (1991a), as specifying the number of applica-
tions of the event-type predicate We go- to France. As Herweg ar-
gues, only events are countable. States are not countable because the
application of a state-type predicate is infinite, owing to the subinter-
val property: every subinterval of the overall period for which a state
obtains is also a period at which that state obtains. An event-type
predicate applies only once to the interval of which it is predicated,
and therefore counting events amounts to counting the intervals
which are arguments of a given event-type predicate. The application
of the spatial analogy is straightforward: individuated entities, like
events, are countable because the application of a categorizing predi-
cate (e.g., Jar’(x)) is not infinite; masses, like states, are not count-
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 27
able because the application of a categorizing predicate, e.g., Pud-
ding’ (x), is potentially infinite.
Both frame and frequency adjuncts represent concord construc-
tions: in each construction, the head daughter (a V’) and its sister
(the adjunct) share a semantic feature: the event, or equivalently,
perfective, feature. That is, any verb or verb projection which denotes
an event can unify with the construction, and the adjunct has a va-
lence member which calls for an event (see Michaelis 1998: chap. 5
for formal details of this unification). This general pattern of mutual
invocation is of course identical to that found among nominal con-
cord constructions like indefinite determination: the open-class
daughter denotes a bounded type, be it a situation or an entity, and its
sister is a grammatical expression which calls for that same type.
The examples in (40) illustrate implicit conversion involving the
two adjunct constructions:
(40) a. She was outside in three minutes.
b. We were in France twice.
In (40a), we see that a stative situation, which can be represented by
the tenseless proposition She be- outside, is construed as an event
when combined with the frame adverbial in three minutes. Via (9),
the event feature associated with the head of the construction over-
rides the stative feature of the input V’. This means that the predicate
She be- outside receives an achievement interpretation, in which the
event of her beginning to be outside occurs within the three-minute
time span. This type shift is minimal in the sense that it merely adds
an onset transition to the input state representation. The override
which occurs in (40b) is similar, although in this case the enriched
construal resulting from the override imposes both an offset and an
onset transition on the state. That is, the event denoted by (40b) is not
merely the onset of a state but instead a full state phase, with begin-
ning and endpoints entailed. This episodic or ‘closed’ interpretation
is required by the frequency-adverb construction: because a single
state cannot begin more than once, enumeration entails that for every
onset counted there must be an offset as well. Of course, the forego-
Laura A. Michaelis 28
ing observation leads us to ask why the enriched representation asso-
ciated with (40a) does not contain an offset transition as well. Cer-
tainly, the presence of an offset transition would not conflict with the
semantics of the frame-adverbial construction. The answer appears to
be simply that the offset transition is not entailed by the semantics of
the frame-adverbial construction, and that override interpretations
tend to be economical: they add no more structure than what is re-
quired to resolve conflict between lexical and constructional seman-
tics (see Michaelis to appear for a detailed exposition of this con-
straint on operations which add aspectual structure).
Herweg (1991a) sees the meanings of sentences like (40a–b) as
non-compositional: they cannot be assigned a meaning under the
ordinary combinatory constraints of the two adjuncts, since the theta
frame for each adjunct presumably requires an event argument. In the
constructional model, in which the pairing of predication and adjunct
is licensed by a construction, we need not presume that the interpre-
tation of these sentences is idiomatic. As discussed, the interpretation
of these sentences is in fact compositional, via (9) (see Goldberg
1995: chap. 1 for arguments concerning the compositional nature of
the constructional account of argument structure).
Like the adjunct constructions discussed, morphological construc-
tions which license perfective and imperfective past-tense inflections
in languages like French are concord constructions whose meanings
are exploited for the purpose of implicit conversion. Examples of
concord involving the two constructions are given in (41–42):
(41) Elle préférait le vin blanc.
‘She preferred white wine.’
(42) Elle est venue à deux heures.
‘She arrived at two.’
Sentence (41), whose verbal head is marked as imperfective, illus-
trates the concord usage of the construction which licenses the imper-
fective past tense. The predicate préférer le vin blanc canonically
denotes a stative situation. The imperfective ending exhibits concord
with this state feature; that is, this ending selects for a verb denoting
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 29
the stative type. The verb venir in (42) canonically denotes an event.
Accordingly, the perfective past-tense inflection exhibits concord
with this event feature.
Sentences (43–44) exemplify implicit conversions involving the
two morphological constructions in French; the relevant verbs are in
boldface.
(43) Raymonde: Qu’est-ce qu’ils voulaient, les deux messieurs?
Robert: On s’échangeait nos adresses!
‘Raymonde: What did they want, those two men?
Robert: We were exchanging addresses.’
(Binet, Les Bidochon 2, p. 50)
(44) Henri s’est retourné. Margot a eu l’air heureuse.
‘Henri turned around. Margot cheered up (lit. ‘started to
look happy’).’
The verb in (43), échanger, is one whose situation aspect is perfec-
tive, and yet this perfective verb is paired with a past-tense suffix
which calls for a state verb. Via (9), this pairing results in an override
whereby an otherwise perfective verb receives a stative interpreta-
tion: the address-exchanging situation is understood to include the
past reference time evoked by Raymonde’s question, rather than be-
ing included within it. In terms of Michaelis (to appear), this stative
construal is a chained transition. First, the activity component of the
causal chain denoted by the predicate échangernos adresses is se-
lected. This activity component is the series of transfer events which
leads up to the state at which each participant has the other’s address.
Second, this series of grossly identical transfer events is construed at
a level of granularity which renders its internal structure irrelevant,
leading to the stative construal. In (44), by contrast, the situation as-
pect of the verb avoir is imperfective. In (44), avoir is paired with
perfective past-tense inflection, which is otherwise compatible only
with an event-type predicate. Via (9), an override occurs in which the
verb receives an event construal: as reflected in the English transla-
tion, the event denoted is the beginning of the state in which Margot
looks happy. This event occurs within a reference time just after the
Laura A. Michaelis 30
time of Henri’s turning around; Margot’s looking happy is accord-
ingly understood not to obtain prior to the first-mentioned event.
9
3.2.2. Aspectual shift constructions
The shift constructions which we will look at in this section are the
English perfect and progressive constructions, exemplified in (45-
46), respectively:
(45) They have now visited us twice.
(46) The dog was digging a hole in the yard.
Investigators of tense and aspect have long debated the appropriate
characterization of these constructions: are they tense markers or
aspect markers? Each exhibits semantic properties associated with
tense markers. The progressive construction alternates with the sim-
ple present-tense in reporting contexts: as we have seen in the discus-
sion of (35–36), the simple present is used to report states which
overlap with the time of speaking, while the present progressive is
used to report events which overlap with the present. The perfect
construction denotes anteriority of an event or series of events with
respect to the present. The present perfect in particular denotes ante-
riority with respect to speech time, a function associated with the past
tense. Despite functional and semantic overlaps with tense markers,
one can make a convincing case that these two constructions are as-
pectual, in that each performs a stativizing function. Perfect and pro-
gressive predications qualify as stative predications on a number of
diagnostics. Both perfect and progressive predications can be used as
simple present-tense reports – a property shown above to be unique
to stative predications. Both perfect and progressive sentences pass
the when-test for stativity: the situation which they denote can be

9. Notice that in English, by contrast, a sentence like (a) is vague as to whether
Margot’s looking happy started after Henri’s turning around (and observed it)
or obtained for some time prior to Henri’s turning around:
(a) Henri turned around. Margot looked happy.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 31
construed as holding prior to the event denoted by a subordinate
clause introduced by when. This is shown for past progressive and
perfect sentences in (47–48):
(47) When we came in, they were playing cards.
(47’) When we came in, they played cards.
(48) When we arrived, they had packed up everything.
(48’) When we arrived, they packed up everything.
The sentences in (47’) and (48’) are distinct from their non-prime
counterparts in that (47’) and (48’) contain perfective main-clauses.
Since these sentences have perfective-form main clauses, they cannot
be construed as denoting a situation in which the main-clause event
was going on for some time prior to the event of the subordinate
clause. Instead, the main-clause situation is necessarily understood to
begin after the event denoted by the subordinate clause. By contrast,
(47) and (48) are compatible with a construal in which the main-
clause situations began prior to the event denoted by the subordinate
clause. In allowing this construal, (47) and (48) are identical to
stative sentences like (49):
(49) When we got home, she was upset.
A likely interpretation of (49) is one in which the situation of her
being upset obtained prior to the event denoted by the subordinate
clause. Given that perfect and progressive sentences class as stative
sentences according to several diagnostics, we can conclude that per-
fect and progressive sentences denote stative situations. In accor-
dance with Herweg (1991a, 1991b), we can view the perfect con-
struction as denoting a state of aftermath following the culmination
of one or more events, and the progressive as denoting a state that
obtains during the time at which an event occurs. In other words,
perfect and progressive predications denote a state defined with re-
spect to a background event. The state is denoted by the auxiliary
head; the background event (which Michaelis (1998) refers to as the
reference situation) is denoted by the participial complement. While
Laura A. Michaelis 32
progressive and perfect constructions denote states defined relative to
background events, other shift constructions, like the inceptive, may
denote events defined relative to background states. An example of
this usage of the inceptive is given in (50):
(50) She began to look sad.
The periphrastic structure of aspectual shift constructions like the
perfect and inceptive mirrors that of shift constructions like the parti-
tive in the domain of nominal syntax. Again, we see that the analogy
between entities and situations is useful in thinking about aspectual
meaning: just as the partitive construction denotes a count entity de-
fined with respect to a backgrounded mass entity, so constructions
like the inceptive can denote a bounded situation (an event of incep-
tion) defined with respect to an unbounded situation (a state like
looking sad).
By thinking of the progressive as a shift construction, we find an
answer to a question frequently asked not only by aspectologists but
also by native English-speaking learners of Romance languages like
French: what is the difference between the progressive construction
in English and the imperfective in a language like French? Clearly,
the two constructions overlap in many contexts, including that in
(43), where a French imperfective sentence is translated by an Eng-
lish progressive. However, they are not functionally identical, as one
can see from the impossibility of translating an imperfective sentence
like (41) by means of an English progressive sentence like the
anomalous sentence *She was preferring white wine.
The simple answer to the puzzle relies on a distinction which we
have already made: the English progressive is a shift construction,
while the French imperfective is a concord construction, in particular
a past-tense construction which selects for a particular aspectual
class, that of states. The lexical complement of a progressive sen-
tence must be eventive, since the purpose of the construction is to
derive, so to speak, a state predication from an eventive predication.
Therefore, a stative predicate like prefer- white wine cannot unify
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 33
with the progressive construction, while its French equivalent can
unify with the imperfective construction.
As it stands, however, this explanation overlooks the fact that, as
pointed out by Langacker (1991) and others, stative predicates cer-
tainly are sometimes compatible with the progressive construction, as
shown in sentences (51–52):
(51) I am really liking your explanation.
(52) We are living in Boulder.
Speakers report that (51) has an interpretation in which the state of
liking is developing toward some point of culmination, and that (52)
has an interpretation in which living in Boulder is a temporary state.
These observations indicate that progressive-form statives are con-
strued as events. It is easy to see that development toward a point of
culmination is an eventive property; eventive (activity) predicates
like grow exemplify this property. It is somewhat more difficult to
see temporality as an eventive property. After all, living in Boulder,
however short its duration, is a situation that is internally homogene-
ous. However, as Langacker (1991) shows, there are a number of
internally homogeneous situations, like wearing a sweater and
sleeping, which qualify as events with regard to the present-tense
reporting diagnostic (*The baby sleeps! *He wears a red sweater.).
In terms of their Aktionsart classification, such situations are most
closely aligned with activities, since they are bounded in time but
lack an inherent point of culmination. Therefore, it seems reasonable
to conclude that progressive-form statives are construed as activities.
The fact that state predicates which appear as complements in the
progressive construction are construed as events makes sense in light
of what we now know about shift constructions: such constructions,
in addition to performing explicit conversion, are also used for im-
plicit conversion. The examples in (51–52) illustrate the use of the
progressive construction to signal implicit conversion: each denotes a
state which holds during the time at which an event occurs. The par-
ticipial complement is one which otherwise denotes a state, but re-
ceives an activity reading by virtue of its constructional context.
Laura A. Michaelis 34
An example of implicit conversion involving the perfect construc-
tion is given in (53):
(53) I’ve been rich and I’ve been poor.
There is a straightforward shift interpretation of I’ve been rich in
which I be- rich is a state phase whose terminus is the present (this is
the so-called continuative reading of the perfect). Michaelis (1998:
chap. 5) argues that this reading is licensed by the continuative con-
struction, whose participial complement denotes a state phase and
has a stative head (see Herweg 1991a for arguments that state phases
qualify as events). There is another reading of (53), sometimes re-
ferred to as an existential reading, in which I’ve been rich asserts the
occurrence of one or more episodes of being rich prior to now. This
is the reading associated with (53), which invokes an alternation be-
tween rich and poor episodes in the past. The existential reading of
(53) involves implicit conversion: a stative complement receives an
episodic reading in the context of a construction (the existential-
perfect construction) whose participial complement denotes an event.
Although this event is a state phase on either the continuative or ex-
istential reading, it is only on the existential reading that this state
phase has an episodic interpretation, in which its duration is not fore-
grounded. This is the reading associated with inherently perfective
complements like visit, which unify with the existential-perfect con-
struction in straightforward cases like (45).
3.3. Sentence types
A sentence type is a conventional pairing of form and discourse
function. Traditionally recognized sentence types are declaratives,
imperatives and questions. Beyond those types targeted by speech-act
theory, we find expressive types like exclamations and focus con-
structions like presentationals. Descriptive grammar is largely based
on sentence types, but the relationship of form to function is not a
straightforward one. As Michaelis and Lambrecht (1996) argue with
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 35
respect to English exclamations, the relationship between form and
discourse function is many-to-one, both within and across languages.
Further, as Levinson (1983) points out, there is a good deal of formal
overlap among sentence types. The purpose of this brief section is
not, however, to defend a particular theory of sentence types. Instead,
it is to examine the way in which sentence types are relevant to a
theory of conversion.
There are two aspects of the conversion phenomenon that I wish
to consider here. Both involve accommodation to constructional
pragmatics. The first involves the manner in which sentence-type
constructions override the function of sentence types with which they
unify. The second involves the way in which sentence types override
inherent semantic specifications of open-class items within them,
including argument structure. Exploration of the second phenomenon
will return us to a consideration of problems which stem from the
assumption of lexical projection.
3.3.1. Function override
Function override is illustrated in English by the use of wh-question
complements in factive contexts. A main-clause usage of a wh-
question form is given in (54):
(54) Who spoke up?
The wh-question construction, when used in a main-clause context,
presupposes the speaker’s ignorance of the identity of the element
coded by the question word or phrase. For example, sentence (54)
presupposes that the speaker does not know the identity of the person
or persons who spoke up. Wh-questions also presuppose a proposi-
tional function in which the element represented by the question
word or phrase appears as an unbound variable. For example, (54)
presupposes a propositional function of the form X spoke up. As
Lambrecht and Michaelis (1998) argue, wh-questions assert the
Laura A. Michaelis 36
speaker’s desire to know the identity of this variable.
10
When used as
complements, the semantic properties of wh-questions change. Sen-
tences (55–56) illustrate two contexts in which wh-questions appear
as complements:
(55) I realize who spoke up.
(56) I can’t believe who spoke up!
Both (55) and (56) presuppose that someone spoke up. Sentence (55)
asserts that the speaker is aware of this proposition, while (56) asserts
that the speaker is surprised by some aspect of this proposition. Both
(55) and (56) presuppose that the speaker knows the identity of the
person who spoke up. Hence, the use of wh-questions as comple-
ments in factive contexts not only changes what the form is taken to
assert, but also overrides the presupposition of speaker ignorance
associated with matrix wh-questions. The semantic content preserved
across factive and question contexts is the presupposed open propo-
sition; factives, by definition, presuppose the truth of their comple-
ments. Factive constructions call for complements which express a
proposition known to both speaker and hearer; this proposition may
be coded by a that-clause, but, as we have observed, it may also be
coded by a wh-complement whose question word has a denotation
known to the speaker. The presuppositional shift undergone by the
question-form complement is a result of the semantics imposed by
the factive construction via (9).
Another aspect of functional override is evident when we look
closely at exclamations like (56). Such sentences do not simply assert
the speaker’s surprise at the proposition “Someone spoke up”. In-
stead, (56) is taken to assert something relative to a pragmatic scale.
Sentence (56) presupposes, or rather creates the presupposition that

