Branches of linguistics. Synchronic vs diachronic approaches to the language study. Lexicology – ‘the science of the word’

Partial homonyms are words found within different (rarely the same) parts of speech which coincide only in some of their forms, i.e. their paradigms are not identical. e.g.:

seal, n. (seals) ‘a semi-aquatic marine mammal’ – seal, v. (sealed, sealing) ‘to close tightly’; lie, v. (lies – lying – lay – lain) ‘to be in a horizontal or resting position’ – lie, v. (lies – lying – lied – lied) ‘to make an untrue statement’;

According to the type of meaning, homonyms are classified into:

lexical homonyms, if they belong to the same part of speech but differ in lexical meaning, e.g.:

bank, n. ‘land along the side of a river’ – bank, n. ‘an establishment for keeping money, valuables, etc.’;

lexical-grammatical homonyms, if they belong to different parts of speech and differ both in their lexical and grammatical meanings, e.g.:

bear, n. – bear, v.; right, adj. – write, v.;

grammatical homonyms, i.e. homonymous word-forms of one and the same word differing in grammatical meaning, e.g. the homonymy of the plural, Possessive Case singular and plural: bears - bear's - bears'.

29. Syntagmatic vs paradigmatic relations among English words.

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are understood as basic linguistic relationships describing the complex structure of a language system. This distinction is relevant to all levels of description. It was introduced by the Swiss linguist Ferdinard de Saussure in 1916 as a generalisation of the traditional concepts of a paradigm and a syntagm.

Paradigm (Gr. parádeigma ‘pattern, model’) is a set of homogeneous forms opposed to each other according to their semantic and formal features.

Syntagm (Gr. sýntagma ‘that which is put together in order’) is a structured syntactic sequence of linguistic elements formed by segmentation which can consist of sounds, words, phrases, clauses, or entire sentences.

Paradigmatic relations exist between units of the language system outside the strings where they co-occur. They are based on the criteria of selection and distribution of linguistic elements. Paradigmatic relations determining the vocabulary system are based on the interdependence of words within the vocabulary: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy.

F. de Saussure called paradigmatic relationships associative relationships, because they represent the relationship between individual elements in specific environment.

It was the Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev who replaced the term associative relations for paradigmatic relations.

Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear links between the units in a segmental sequence. Syntagmatic relations are horizontal since they are based on the linear character of speech.

In psycholinguistics these terms are used in a different sense.

The term paradigmatic relations denotes the mental associations between words which form part of a set of mutually exclusive items, e.g. black responds with white.

The term syntagmatic relations refers to mental associations between words which frequently occur together, e.g. black magic / tie / sheep.

30. Synonyms. the notion of a synonymic dominant. Types of synonyms. Sources of synonymy.

Synonyms (Gr. syn ‘with’, ónyma ‘name’) are two or more words belonging to the same part of speech and possessing a common denotative semantic component, interchangeable at least in some contexts without any considerable alteration in sense, but differing in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotations, style, valency and idiomatic use, e.g.:

The synonymic dominant is the general term of its kind potentially containing the specific features rendered by all the other members of the group. It is characterised by:

high frequency value;

broad combinability;

broad general meaning;

lack of connotations;

stylistic neutrality;

it may substitute for other synonyms at least in some contexts;

it is often used to define other synonyms in dictionary definitions

Classifications of Synonyms
(Acad. V. V. Vinogradov’s approach)

Lexical synonyms are similar in meaning in the language system.

Contextual synonyms are similar in meaning only under some specific contextual conditions, cf. the following sentences:

I’ll go to the shop to buy some bread.

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

I can’t bear him anymore.

I can’t stand him anymore.

