Поиск: Рекомендуем: Почему я выбрал профессую экономиста Почему одни успешнее, чем другие Периферийные устройства ЭВМ Нейроглия (или проще глия, глиальные клетки) Категории: Астрономия Биология География Другие языки Интернет Информатика История Культура Литература Логика Математика Медицина Механика Охрана труда Педагогика Политика Право Психология Религия Риторика Социология Спорт Строительство Технология Транспорт Физика Философия Финансы Химия Экология Экономика Электроника

Главная О нас Популярное ТОП Новые страницы Случайная страница Контакты FAQ ЗАКАЗАТЬ РАБОТУ Two Approaches to Language Study 4 страница ⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒

Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings

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

In connection with the polysemantic word table discussed above we are mainly concerned with the following problems: are all the nine meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of this word? Is the order in which the meanings are enumerated (or recorded) in dictionaries purely arbitrary or does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the word table? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that first occurs to us whenever we hear or see the word table, is ‘an article of furniture’. This emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and all other meanings are minor in comparison.¹

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

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

¹ There are several terms used to denote approximately the same concepts: basic (majоr) meaning as opposed to minor meanings or central as opposed to marginal meanings. Here the terms are used interchangeably.

2 *                                                                                                                                        35

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.¹

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

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

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

From the discussion of the diachronic and synchronic approach to polysemy it follows that the interrelation and the interdependence of individual meanings of the word may be described from two different angles. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive but are viewed here as supplementing each other in the linguistic analysis of a polysemantic word.

It should be noted, however, that as the semantic structure is never static, the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings may be different in different periods of the historical development of language. This is perhaps best illustrated by

¹ All data concerning semantic frequencies are reproduced from M. A. West. General Service List of English Words. London, 1959.

the semantic analysis of the word revolution. Originally, when this word first appeared in ME. 1350 — 1450 it denoted ‘the revolving motion of celestial bodies’ and also ‘the return or recurrence of a point or a period of time’. Later on the word acquired other meanings and among them that of ‘a complete overthrow of the established government or regime’ and also ‘a complete change, a great reversal of conditions. The meaning ‘revolving motion’ in ME. was both primary (diachronically) and central’ (synchronically). In Modern English, however, while we can still diachronically describe this meaning as primary it is no longer synchronically central as the arrangement of meanings in the semantic structure of the word revolution has considerably changed and its central and the most frequent meaning is ‘a complete overthrow of the established government or the regime’. It follows that the primary meaning of the word may become synchronically one of its minor meanings and diachronically a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of the word. The actual arrangement of meanings in the semantic structure of any word in any historical period is the result of the semantic development of this word within the system of the given language.

The words of different languages which are similar or identical in lexical meaning, especially in the denotational meaning are termed correlated words. The wording of the habitual question of English learners, e.g. “What is the English for стол?”, and the answer “The English for стол is ‘table'” also shows that we take the words table стол to be correlated. Semantic correlation, however, is not to be interpreted as semantic identity. From what was said about the arbitrariness of the sound-form of words and complexity of their semantic structure, it can be inferred that one-to-one correspondence between the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words in different languages is scarcely possible.¹

Arbitrariness of linguistic signs implies that one cannot deduce from the sound-form of a word the meaning or meanings it possesses. Languages differ not only in the sound-form of words; their systems of meanings are also different. It follows that the semantic structures of correlated words of two different languages cannot be coextensive, i.e. can never “cover each other". A careful analysis invariably shows that semantic relationship between correlated words, especially polysemantic words is very complex.

The actual meanings of polysemantic words and their arrangement in the semantic structure of correlated words in different languages may be altogether different. This may be seen by comparing the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words in English and in Russian. As a rule it is only the central meaning that is to a great extent identical, all other meanings or the majority of meanings usually differ. If we compare, e.g., the nine meanings of the English word table and the meanings of the Russian word стол, we shall easily observe not only the difference in the arrangement and the number of meanings making up their

¹ See ‘Semasiology’, § 1, p. 13,

37

respective semantic structures, but also the difference in the individual meanings that may, at first sight, appear similar.

As can be seen from the above, only one of the meanings and namely the central meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ may be described as identical. The denotational meaning ‘the food put on the table’ although existing in the words of both languages has different connotational components in each of them. The whole of the semantic structure of these words is altogether different. The difference is still more pronounced if we consider all the meanings of the Russian word стол, e.g. ‘department, section, bureau’ (cf. адресный стол, стол заказов) not to be found in the semantic structure of the word table.