10. Assert here is not to be taken as synonymous with the speech-act function of
declaratives. Instead, assertion is used to describe the effect of an utterance on
the addressee’s knowledge state. E.g., as a result of hearing (54) the hearer
knows the speaker’s desire to learn the identity of the person who spoke up. On
this understanding, it is not only declaratives that assert, but also questions (see
Lambrecht & Michaelis 1998 for further discussion of this point).
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 37
the individual in question is ranked on scale of, e.g., speakers with
regard to their reticence. Why should this be? Exclamations, as ar-
gued by Michaelis and Lambrecht (1996), are used to express sur-
prise at the high degree to which a given property has been mani-
fested on some occasion, as in (57):
(57) I can’t believe how smart she is!
In accordance with Fillmore, Kay and O’Connor (1988), we assume
that individuals are assigned positions on a given property scale. The
purpose of (56) is to invoke a high point on the relevant property
scale (a point associated with the individual in question), and express
surprise that this point has been reached. The interpretation in which
the question word who denotes a degree on a property scale is not a
fact about wh-question forms, but instead a fact about the interpreta-
tion of these forms in the context of an exclamative construction.
As observed by an anonymous reviewer, the override phenome-
non at issue is difficult to describe by means of (9), as that principle
is stated. Wh-question complements are not lexical items, and there-
fore the semantic conversion which they undergo when embedded as
complements in exclamative constructions cannot be described as the
result of an interaction of lexical and grammatical semantics. I will
leave open the question of how (9) should be broadened in order to
embrace the types of conversion which occur when sentence types
combine. However, it is appropriate to observe that the example at
hand is one in which a sentence type (the wh-question complement
construction ) is embedded in another. Insofar as this embedded con-
struction serves as a complement, it occupies a role (that of argu-
ment) that is canonically filled by a lexical item.
But what sort of argument relation does the embedded-question
complement bear to the construction as a whole? As Michaelis
(2001) has argued, exclamations are double predications. That is,
they not only predicate a scalar property (e.g., smartness in (57)) of a
referent (e.g., the denotatum of she in (57)), but also predicate an
epistemic property (that of inducing disbelief, etc.) of a degree. Inso-
far as this degree is the argument of a predication, the complement of
Laura A. Michaelis 38
an indirect exclamative may be a noun phrase denoting a degree,
either directly or metonymically (see the discussion of (65) below
and other examples discussed by Michaelis and Lambrecht (1996),
including predications like It’s amazing the DIFFERENCE!). The alter-
nation between wh-clause complements and NP-form complements
in indirect exclamations – initially observed by Grimshaw (1979),
among others – is explicable insofar as degrees are entities. The en-
tity status of degrees is evidenced by the fact that languages may
index them by means of anaphoric words (as in, e.g., He’s that tall.).
If degrees are entities, it stands to reason that they may be referred to
by means of noun phrases, which canonically denote entities (Croft
1990: 64–154). If we view degrees as arguments of exclamative
predications, we have some basis for treating complements of indi-
rect exclamatives like (56) as analogous to lexical items, in particular
nouns.
3.3.2. Sentence types and lexical projection
Zwicky (1994) suggests that a theory of sentence types might explain
exceptions to a principle which he refers to as strictly categorial de-
termination, i.e., the assumption that the syntactic category of a given
maximal projection is entirely determined by the syntactic category
of the head. An example of an exception involving a sentence type is
given in (58):
(58) As smart as she is, she is having difficulty getting a job.
The phrase in boldface receives the interpretation associated with a
concessive clause like Although she is smart or Despite the fact that
she is smart. This phrase is not inherently a clause – let alone a con-
cessive one. Its head is an adjective, and it functions as an AP in
contexts like (59):
(59) We are as smart as she is.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 39
The interpretation of (58) as a clause, with a factive interpretation, is
a function of its embedding in a concessive construction. It is this
construction which imposes the concessive interpretation upon what
is in other contexts merely an AP.
Examples like the foregoing clearly illustrate exceptions to the
principle of lexical projection at the syntactic level. Exceptions at the
semantic level, which may involve either the inherent semantics of a
lexical head or the semantic requirements (valence) of a lexical head,
also reveal themselves when we look at sentence types. One such
exception was discussed in section 2 with regard to Bresnan’s (1994)
analysis of locative inversion. That sentence, sentence (4), is repeated
here as (60):
(60) Down at the harbor there is teal-green clubhouse for so-
cializing and parties. Beside it sparkles the community pool.
(Vanity Fair, August 2001)
As discussed in section 2, Bresnan’s model has some difficulty ac-
counting for this type of example under the assumption that locative
inversion is an alternative linking possibility for some set of unaccu-
sative verbs. If, however, we abandon this assumption in favor of the
assumption that locative inversion is a sentence type, accounting for
examples like (60) is straightforward. Locative inversion can be con-
sidered an instance of a presentational sentence type referred to by
Lambrecht (1994) as the sentence-focus type. Sentence-focus con-
structions, also known a thetic sentences, report events and states,
and in so doing introduce the referents which serves as arguments in
the predication. Lambrecht (1995) argues that while sentence-focus
sentences tend to contain unaccusative verbs and verbs of location,
this tendency is a function of the semantic-pragmatic properties of
presentational constructions, whose function is not to predicate
something of an entity under discussion, but to introduce an entity
into a conversation or narrative, making it available for predications
subsequently. Hence, as Bresnan herself observes, the semantic role
that an entity would ordinarily play with respect to a verb like spar-
kle is in a context like (60) overlaid by another role – in Lambrecht’s
Laura A. Michaelis 40
terms, this role is not the role of theme, but rather the role of focus.
The focus role is more salient in the presentational context than the
semantic role assigned by the lexical head. Accordingly, as Lam-
brecht (1995) points out, the agency of the caller role vis-à-vis the
verb call is backgrounded relative to its focal status in the English
prosodic construction in (61). Similar interpretive effects can be ob-
served for the pragmatic equivalent of this construction in French (a
cleft construction) and Italian (an inversion construction):
(61) BOB called.
(62) Il y a Bob qui a téléphoné.
(63) Ha telefonato Bob.
Presentational constructions like those in (61)–(63) give us evidence
for implicit conversion involving the presentational sentence type,
and against an account like Bresnan’s, which reduces presentational
constructions to lexical linking rules.
Conversion phenomena involving modulation of the meanings of
epistemic adjectives give evidence against another account in which
sentence types are derived from the subcategorization possibilities of
lexical items: Grimshaw’s (1979) account of exclamations. In Grim-
shaw’s account, exclamations are complements which are called for
by a specific class of lexical verbs and adjectives, including the ne-
gated verb believe and the adjective amazing. However, an important
point about adjectives which denote the property of causing disbelief
is that they do not form a circumscribed set. Adjectives which do not
intrinsically denote the property of causing disbelief may neverthe-
less appear as matrix predicators in exclamatives which take the form
of extraposition structures. When this occurs, the semantics of the
adjective is modified in such a way that it is compatible with the se-
mantics of the construction. Examples of this phenomenon are given
in the boldfaced portions of (64–65):
(64) Allen served just two years there and it was a transforming
experience. ‘It was frightening, that whole time, how much
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 41
anger I had.’ (Time 12 December 1994) (= Michaelis &
Lambrecht 1996, (32a))
(65) ‘The cops? Are they friends of yours?’ ‘Hardly’, I said, but I
sat there smiling. It was terrible, really, the joy I took at the
notion of skunking Pigeyes. I already had a few ideas. (S.
Turow, Pleading Guilty) (= Michaelis & Lambrecht 1996,
(1e))
The adjectives frightening and terrible do not denote the property of
inducing disbelief. Instead, frightening denotes the property of in-
ducing fear and terrible the general property of inducing a negative
response (censure, disgust, etc.). In the context of an exclamative
construction, however, the fearful and censorious responses invoked
by these adjectives are understood as entailed by a judgement about
the degrees of anger and joy, respectively. E.g., the degree of anger is
high enough to induce fear. In other words, the extraposed exclama-
tive construction – whose semantic-pragmatic properties are those of
the exclamative sentence type – appears to impose its meaning on the
matrix adjectives with which it combines. The existence of conver-
sion examples like (64–65) suggests that the source of exclamative
meaning is an exclamative construction, rather than the argument
structure of a set of psychological adjectives which commonly com-
bine with this construction.
In concluding this section, we should observe that although we
have focused on sentence types which are concord constructions, and
therefore on instances of implicit conversion – examples in which
sentence types modulate the semantic or pragmatic features of their
parts – there are also straightforward examples of sentence types
which perform explicit conversion. Examples are found, e.g., in
Vietnamese, in which sentence-final particles are used to override the
illocutionary force of the clauses to which they are attached. For ex-
ample, the sentence-final particles di (lit. ‘go’) and không (a negative
marker) function to impose, respectively, an imperative reading and a
yes-no interrogative reading on clause which would otherwise have
declarative force.
Laura A. Michaelis 42
4. Conclusion
We have seen that appeal to constructional meaning provides a uni-
fied treatment of two very different kinds of semantic interactions:
the ‘unmarked’ type, in which lexical items match the meanings of
the constructions with which they are combined, and the ‘marked’
type, in which the meanings of lexical elements conflict with con-
structional meanings. On the constructional account, the ‘marked’
combinations, far from being unexpected or exceptional, behave in
accordance with the override principle, and serve a function identical
to that of demonstrably compositional constructions like the partitive
and progressive, i.e., type shifting. In fact, as we have seen, describ-
ing the semantics of nominal constructions, linking constructions,
aspectual constructions and sentence types requires reference to both
explicit type-shifting (as performed by shift constructions) and im-
plicit type-shifting (as performed by both shift and concord construc-
tions).
Our exploration of shift and concord constructions at several mor-
phosyntactic levels has shown that an understanding of sentence
meaning relies on the study of syntactic meaning. The study of syn-
tactic meaning relies in turn on an understanding of concepts and
distinctions that are fundamental to construal (entity types, the event-
state distinction, causation, plexity, boundedness). In addition, it re-
quires an elaborated model of the functions served by syntactic forms
like exclamatory and presentational constructions – a model which
includes discourse-pragmatic roles like focus and discourse-theoretic
properties like presupposition. Since constructions, like words, freely
combine semantic features (like image schemas) with pragmatic
features (like use conditions), the study of constructional meaning
entails the integration of cognitive and discourse-functional explana-
tion. This integrated approach to the study of meaning and use is
already widely precedented in the cognitive sciences: studies of lan-
guage acquisition, language breakdown due to focal brain injury, and
sentence processing place increasingly strong emphasis on the role of
usage factors, in particular the frequency of words and morphosyn-
tactic patterns. Such studies have shown, for example, that the onset
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 43
of verb over-regularization errors in early language is triggered by a
marked increase in the proportion of regular to irregular verbs in the
child’s vocabulary (Marchman & Bates 1994), that sentence inter-
pretation becomes harder for both Broca’s aphasics and normal
adults when there is conflict between the preferred syntactic frame of
the lexical verb and the syntactic frame in which it is encountered
(Gahl 2002), and that the likelihood of a garden-path ‘detour’ during
sentence processing is a function of the prior probability of a given
constituent-structure assignment (e.g., reduced relative vs. main verb)
combined with the transitivity bias of the lexical verb (Narayanan &
Jurafsky 1998).
Such studies uphold the view, advanced by both Langacker (1987,
1991) and Bybee (2001), that linguistic knowledge is to a large ex-
tent the knowledge of routines. Significantly, such studies have also
provided evidence that, as Bates and Goodman (1997: 59) put it,
“grammatical and lexical forms are handled by the same large and
heterogeneous processing system.” In light of such findings, it is rea-
sonable to ask what theory of grammar could best capture the prop-
erties of this non-modular representational system. Whatever the ul-
timate answer, it seems safe to say that it will almost certainly in-
volve reference to grammatical constructions.
References
Bates, Elizabeth and Judith C. Goodman
1997 On the inseparability of grammar and the lexicon: Evidence from
acquisition, aphasia and real-time processing. Language and
Cognitive Processes 12: 507–584.
Bresnan, Joan
1994 Locative inversion and the architecture of universal grammar.
Language 70: 72–131.
2001 Lexical-Functional Syntax. Oxford: Blackwell.
Bybee, Joan
2001 Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-
sity Press.
Clark, Eve and Herbert Clark
1979 When nouns surface as verbs. Language 55: 767–811.
Laura A. Michaelis 44
Croft, William
1990 Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Declerck, Renaat
1995 Is there a relative past tense in English? Lingua 97: 1–36.
Dowty, David
1979 Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.
1986 The effects of aspectual class on the temporal structure of dis-
course: semantics or pragmatics? Linguistics and Philosophy 9:
37–61.
Fauconnier, Gilles and Mark Turner
1996 “Blending as a central process of grammar”. In: A. Goldberg
(ed.), 113–130.
Fillmore, Charles J. and Paul Kay
1993 Construction grammar coursebook. Unpublished ms., Depart-
ment of Linguistics, University of California, Berkeley.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay and Mary C. O’Connor
1988 Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The
case of let alone. Language 64: 501–538.
Fillmore, Charles J., Paul Kay, Laura A. Michaelis and Ivan Sag
to appear Construction Grammar. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Foley, William and Robert D. Van Valin
1984 Functional Syntax and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Gahl, Susanne
2002 The role of lexical biases in aphasic sentence comprehension.
Aphasiology 16.1173-1198.
Goldberg, Adele
1995 Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument
Structure. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1997 The relationships between verbs and constructions. In Marjolijn
Verspoor, Kee Dong Lee and Eve Sweetser (eds.), Lexical and
Syntactical Constructions and the Construction of Meaning,
83–98. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Goldberg, Adele (ed.)
1996 Conceptual structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI
Publications.
Grimshaw, Jane
1979 Complement selection and the lexicon. Linguistic Inquiry 10:
279–326.
Harris, Roy and Talbot J. Taylor
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 45
1997 Landmarks in Linguistic Thought 1: The Western Tradition from
Socrates to Saussure. London: Routledge.
Herweg, Michael
1991 a A critical account of two classical approaches to aspect. Journal
of Semantics 8: 362–403.
1991 b Perfective and imperfective aspect and the theory of events and
states. Linguistics 29: 969–1010.
Israel, Michael
1996 The way constructions grow. In: A. Goldberg, (ed.), 217–230.
Jackendoff, Ray
1990 Semantic Structures. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
1997 The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Kay, Paul and Charles J. Fillmore
1999 Grammatical constructions and linguistic generalizations: The
‘What’s X doing Y’ construction. Language 75: 1–33.
Lambrecht, Knud
1994 Information Structure and Sentence Form. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
1995 The pragmatics of case: On the relationship between semantic,
grammatical, and pragmatic roles in English and French. In: Ma-
sayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A. Thompson (eds.), Essays in Se-
mantics and Pragmatics, 145–190. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Lambrecht, Knud and Laura A. Michaelis
1998 Sentence accent in information questions: Default and projection.
Linguistics and Philosophy 21: 477–544.
Langacker, Ronald W.
1987 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 1: Theoretical Pre-
requisites. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
1991 Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, Volume 2: Descriptive Ap-
plication Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Levinson, Stephen
1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Marchman, Virginia A. and Elizabeth Bates
1994 Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of
the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language 21:
339–366.
Michaelis, Laura A.
1994 A case of constructional polysemy in Latin. Studies in Language
18: 45–70.
1998 Aspectual Grammar and Past-Time Reference. London: Rout-
ledge.
Laura A. Michaelis 46
2001 Exclamative constructions. In: Martin Haspelmath, Ekkehard
König, Wulf Österreicher and Wolfgang Raible (eds.), Language
Typology and Linguistic Universals, Volumes 1–3, 1038–1050.
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
to appear Implicit and explicit type-shifting in Construction Grammar.
Cognitive Linguistics.
Michaelis, Laura A. and Knud Lambrecht
1996 Toward a construction-based theory of language function: the
case of nominal extraposition. Language 72: 215–247.
Michaelis, Laura A. and Josef Ruppenhofer
2001 Beyond Alternations: A Constructional Model of the German
Applicative Pattern. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Mourelatos, Alexander
1981 Events, processes and states. In: Philip Tedeschi and Annie
Zaenen (eds.), Syntax and Semantics, Volume 14: Tense and
Aspect, 415–434. New York: Academic Press.
Narayanan, Srinivas and Daniel S. Jurafsky
1998 Bayesian models of human sentence processing. In: Sharon J.
Derry and Morton A. Gernsbacher (eds.), Proceedings of the
Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 752-
757. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum and Associates.
Pullum, Geoffrey and Arnold Zwicky
1991 Condition duplication, paradigm homonymy and transconstruc-
tional constraints. In: Laurel A. Sutton, Christopher Johnson and
Ruth Shields (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual
Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 252–266. Berkeley:
Berkeley Linguistics Society, Inc.
Ritter, Elizabeth and Sara Rosen
1998 Delimiting events in syntax. In: Miriam Butt and Wilhelm
Geuder (eds.), The Projection of Arguments: Lexical and Compo-
sitional Factors, 135–164. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Rudzka-Ostyn, Brygida (ed.)
1988 Topics in Cognitive Grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Slobin, Dan
1997 There’s more than one way to talk about motion: Consequences
of linguistic typology for narrative style. Paper presented at the
Third Conference on Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Lan-
guage, University of Colorado at Boulder, May 1997.
Smith, Carlota
1986 A speaker-based approach to aspect. Linguistics and Philosophy
9: 97–115.
Word meaning, sentence meaning, and syntactic meaning 47
1991 The Parameter of Aspect. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers.
Talmy, Leonard
1985 Lexicalization patterns: Semantic structure in lexical meaning. In:
Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language Typology and Syntactic De-
scription, Volume 3, 57–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
1988 The relation of grammar to cognition. In: Brygida Rudzka-Ostyn
(ed.), Topics in Cognitive Linguistics, 165–205. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Van Valin, Robert D. and Randy LaPolla
1997 Syntax: Structure, Meaning and Function. Cambridge: Cam-
bridge University Press.
Vendler, Zeno
1967 Linguistics and Philosophy. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Zwicky, Arnold
1994 Dealing out meaning: Fundamentals of grammatical construc-
tions. In: Susanne Gahl, Andrew Dolbey and Christopher
Johnson (eds.), Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Meeting of
the Berkeley Linguistics Society, 611–625. Berkeley: Berkeley
Linguistics Society, Inc.