Lexical Synonyms

Absolute synonyms coincide in all their shades of meaning and in all their stylistic characteristics, e.g. word-building – word-formation;

Ideographic synonyms convey the same concept but differ in shades of meaning, i.e. in their denotative component;

interesting – (exciting), (makes you want to know more sth);

fascinating – (exciting), (makes you want to know more sth), [extremely];

intriguing – (exciting), (makes you want to know more sth), [there is sth you find difficult to understand or explain];

absorbing – (exciting), (makes you want to know more sth), [holds your attention for a long time];

gripping – (exciting), (makes you want to know more sth), [holds your attention for a long time], [you want to know what is going to happen next];

Stylistic synonyms differ in their stylistic characteristics, i.e. in their connotative component, e.g. head (neutral) – attic (stylistic).

Ideographic-stylistic synonyms differ in shades of meaning and belong to different styles, e.g. to see ‘to have or use the powers of sight and understanding’ – to behold (elevated, archaic) ‘to look at that which is seen’.

Sources of Synonymy

development of the native elements, mostly denoting different shades of common meaning, e.g. fast – speedy – swift; handsome – pretty – lovely;

adaptation of words from dialects and varieties of English, e.g. dark – murk (Northern English); girl – lass (Scottish English); wireless – radio (American English);

foreign borrowings, e.g. to ask (native) – to question (French) – to interrogate (Latin); to end (native) – to finish (French) – to complete (Latin);

euphemisms, e.g. drunk – intoxicated – tired and emotional; to kill – to finish – to make away with sb – to remove;

etymological doublets, e.g. shade – shadow; canal – channel;

productive word-forming processes, e.g. await – wait; memorandum – memo; resistance – fight back.

31. Antonyms. Definition. Morphological and semantic classifications of antonyms.

Antonymy is a type of paradigmatic relations based on polarity of meaning.

Antonyms (Gr. antí ‘against,’ ónyma ‘name’) are two or more words of the same language belonging to the same part of speech and to the same semantic field, identical in style and nearly identical in distribution, associated and often used together so that their denotative meanings render contrary or contradictory notions.

For the analysis of the semantic continuum where synonyms and antonyms interplay, one can use the ‘semiotic square’ model suggested by Algirdas Greimas, a Lithuanian-born linguist and semiotician who laid the foundations for the Paris School of Semiotics and is considered, along with Roland Barthes, the most prominent of the French semioticians.

According to the character of semantic opposition:

Antonyms proper (contrary antonyms) are antonyms which possess the following characteristics:

-they are gradable, i.e. there are some intermediate units between the most distant members of a set, e.g. cold – cool – tepid – warm – hot; never – seldom – sometimes – often – always;

-they are capable of comparison, e.g. good – better – best vs. bad – worse – worst;

-they can be modified by such intensifiers as very, slightly, extremely, fairly, rather etc., e.g. huge – very big – BIG – quite big – medium-sized – quite small – SMALL – very small – tiny;

-they do not deny one another, e.g. She is not beautiful ≠She is ugly;

-they refer not to independent absolute qualities but to some implicit norm, e.g. a big mouse vs a small elephant.

Contradictory antonyms (complementary antonyms) are mutually opposed (exclusive) and deny one another, e.g. male – female; married – single; asleep – awake; same – different. Their features:

-not gradable;

-truly represent oppositeness of meaning;

-cannot be used in the comparative or superlative degree;

-the denial of one member of such antonymic opposition always implies the assertion of the other, e.g. not dead – alive.

Conversive antonyms (conversives) are words which denote one and the same situation as viewed from different points of view, with a reversal of the order of participants and their roles, e.g. husband – wife; teacher – pupil; to buy – to sell; to lend – to borrow; to precede – to follow. These antonyms are mutually dependent on each other and one item presupposes the other.

Vectorial antonyms (directional antonyms) are words denoting differently directed actions, features, e.g. to rise – to fall; to arrive – to depart; to marry – to divorce; to learn – to forget; to appear – to disappear.

Morphological classification of antonyms by V. N. Komissarov (Dictionary of English Antonyms):

root antonyms (absolute antonyms) are antonyms having different roots, e.g. clean – dirty; late – early; day – night;

derivational antonyms are antonyms having the same root but different affixes, e.g. to fasten – to unfasten; flexible – inflexible; useful – useless.

