Word that means to be an individual

Princeton’s WordNetRate this definition:2.0 / 6 votes

1. person, individual, someone, somebody, mortal, soulnoun

   a human being

   «there was too much for one person to do»

2. individualadjective

   a single organism

3. individual, singleadjective

   being or characteristic of a single thing or person

   «individual drops of rain»; «please mark the individual pages»; «they went their individual ways»

4. individual, case-by-case, item-by-itemadjective

   separate and distinct from others of the same kind

   «mark the individual pages»; «on a case-by-case basis»

5. individual, single(a)adjective

   characteristic of or meant for a single person or thing

   «an individual serving»; «single occupancy»; «a single bed»

6. individual(a), privateadjective

   concerning one person exclusively

   «we all have individual cars»; «each room has a private bath»

WiktionaryRate this definition:4.0 / 1 vote

1. individualnoun

   A person considered alone, rather than as belonging to a group of people.

   He is an unusual individual.

2. individualnoun

   A single physical human being as a legal subject, as opposed to a legal person such as a corporation.

3. individualnoun

   An object, be it a thing or an agent, as contrasted to a class.

4. individualadjective

   Relating to a single person or thing as opposed to more than one.

   As we can’t print them all together, the individual pages will have to be printed one by one.

5. individualadjective

   Intended for a single person as opposed to more than one person.

   individual personal pension; individual cream cakes

6. Etymology: From individualis, from individuum, neuter of individuus, from in + dividuus, from.

Samuel Johnson’s DictionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

1. INDIVIDUALadjective

   Etymology: individu, individuel, Fr. individuus, Lat.

   1. Separate from others of the same species; single; numerically one.

   Neither is it enough to consult, secundum genera, what the kind and character of the person should be; for the most judgment is shown in the choice of individuals.
   Francis Bacon.

   They present us with images more perfect than the life in any individual.
   John Dryden, Dufresnoy.

   Must the whole man, amazing thought! return
   To the cold marble, or contracted urn?
   And never shall those particles agree,
   That were in life this individual he?
   Matthew Prior.

   Know all the good that individuals find,
   Lie in three words, health, peace and competence.
   Alexander Pope.

   We see each circumstance of art and individual of nature summoned together by the extent and fecundity of his imagination.
   Alexander Pope, Iliad. Preface to the.

   It would be wise in them, as individual and private mortals, to look back a little upon the storms they have raised, as well as those they have escaped.
   Jonathan Swift.

   The object of any particular idea is called an individual: so Peter is an individual man, London an individual city.
   Isaac Watts.

   2. Undivided; not to be parted or disjoined.

   To give thee being, I lent
   Out of my side to thee, nearest my heart,
   Substantial life, to have thee by my side
   Henceforth an individual solace dear.
   John Milton, Parad. Lost.

   Long eternity shall greet our bliss
   With an individual kiss.
   John Milton.

   Under his great vicegerent reign abide
   United, as one individual soul,
   For ever happy.
   John Milton, Parad. Lost, b. v.

WikipediaRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

1. Individual

   An individual is that which exists as a distinct entity. Individuality (or self-hood) is the state or quality of being an individual; particularly (in the case of humans) of being a person unique from other people and possessing one’s own needs or goals, rights and responsibilities. The concept of an individual features in diverse fields, including biology, law, and philosophy.

Webster DictionaryRate this definition:0.0 / 0 votes

1. Individualadjective

   not divided, or not to be divided; existing as one entity, or distinct being or object; single; one; as, an individual man, animal, or city

2. Individualadjective

   of or pertaining to one only; peculiar to, or characteristic of, a single person or thing; distinctive; as, individual traits of character; individual exertions; individual peculiarities

3. Individualnoun

   a single person, animal, or thing of any kind; a thing or being incapable of separation or division, without losing its identity; especially, a human being; a person

4. Individualnoun

   an independent, or partially independent, zooid of a compound animal

5. Individualnoun

   the product of a single egg, whether it remains a single animal or becomes compound by budding or fission

6. Etymology: [L. individuus indivisible; pref. in- not + dividuus divisible, fr. dividere to divide: cf. F. individuel. See Divide.]

FreebaseRate this definition:3.5 / 4 votes

1. Individual

   An individual is a person or a specific object. Individuality is the state or quality of being an individual; particularly of being a person separate from other persons and possessing his or her own needs or goals. The exact definition of an individual is important in the fields of biology, law, and philosophy.
   From the 15th century and earlier, and also today within the fields of statistics and metaphysics, individual meant «indivisible», typically describing any numerically singular thing, but sometimes meaning «a person.». From the seventeenth century on, individual indicates separateness, as in individualism.

Chambers 20th Century DictionaryRate this definition:3.0 / 2 votes

1. Individual

   in-di-vid′ū-al, adj. not divisible without loss of identity: subsisting as one: pertaining to one only, of a group where each constituent is different from the others: (Milt.) inseparable.—n. a single person, animal, plant, or thing.—n. Individualisā′tion.—v.t. Individ′ualīse, to stamp with individual character: to particularise.—ns. Individ′ualism, individual character: independent action as opposed to co-operation: that theory which opposes interference of the State in the affairs of individuals, opposed to Socialism or Collectivism: (logic) the doctrine that individual things alone are real: the doctrine that nothing exists but the individual self; Individ′ualist.—adj. Individualist′ic.—n. Individual′ity, separate and distinct existence: oneness: distinctive character.—adv. Individ′ually.—v.t. Individ′uāte, to individualise: to make single.—n. Individuā′tion, the question as to what it is that distinguishes one organised or living being, or one thinking being, from all others. [L. individuus—in, not, dividuus, divisible—dividĕre, to divide.]