Presentation on theme: «Module 3 L4. Word and Sentence Meaning Consists of: word 1/ Semantics and the study of the word: sense relation 3/ Aspect of Sentential Meaning sentence.»— Presentation transcript:

1

Module 3 L4. Word and Sentence Meaning Consists of: word 1/ Semantics and the study of the word: sense relation 3/ Aspect of Sentential Meaning sentence 2/ Semantics and the Nature of the Lexicon 4/ Pragmatics and Speech Acts Theory

2

Unit 1: 1/ Semantics and the study of the word: sense relation Sense/lexical relations used to explain meaning of English words as: Synonymy Antonymy Hyponymy Homonoymy Polysemy Mentonymy

3

As you study you know: 1/ Semantics theories try to explain the nature the meaning of words and sentences. 2/ meaning of a word is realized from its referential or denotation characteristics. 3/ some words it is not easy to analyze their characteristics.  Therefore, it is better to study them by the relation that create with other words which is based on the sense of the words

4

 This sense relation study through Synonymy Antonymy Hyponymy Homonoymy Polysemy Metonymy We will use these sense relation to study t he meaning of words, as follows:

5

when the relation is closed and similar..   between word we used it. We call them synonymous. Like this set of synonymy: Sad/angry/depressed/afraid(emotional set)  Pairs of words with similar meaning called synonymys as:-  Friends/ally  Boss/master  Amiable/friendly s ynonymy

6

Synonym typeDefinitionExample Stylistic (most common) A lexical unit that has a similar range of reference but is differentiated by speaker intention, the audience, and the situation.range of reference {happy, glad, joyful}

7

a word opposite in meaning to another. Fast is an antonym of slow. Has two types: Gradable: : Differ by degree and can compared with suffix As tall — taller- tallest More most Antonymy

8

Also in substitution like: Everybody/everyone Bandit /brigand( قاطع طريق Some are broad or near: Rich غني / sumptuous باذخ

9

nongradable No compare – but complementary(binary) pairs Examples: Male/ female Sister/brother Buy/ sell Master/ servant

10

Categories of Antonyms There are three categories of antonyms: Graded antonyms — deal with levels of the meaning of the words, like if something is not “good”, is may still not be “bad.” There is a scale involved with some words, and besides good and bad there can be average, fair, excellent, terrible, poor, or satisfactory. Complementary antonyms — have a relationship where there is no middle ground. There are only two possibilities, either one or the other. Relational antonyms — are sometimes considered a subcategory of complementary antonyms. With these pairs, for there to be a relationship, both must exist. The chart below shows examples of all three categories of antonyms.

11

More example for un-gradable for final exam fat and skinny- young and old -happy and sad -hard and soft last and first — foolish and wise -fast and slow -warm -and cool wide and narrow- abundant and scarce- joy and grief — dark and light -dangerous and safe -clever and foolish early and late empty and full -smart and dumb -risky and safe bad and good pretty and ugly best and worst simple and challenging soft and hard worried and calm sane and crazy rich and poor cool and hot wet and dry late and early ignorant and educated big and small optimistic and pessimistic excited and bored

12

L adding a Prefix Sometimes, an antonym can be easily made by adding a prefix. Examples of antonyms that were made by adding the prefix “un” are: Likely and unlikely Able and unable Fortunate and unfortunate Forgiving and unforgiving By adding the prefix “non” you can make these pairs:

13

Entity and nonentity Conformist and nonconformist Payment and nonpayment Combatant and noncombatant Lastly, adding the prefix “in” can make the following pairs: Tolerant and intolerant Decent and indecent Discreet and indiscreet Excusable and inexcusable

14

hyponymy A hyponym is a subordinate, specific term whose referent is included in the referent of super ordinate term. Likes: blue- green= ar to super word color. Hyponymy is not restricted to objects, abstract concepts, or nouns. It can be identified in many other areas of the lexicon.

15

Examples: E.g. the verb cook has many hyponyms. Word: Cook Hyponyms: Roast مشوي, boil مسلوق, fry مقلي, grill مشوي, bake محمص, etc. Word: color Hyponyms: blue, red, yellow, green, black and purple. In a lexical field, hyponymy may exist at more than one level. A word may have both a hyponym and a super ordinate term. For example, Word: Living Hyponym: bird, insects, animals Now let’s take the word bird from above hyponyms. Word: Bird Hyponyms: sparrow, عصفور hawk صقر, crow, غراب fowl طير / ذجاج

16

Homonymy Words with same spelling and pronunciation but with different meaning:: Bank- river Bank- financial Fly- insect Fly move Lead- verb guide Lead –make pencil9 رصاص

17

Words with same pronucaition but different spelling Key- quay Been- bean Court- caught Were- where two- to Eye- I

18

Hyponymy It describes what happens when we say ‘An X is a kind of Y’—A daffodil is a kind of flower, or simply, A daffodil is a flower.“ A meaning of word included in the meaning of another. Dogs- elephant, goat,… are included in animals, Hierarchical structure

19

20

21

المفهوم الماخوذ

22

Continue on the last lecture

23

Polysemy It means when a word has multiple meaning Has one entry in dictionary examples Foot head

24

of a person Foot of mountain of notes part of a body Head department of meeting How?

25

Metonymy كناية Metonymies are frequently used in literature and in everyday speech. A metonymy is a word or phrase that is used to stand in for another word. Sometimes a metonymy is chosen because it is a well-known characteristic of the word. One famous example of metonymy is the saying, «The pen is mightier than the sword,“ which originally came from Edward Bulwer Lytton’s play Richelieu. This sentence has two examples of metonymy: The «pen» stands in for «the written word.»

26

Examples for Metonymy words Crown — in place of a royal person The White House — in place of the President or others who work there The restaurant: staff Dish — for an entire plate of food The Pentagon — to refer to the staff Ears — for giving attention («Lend me your ears!» from Mark Antony in Julius Caesar)

27

More examples Eyes — for sight The library — for the staff or the books Pen — for the written word Sword — for military might Silver fox — for an attractive older man Hand — for help The name of a country — used in place of the government, economy, etc. The name of a church — used in place of its individual members The name of a sports team — used in place of its individual members

28

Examples for metonymy sentences These sentences will further enhance your appreciation and understanding of metonymies. The metonymy is underlined. We must wait to hear from the crown until we make any further decisions. The White House will be announcing the decision around noon today. If we do not fill out the forms properly, the suits will be after us shortly. She’s planning to serve the dish early in the evening. The cup is quite tasty. The Pentagon will be revealing the decision later on in the morning.

29

The restaurant has been acting quite rude lately. Learn how to use your eyes properly! The library has been very helpful to the students this morning. That individual is quite the silver fox. Can you please give me a hand carrying this box up the stairs? The United States will be delivering the new product to us very soon.

30

Why to use metonymy As with other literary devices, one of the main purposes of using a metonymy is: to add flavor to the writing. Instead of just repeatedly saying, «the staff at the restaurant» or naming all of the elements of a dinner each time you want to refer to the meal, one word breaks up some of that awkwardness. Using a metonymy serves a double purpose — it breaks up any awkwardness of repeating the same phrase over and over and it changes the wording to make the sentence more interesting.

31

Questions’ Bank A. 1. Give the synonymy of the following 2. Give the antonym for these words: ___________________ 3. Give the Hyponymy for these words: _______________ 4. Give the homonymy for the following?

32

B. What are the types meaning sense relation ? Word 1Word 2Sense relation fatthinsynonymy happygladhomonymy antonym hyponymy polysemy

33

Next: Semantics and the Nature of the Lexicon 1. Semantics and the nature of the Lexicon Subcategorizing English Words Role Relations of Lexical items

A technology that strives to understand human communication must be able to understand meaning in language. In this post, we take a deeper look at a core component of our expert.ai technology, the semantic disambiguator, and how it determines word meaning and sentence meaning via disambiguation.

To start, let’s clarify our definitions of words and sentences from a linguistic point of view.

Word Meaning and Sentence Meaning in Semantics

Semantics is the study of the meaning of words, phrases, sentences and text. This can be broken down into subcategories such as formal semantics (logical aspects of meaning), conceptual semantics (cognitive structure of meaning) and today’s focus of lexical semantics (word and phrase meaning).

A “word” is a string of characters that can have different meanings (jaguar: car or animal?; driver: one who drives a vehicle or the part of a computer?; rows, the plural noun or the third singular person of the verb to row?). A “sentence” is a group of words that express a complete thought. To fully capture the meaning of a sentence, we need to understand how words relate to other words.

Going Back to School

To understand word meaning and sentence meaning, our semantic disambiguator engine must be able to automatically resolve ambiguities with any word in a text.

Let’s consider this sentence:

John Smith is accused of the murders of two police officers.

To understand the word meaning and sentence meaning in any phrase, the disambiguator performs four consecutive phases of analysis:

Lexical Analysis

During this phase, the stream of text is broken up into meaningful elements called tokens. The sequence of “atomic” elements resulting from this process will be further elaborated in the next phase of analysis.

• John > human proper noun
• Smith > human proper noun
• is > verb
• accused > noun
• of > preposition
• the > article

Grammatical Analysis

During this phase, each token in the text is assigned a part of speech. The semantic disambiguator can recognize any inflected forms and conjugations as well as identify nouns, proper nouns and so on.

Starting from a mere sequence of tokens, what results from this elaboration is a sequence of elements. Some of them have been grouped to form collocations (e.g., police officer) and every token or group of tokens is represented by a block that identifies its part of speech.

• John Smith > human proper noun
• is accused > predicate nominal

Syntactical Analysis

During this phase, the disambiguator operates several word grouping operations on different levels to reproduce the way that words are linked to one another to form sentences. Sentences are further analyzed to attribute a logical role to each phrase (subject, predicate, object, verb, complement, etc.) and identify relationships between them and other complements whenever possible. In our example, the sentence is made of a single independent clause, where John Smith is recognized as subject of the sentence.

• John Smith > subject
• is accused > nominal predicate

Semantic Analysis

During the last and most complex phase, the tokens recognized during grammatical analysis are associated with a specific meaning. Though each token can be associated to several concepts, the choice is made by considering the base form of each token with respect to its part of speech, the grammatical and syntactical characteristics of the token, the position of the token in the sentence and its relation to the syntactical elements surrounding it.

Like the human brain, the disambiguator eliminates all candidate terms for each token except one, which will be definitively assigned to the token. When it comes across an unknown element in a text (e.g., human proper names), it tries to infer word meaning and sentence meaning by considering the context in which each token appears to determine its meaning.

• Is accused > to accuse > to blame
• police officer > policeman, police woman, law enforcement officer

---

Want to learn more about the disambiguation process? Take a deep dive in our brief, “Disambiguation: The Key to Contextualization“.

• The grammatical meaning

• The lexical meaning.

They
are found in all words.

The
interrelation of these 2 types of meaning may be different in
different groups of words.

GRAMMATICAL
M-NG:

We
notice, that word-forms, such as: girls,
winters, joys, tables,
etc. though denoting widely different objects of reality have
something in common. This common element is the
grammatical meaning of plurality, which
can be found in all of them.

Gram.
m-ng may be defined as the component of meaning recurrent in
identical sets of individual form of different words, as, e.g., the
tense meaning in the word-forms of verb (asked,
thought, walked,
etc) or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (girl’s,
boy’s,
night’s,
etc).

In
a broad sense it may be argued that linguists, who make a distinction
between lexical and grammatical meaning are, in fact, making a
distinction between the functional [linguistic] meaning, which
operates at various levels as the interrelation of various linguistic
units and referential [conceptual] meaning as the interrelation of
linguistic units and referents [or concepts].

In
modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some elements of
grammatical meaning can be identified by the position of the
linguistic unit in relation to other linguistic units, i.e. by its
distribution. Word-forms speaks,
reads, writes
have one and the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in
identical distribution, e.g. only after the pronouns he,
she, it
and before adverbs like well,
badly, to-day,
etc.

It
follows that a certain component of the meaning of a word is
described when you identify it as a part of speech, since different
parts of speech are distributionally different.

{
the grammatical m-hg will be different for different forms of 1 word
and vice verse, various verbs may have 1 gr. m-ng}

LEXICAL
M-NG:

Comparing
word-forms of one and the same word we observe that besides gram.
meaning, there is another component of meaning to be found in them.
Unlike the gram. m-ng this component is identical in all the forms of
the word. Thus, e.g. the word-forms go,
goes,
went,
going, gone
possess different gram. m-ng of tense, person and so on, but in each
of these forms we find one and the same semantic component denoting
the process of movement. This is the lexical m-ng of the word, which
may be described as the component of m-ng proper to the word as a
linguistic unit, i.e. recurrent in all the forms of this word.