32. Grammatical and lexical valency. Grammatical and lexical context.

The appearance of words in a certain syntagmatic succession with particular logical, semantic, morphological and syntactic relations is called collocability or valency.

Valency is viewed as an aptness or potential of a word to have relations with other words in language. Valency can be grammatical and lexical.

Collocability is an actual use of words in particular word-groups in communication.

Lexical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in various collocations, i.e. in combinations with other words. The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the E. plant and Ukr. рослина may be combined with a number of words denoting the place where the flowers are grown, e.g. garden plants, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. Ukr. садові рослини, оранжерейні рослини, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination with the word room to denote plants growing in the rooms (cf. pot plants — кімнатні рослини).

The interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy:

-the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups, e.g. heavy, adj. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’ is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc., but one cannot say *heavy cheese or *heavy sausage;

-different meanings of a word may be described through its lexical valency, e.g. the different meanings of heavy, adj. may be described through the word-groups heavy weight / book / table; heavy snow / storm / rain; heavy drinker / eater; heavy sleep / disappointment / sorrow; heavy industry / tanks, 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.

Grammatical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures. Its range is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical, e.g.

-the verbs suggest and propose can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan / a resolution); however, it is only propose that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.);

-the adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adj. + Prep. at + Noun (clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.

-The individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be described through its grammatical valency, e.g.

- keen + N as in keen sight ‘sharp’; keen + on + N as in keen on sports ‘fond of’; keen + V(inf) as in keen to know ‘eager’.

Lexical context determines lexically bound meaning; collocations with the polysemantic words are of primary importance, e.g. a dramatic change / increase / fall / improvement; dramatic events / scenery; dramatic society; a dramatic gesture.

In grammatical context the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context serves to determine the meanings of a polysemantic word, e.g. 1) She will make a good teacher. 2) She will make some tea. 3) She will make him obey.

33. Lexical syntagmatics. Free word-groups vs phraseological units.

A word-group is a combination of at least two meaningful words joined together according to the rules of a particular language.

Words in word-groups are not “free” because their syntagmatic relationships are governed, restricted and regulated, on the one hand, by requirements of logic and common sense and, on the other, by the rules of grammar and combinability.

Distribution is the range of positions in which a linguistic unit can occur, e.g. the noun issue can appear in various combinations:

Adj. + issue: burning, central, critical, crucial, key, vital; controversial, difficult, thorny; economic, moral, political, social, technical, theoretical;

V. + issue: raise; debate, discuss; decide, settle; address, consider, deal with, examine; clarify; focus on; highlight; avoid, evade.

Semantic combinability of words is based on the meanings of words. It is conditioned by the nature of the denotata of words, i.e. it reflects the connections, relations and associations between objects, properties or events in reality. Semantic links between the combining words serve as a basis for free word-groups.

Semantic agreement is the presence of common semantic features (semes) and the absence of contradictory semantic features in the combining words; it is the basic law of semantic combinability. Consider the example below:

*The yellow idea cut the tree.

*Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Word-groups:

Constructed in speech

Substitution is possible

individual meanings of the components (motivated)

each notional word functions as a separate syntactic unit

unpredictable

Phraseological units:

ready-made

as a rule, no substitution

meaning is non-motivated (idiomatic)

the whole expression functions as a single syntactic unit

predictable

34. Free word-groups. Definition. Classifications.

A word-group is a combination of at least two meaningful words joined together according to the rules of a particular language.

According to the head-word:

Nominal, verbal, adjectival, statival, numerical, pronominal, adverbial

According to the type of connection:

Predicative

Non-predicative

-subordinate

-coordinate

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

-exocentric, i.e. having the distribution different from either of its members, e.g. side by side, to grow smaller, kind to people etc.

-endocentric, i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group, e.g. a red flower, bravery of all kinds etc.

Endocentric word-groups are further subdivided into:

-coordinative if they have the same distribution as two or more of its members, e.g. bread and butter; coffee, tea, and milk;

-subordinative if they have the same distribution as one of their members, e.g. fresh milk; very fresh.