British National Corpus

1. Spoken Corpus Frequency

   Rank popularity for the word ‘individual’ in Spoken Corpus Frequency: #708

2. Written Corpus Frequency

   Rank popularity for the word ‘individual’ in Written Corpus Frequency: #1264

3. Nouns Frequency

   Rank popularity for the word ‘individual’ in Nouns Frequency: #316

4. Adjectives Frequency

   Rank popularity for the word ‘individual’ in Adjectives Frequency: #80

How to pronounce individual?

How to say individual in sign language?

Numerology

1. Chaldean Numerology

   The numerical value of individual in Chaldean Numerology is: 5

2. Pythagorean Numerology

   The numerical value of individual in Pythagorean Numerology is: 6

Examples of individual in a Sentence

1. Aida Sandoval:

   I’m over the moon, it’s still surreal seeing them separate, knowing that it’s still them as two individual bodies. Now we’re just waiting for their next chapter to being, and the anticipation is indescribable.

2. Luke Nelson:

   The simple truth, this is a political matter, and one that has the potential to stoke even more division than we already have in our public schools, where we represent families of vastly diverse political backgrounds, if individual families or communities want to take political stands for their personal beliefs, we believe that they should and we will support them all the way through it. But implementing a policy to support any political organization is reckless and not the purpose of our public schools.

3. Harvey County:

   There were some things that triggered this particular individual.

4. Puthenveedu Jayakrishnan:

   It’s for your benefit, learn the root, the origin of a word. If you go through this at an early age you will grow as an individual and succeed in life.

5. Ted Cruz:

   This is a choice that you are telling the American people that ‘ This is an individual that I trust and, more important, this is an individual that you can trust to lead this country, no matter what might happen, ’.

Popularity rank by frequency of use

---

Translations for individual

From our Multilingual Translation Dictionary

• فردArabic
• individual, individuCatalan, Valencian
• jednotlivec, jedinec, individuální, jednotlivýCzech
• individuell, einzeln, IndividuumGerman
• unuopuloEsperanto
• individual, individuoSpanish
• فردیPersian
• luonnollinen henkilö, yksilö, henkilö, yksilöllinen, yksittäinenFinnish
• individu, individuelFrench
• air lethScottish Gaelic
• व्यक्तिHindi
• individuoIdo
• individuale, individuoItalian
• 個体, 個人, 私人, 個々Japanese
• individualisLatin
• takitahiMāori
• enkelt, individuell, individNorwegian
• individueel, enkeling, individuDutch
• hwóNavajo, Navaho
• osoba fizycznaPolish
• indivíduo, individualPortuguese
• individuală, individual, individ, individualiRomanian
• персональный, физическое лицо, отдельный, личный, индивидуальный, индивидуумRussian
• pojedinac, pojedinkaSerbo-Croatian
• posameznik, posameznicaSlovene
• enskild, individuell, individSwedish
• వ్యక్తిTelugu
• bireyTurkish

Get even more translations for individual »

Translation

Find a translation for the individual definition in other languages:

Select another language:

• — Select —
• 简体中文 (Chinese — Simplified)
• 繁體中文 (Chinese — Traditional)
• Español (Spanish)
• Esperanto (Esperanto)
• 日本語 (Japanese)
• Português (Portuguese)
• Deutsch (German)
• العربية (Arabic)
• Français (French)
• Русский (Russian)
• ಕನ್ನಡ (Kannada)
• 한국어 (Korean)
• עברית (Hebrew)
• Gaeilge (Irish)
• Українська (Ukrainian)
• اردو (Urdu)
• Magyar (Hungarian)
• मानक हिन्दी (Hindi)
• Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Italiano (Italian)
• தமிழ் (Tamil)
• Türkçe (Turkish)
• తెలుగు (Telugu)
• ภาษาไทย (Thai)
• Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
• Čeština (Czech)
• Polski (Polish)
• Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
• Românește (Romanian)
• Nederlands (Dutch)
• Ελληνικά (Greek)
• Latinum (Latin)
• Svenska (Swedish)
• Dansk (Danish)
• Suomi (Finnish)
• فارسی (Persian)
• ייִדיש (Yiddish)
• հայերեն (Armenian)
• Norsk (Norwegian)
• English (English)

Word of the Day

Would you like us to send you a FREE new word definition delivered to your inbox daily?

---

Citation

Use the citation below to add this definition to your bibliography:

• 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.

In game theory, there’re numerous games that fit OP’s description well including those in Talia Ford’s and benshepherd’s answers. But, in essence, it’s just a multiple-player version of prisoner’s dilemma.

Another celebrated(and discredited) example that fits equally well is the paradox of thrift. Suppose that an unfavorable shock hits the economy. An individual will be better off by saving more and spending less unilaterally, provided all others don’t adapt their spending behaviour. However, if everyone save more in unison( and they have incentive to do so), everyone will be worse off compared to the utility level that they don’t.

As far as I know, in Paul Samuelson’s Economics(10ed), paradox of thrift is chosen as a notorious example of fallacy of composition. Thus maybe fallacy of composition is the word you are after.

If you are looking for a single word, I guess it could be emergence, though I’m not absolutely sure.

Added: This is an attempt to show why prisoner’s dilemma is significant in the philosophical ground. At sometime in our life, in one form or another, we heard of some maxims with a philosophical flavor, say, «People are better off when making their own choices»(Milton Friedman), «The road to economic meltdown is always and everywhere paved by governments’ good intentions»(Austrian School), «That government is best which governs not at all», «People pursuing their self-interest are guided by the invisible hand» These dogmas, or widespread misuses of them, though inherently appealing for us, freemen, are debunked by the simple equilibrium analysis of prisoner’s dilemma. The lesson is that it’s an oversimplication to believe that individual incentive always coincides with social incentive.