The
difference between the lexical and the grammatical components of
meaning is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts
underlying the 2 types of meaning, but rather in the way they are
conveyed. The concept of plurality, e.g., may be expressed by the
lexical m-ng of the word plurality;
it
may also be expressed in the forms of various words irrespective of
their lexical m-ng, e.g.
boys, girls, joys,
etc. The concept of relation may be expressed by the lexical m-ng of
the word relation
and also by any of prepositions, e.g.
in, on, behind,
etc. ( the
book is in/on,
behind
the table ).

It
follows that by lexical m-ng we designate the m-ng proper to the
given linguistic unit in all its forms and distributions, while by
grammatical m-ng we designate the m-ng proper to sets of word-forms
common to all words of a certain class. Both the lexical and the
grammatical m-ng make up the word-meaning as neither can exist
without the other.

Lex.
m-ng is not homogenous either and may be analysed as including the
number of aspects. We define 3 aspects:

• denotational

• сonnotational

• pragmatic
  aspects.

a)
It is that part of lex. m-ng, the function of which is to name the
thing, concepts or phenomenon which it denotes. It’s the component
of L. m-ng, which establishes correspondence between the name and the
object. (den. m-ng – that component which makes communication
possible).

e.g.
Physict knows more about the atom than a singer does, or that an
arctic explorer possesses a much deeper knowledge of what artic ice
is like than a man who has never been in the North. Nevertheless they
use the words atom,
Artic,
etc. and understand each other.

It
insures reference to things common to all the speakers of given
language.

b)
The second component of the l. m-ng comprises the stylistic reference
and emotive charge proper to the word as a linguistic unit in the
given language system. The connot. component – emotive charge and
the stylistic value of the word. It reflects the attitude of the
speaker towards what he is speaking about. This aspect belongs to the
language system.

c)
Prag. aspect – that part of the L. m-ng, which conveys information
on the situation of communication.

It
can be divided into:

—
inf-ion on the time and space relationship of communication.

Some
inf-ion may be conveyed through the m-ng of the word itself.

To
come – to go [space relationship]

To
be hold – 17^th
cent [time relationship]

—
inf-ion on the participant of communication or on this particular
language community.

e.g.
They chuked a stone at the cops’ and then did a bunk with the
loot. [ criminal speaking]

After
casting a stone at the police they escaped with the money. [ chief
inspector speaking]

—
inf-ion on the character of discourse [social or family codes]

e.g.
stuff – rubbish

(
Stuff — it’ll hardly be used by strangers, by smb. talking to
boss)

—
inf-ion on the register of communication.

e.g.
com-ion : — formal (to anticipate, to aid, cordoal)

—
informal (stuff, shut up, cut it off)

—
neutral ( you must be kidding) – ?

Meaning
is a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or
relations that makes part of the linguistic sign —
its
so-called inner facet, whereas the sound-form functions as its outer
facet.

Grammatical
meaning
is defined as the expression in Speech of relationships between
words. The grammatical meaning is more abstract and more generalised
than the lexical meaning. It is recurrent in identical sets of
individual forms of different words as the meaning of plurality in
the following words students,
boob, windows, compositions.

Lexical
meaning.
The definitions of lexical meaning given by various authors, though
different in detail, agree in the basic principle: they all point out
that lexical meaning is the realisation of concept or emotion by
means of a definite language system.

1. The
   component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, i.e.
   recurrent in all the forms of this word and in all possible
   distributions of these forms. /
   Ginzburg
   R.S., Rayevskaya N.N. and others.

2. The
   semantic invariant of the grammatical variation of a word / Nikitin
   M.V./.

3. The
   material meaning of a word, i.e. the meaning of the main material
   part of the word which reflects the concept the given word expresses
   and the basic properties of the thing (phenomenon, quality, state,
   etc.) the word denotes. /Mednikova E.M./.

Denotation.
The conceptual content of a word is expressed in its denotative
meaning. To denote is to serve as a linguistic expression for a
concept or as a name for an individual object. It is the denotational
meaning that makes communication possible.

Connotation
is the pragmatic communicative value the word receives depending on
where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what
contexts
it may be used. There are four main types of connotations stylistic,
emotional, evaluative and expressive or intensifying.

Stylistic
connotations is what the word conveys about the speaker’s attitude to
the social circumstances and the appropriate functional style (slay
vs
kill),
evaluative
connotation may show his approval or disapproval of the object spoken
of
(clique vs
group),
emotional
connotation conveys the speaker’s emotions (mummy
vs
mother),
the
degree of intensity (adore
vs
love)
is
conveyed by expressive or intensifying connotation.

The
interdependence of connotations with denotative meaning is also
different for different types of connotations. Thus, for instance,
emotional connotation comes into being on the basis of denotative
meaning but in the course of time may substitute it by other types of
connotation with general emphasis, evaluation and colloquial
stylistic overtone. E.g. terrific
which
originally meant ‘frightening’ is now a colloquialism meaning ‘very,
very good’ or ‘very great’: terrific
beauty, terrific pleasure.

The
orientation toward the subject-matter, characteristic of the
denotative meaning, is substituted here by pragmatic orientation
toward speaker and listener; it is not so much what is spoken about
as the attitude to it that matters.

Fulfilling
the significative
and the communicative functions
of the word the denotative meaning is present in every word and may
be regarded as the central factor in the functioning of language.

The
expressive function
of the language (the speaker’s feelings) and the pragmatic
function
(the effect of words upon listeners) are rendered in connotations.
Unlike the denotative meaning, connotations are optional.

Connotation
differs from the
implicational meaning
of the word. Implicational meaning is the implied information
associated with the word, with what the speakers know about the
referent. A wolf is known to be greedy and cruel (implicational
meaning) but the denotative meaning of this word does not include
these features. The denotative
or the intentional meaning of the
word wolf
is
«a
wild animal resembling a dog that kills sheep and sometimes even
attacks men». Its figurative meaning is derived from implied
information, from what we know about wolves —
«a
cruel greedy person», also the adjective wolfish means «greedy».

Билет
№ 15. (Полисемия.
Понятие семантической структуры слова)

Polysemy
is characteristic of most words in many languages, however different
they may be. But it is mere characteristic of the English voc-ry as
compared with Russian, due to the monosyllabic character of English
and the predominance of root words. Only few words in English have
one meaning except terms (oxygen). All the other words in are
polysemantic, i.e. have more than one meaning. The tendency here
works both ways. The more widely a word is used, the more meanings it
has to have (to go – 70 meanings). Different meanings of a
polysemantic word make up the lexical semantic
structure of a word.
The meanings themselves are called the lexical semantic variants of a
word. It’s not just a list of lexical semantic meanings. There is a
special correspondence between the meanings of one and the same word.
The correlation between the meanings corresponds to one of the same
sound-form and forms a unity of meanings which is known as a semantic
structure of a word.

Polysemy
is very characteristic of the English vocabulary due to the
monosyllabic character of English words and the predominance of root
words The greater the frequency of the word, the greater the number
of meanings that constitute its semantic structure. Frequency —
combinability
—
polysemy
are closely connected. A special formula known as «Zipf’s
law» has been worked out to express the correlation between
frequency, word length and polysemy: the shorter the word, the higher
its frequency of use; the higher the frequency, the wider its
combinability ,
i.e.
the more word combinations it enters; the wider its combinability,
the more meanings are realised in these contexts.

The
word in one of its meanings is termed a
lexico-semantic
variant
of this word. For example the word table
has
at least 9
lexico-semantic
variants:

1
A
piece of furniture

2.
The
persons seated at table

3.
The food put on a table

1. A
   thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood

2. A
   slab of stone

3. Plateau,
   extensive area
   of
   high land

4. An
   orderly arrangement of facts, etc.

The
problem in polysemy is that of interrelation of different
lexico-semantic variants. There may be no single semantic component
common to all lexico-semantic variants but every variant has
something in common with at least one of the others.

All
the lexico-semantic variants of a word taken together form its
semantic
structure or semantic paradigm.

The
word
face, for
example, according to the dictionary data has the following semantic
structure:

1. The
   front part of the head: He
   fell on his face,

2. Look,
   expression: a
   sad face, smiling faces, she is a good judge of faces.

3. Surface,
   facade:.face
   of a clock, face of a building, He laid his cards face down.

4. fig.
   Impudence, boldness, courage; put
   a good/brave/ boldface on smth, put a new face on smth, the face of
   it, have the face to do,
   save
   one’s face.

5. Style
   of typecast for printing: bold-face
   type.

In
polysemy we are faced with the problem of interrelation and
interdependence of various meanings in the semantic structure of one
and the same word.

No
general or complete scheme of types of lexical meanings as elements
of a word’s semantic structure has so far been accepted by linguists.
There are various points of view. The following terms may be found
with different authors: direct /
figurative,
other oppositions are: main /
derived;
primary /
secondary;
concrete/ abstract; central/ peripheral; general/ special; narrow /
extended
and so on.

Meaning
is direct
when it nominates the referent without the help of a context, in
isolation; meaning is figurative
when the referent is named and at the same time characterised through
its similarity with other objects, e.g. tough
meat —
direct
meaning, tough
politician —
figurative
meaning. Similar examples are: head
—
head
of a cabbage, foot -foot of a mountain, face —
put
a new face on smth

Differentiation
between the terms primary
/
secondary
main /
derived
meanings
is connected with two approaches to polysemy: diachronic
and synchronic. ‘

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

The
meaning the word table
had
in Old English is the meaning «a flat slab of stone or wood».
It was its primary meaning, others were secondary and appeared
later. They had been derived from the primary meaning.

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. In that case the problem of interrelation and
interdependence of individual meanings making up the semantic
structure of the word must be investigated from different points of
view, that of main/ derived, central /peripheric meanings.

An
objective criterion of determining the main or central meaning is
the frequency of its occurrence in speech. Thus, the main meaning of
the word table
in
Modern English is «a piece of furniture».

Polysemy
is a phenomenon of language, not of speech. But the question arises:
wouldn’t it interfere with the communicative process ?

As
a rule the contextual meaning represents only one of the possible
lexico-semantic variants of the word. So polysemy does not interfere
with the communicative function of the language because the
situation and the context cancel all the unwanted meanings, as in
the following sentences: The
steak is tough This is a tough problem Prof. Holborn is a tough
examiner.

Билет
№ 16. (Семантическая
структура слова в синхронном и диахронном
рассмотрении)

If
polysemy
is viewed diachronically,
it is understood as the growth and development of or, in general, as
a change in the semantic structure of the word. Polysemy in
diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning
or meanings and at the same time acquire one or sev­eral new
ones. 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; all
other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary
meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning. 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.

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 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? 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.

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.

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. 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.

Different
meanings of a polysemantic word make up the lexical semantic
structure of a word. The meanings themselves are called the
lexical semantic variants
of a word. It’s not just a list of lexical semantic meanings.
There is a special correspondence between the meanings of one and
the same word. The correlation between the meanings corresponds to
one of the same sound-form and forms a unity of meanings which is
known as a
semantic structure of a word.

Change
of word meaning. (Semantic changes)

Extension
(widening of meaning). The extension of semantic capacity of a word,
i.e. the expansion of polysemy in the course of its historical
development, e.g. manuscript
originally
«smth hand-written».

Narrowing
of meaning. The restriction of the semantic capacity of a word in
the historical development, e.g. meat
in
OE meant «food and drink».

Elevation
(or amelioration). The semantic change in the word which rises it
from humble beginning to a position of greater importance, e.g.
minister
in
earlier times meant merely «a servant».

Degradation
(or_degeri.eration).
The semantic change, by which, for one reason or another, a word
falls into disrepute, or acquires some derogatory emotive charge,
e.g. silly
originally
meant «happy».

The
change in the denotational component brings about the extension or
the restriction of meaning. The change in the connotational
component may result in the degradation —
pejorative
or ameliorative development of meaning.

Metaphor.
The transfer of name based on the association of similarity. It is
the application of a name or a descriptive term to an object to
which it is not literally applicable, e.g. head
of an army, eye of a needle.

Metonymy.
The transfer of name based on the association of contiguity. It is a
universal device in which the name of one thing is changed for that
of another, to which it is related by association of ideas, as
having close relationship to one another, e.g. the
chair may
mean «the chairman», the
bar -«the
lawyers».

Semasiology
is a branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words and
word equivalents. The main objects of semasiological study are as
follows: types of lexical meaning, polysemy and semantic structure
of words, semantic development of words, the main tendencies of the
change of word-meanings, semantic grouping in the vocabulary system,
i.e. synonyms, antonyms, semantic fields, thematic groups, etc.

Referential
approach
to meaning. The common feature of any referential approach is that
meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent (object
of reality denoted by the word). The meaning is formulated by
establishing the interdependence between words and objects of
reality they denote. So, meaning is often understood as an object or
phenomenon in the outside world that is referred to by a word.

Functional
approach to meaning.
In most present-day methods of lexicological analysis words are
studied in context; a word is defined by its functioning within a
phrase or a sentence. This functional approach is attempted in
contextual analysis, semantic syntax and some other branches of
linguistics. The meaning of linguistic unit is studied only through
its relation to other linguistic units. So meaning is viewed as the
function of a word in speech.

Meaning
and concept (notion).
When examining a word one can see that its meaning though closely
connected with the underlying concept is not identical with it.

To
begin with, concept is a category of human cognition. Concept is the
thought of the object that singles out the most typical, the most
essential features of the object.

So
all concepts are almost the same for the whole of humanity in one
and the same period of its historical development. The meanings of
words, however, are different in different languages. That is to
say, words expressing identical
concept
may have different semantic structures in different languages. E.g.
the concept of «a building for human habitation» is
expressed in English by the word «house», in Ukrainian —
«дім», but
their meanings are not identical as house
does
not possess the meaning of «fixed residence of family or
household» (домівка)
which
is part of the meaning of the Ukrainian word дiм;
it
is expressed by another English word home.

The
difference between meaning and concept can also be observed by
comparing synonymous words and word-groups expressing the same
concept but possessing linguistic meaning which is felt as different
in each of the units, e.g. big,
large; to die to pass away, to join the majority, to kick the
bucket; child, baby, babe, infant.

Concepts
are always emotionally neutral as they are a category of thought.
Language, however, expresses all possible aspects of human
consciousness. Therefore the meaning of many words not only conveys
some reflection of objective reality but also the speaker’s attitude
to what he is speaking about, his state of mind. Thus, though the
synonyms big,
large, tremendous denote
the same concept of size, the emotive charge of the word tremendous
is
much heavier than that of the other word.

Билет
№ 17
(Типы значений многозначного слова в
современном английском языке.)

Different
meanings of a polysemantic word make up the lexical semantic
structure of a word. The meanings themselves are called the
lexical semantic variants
of a word. The
majority of words in any language have more than one meaning.

Vinogradov:
the meaning of a word can be:

1.
Nominative.

2.
Nominative- derivative

3.Collegationally
and collocationally conditioned.

4.
Phraseologically bound.

1. Nominative
   is the basic meaning of a word.

2. Nominative-Derivative
   meaning comes into being when the word is “stretched out”
   semantically to cover new facts and extra linguistic phenomena.

When
the speaker uses the word metaphorically he extends its content to
cover new bits of reality.

The
metaphorical use is based on certain similarities observed by the
speaker.

Sweet not
only taste, but pleasant, attractive
— Sweet face, voice, little baby.

Here
we speak about different meanings- because the difference in
meanings is not great enough to split the word into 2 different
units. Metaphoric meanings are registered in dictionaries.