1. The problem of polysemy is mainly the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word. Polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in disappearance of some meanings (or) and in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and also in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. Polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as coexistence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

2. The concepts of central (basic) and marginal (minor) meanings may be interpreted in terms of their relative frequency in speech. The meaning having the highest frequency is usually the one representative of the

38

semantic structure of the word, i.e. synchronically its central (basic) meaning.

3. As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between

the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of the individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical development of language.

4. The semantic structure of polysemantic words is not homogeneous as far as the status of individual meanings is concerned. Some meaning (or meanings) is representative of the word in isolation, others are perceived only in certain contexts.

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

POLYSEMY AND HOMONYMY

Words identical in sound-form but different in meaning are tradition-ally termed homonyms.

Modern English is exceptionally rich in homonymous words and word-forms. It is held that languages where short words abound have more homonyms than those where longer words are prevalent. Therefore it is sometimes suggested that abundance of homonyms in Modern English is to be accounted for by the monosyllabic structure of the commonly used English words.¹

When analysing different cases of homonymy we find that some words are homonymous in all their forms, i.e. we observe full homonymy of the paradigms of two or more different words, e.g., in seal₁ — ‘a sea animal’ and seal₂ — ‘a design printed on paper by means of a stamp’. The paradigm “seal, seal’s, seals, seals’ ” is identical for both of them and gives no indication of whether it is seal₁ or seal₂, that we are analysing. In other cases, e.g. seal₁ — ‘a sea animal’ and (to) seal, — ‘to close tightly’, we see that although some individual word- forms are homonymous, the whole of the paradigm is not identical. Compare, for instance, the paradigms: seal₁ (to) seal ₃

seal                                               seal

seal’s                                             seals

seals                                              sealed

seals’                                             sealing, etc.

It is easily observed that only some of the word-forms (e.g. seal, seals, etc.) are homonymous, whereas others (e.g. sealed, sealing) are not. In such cases we cannot speak of homonymous words but only of

¹ Not only words but other linguistic units may be homonymous. Here, however, we are concerned with the homonymy of words and word-forms only, so we shall not touch upon the problem of homonymous affixes or homonymous phrases.

39

homonymy of individual word-forms or of partial homonymy. This is true of a number of other cases, e.g. compare find [faind], found [ faund], found [faund], and found [faund], founded ['faundid], founded ['faundid]; know [nou], knows [nouz], knew [nju:], and no [nou]; nose [nouz], noses ['nouzis]; new [nju:] in which partial homonymy is observed.

Consequently all cases of homonymy may be classified into full and partial homonymy — i.e. homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms.

The bulk of full homonyms are to be found within the same parts of speech (e.g. seal₁ n — seal₂ n), partial homonymy as a rule is observed in word-forms belonging to different parts of speech (e.g. seal₁ n — seal₃ v). This is not to say that partial homonymy is impossible within one part of speech. For instance in the case of the two verbs — lie [lai] — ‘to be in a horizontal or resting position’ and He [lai] — ‘to make an untrue statement' — we also find partial homonymy as only two word-forms [lai], [laiz] are homonymous, all other forms of the two verbs are different. Cases of full homonymy may be found in different parts of speech too; e.g. for [ fo:] — preposition, for [fo:] — conjunction and four [fo:] — numeral, as these parts of speech have no other word-forms.

Homonyms may be also classified by the type of meaning into lexical, lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonyms. In seal₁ n and seal₂ n, e.g., the part-of-speech meaning of the word and the grammatical meanings of all its forms are identical (cf. seal [si:l] Common Case Singular, seal’s [si:lz] Possessive Case Singular for both seal₁ and seal₂). The difference is confined to the lexical meaning only: seal₁ denotes ‘a sea animal’, ‘the fur of this animal’, etc., seal₂ — ‘a design printed on paper, the stamp by which the design is made’, etc. So we can say that seal₂ and seal₁ are lexical homonyms because they differ in lexical meaning.

If we compare seal₁ — ‘a sea animal’, and (to) seal₃ — ‘ 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, i.e. seals [si:lz] (Common Case Plural of the noun) and (he) seals [si:lz] (third person Singular 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 homonymy generally implies that the homonyms in question belong to different parts of speech as the part-of-speech meaning is a blend of the lexical and grammatical semantic components. There may be cases however when lexico-grammatical homonymy is observed within the same part of speech, e.g., in the verbs (to) find [faind] and (to) found [faund], where the homonymic word-forms: found [faund] — Past Tense of (to) find and found [faund] — Present Tense of (to) found differ both grammatically and lexically.