This classification was elaborated by the American linguist Leonard Bloomfield in the book Language (1933).

35. Phraseological units: a variety of terms and the problem of definition. Characteristic features of phraseological units.

Origin of the term

Greek: phrásis ‘expression’ and lógos ‘study, department of knowledge’

Approaches to the definition

European tradition: a branch of linguistics that studies stable word-groups with partially or fully transferred meanings (Ye. D. Polivanov, V. V. Vinogradov, A. V. Kunin etc.)

Anglo-American tradition: a form of expression peculiar to a language including separate words and word-groups (R. Glaeser, G. Knappe etc.)

Charles Bally

F. de Saussure’s disciple, the Geneva School of Linguistics;

introduced the term phraséologie in his book Précis de stylistique (1905);

considered phraseology a branch of stylistics.

Yevgeniy Polivanov

one of the founders of the Society for the Study of Poetic Language (ОПОЯЗ);

defined phraseology as a separate linguistic discipline.

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

idiomaticity

reproducibility

stability

predictability

inseparability

36. Approaches to the classifications of phraseological units in modern linguistics.

The Thematic Classification

Smith, Logan Pearsall (1865-1946), an American-born essayist and critic, and a notable writer on historical semantics.

English Idioms (1923), Words and Idioms (1925)

Phraseological units are classified according to their source of origin, i.e. source referring to the particular sphere of human activity, natural phenomena, domestic and wild animals, etc.; through time most of them develop metaphorical meaning;

Idioms related to the sea and the life of seamen: to be all at sea; to be in deep waters; to be in the same boat with sb; to sail through sth; to show one’s colours; to weather the storm; three sheets in the wind (sl) etc.

The Semantic Classification

The idea of the semantic classification of phraseological units was first advanced by the Swiss linguist Charles Bally.

This research work was carried out by Acad. V. V. Vinogradov in the field of Russian phraseology.

The underlying principle of the semantic classification is the degree of motivation (idiomaticity), i.e. the relationship existing between the meaning of the whole phraseological unit and the meaning of its components.

The degree of motivation correlates with the semantic unity (cohesion) of the phraseological unit, i.e. the possibility of changing the form or order of the components and substituting the whole by a single word.

Phraseological combinations (collocations) are:

clearly motivated;

made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups; variability of member-words is strictly limited.

e.g. to meet the demand, to make a mistake, to bear a grudge, to pay a compliment, to give a speech etc.

Phraseological unities are:

partially non-motivated, i.e. their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole unit.

e.g. to lose one’s head, a fish out of water, to show one’s teeth, to wash one’s dirty linen in public, to sit on the fence etc.

Phraseological fusions are:

completely non-motivated, i.e. the meaning of the components has no connection, at least synchronically, with the meaning of the whole group;

characerised by complete stability of the lexical components and the grammatical structure of the whole unit.

e.g. once in a blue moon, to be on the carpet, under the rose etc.

The Contextual Classification

Prof. Natalia N. Amosova Основы английской фразеологии (1963)

the contextual approach proceeds from the assumption that individual meanings of polysemantic words can be observed in certain contexts and may be viewed as dependent on these contexts;

a phraseological unit is a unit of fixed context characterised by specific and unchanging sequence of definite lexical components and a peculiar semantic relationship between them;

the two criteria of PhU – specialised meaning of the components and non-variability of context – display unilateral dependence.

According to whether or not one of the components of the whole word-group possesses specialised meaning, PhU are subdivided into:

phrasemes – two-member word-groups in which one of the members has specialised meaning dependent on the second component; the word served as a clue to the specialised meaning of one of the components is habitually used in its central meaning, e.g. small hours, black frost, white lie;

idioms – are semantically and grammatically inseparable units characterised by impossibilty of attaching meaning to the members of the group taken in isolation (as in red tape, dark horse), logical incompatibilty (as in mare’s nest).