For
parts of the body: Hand-
рука,стрелка
часов face-лицо,
циферблат
часов
(of a clock)

Foot—
нога,подножие горы leg—
нога, ножка стула

Tongue-язык,
языки пламени eye-глаз,
ушко иголки (~of
a
needle)

If
nominative meaning is a direct meaning: Nominative-Derivative
meaning is a transfered meaning.

3. Collegiationally
and collocationally
conditioned
meanings are not free, but bound.

1. Collegationally
   conditioned meaning is determined by gramatical
   combinability of words. Some meanings are realized only without a
   given gramatical pattern (collegation)

to
tell- рассказать, сказать:
in passive constructions means to order/to direct: You
must do what you’re told.

to
carry- нести:
in
passive construction= to accept: The
amendment to the bill was carried.

1. Collocationally
   conditioned meaning is determined by lexical
   combinability of words.

There
are meaning which depend on the word association with other words
(collocation)

A
herd of cows, a flock of sheep

Collocation
is used here as a typical behavior of a word in speech.

Mccarthy:
Collocation is a marriage contract between words, some words are
more firmly married to each other than others.

4.
Phraseologically
bound
meaning.

Collocations
should be distinguished from idioms and phraseological units.

Idioms
and phraseological units are devoid of referential meanings.

The
meanings of the individual words can’t be summed together to
produce the meaning of the idiomatic expression.

to
kick the bucket = to die —
This idiom is opaque (непрозрачный)
протянуть
ноги

to
pass the buck = to pass the responsibility
—This
idiom is semiopaque. (buck — фишка,
указывающая
кому
сдавать
( в
покере
)

to
see the light = to understand
— This idiom is transparent (ясный).

Билет
№ 18. (Понятие
контекста. Типы контекста. Полисемия
и
контекст.)

A
full understanding of the semantic structure of any lexical item can
be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the
word is used, i.e. from the study of the intralingulstic relations of
words in the flow of speech. The term context
is the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning
of the word. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have
meanings only in the context. The semantic structure of the word has
an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodies
dialectical permanency and variability. The context individualises
the meanings, brings them out. The meaning is determined by context.

The
meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the
word and least dependent on context are usually described as free or
denominative meanings. Thus we assume that the meaning ‘a piece of
furniture’ is the denominative meaning of the word table, the meaning
‘construct, produce’ is the free or denominative meaning of the verb
make. Meanings of polysemantic words observed only in certain
contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (or verbal)
contexts or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.

The
two more or less universally recognized main types of linguistic
contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are
the lexical context and the grammatical context. These types are
differenti­ated depending on, whether the lexical or the
grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning. In
lexical
contexts
of primary importance are the groups of lexical items combined with
the polysemantic word under consideration. The adjective heavy, e.g.,
in isolation is understood as meaning ‘of great weight, weighty’
(heavy load, heavy table, etc.). When combined with the lexical group
of words denoting natural phenomena such as wind, storm, snow, etc.,
it means ‘striking, falling with force, abundant’ as can be seen from
the contexts, e.g. heavy rain, wind, snow, storm, etc. In combination
with the words industry, arms, artillery -and the like, heavy has the
meaning ‘the larger kind of something’ as in heavy industry, heavy
artillery, etc.
It
can be easily observed that the main factor in bringing out this or
that individual meaning of the words is the lexical meaning of the
words with which they are combined. This can be also proved by the
fact that when we want to describe the individual meaning of a
polysemantic word, we find it sufficient to use this word in
combination with some members of a
certain
lexical group. To describe the meanings of the word handsome, for
example, it is sufficient to combine it with the follow­ing
words—a) man, person, b) size, reward, sum. The meanings determined
by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically (or
phraseologically) bound meanings which imply that such meanings are
to be found only in certain lexical contexts.
Some
linguists go so far as to assert that word-meaning in general can be
analysed through its collocability with other words. They hold the
view that if we know all the possible collocations (or word-groups)
into which a polysemantic word can enter, we know all its meanings.
Thus, the meanings of the adjective heavy, for instance, may be
analysed through its collocability with the words weight,
safe, table; snow, wind, rain; industry, artillery, etc.

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

In
grammatical
contexts
it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context
that serves to determine various individual meanings of a
polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb make,
e.g.
‘to force, to enduce’, is found only in the grammatical context
possessing the structure to
make somebody do something or
in other terms this particular meaning occurs only if the verb make
is
followed by a noun and the in­finitive of some other verb (to
make smb. laugh,
go, work, etc.).
Another meaning of this verb ‘to become’, ‘to turn out to be’ is
observed in the contexts of a different structure, i.e. make
followed
by an adjective and a noun (to
make a good wife, a good teacher, etc.).
Such
meanings are sometimes described as grammatically (or structurally)
bound meanings. Cases of the type she
will make a good teacher may
be referred to as syntactically bound meanings, because the syntactic
function of the verb make
in
this particular context (a link verb, part of the predicate) is
indicative of its meaning ‘to become, to turn out to be’. A different
syntactic function of the verb, e.g. which of the predicate (to
make machines, tables, etc.)
excludes the possibility of the meaning ‘to become, turn out to be’.

In
a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the
grammatical aspects should be taken into consideration. The
grammat­ical structure of the context although indicative of the
difference between the meaning of the word in this structure and the
meaning of the same word in a different grammatical structure may be
insufficient to indicate in which of its individual meanings the word
in question is used. If we compare the contexts of different
grammatical structures, e.g. to take+noun and to
take to+noun,
we can safely assume that they represent different meanings of the
verb to take,
but
it is only when we specify the lexical context, i.e. the lexical
group with which the verb is combined in the structure to
take+noun
(to
take coffee, tea; books, pencils; the bus, the tram) that
we can say that the context determines the meaning.

It
is usual in modern linguistic science to use the terms pattern or
structure to denote grammatical contexts. Patterns may be represented
in conventional symbols, e.g. to
take smth. as
take+N. to
take to smb. as
take to+N.
So the same pattern to
take+N may
represent different mean­ings of the verb to
take dependent
mainly on the lexical group of the nouns with which it is combined.

Dealing
with verbal contexts we consider linguistic factors: lexical groups
of words, syntactic structure of the context and so on. There are
cases, however, when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined
not by these linguistic factors, but by the actual speech situation
in which this word is used. The meanings of the noun ring,
e.g.
in to
give somebody a ring, or
of the verb get
in I’ve
got it are
determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context, but much
more so by the actual speech situation.
The
noun ring
in
such
context may possess the meaning ‘a circlet of precious metal’ or ‘a
call on the telephone’; the meaning of the verb to
get in
this linguistic context may be interpreted as ‘possess’ or
‘understand’ depending on the actual situation in which these words
are used. It should be pointed out however that such cases, though
possible, are not actually very numerous. The linguistic context is
by far a more potent factor in determining word-meaning.

By
the term «context»
we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each
individual meaning of the word. The context individualises the
meanings, brings them out. The two main types of linguistic contexts
which serve to determine individual meanings of words are the
lexical context and the grammatical context.
These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or
the grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.

In
lexical
context
of primary importance are lexical groups combined with the
polysemantic words under consideration.

The
adjective heavy
in
isolation possesses the meaning «of great weight, weighty».
When combined with the lexical group of words denoting natural
phenomena as wind,
storm, etc.
it means «striking, following with force, abundant», e.g.
heavy
rain, wind, storm, etc.
In combination with the words industry,
arms, artillery and
the like, heavy
has
the meaning «the larger kind of something as heavy
industry, artillery»

In
grammatical
context
it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context
that serves to determine various individual meanings of a
polysemantic word. Consider the following examples: 1)
I made Peter study He made her laugh

They
made him work (sing, dance, write...)
2)
My
friend made a good teacher He made a good husband

In
the pattern «to make +
N(Pr)+
V inf’
the
word make
has
the meaning «to force», and in the pattern «to make +
A
+
N»
it has the meaning «to turn out to be». Here the
grammatical context helps to determine the meaning of the word «to
make».

So,
linguistic (verbal) contexts comprise lexical and grammatical
contexts. They are opposed to extra linguistic contexts (non-verbal).
In extra- linguistic contexts the meaning of the word is determined
not only by linguistic factors but also by the actual situation in
which the word is used.

Билет
№ 19 (Понятие
валентности слова. Типы валентности)

The
2 main linguistic factors active in the uniting words into
word-groups are the lexical
and
the grammatical
valency
of words. It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain
lexical contexts, in combination with other words. The aptness of a
word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical
valency or collocability. The range of the lexical
valency of
words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the
English word-stock. This can be easily ob­served in the selection
of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbs lift
and raise,
e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is
collocated with the noun question.
There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any
departure from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic
device. Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a
cliché. We observe, for example, that the verb put
forward
and the noun ques­tion
are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verb put
forward
or see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate
the word question.
So we may conclude that put forward a question constitutes a habitual
word-group, a kind of cliché.

One
more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the
problem of lexical valency—the interrelation of lexical valency and
polysemy as found in word-groups. Firstly, the restrictions of
lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical
meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups. The adjective
heavy,
e.g., is combined with the words food,
meals, supper,
etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest. But not all the
words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined
with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance, heavy cheese or
heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is diffi­cult
to digest.
Secondly
it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described
through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through the
lexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of
the adjective heavy
may be described through the word-groups heavy weight (book, table,
etc.), heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.), heavy drinker (eater, etc.),
heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.), heavy industry (tanks,
etc.),
and so on.
From
this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic
minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of
the multiple meanings of the word.

Words
are used also in grammatical
contexts.
The minimal grammatical context in which words are used when brought
together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of
the word-group. For instance, the adjective heavy
can be followed by a noun (e.g. heavy storm or by the infinitive of a
verb (e.g. heavy to lift), etc. The aptness of a word to appear in
specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures is termed
grammatical valency. The grammatical valency of words may be
different.
To begin with, the range of grammatical valency is delimited by the
part of speech the
word
belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each
individual word is independent on the grammatical structure of the
language.
This
is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the
same part of speech is necessarily identical. This can be best
illustrated by comparing the grammatical valency of any two words
belonging to the same part of speech, e.g. of the two synonymous
verbs suggest
and
propose.
Both verbs can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan, a
resolution). It is only propose, however, that can be followed by the
infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.)

Билет
№ 20.
(Синонимия.
Классификация
синонимов)

Synonyms
are usually defined as words belonging to one and the same part of
speech, close in meaning, that makes it possible to be
interchangeable at least in some contexts.

To
select-to choose, clothing-clothes-garments-vestments.

All
synonyms are characterized by sem. relations of equivalents or by
sem. relations of proximity.

Synonyms
may be found in different parts of speech and both among notional and
function words. For example: though
and
albeit,
on
and upon,
since
and as
are synonymous because these phonemically different words are
similar in their denotational meaning.

Synonyms
are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but
identical or similar in meaning. It’s inconceivable that
polysemantic words could be synonymous in all their meanings. So, the
number of synonymic sets of a polysemantic word tends, as a rule, to
be equal to the number of individual meanings the word possesses. (to
look-to see, watch, observe).

Differentiation
of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components-
denotational and connotational.

It
should be noted that the difference in denotational meaning cannot
exceed certain limits, and is always combined with some common
denotational component. The verbs look,
seem, appear…
are viewed as members of one synonimic set as all three of them
possess a common denotational semantic component ‘to
be in one’s view, or judgement, but not necessarily in fact’
and come into comparison in this meaning.

It
follows that relationship of synonymity implies certain differences
in the denotational meaning of synonyms. In this connection a few
words should be said about the traditional classification of synonyms
into ideographic
and stylistic
synonyms.

This
classification proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may differ
either in the denotational
meaning(ideographic
synonyms) or the connotational
meaning,
or to be more exact stylistic reference. In the synonymous verbs
seem,
appear, look
the stylistic reference may be regarded as identical
though
we observe some difference in their denotational component.
Difference in the denotational semantic component is also found in
synonymous words possessing different connotational components. (to
see- to
behold
are
usually treated as stylistic synonyms; see is stylistically neutral
and behold is described as bookish or poetic.) though the 2 verbs
have a common denotational component “to take cognizance of
something by physical or mental vision”, there is a marked
difference in their comparable meanings. The verb behold
suggests
only “looking at that which is seen”, the verb see
denotes “have or use power of sight”, “understand”, “have
knowledge or experience of” and others.

Difference
of the connotational semantic component is invariable accompanied by
some difference of the denotational meaning of synonyms. Therefore,
we can draw some conclusions: synonyms are subdivided into full
synonyms
(spirant- fricative), ideographic(denotational)—
these synonyms are the most common, frequent synonyms in the language
system. (to
stay- to remain; to swim- to float), stylistic
synonyms
(to begin- to commence- to initiate).

Synonymy
is the coincidence in the essential meaning of words which usually
preserve their differences in connotations and stylistic
characteristics.

Synonyms
are two or more words belonging to the same part of speech and
possessing one or more identical or nearly identical denotational
meanings, interchangeable in some contexts. These words are
distinguished by different shades of meaning, connotations and
stylistic features.

The
synonymic dominant
is the most general term potentially containing the specific features
rendered by all the other members of the group. The words face,
visage,
countenance have
a common denotational meaning «the front of the head» which
makes them close synonyms. Face
is
the dominant, the most general word; countenance
is
the same part of the head with the reference to the expression it
bears; visage
is
a formal word, chiefly literary, for
face or
countenance.

In
the series leave,
depart, quit, retire, clear out the
verb leave,
being
general and most neutral term can stand for each of the other four
terms.

One
must bear in mind that the majority of frequent words are
polysemantic and it is precisely the frequent words that have many
synonyms. The result is that a polysemantic word may belong in its
various meanings to several different synonymic groups. Kharitonchic
Z. gives the example of 9
synonymic
groups the word part
enters
as the result of a very wide polysemy:

1)
piece,
parcel, section, segment, fragment, etc; 2)
member,
organ, constituent, element, component, etc; 3)
share,
portion, lot; 4)
concern,
interest, participation; 5)
allotment,
lot, dividend, apportionment; 6)
business,
charge, duty, office, function, work; 7)
side,
party, interest, concern, faction;
character,
role, cue, lines; 9)
portion,
passage, clause, paragraph. The semantic structures of two
polysemantic words sometimes coincide in more than one meaning, but
never completely. L. Bloomfield and E. Nida suppose even that there
are no actual synonyms, i.e. forms which have identical meanings.

In
a great number of cases the semantic difference between two or more
synonyms is supported by the difference in valency. An example of
this is offered by the verbs win
and
gain
Both
may be used in combination with the noun victory:
to
win a victory, to gain a victory. But with the word war
only
win
is
possible: to win a war.

Criteria
of synonymity is interchangeability. It should be pointed out that
neither the traditional definition of synonyms nor the new version
provide for any objective criterion of similarity of meaning. It is
solely based on the linguistic intuition of the analyst.

Recently
there has been introduced into the definition of synonymity the
criterion of interchangeability in linguistic contexts that is
synonyms are supposed to be words which can replace each other in a
given context without the slightest alteration either in the
denotational or connotational meaning.

But
this is possible only in some contexts, in others their meanings may
not coincide, e.g. the comparison of the sentences «the rainfall
in April was abnormal» and «the rainfall in April was
exceptional» may give us grounds for assuming that exceptional
and
abnormal
are
synonyms. The same adjectives in a different context are by no means
synonymous, as we may see by comparing «my son is exceptional»
and «my son is abnormal» (B. Quirk, the Use of English,
London 1962,
p.
129)

Peace
and
tranquillity
are
ordinarily listed as synonyms, but they are far from being identical
in meaning. One may speak of a
peace conference, but
not tranquillity
conference. (E.Nida,
The Descriptive analysis of words).