Modern English abounds in homonymic word-forms differing in grammatical meaning only. In the paradigms of the majority of verbs the form of the Past Tense is homonymous with the form of Participle II, e.g. asked [a:skt] — asked [a:skt]; in the paradigm of nouns we usually

40

find homonymous forms of the Possessive Case Singular and the Common Case Plural, e.g. brother’s ['br0Dqz] — brothers ['br0Dqz]. It may be easily observed that grammatical homonymy is the homonymy of different word-forms of one and the same word.

The two classifications: full and partial homonymy and lexical, lexico-grammatical and grammatical homonymy are not mutually exclusive. All homonyms may be described on the basis of the two criteria — homonymy of all forms of the word or only some of the word-forms and also by the type of meaning in which homonymous words or word-forms differ. So we speak of the full lexical homonymy of sea₁ n and seal₂ n, of the partial lexical homonymy of lie₁ v and lie₂ v, and of the partial lexico-grammatical homonymy of seal₁ n and seal₃ v.

It should be pointed out that in the classification discussed above one of the groups, namely lexico-grammatical homonymy, is not homogeneous. This can be seen by analysing the relationship between two pairs of lexico-grammatical homonyms, e.g.

1. seal₁ n — ‘a sea animal’; seal₃ v — ‘ to close tightly as with a seal’;

2. seal₂ n — ‘a piece of wax, lead’; seal₃ v — ‘toclose tightly as with a seal’.

We can see that seal₁ n and seal₃ v actually differ in both grammatical and lexical meanings. We cannot establish any semantic connection between the meaning ‘a sea animal’ and ‘to close tightly’. The lexical meanings of seal₂ n and seal₃ v are apprehended by speakers as closely related. The noun and the verb both denote something connected with “a piece of wax, lead, etc., a stamp by means of which a design is printed on paper and paper envelopes are tightly closed". Consequently the pair seal₂ n — seal₃ v does not answer the description of homonyms as words or word-forms that sound alike but differ in lexical meaning. This is true of a number of other cases of lexico-grammatical homonymy, e.g. work n — (to) work v; paper n — (to) paper v; love n — (to) love v and so on. As a matter of fact all homonyms arising from conversion have related meanings. As a rule however the whole of the semantic structure of such words is not identical. The noun paper, e.g., has at least five meanings (1. material in the form of sheets, 2. a newspaper, 3. a document, 4. an essay, 5. a set of printed examination questions) whereas the verb (to) paper possesses but one meaning ‘to cover with wallpaper’.

Considering this peculiarity of lexico-grammatical homonyms we may subdivide them into two groups: A. identical in sound-form but different in their grammatical and lexical meanings (s eal₁ n — seal₃ v), and B. identical in sound-form but different in their grammatical meanings and partly different in their lexical meaning, i.e. partly different in their semantic structure (seal₃ n — seal₃ v; paper n — (to) paper v). Thus the definition of homonyms as words possessing identical sound-form but different semantic structure seems to be more exact as it allows of a better understanding of complex cases of homonymy, e.g. seal₁ n — seal₂ n; seal₃ v — seal₄ v which can be analysed into homonymic pairs, e.g. seal₁ n — seal ₂ n lexical homonyms; seal₁ n — seal₃ v — lexico-

41

grammatical homonyms, subgroup A; seal₂ n — seal₃ v — lexico-grammatical homonyms, subgroup B.

In the discussion of the problem of homonymy we proceeded from the assumption that words are two-facet units possessing both sound-form and meaning, and we deliberately disregarded their graphic form. Some linguists, however, argue that the graphic form of words in Modern English is just as important as their sound-form and should be taken into consideration in the analysis and classification ■ of homonyms. Consequently they proceed from definition of homonyms as words identical in sound-form or spelling but different in meaning. It follows that in their classification of homonyms all the three aspects: sound-form, graphic form and meaning are taken into account. Accordingly they classify homonyms into homographs, homophones and perfect homonyms.

Homographs are words identical in spelling, but different both in their sound-form and meaning, e.g. bow n [bou] — ‘a piece of wood curved by a string and used for shooting arrows’ and bow n [bau] — ‘the bending of the head or body’; tear n [tia] — ‘a drop of water that comes from the eye’ and tear v [tea] — ‘to pull apart by force’.

Homophones are words identical in sound-form but different both in spelling and in meaning, e.g. sea n and see v; son n and sun n.

Perfect homonyms are words identical both in spelling and in sound-form but different in meaning, e.g. case₁ n — ’something that has happened’ and case₂ n — ‘a box, a container’.

The description of various types of homonyms in Modern English would be incomplete if we did not give a brief outline of the diachronic processes that account for their appearance.