Classification
of Synonyms

According
to whether the difference is in denotational or connotational
component synonyms are classified into ideographic and stylistic.
Ideographic synonyms denote different shades of meaning or different
degrees of a given quality. They are nearly identical in one or more
denotational meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts,
e.g. beautiful
— fine —
handsome
—pretty
Beautiful conveys,
for instance, the strongest meaning; it marks the possession of that
quality in its fullest extent, while the other terms denote the
possession of it in part only. Fineness, handsomeness and prettiness
are to beauty as parts to a whole.

In
the synonymic group choose,
select, opt, elect, pick the
word choose
has
the most general meaning, the others are characterised by differences
clearly statable: select
implies
a wide choice of possibilities (select
a
Christmas present for a child), opt
implies
an alternative (either this, or that as in Fewer students are opting
for
science courses nowadays); pick
often
implies collecting and keeping for future use (pick
new
words), elect
implies
choosing by vote (elect
a
president; elect
smb
(to be) chairman).

Stylistic
synonyms differ
not so much in denotational as in emotive value or stylistic sphere
of application.

Pictorial
language often uses poetic words, archaisms as stylistic alternatives
of neutral words, e.g. maid
for
girl,
bliss for
happiness,
steed for
horse,
quit for
leave.

Calling
and
vocation
in
the synonymic group occupation,
calling, vocation, business are
high-flown as compared to occupation
and
business.

In
many cases a stylistic synonym has an element of elevation in its
meaning, e.g.
face — visage, girl —
maiden.

Along
with elevation of meaning there is the reverse process of
degradation: to begin
—
to
fire away, to eat —
to
devour, to steal —
to
pinch, face —
muzzle.
According
to the criterion of interchangeability in context synonyms are
classified into total, relative and contextual.

Total
synonyms
are those members of a synonymic group which can replace each other
in any given context, without the slightest alteration in denotative
meaning or emotional meaning and connotations. They are very rare.
Examples can be found mostly in special literature among technical
terms and others, e.g. fatherland
—
motherland,
suslik —
gopher,
noun —
substantive,
functional affix —flection,
inflection, scarlet fever —
scarlatina
Relative
Synonyms

Some
authors class groups like ask
—
beg
—
implore,
or
like
—
love
—
adore,
gift —talent
—
genius,
famous —
celebrated-
eminent as
relative synonyms, as they denote different degree of the same notion
or different shades of meanings and can be substituted only in some
contexts.

Contextual
or context —
dependent
synonyms are similar in meaning only under some specific
distributional conditions. It may happen that the difference between
the meanings of two words is contextually neutralised ,
E.g.
buy
and
get
would
not generally be taken as synonymous, but they are synonyms in the
following examples: I’ll go to the shop and buy
some
bread.

I’ll
go to
the
shop and get
some
bread.

The
verbs bear,
suffer, stand are semantically
different and not interchangeable except when used in the negative
form: I can’t stand
it,
I can’t bear
it.

One
of the sources
of synonymy
is borrowing. Synonymy has its characteristic patterns in each
language. Its peculiar feature in English is the contrast between
simple native
words
stylistically neutral, literary
words
borrowed from French and learned
words
of Greco-Latin origin.

Native
English (to
ask to end to rise teaching belly)

French
Borrowings
(to question to finish to mount guidance stomach)

Latin
borrowings
(to interrogate to complete to ascend instruction abdomen)

There
are also words that came from dialects, in the last hundred years,
from American English, in particular, e.g. long
distance call AE
—
trunk
call BE,
radio
AE
—
wireless
BE.

Synonyms
are also created by means of all word —
forming
processes productive In the language.

Synonymic
differentiation

It
must be noted that synonyms may influence each other semantically in
two diametrically opposite ways: one of them is dissimilation
or
differentiation,
the other —
the
reverse process ,
i.e.
assimilation.

Many
words now marked in the dictionaries as «archaic» or
«obsolete» have dropped out of the language in the
competition of synonyms, others survived with a meaning more or less
different from the original one. This process is called synonymic
differentiation and is so current that is regarded as an inherent law
of language development.

The
development of the synonymic group land
has
been studied by A.A. Ufimtseva. When in the 13
century
soil
was
borrowed from French into English its meaning was «a strip of
land».

OE
synonyms eorpe,
land, folde ment
«the upper layer of earth in which plants grow».

Now,
if two words coincide in meaning and use, the tendency is for one of
them to drop out of the language.

Folde
became
identical to eorpe
and
in the fight for survival the letter won. The polysemantic word land
underwent
an intense semantic development in a different direction and so
dropped out of this synonymic series.

It
was natural for soil
to
fill this lexical gap and become the main name for the notion «the
mould in which plants grow». The noun earth
retained
this meaning throughout its history whereas the word ground,
in
which this meaning was formerly absent, developed it. As a result
this synonymic group comprises at present soil,
earth, ground.

The
assimilation
of synonyms consists in parallel development. This law was discovered
and described by G. Stern,, H.A. Treble and G.H. Vallins in their
book «An ABC of English Usage», Oxford, 1957,
p.
173
give
as examples the pejorative meanings acquired by the nouns wench,
knave and
churl
which
originally ment «girl», «boy», and «labourer»
respectively, and point out that this loss of old dignity became
linguistically possible because there were so many synonymous words
of similar meaning. As the result all the three words underwent
degradation in their meanings:

wench
—
indecent
girl knave
—
rascal
churl
—
country
man.

Билет
№ 21.
(Антонимия.
Классификация)

Antonyms
are words belonging to 1 part of speech sharing certain common sem.
properties and single out mostly on the basis of the sem. relations
of contrast. Like synonyms, perfect
or complete
antonyms
are rare. One cannot contrast antonyms if one does not see something
common between them. (black-
white).= colour common
m-g.

There
are 2 types of sem. opposition: polar
opposition and
relative
opposition.

Polar
opposition
rests
only on 1 sem. feature. (reach-
poor, dead- alive, kind-cruel).

Relative
opposition rests
on a number of sem. features. (to
leave=to go away- to arrive= to reach a place, esp, at the end of
long trip).

It’s
usual to find the relations of antonymy restricted to certain
contexts. (thick-thin).

It’s
more or less universally recognized that among the cases that are
traditionally described as antonyms there are at least the following
4 groups:

Contradictories
which
represent the type of semantic relations that exist between pairs
like dead-alive,
single-married, perfect-imperfect…

To
use one of the terms is to contradict the other and to use not before
one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other (not
dead- alive, not single- married)

It’s
also usual for one member of each pair to always function as the
unmarked or generic term for the common quality involved in both
members: age,
size…this
generalized denotational meaning comes to the fore in certain
contexts. (How
old is baby?-
we do not imply that the baby is old.)

Contraries
differ
from contradictories mainly because contradictories admit of no
possibility between them. One is either single or married, either
dead or alive… whereas contraries admit such possibilities. This
may be observed in cold-hot,
and cool-warm
which seem to be intermediate members. Thus, we may regard as
antonyms not only cold-hot
but also cold-warm.
Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or presence of
one of the components of meaning like sex and age. (man-
woman, man- boy).

Incompatibles.
Semantic relations of incompatibility exist among the antonyms with
the common component of meaning and may be described as the reverse
of hyponymy… the relations of exclusion but not of contradiction.
To say morning
is to say not
afternoon,
not
evening, not night.
The negation of one number of this set does not imply semantic
equivalence with the other but excludes the possibility of the other
words of this set. A relation of incompatibility may be observed
between colour terms since the choice of red…
entails the exclusion of black,
blue, yellow…Naturally
not all colour terms are incompatible. (scarlet-red=
hyponymy)

Interchangeability
in certain contexts analysed in connection with synonyms is typical
of antonyms as well. In a context where one membe of the antonymous
pair can be used, it’s, as a rule, interchangeable with the other
member.(a
wet shirt- a dry shirt).This
is not to imply that the same antonyms are interchangeable in all
contexts. (dry
air- damp air, dry lips- moist lips).

Conversives
denote
1 or the same thing referent as viewed from different points of view.
(to
cause- to suffer, to give- to receive)…

Antonyms
is a general term that serves to describe words different in sound
–form and characterized by different types of sem. contrast of
denotational meaning and interchangeability at least in some
contexts.

Билет
№ 22.
(Омонимия.
Классификация)

Words
identical in sound form but different in meaning are traditionally
termed homonyms.

We
do distinguish full homonyms( seal=
a sea animal, seal—
a design printed on paper by means of a stamp).

It’s
easily observed that only some of the word-forms(seal-seals)
are homonymous, whereas others (sealed,
sealing)
are not. In such cases we cannot speak of homonymous words but only
of homonymy of individual word-forms or of partial homonymy(find-
found-founded).

All
cases of homonymy may be classified into full
and partial
homonymy- homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms.

Homonyms
may be also classified by the type of meaning into lexical,
lexico-grammatical
and grammatical
(brothers-
brother’s)
homonyms. (seal-seal=
lexical homonyms because they differ in
lexical
meaning.)

If
we compare seal-
a
sea animal,
and to
seal—
to
close tightly,
we shall observe not only a difference in the lexical meaning of
their homonymous word-forms but a difference in their grammatical
meanings as well. Identical sound-forms (seals=Common
case plural of the noun) and he seals (third person sg of the verb)
possess each of them different grammatical meanings. As both
grammatical and lexical meanings differ we describe these homonymous
word-forms as lexico-grammatical.
Lexico-grammatical can
be subdivided into 2 groups: 1. identical in sound-form but different
in their grammatical and lexical meanings (seal-noun-
seal-verb)
2.
identical
in sound-form but different in their grammatical meanings and partly
different in their lexical meaning, partly different in their
semantic structure (seal-seal,
paper- to paper).

Homonyms
can be classified into homographs,
homophones,
perfect
homonyms.

Homographs
are words identical in spelling, but different both in their
sound-form and meaning (bow=/bou/
and bow /bau/: tear /tie/ and tear /teз/
).

Homophones
are
words identical in sound-form but different both in spelling and
meaning (sea-
to
see,
son
and sun).

Perfect
homonyms are
words identical both in spelling and in sound-form but different in
meaning (case—
something that has happened, case—
a box, a container).

The
2 main sources of homonymy are: 1. diverging
meaning of a polysemantic word
(flower-flour=
originally were one word) the difference in spelling underlines the
fact that from the synchronic point of view they are 2 distinct words
even though historically they have a common origin. 2.
convergent sound development of 2 or more different words.
(love-
to love=lufu-lufian).

Synchronically
the
differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is, as a rule, wholly
based on
the semantic criterion.
It is usually held that if a connection between the various meanings
is apprehended by the speaker, these are to be considered as making
up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a
case of homonymy, not polysemy.

The
criteria used in the synchronis analysis of homonymy are: 1.
the sem. criterion of related and unrelated meanings; 2. the
criterion of spelling(knight-
night)
3. the criterion of distribution (paper-
to paper).

Homonyms
are words which have the same form but are different in meaning. «The
same form» implies identity in sound form or spelling, i.e. all
the three aspects are taken into account: sound-form, graphic form
and meaning. Both meanings of the form «liver» are, for
instance, intentionally present in the following play upon words; «Is
life worth living ?
— It
depends upon the liver»,

The
most widely accepted classification of homonyms is that recognising
homonyms proper, homophones and homographs.

Homonyms
proper (or perfect, absolute) are words identical in pronunciation

аnd
spelling but different in meaning, like back
n.
«part of the body» —
back
adv.
«away from the front» —
back
v.
«go back»; bear
n.
«animal» —
bear
v, «carry,
tolerate».

Homophones
are words of the same sound but of different spelling and meaning:
air
—
heir,
buy —
by,
him —
hymn,
steel —
steal,
storey —
story.

Homographs
are words different in sound and in meaning but accidentally
identical in spelling: bow
[bou]
—
bow
[bau],
lead
[li:d]
—
lead
[led].

Homoforms
—
words
identical in some of their grammatical forms. To
bound (jump,
spring) —
bound
(past participle
of the verb bind);
found (
establish)
-found
(past
participle of the verb
find).

Paronyms
are words that are alike in form, but different in meaning and usage.
They are liable to be mixed and sometimes mistakenly interchanged.

The
term paronym comes from the Greek para
«beside» and onoma
«name».
Examples are: precede
—
proceed,
preposition —
proposition,
popular —
populous.

Homonyms
in English are very numerous. Oxford English Dictionary registers
2540
homonyms,
of which 89%
are
monosyllabic words and 9,1%
are
two-syllable words.

So,
most homonyms are monosyllabic words. The trend towards
monosyllabism, greatly increased by the loss of inflections and
shortening, must have contributed much toward increasing the number
of homonyms in English .

Among
the other ways of creating homonyms the following processes must be
mentioned:

conversion
which serves the creating of grammatical homonyms, e.g. iron
—to
iron, work —
to
work, etc.;

polysemy
—
as
soon as a derived meaning is no longer felt to be connected with the
primary meaning at all (as in bar
—
балка;
bar
—
бар;
bar
—
адвокатура)
polysemy
breaks up and separate words come into existence, quite different in
meaning from the basic word but identical in spelling.

From
the viewpoint of their origin homonyms are sometimes divided into
historical and etymological.

Historical
homonyms are those which result from the breaking up of polysemy;
then one polysemantic word will split up into two or more separate
words, e.g. to bear /терпіти/
—
to
bear /народити/
pupil
/учень/
—
pupil
/зіниця/
plant
/
рослина/
—
plant
/завод/

Etymo1ogiсal
homonyms
are words of different origin which come to be alike in sound or in
spelling (and may be both written and pronounced alike).

Borrowed
and native words can coincide in form, thus producing homonyms (as in
the above given examples).

In
other cases homonyms are a result of borrowing when several different
words become identical in sound or spelling. E.g. the Latin vitim
—
«wrong», «an

immoral
habit» has given the English vice
—
вада
«evil
conduct»; the Latin vitis
-«spiral»
has given the English »vice» —
тиски «apparatus
with strong jaws in which things can be hold tightly»; the Latin
vice
—
«instead
of», «in place of» will be found in vice
—
president.

It
should be noted that the most debatable problem in homonymy is the
demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between
different meanings of one word and the meanings of two or more
homonymous words.

Билет
№ 23.
(Семантическая
классификация
слов).

Words
can be classified in various ways. Here, we are concerned only with
the semantic classification of words.

Words
may be classified according to the concepts underlying their m-ng.
This classification is closely connected with the theory of
conceptual or semantic fields. By this term we understand closely
knit sectors of voc. each characterized by a common concept.

For
e.g., the words blue, red, yellow, black, etc. may be described as
making up semantic field of colours, the words mother, father,
brother, cousin, etc. – as members of the semantic field of kinship
terms, the words joy, happiness, gaiety, enjoyment, etc. as belonging
to the field of pleasurable emotions, and so on.

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

It
is argued that we cannot possibly know the exact m-ng of the word if
do not know the structure of the semantic field to which the word
belongs, the number of the members, etc.. e.g. The m-ng of word
captain cannot be properly understood until we know the semantic
field in which this term operates – the army, the navy, the
merchant service. It means that the m-ng of the word captain is
determined by the place it occupies among the terms of the relevant
system.

Semantic
dependence of the word on the structure of the field may be also
illustrated by comparing members of analogous conceptual fields in
different languages. Comparing, for e.g., kinship terms in Russian
and in English we observe that the m-ng of the Eng. term
mother-in-law is different from either the Russ. теща
or свекровь
as Eng. term covers the whole area which in Russ. is divided between
the 2 words. The same is true of the sem. Field of colours ( blue –
синий,
голубой).

Lexical
groups described above may be very extensive and may cover big
conceptual areas, e.g. space, matter, intellect, etc..

Words
making up such semantic fields may belong to different parts of
speech. For e.g., in sem. field of space we find nouns: expanse,
extent, surface, etc.; verbs: extend, spread, spa , etc.; adj. :
broad, roomy, vast, etc..