The two main sources of homonymy are: 1) diverging meaning development of a polysemantic word, and 2) converging sound development of two or more different words. The process of diverging meaning development can be observed when different meanings of the same word move so far away from each other that they come to be regarded as two separate units. This happened, for example, in the case of Modern English flower and flour which originally were one word (ME. flour, cf. OFr. flour, flor, L. flos — florem) meaning ‘the flower’ and ‘the finest part of wheat’. The difference in spelling underlines the fact that from the synchronic point of view they are two distinct words even though historically they have a common origin.

Convergent sound development is the most potent factor in the creation of homonyms. The great majority of homonyms arise as a result of converging sound development which leads to the coincidence of two or more words which were phonetically distinct at an earlier date. For example, OE. ic and OE. еаzе have become identical in pronunciation (MnE. I [ai] and eye [ai]). A number of lexico-grammatical homonyms appeared as a result of convergent sound development of the verb and the noun (cf. MnE. love — (to) love and OE. lufu — lufian).

42

Words borrowed from other languages may through phonetic convergence become homonymous. ON. ras and Fr. race are homonymous in Modern English (cf. race₁ [ reis] — ‘running’ and race₂ [ reis] — ‘a distinct ethnical stock’).

One of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, i.e. between different meanings of one word and the meanings of two homonymous words.

If homonymy is viewed diachronically then all cases of sound convergence of two or more words may be safely regarded as cases of homonymy, as, e.g., race₁ and race₂ can be traced back to two etymologically different words. The cases of semantic divergence, however, are more doubtful. The transition from polysemy to homonymy is a gradual process, so it is hardly possible to point out the precise stage at which divergent semantic development tears asunder all ties between the meanings and results in the appearance of two separate words. In the case of flower, flour, e.g., it is mainly the resultant divergence of graphic forms that gives us grounds to assert that the two meanings which originally made up the semantic structure of оne word are now apprehended as belonging to two different words.

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.

Thus the semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the differentiation between related and unrelated meanings. This traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable, firstly, because various meanings of the same word and the meanings of two or more different words may be equally apprehended by the speaker as synchronically unrelated. For instance, the meaning ‘a change in the form of a noun or pronoun’ which is usually listed in dictionaries as one of the meanings of case₁ seems to be synchronically just as unrelated to the meanings of this word as ’something that has happened’, or ‘a question decided in the court of law’ to the meaning of case₂ — ‘abox, a container’, etc.

Secondly, in the discussion of lexico-grammatical homonymy it was pointed out that some of the meanings of homonyms arising from conversion (e.g. seal₂ n — seal₃ v; paper n — paper v) are related, so this criterion cannot be applied to a large group of homonymous word-forms in Modern English. This criterion proves insufficient in the synchronic analysis of a number of other borderline cases, e.g. brother — brothers — ’sons of the same parent’ and brethren — ‘fellow members of a religious society’. The meanings may be apprehended as related and then we can speak of polysemy pointing out that the difference in the morphological structure of the plural form reflects the difference of meaning. Otherwise we may regard this as a case of partial lexical homonymy.

43

It is sometimes argued that the difference between related and unrelated meanings may be observed in the manner in which the meanings of polysemantic words are as a rule relatable. It is observed that different meanings of one word have certain stable relationship which are not to be found ‘between the meanings of two homonymous words. A clearly perceptible connection, e.g., can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one word (cf., e.g., foot of the man — foot of the mountain, loud voice — loud colours, etc.,¹ cf. also deep well and deep knowledge, etc.).

Such semantic relationships are commonly found in the meanings of one word and are considered to be indicative of polysemy. It is also suggested that the semantic connection may be described in terms of such features as, e.g., form and function (cf. horn of an animal and horn as an instrument), or process and result (to run — ‘move with quick steps’ and a run — act of running).

Similar relationships, however, are observed between the meanings of two partially homonymic words, e.g. to run and a run in the stocking.

Moreover in the synchronic analysis of polysemantic words we often find meanings that cannot be related in any way, as, e.g. the meanings of the word case discussed above. Thus the semantic criterion proves not only untenable in theory but also rather vague and because of this impossible in practice as in many cases it cannot be used to discriminate between several meanings of one word and the meanings of two different words.

§ 38. Formal Criteria: Distribution and Spelling ⇐ Предыдущая12345678910Следующая ⇒ Поделиться с друзьями: Дата добавления: 2018-10-15; Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!; просмотров: 2579 | Нарушение авторских прав Поиск на сайте: Лучшие изречения: Даже страх смягчается привычкой. © Неизвестно ==> читать все изречения... 1675 - | 1471 - © 2015-2024 lektsii.org - Контакты - Последнее добавление