There
may be comparatively small lex. groups of words belonging to the same
part of speech and linked by a common concept. (milk, cheese, meat,
bread – make up a group with the concept of food). Such smaller
lex. groups consisting of words of the same part of speech are
usually termed lexico-semantic groups. It is observed that the
criterion for joining words together into semantic fields and
lexico-semantic groups is the identity of one of the components of
their m-ng found in all the lex. units making up these lex. groups.

For
e.g., the word saleswoman may be analysed into the sem. components
‘human’, ‘female’, ‘professional’.

Lexico-sem.
groups seem to play a very important role in determining individual
m-ngs of polysemantic words in lexical contexts. Analysing lex.
contexts we saw that the verb take, e.g., in combination with any
member of the lexical group denoting means of transportation is
synonymous with the verb go (take the tram,. the bus, etc) When
combined with members of another lex. group the same verb is
synonymous with to drink (to take tea, coffee, etc). Such word-groups
are often used not only in scientific lexicological analysis, but
also in practical class-room teaching.

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

In
linguistic contexts co-occurrence may be observed on different
levels. On the level of word-groups the word question, for e.g., is
often found in collocation with the verbs raise, discuss, put
forward, etc., with the adj. urgent, vital, disputable and so on. The
verb accept occurs in numerous contexts together with the nouns
proposal, invitation, plan and others.

As
a rule, thematic groups deals with contexts on the level of the
sentence. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common
contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and
reflect the words, e.g. tree- grow- green; journey- train- taxi-
bags- ticket, is due to the regular co-occurrence of these words in
number of sentences. Words making up a thematic group belong to
different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator
of m-ng.

Contextual
associations are usually conditioned by the context of situation
which necessitates the use of certain words. When watching a play,
for e.g., we naturally speak of the actors who act the main parts,
of good [bad] staging of the play, of the wonderful scenery and so
on.

Билет
№ 24. (Словосочетания.
Основные характеристики и структурные
классы.)

A
word-group is the largest two-facet lexical unit comprising more then
one word but expressing one global concept.

Structurally
word-groups may be approached in various ways:

• through
  the order and arrangement of the component members:

• endocentric
  (having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole
  w.gr.: a green tree, red flower)

• exocentric
  (the
  distribution of the w.gr. is different from either of its members:
  side by side, grow smaller, turn grey)

In
endocentric w.gr. the central component that has the same
distribution as the whole gr. is clearly the dominant member or the
head to which all other members of the gr. are subordinated (kind
to people).

according
to the head-word (in endocentric w.gr.) – if it’s of this certain
part of speech:

• nominal
  gr.
  (red flower)

• adjectival
  (kind to people)

• verbal
  (to speak well), etc.

• according
  to their syntactic pattern:

• predicative
  ( have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence): she
  will come, John works

• non-predicative

Non-predicative
w.gr. depending on the type of connection, may be:

• subordinative
  (a man of wisdom, a green tree)

• coordinative
  (do
  or die, hand by hand, now and then)

The
lexical meaning
of the w.gr. is the combined lexical meaning of the component words.
The meaning of the w.gr. is motivated by the meanings of the
component members and is supported by the structural pattern. But
it’s not a mere sum total of all these meanings! Polysemantic words
are used in w.gr. only in 1 of their meanings. These meanings of the
component words in such w.gr. are mutually interdependent and
inseparable (blind man – “a human being unable to see”, blind
type – “ the copy isn’t readable).

W.gr.
possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed
mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. The
structural pattern of w.grs. is the carrier of a certain semantic
component not necessarily dependent on the actual lexical meaning of
its members (school grammar – “grammar which is taught in
school”, grammar school – “a type of school”). We have to
distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of w.gr.
as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.

It
is often argued that the meaning of w.grs. is also dependent on some
extra-linguistic factors – on the situation in which w.grs. are
habitually used by native speakers.

Билет
№ 25.
(Семантические
классы
словосочетаний.)

[[As
both structure and meaning are parts of the w.gr. as a linguistic
unit, the interdependence of these two-facets is naturally the
subject matter of lexicological analysis.

The
term syntactic
structure (formula)
properly speaking implies the description of the order and
arrangement of member-words as parts of speech. These formulas may
be used to describe all the possible structures of English w.grs.
(the syntactic structure of the nominal grs. Clever man and red
flower may be represented as A+N, of the verbal grs.: To build houses
– V+N, to rely on somebody – V+prp+N).

The
structure of w.grs. may be also described in relation to the
head-word. In this case we speak of patterns
of w.grs., not of formulas. So, the term pattern implies that we are
speaking of the structure of the w. gr. in which a given word is used
as its head (to build houses – to build + N). The difference in the
meaning of the head-word is conditioned by a difference in the
pattern of the w.gr. in which this word is used. Although difference
in the pattern signals as a rule difference in the meaning of the
head-word, identity of pattern cannot be regarded as a reliable
criterion for identity of meaning. Structurally simple patterns are
as a rule polysemantic, whereas structurally complex patterns are
monosemantic and condition just 1 meaning of the head-member (take +
N: take tea, coffee => polysemantic; take + to + N: take to sports
=> monosemantic).]]

P.S.
Информация, заключенная в [[ ]] может
понадобиться для вопроса 24.

Semantically
all w.grs. may be classified into motivated
and non-motivated.

W.grs.
may be described as lexically motivated if the combined lexical
meaning of the groups is deducible from the meaning of their
components( heavy weight, take lessons). The constituents of the
lexically non-motivated grs. do not possess the denotational meaning
found in the same words outside these groups ( red tape, take place).

W.grs.
are said to be structurally motivated if the meaning of the pattern
is deducible from the order and arrangement of the member-words of
the group ( red flower => quality + substance).

In
w.grs. the problem of motivation is closely connected with the
problem of stability. Motivated units are either free
w.grs.
or stable
w.grs. Non-motivated w.grs. are all set
(stable) w.grs.
(idioms).Examples:
light weight, supper – free, motivated; light industry –
semi-free, semi-motivated; light hand (сноровка)
– stable, non-motivated.

On
the basis of motivation all w. grs. fall into:

• virtual
  – all possible w.grs.

• non-characteristic
  (blue rage, black silence)

Virtual
w.grs. may be free,
stable.
Free w.grs. fall into: 1) marginal (to sleep on the roof); 2) actual
(all the groups); 3) quasi-free (standard of living, population
growth). Stable w.grs. can be: 1) phraseological (idioms), 2)
phraseomatic and 3) semi-stable (standard of living).

Seemingly
identical w.grs. are sometimes found to be motivated or non-motivated
depending on their semantic interpretation (apple sauce – 1. a
sauce made of apples, 2. nonsense).

Every
utterance is a patterned, rhythmed and segmented sequence of signals.
On the lexical level these signals building up the utterance are not
exclusively words. Alongside with separate words speakers use larger
blocks consisting of more than one word.

Words
combined to express ideas and thoughts make up word-groups.

The
degree of structural and semantic cohesion of words within
word-groups may vary. Some word-groups are functionally and
semantically inseparable, e.g. rough
diamond, cooked goose,
to
stew in one’s own juice. Such
word-groups are traditionally described as set-phrases or
phraseological units. Characteristic features of phraseological units
are non-motivation for idiomaticity and stability of context. The
cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made
units.

The
component members in other word-groups possess greater semantic and
structural independence, e.g. to
cause misunderstanding, to shine brightly, linguistic phenomenon, red
rose Word-groups
of this type are defined as free word-groups for free phrases. They
are freely made up in speech by the speakers according to the needs
of communication.

Set
expressions are contrasted to free phrases and semi-fixed
combinations. All these are but different stages of restrictions
imposed upon co-occurance of words, upon the lexical filling of
structural patterns which are specific for every language. The
restriction may be independent of the ties existing in
extra-linguistic reality between the object spoken of and be
conditioned by purely linguistic factors, or have extralinguistic
causes in the history of the people. In free word-combination the
linguistic factors are chiefly connected with grammatical properties
of words.

Free
word-groups
of syntactically connected notional words within a sentence, which by
itself is not a sentence. This definition is recognised more or less
universally in this country and abroad. Though other linguistics
define the term word-group differently —
as
any group of words connected semantically and grammatically which
does not make up a sentence by itself. From this point of view
words-components of a word-group may belong to any part of speech,
therefor such groups as m
the morning, the window, and
Bill
are
also considered to be word-groups (though they comprise only one
notional word and one form-word).

Structurally
word-groups may be approached in various ways.

All
word-groups may be analysed by the criterion of distribution into two
big classes. Distribution is understood as the whole complex of
contexts in which the given lexical unit can be used. If the
word-group has the same linguistic distribution as one of its
members, It is described as
endocentric,
i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole
word-group. The word-groups, e.g. red
flower, bravery of alt kinds, are
distributionally identical with their central components flower
and
bravery:
I
saw a red flower —
I saw a flower. I appreciate bravery of all kinds —
I
appreciate
bravery.

If
the distribution of the word-group is different from either of its
members, it is regarded as exocentric,
i.e. as having no such central member, for instance side
by side or
grow
smaller and
others where the component words are not syntactically substitutable
for the whole word-group.

In
endocentric word-groups the central component that has the same
distribution as the whole group is clearly the dominant member or the
head to which ail other members of the group are subordinated. In the
word-group red
flower the
head is the noun flower
and
in the word-group kind
of people the
head is the adjective kind

Word-groups
are also classified according to their syntactic pattern into
predicative
and non-predicative groups.
Such word-groups, e.g. John
works, he went that
have a syntactic structure similar to that of a sentence, are
classified as predicative, and all others as non-predicative.
Non-predicative word-groups may be subdivided according to the type
of syntactic relation between the components into subordinative
and coordinative.
Such word-groups as red
flower, a man of wisdom and the like are
termed subordinative in which flower
and
man
are
head-words and red,
of wisdom are
subordinated to them respectively and function as their attributes.
Such phrases as woman
and child, day and night, do or die are
classified as coordinative. Both members in these word-groups are
functionally and semantically equal.

Subordinative
word-groups may be classified according to their head-words into
nominal groups (red
flower), adjectival
groups (kind
to people), verbal
groups (to
speak well), pronominal
(all
of them), statival
(fast
asleep). The
head is not necessarily the component that occurs first in the
word-group. In such nominal word-groups as, e.g. very
great bravery, bravery in the struggle the
noun bravery
is
the head whether followed or preceded by other words.

The
meaning
of word-groups may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the
components.

The
lexical meaning of the word-group
may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component
words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group red
flower may
be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red
and
flower.
It
should be pointed out, however, that the term combined lexical
meaning is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere
additive result of all the lexical meaning of the component members.
As a rule, the meaning of the component words are mutually dependant
and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the
lexical meanings of its constituents.

Word-groups
possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed
by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. Such word-groups
as school
grammar and
grammar
school are
semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of
arrangement of the component words. It is assumed that the structural
pattern of word-group is the carrier of a certain semantic component
which does not necessarily depend on the actual lexical meaning of
its members. In the example discussed above school
grammar the
structural meaning of the word-group
may be abstracted from the group and described as «quality-substance»
meaning. This is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the
word-group but not by either the word school
or
the word grammar.
It
follows that we have to distinguish between the structural meaning of
a given type of word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its
constituents.

The
lexical and structural components of meaning
in word-groups are interdependent and inseparable. The inseparability
of these two semantic components in word-groups can be illustrated by
the semantic analysis of individual word-groups in which the norms of
conventional collocability of words seem to be deliberately
overstepped. For instance, in the word-group all
the sun long we
observe a departure from the norm of lexical valency represented by
such word-groups as all
the day long, all the night long, all the week long, and
a few others. The structural pattern of these word-groups in ordinary
usage and the word-group all
the sun long is
identical. The generalised meaning of the pattern may be described as
«a unit of time». Replacing day,
night, week by
another noun the sun
we
do not find any change in the structural meaning of the pattern. The
group all
the sun long functions
semantically as a unit of time. The noun sun,
however,
included in the group continues to carry its own lexical meaning (not
«a unit of time») which violates the norms of collocability
in this word-group. ft follows that the meaning of the word-group is
derived from the combined lexical meanings of its constituents and is
inseparable from the meaning of the pattern of their arrangement.

Two
basic linguistic factors which unite words into word-groups and which
largely account for their combinability are lexical valency or
collocability and grammatical valency.

Words
are known to be used in lexical context, i.e. in combination with
other words. The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations,
with other words is qualified as its lexical
collocability or valency.

The
range of a potential lexical collocability of words is restricted by
the inner structure of the language wordstock. This can be easily
observed in the examples as follows: though the words bend,
curl are
registered by the dictionaries as synonyms their collocability is
different, for they tend to combine with different words: e.g. to
bend a bar/ wire/pipe/ bow/ stick/ head/ knees to curl hair/
moustache/ a hat brim/waves/ lips

There
can be cases of synonymic groups where one synonym would have the
widest possible range of соllосаbility
(like shake
which
enters combinations with an immense number of words including earth,
air, mountains, сonvictions,
beliefs, spears, walls, souls, tablecloths, bosoms, carpets etc.)
while another
will have the
limitation
inherent in its semantic structure (like waag
which
means <
to
shake a thing by one end >,
and
confined to rigid group of nouns —
tail,
finger, head, tongue, beard, chin).

There
is certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any intentional
departure from this norm is qualified as a stylistic device, e.g.:
tons
of words, a life ago, years of dust.

Words
traditionally collocated in speech tend to make up so called cliches
or traditional word combinations. In traditional combinations words
retain their full semantic independence although they are limited in
their combinative power (e.g.: to
wage a war, to render a service, to make friends). Words
in traditional combinations are combined according to the patterns of
grammatical structure of the given language. Traditional combinations
fall into structural types as:

1. V+N
   combinations. E.G.: deal
   a blow, bear a grudge, take a fancy etc

2. V+
   preposition +N:
   fall
   into disgrace, go into details, go into particular, take into
   account, come into being etc.

3. V
   +
   Adj.:
   work
   hard, rain heavily etc.

4. V
   +
   Adj.:
   set
   free, make sure, put right etc.

5. Adj.
   +
   N.:
   maiden
   voyage, ready money, dead silence, feline eyes, aquiline nose,
   auspicious circumstances etc.

6. N
   + V:
   time
   passes / flies /
   elapses,
   options differ, tastes vary etc.

7. N
   + preposition
   +
   N:
   breach
   of promise, flow of words, flash of hope, flood of tears etc.

Grammatical
combinability also tells upon the freedom of bringing words together.
The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (syntactic)
structures is termed grammatical
valency.

The
grammatical valency
of words may be different. The range of it is delimited by the part
of speech the word belongs to. This statement, though, does not
entitle to say that grammatical valency of words belonging to the
same part of speech is identical.

E.g.:
the two synonyms clever
and
intelligent
are
said to posses different grammatical valency as the word clever
can
fit the syntactic pattern of Adj. +
preposition
at +
N clever
at physics, clever at social sciences, whereas
the
word intelligent
can
never be found in exactly the same syntactic pattern.

Unlike
frequent departures from the norms of lexical valency, departures
from the grammatical valency norms are not admissible unless a
speaker purposefully wants to make the word group unintelligible to
native speakers.

Thus,
the main approaches towards word —
groups
classification are as follows:

1. According
   to the criterion of distribution word-groups are classified into:

• endocentric.
  e.g. having one central member functionally equivalent to
  the whole word group. E.g.: red
  flower — the
  word group whose distribution does not differ from the distribution
  of its head word, the noun
  flower. As
  in I
  gave her a red flower. I gave her a flower

• exocentric,
  e.g. having the distribution different from that of either of its
  members. Here component words are not syntactically substituable
  for the whole word group. E.g.: Side
  by side, by leaps and bounds

2.
According
to the syntactic pattern word-groups are classified into:

• predicative
  They
  knew Children believe Weather permitting

• coordinative
  say
  or die, come and go

• subordinative
  a
  man of property, domesticated animals

3.
According to the part of speech the head word belongs to
subordinative free word groups may fail into:

• nominal
  stone
  wall wild life

• adjectival
  necessary
  to know kind to people

• verbal
  work
  hard go smoothly

• adverbial
  very
  fluently, rather sharply very well so quickly

• numerical
  five
  of them hundreds of refugees

• pronominal
  some
  of them all of us nothing to do

• statival
  fast
  asleep, full ajar

Word
groups may be described as lexically
motivated
if the combined lexical meaning of the group is deducible from the
meaning of its components. The degrees of motivation may be different
and range from complete motivation to lack of it. Free word — groups,
however, are characterised by complete motivation, as their
components carry their individual lexical meanings. Phraseological
units are described as non-motivated and are characterised by
different degree of idiomaticity.

Билет
№ 26. (Фразеологические
единицы. Основные характеристики и
классы.)

Р
ы
ж
к
о
в
а:
The classification which will be distributed here is found on the
fact that phraseology is regarded as a self-contained brunch of
linguistics and not as a part of lexicology.

Free
w. grs. are modeled units. Phraseological units are not modeled, not
built according to regular linguistic patterns, they are reproduced
ready-made
(to read between the lines, a hard nut to crack). Each phraseological
unit is a w.gr. with a unique combination of components, which make
up a single specific meaning. The integral meaning of the
phraseological units is not just a combination of literal meanings of
the components. The meaning is not distributed between the components
and is not reduced to the mere sum of their meaning. Stability
is the basic quality of all phraseological units (unique meaning +
ready-made usage).The usage of phraseologiical units is not subject
to free variations. Grammatical structure of phraseological units is
to a certain extent also stable (we can’t say “red tapes” only
“red tape”).

Phraseological
meaning may be motivated by the meaning of components but not
confined. Stability makes phraseological units more similar to words,
rather than free word combinations. But they can’t be quite
equivalent with words, they don’t possess the whole semantic
sphere (a white elephant – “a burden”). Correct understanding
of the units depends on the background information (etimology). One
lexical equivalent may correspond to several idioms: to exaggerate =>
1) to make a mountain out of a molehill (motivated), 2) to draw the
long bow.

According
to the type of meaning phraseological units may be classified into:

• Idioms

• Semi-idioms

• Phraseomatic
  units

Idioms
are
phraseological units with a transferred meaning. They can be
completely
or partially
transferred
(red tape).

Semi-idioms
are
phraseological
units with two phraseosemantic meanings: terminological
and transferred
(chain reaction, to lay down the arms).

Phraseomatic
units are
not transferred at all. Their meanings are literal.

Scientists
distinguish also:

• Phrases
  with a unique combination of components (born companion)

• Phrases
  with a descriptive meaning

• Phrases
  with phraseomatic and bound meaning (to pay attention to)

• Set
  expressions (clichés): the beginning of the end

• Preposition-noun
  phrases (for good, at least)

• Terminological
  expressions (general ticket, civil war)

Semantic
complexity is one of the most essential qualities of phraseological
units. It’s resulted from the complicated interaction of the
component meanings (meaning of prototype, of semantic structure…).
All these components are organized into a multilevel structure.

Idioms
contain all information in compressed form. This quality is typical
of idioms, it makes them very capacious units (idiom is a compressed
text). An idiom can provide such a bright explanation of an object,
that can be better than a sentence. We can compare idioms with fables
(the Prodigal son). Idioms based on cultural components are not
motivated (the good Samaritan, Lot’s wife, the Troy horse).

Phraseological
meaning
contains all background information. It covers only the the most
essential features of the object it nominates. It corresponds to the
basic concept, to semantic nucleus of the unit. It is the
invariant of information conveyed by semantically complicated word
combinations and which is not derived from the lexical meanings of
the conjoined lexical components.

According
to the class the word combination belongs to, we single out:

• idiomatic
  meaning

• idiophraseomatic
  meaing

• phraseomatic
  meaning

The
information conveyed by phraseological units is thoroughly organized
and is very complicated. It is characterized by 1) multilevel
structure, 2) structure of a field (nucleus + periphery), 3)
block-schema. It contains 3 macro-components which correspond to a
certain type of information they convey:

• the
  grammatical block

• the
  phraseological meaning proper

• motivational
  macro-component (phraseological imagery; the inner form of the
  phraseological unit; motivation)

Phraseological
unit is
a non-motivated word-group that cannot be freely made up in speech
but is reproduced as a ready made unit.

Reproducibility
is regular use of phraseological units in speech as single
unchangeable collocations.

Idiomaticity
is the quality of phraseological unit, when the meaning of the whole
is not deducible from the sum of the meanings of the parts.

Stability
of a phraseological unit implies that it exists as a ready- made
linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its
lexical components of grammatical structure.

1.
In
lexicology there is great ambiguity of the terms phraseology
and idioms
.
Opinions
differ as to how phraseology should be defined, classified, described
and analysed. The word «phraseology has very different meanings
in this country and in Great Britain or the United States, In
linguistic literature the term is used for the expressions where the
meaning of one element is dependent on the other, irrespective of the
structure and properties of the unit (V.V. Vinogradov); with other
authors it denotes only such set expressions which do not possess
expressiveness or emotional colouring (A.I. Smirnitsky), and also
vice versa: only those that are imaginative, expressive and emotional
(I.V.Arnold). N.N. Amosova calls such expressions fixed context
units, i.e. units in which it is impossible to substitute any of the
components without changing the meaning not only of the whole unit
but also of the elements that remain intact. O.S. Ahmanova insists on
the semantic integrity of such phrases prevailing over the structural
separateness of their elements. A.V. Koonin lays stress on the
structural separateness of the elements in a phraseological unit, on
the change of meaning in the whole as compared with its elements
taken separately and on a certain minimum stability.

In
English and American linguistics no special branch of study exists,
and the term «phraseology» has a stylistic meaning,
according to Webster’s dictionary ‘mode of expression, peculiarities
of diction, i.e. choice and arrangement of words and phrases
characteristic of some author or some literary work’.

Difference
in terminology («set-phrases», «idioms»,
«word-equivalents») reflects certain differences in the
main criteria used to distinguish types of phraseological units and
free word-groups. The term «set phrase» implies that the
basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical
components and grammatical structure of word-groups.

The
term «idiom» generally implies that the essential feature
of the linguistic units is idiomaticity or lack of motivation.

The
term «word-equivalent» stresses not only semantic but also
functional inseparability of certain word groups, their aptness to
function in speech as single words.

The
essential features of phraseological units are: a) lack of semantic
motivation; b) lexical and grammatical stability.

As
far as semantic motivation is concerned phraseological units are
extremely varied from motivated (by simple addition of denotational
meaning) like a sight
for sore eyes and
to
know the ropes, to
partially motivated (when one of the words is used in a not direct
meaning) or to demotivated (completely non-motivated) like tit
for tat, red-tape.

Lexical
and grammatical stability of phraseological units is displayed in the
fact that no substitution of any elements whatever is possible in the
following stereotyped (unchangeable) set expressions, which differ in
many other respects; all
the world and his wife, red tape, calf
love,
heads or tails, first night, to gild the pill, to hope for the best,
busy as a bee, fair and square, stuff and nonsense
time and
again, to and fro.

In
a free phrase the semantic correlative ties are fundamentally
different. The information is additive and each element has a much
greater semantic independence Each component may be substituted
without affecting the meaning of the other: cut
bread, cut cheese, eat bread. Information
is additive in the sense that the amount of information we had on
receiving the first signal, i.e. having heard or read the word cut,
is
increased, the listener obtains further details and learns what is
cut. The reference of cut
is
unchanged Every notional word can form additional syntactic ties with
other words outside the expression. In a set expression information
furnished by each element is not additive: actually it does not exist
before we get the whole. No substitution for either cut
or figure can
be made without completely ruining the following:

I
had
an uneasy fear that he might cut a poor figure beside all these
clever Russian officers (Shaw).
He
was not managing to cut
much
of a figure (Murdoch)

The
only substitution admissible for the expression cut
a poor figure concerns
the adjective.

1. Semantic
   approach stresses the importance of idiomaticity, functional —
   syntactic
   inseparability, contextual
   —
   stability
   of context combined with idiomaticity.

2. In
   his classification of V.V. Vinogradov developed some points first
   advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally The classification is
   based upon the motivation of the unit, i.e. the relationship
   existing between the meaning of the whole and the meaning of its
   component parts. The degree of motivation is correlated with the
   rigidity, indivisibility and semantic unity of the expression, i.e
   with the possibility of changing the form or the order of
   components, and of substituting the whole by a single word.
   According to the type of motivation three types of phraseological
   units are suggested, phraseological combinations, phraseological
   unities, and phraseological fusions.

The
Phraseological Collocations (Combinations),
are
partially motivated, they contain one component used in its direct
meaning while the other is used figuratively: meet
the demand, meet the necessity, meet the requirements.

Phraseological
unities
are much more numerous. They are clearly motivated. The emotional
quality is based upon the image created by the whole as in to
stick (to stand) to one’s guns, i.e.
refuse to change one’s statements or opinions in the face of
opposition’, implying courage and integrity. The example reveals
another characteristic of the type, the possibility of synonymic
substitution, which can be only very limited, e. g. to
know the way the wind is blowing.

Phraseological
fusions,
completely non-motivated word-groups, (e.g. tit
for tat), represent
as their name suggests the highest stage of blending together. The
meaning of components is completely absorbed by the meaning of the
whole, by its expressiveness and emotional properties. Phraseological
fusions are specific for every language and do not lend themselves to
literal translation into other languages.

5.
Semantic
stylistic features contracting set expressions into units of fixed
context are simile, contrast, metaphor and synonymy. For example: as
like as two peas, as оld
as the hills and older than the hills (simile);
from
beginning to end, for love or money, more or less, sooner or later
(contrast);
a lame
duck, a pack of lies, arms race, to swallow the pill, in a nutshell
(metaphor);
by
leaps and bounds, proud and haughty (synonymy).
A few more combinations of different features in the same phrase are:
as
good as gold, as pleased as Punch, as fit as a fiddle (alliteration,
simile); now
or never, to kill or cure (alliteration
and contrast). More rarely there is an intentional pun: as
cross as two sticks means
‘very angry’. This play upon words makes the phrase jocular. The
comic effect is created by the absurdity of the combination making
use of two different meanings of the word cross
a
and n.

There
are, of course, other cases when set expressions lose their
metaphorical picturesqueness, having preserved some fossilised words
and phrases, the meaning of which is no longer correctly understood.
For instance, the expression buy
a pig in a poke may
be still used, although poke
‘bag’
(cf. pouch,
pocket) does
not occur in other contexts. Expressions taken from obsolete sports
and occupations may survive in their new figurative meaning. In these
cases the euphonic qualities of the expression are even more
important. A muscular and irreducible phrase is also memorable. The
muscular feeling is of special importance in slogans and battle
cries. Saint
George and the Dragon for Merrie England, the
medieval battle cry, was a rhythmic unit to which a man on a horse
could swing his sword. The modern Scholarships
not battleships! can
be conveniently scanned by a marching crowd.

Билет
№27. (Пути
пополнения
словарного
запаса)
Ways and means of enriching the vocabulary.

There
are 2 ways of enriching the Voc.:

I.vocabulary
extension – the appearance of new lexical items.

New
voc. Unit may appear mainly as a result of :

• productive
  or patterned ways of w-formation

• non-petterned
  ways of w-creation

• borrowing
  from other languages

II.semantic
extension – the appearance of new meanings of existing words which
may result in homonyms.

The
changes occurring in the voc. are due both to linguistic and
non-linguistic causese, but in the most cases to the combination of
both. Words may drop out altogether as a result of the disappearance
of the actual objects they denote :

(OE.
wunden-stefna
– “a curved-stemmed ship”);

Some
words ousted as a result of the influence of Scandinavian and French
borrowings. :

The
Scand. take
and
die ousted
the OE.
:niman
and
sweltan
.

Sometimes
the words do not actually drop out but become absolute, sinking to
the level of voc. units used in narrow, specialized fields of human
intercourse making a group of archaisms: billow
– wave; welkin
– horse.

The
appearance of a great number of new words and the development of new
meanings in the words may be largely accounted for by rapid flow of
events, the progress of science and technology and emergency of new
concepts in different fields of human activity.

I.
The growth of the voc. reflects not only the general progress made by
mankind but also the peculiarities of the way of life of the speech
community in which the new words appear, the way its science and
culture tend to develop ( Amer. Way of life fine expression in
taxi-dancer;to
job-hunt;
Amer. Political life – witch-hunt;ghostwriter”a
person engaged to write the speeches or articles of an eminent
personality”)

1.Productive
w-formation
is the most effective means of enriching the voc. Means used :
affixation( prefixation
– verbs and adj.;
suffixation
– nouns and adj.),conversion,
composition(most
productive in nouns and adj.)

“New”
words that appear as a result of productive w –form. are not
entirely new as they are all made up of elements already available in
the language. The newness of these words in the particular
combination of the items previously familiar to the lang. speaker.
Productive patterns in each part of speech serve as a formal
expression of the regular semantic relationship between diff. classes
or sem. groupings of words. Thus the types of new words that may
appear in this or that lex-grammatical class of words can be
predicted with a high degree of probability.The existence of one
class of words presupposes the possibility of appearance of the other
which stands in regular semantic relations with it.For instance the
existence and frequent use of the noun denoting an object presupposes
the possibility of the verb denoting an action connected with it :
stream,sardine,hi-fi – to
stream
“to divide students into separate classes according to level of
intelligence”; to
sardine
– “to pack closely”; to
hi-fi
– “to listen to hi-fi records”

Yet
the bulk of productive patterns giving rise to freely formed and
easily predictable lex.classes of new words have a set of rigid
structural and semantic constraints such as the lex – grammatical
class and structural type of base, the semantic nature of the base
etc.

Highly
productive types :

• deverbal
  suffixal adjectives denoting passive possibility of the action ( v +
  -able = A ):attachable,
  acceptable;

• prefixal
  negative adjectives formed after 2 patterns :

(un
+ part I/II = A ):unguarded,unheardof

(un
+ a = A ): unsound,uncool.

• prefixal
  verbs of repetitive m-ngs ( re- + v = V):rearrange,re-train;

• prefixal
  verbs of reversative m-ng (un- + v =V):uncapo,unbundle.

The
great number of new compound nouns are formed after n
+ n = N

The
bi-directional nature of productive derivational patterns of special
interest in connecting with back- derivation as a source of new
verbs. Many new backderived verbs are often stylistically marked as
colloquial; enthuse
from enthusiasm,playact
from play-acting,tongue-tie
from tongue-tied etc.

Occasional(potential
words)
built on the analogy with the most productive types of derived and
compound words,easily understood and never striking one as “unusual”
or “new” they are so numerous that it is impossible not to use
them every day. Occasional words are especially connected with the
force of analogous creations based on productive w-formation
patterns.( from the compound noun sit-in
formed by analody teach-in,study-in,talk-in).

The
second components of compound nouns become such centers of creation
by analogy as for instance the component – sick
in sea-sick
and homesick gave analogy to car-sick,air-sick,space-sick.

Productive
w-formation has a specific distribution in relation to diff. spheres
of communication, thematic and lexical stylistic groups of new words.
New terminological voc. Units appear mainly as a result of
composition making extensive use of borrowed root-morphemes, and
affixation with sets of affixes of peculiar stylistic reference often
of Latin-Greek origin(-ite,-inr,-tron,-in,-gen,-ogen,-ics,non-,pan—
:citrin,penicillin,radionics,Nixinomics)

Lexical
units of more standard-colloquial layer are more often crated by
affixes of neutral stylistic reference,by conversion and composition.