ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4686
Скачиваний: 79
8. The criteria used in the synchronic analysis of homonymy are: 1)
the semantic criterion of related or unrelated meanings; 2) the criterion of
spelling; 3) the criterion of distribution.
There are cases of lexical homonymy when none of the criteria enu-
merated above is of any avail. In such cases the demarcation line between
polysemy and homonymy is rather fluid.
9. The problem of discriminating between polysemy and homonymy
in theoretical linguistics is closely connected with the problem of the basic
unit at the semantic level of analysis.
WORD-MEANING IN SYNTAGMATICS
AND PARADIGMATICS
It is more or less universally recognised that word-meaning can be per-
ceived through intralinguistic relations that exist between words. This ap-
proach does not in any way deny that lexical items relate to concrete fea-
tures of the real world but it is suggested that word-meaning is not com-
prehensible solely in terms of the referential approach.
1
Intralinguistic relations of words are basically of two main types:
s y n t a g m a t i c and p a r a d i g m a t i c .
S y n t a g m a t i c relations define the meaning the word possesses
when it is used in combination with other words in the flow of speech. For
example, compare the meaning of the verb
to get
in
He got a letter,
He
got tired, He got to London
and
He could not get the piano through the door.
Paradigmatic relations are those that exist between individual lexical
items which make up one of the subgroups of vocabulary items, e.g. sets
of synonyms, lexico-semantic groups, etc.
P a r a d i g m a t i c relations define the word-meaning through its
interrelation with other members of the subgroup in question. For exam-
ple, the meaning of the verb
to get
can be fully understood only in com-
parison with other items of the synonymic set: get, obtain, receive, etc. Cf.
He got a letter, he received a letter, he obtained a letter, etc. Comparing
the sentences discussed above we may conclude that an item in a sentence
can be usually substituted by one or more than one other items that have
identical part-of-speech meaning and similar though not identical lexical
meaning.
The difference in the type of subgroups the members of which are sub-
stitutable in the flow of speech is usually described as the difference be-
tween closed and open se,ts of lexical items. For example, any one of a
number of personal pronouns may occur as the subject of a sentence and
the overall sentence structure remains the same. These pronouns are
strictly limited in number and therefore form a closed system in which to
say he is to say
not
I,
not
you, etc. To some extent the meaning of
he
is
defined by the other items in the system (cf., e.g., the English I,
you,
etc.,
and the Russian
я, ты, вы,
etc.).Thesets of items in which the choice
1
See ‘Semasiology’, § 4, p. 18.
46
is limited to a finite number of alternatives as here are described as closed
systems.
The members of closed systems are strictly limited in number and no
addition of new items is possible.
The sets in which the number of alternatives is practically infinite as
they are continually being adapted to new requirements by the addition of
new lexical items are described as open systems. Closed systems are tra-
ditionally considered to be the subject matter of grammar, open systems
such as lexico-semantic fields, hyponymic, synonymic sets, etc.
1
are stud-
ied by lexicology.
The distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations is
conventionally indicated by horizontal and vertical presentation as is
shown below.
From the discussion of the paradigmatic and
syntagmatic relations it follows that a full un-
derstanding 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 intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of
speech. This is of greatest importance in connection with the problem of
the synchronic approach to polysemy.
It will be recalled that in analysing the semantic structure of the
polysemantic word
table
we observed that some meanings are representa-
tive of the word in isolation, i.e. they invariably occur to us when we hear
the word or see it written on paper. Other meanings come to the fore only
when the word is used in certain contexts. This is true of all polysemantic
words. The adjective
yellow,
e.g., when used in isolation is understood to
denote a certain colour, whereas other meanings of this word, e.g. ‘envi-
ous’, ‘suspicious’ or ‘sensational’, ‘corrupt’, are perceived only in certain
contexts, e.g. ‘a yellow look’, ‘the yellow press’, etc.
As can be seen from the examples discussed above we understand by
the term c o n t e x t the minimal stretch of speech determining each in-
dividual 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
1
See ‘Semasiology’, §§ 45-50, pp. 51-61.
47
§ 40. Polysemy and Context
dialectical permanency and variability. The context individualises
the
meanings, brings them out. It is in this sense that we say that 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 fur-
niture’ is the denominative meaning of the word
table,
the meaning ‘con-
struct, produce’ is the free or denominative meaning of the verb
make.
The meaning or meanings of polysemantic words observed only
in
cer-
tain contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic
(or
verbal)
contexts or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.
The two more or less universally recognised 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. This can be illustrated by analys-
ing different lexical contexts in which polysemantic words are used. 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 combina-
tion with the words
industry, arms, artillery
and the like,
heavy
has the
meaning ‘the larger kind of something’ as in
heavy industry, heavy artil-
lery,
etc.
The verb
take
in isolation has primarily the meaning ‘lay hold of with
the hands, grasp, seize’, etc. When combined with the lexical group of
words denoting some means of transportation (e.g.
to take the tram, the
bus, the train,
etc.) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning
of the verb go.
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
heavy
and
take
are combined. This can be also proved by the
fact that when we want to describe the individual meaning of a polyse-
mantic 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 fol-
lowing words — a)
man, person, b) size, reward, sum.
The meanings
‘good-looking’ and ‘considerable, ample’ are adequately illustrated by the
contexts.
The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to
as lexically (or phraseologically) bound meanings which implies 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
48
§ 41. Lexical Context
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; in-
dustry, artillery,
etc.
The meaning at the level of lexical contexts is sometimes described as
meaning by collocation.
1
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 dif-
ferent 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 structur-
ally) 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 dif-
ferent syntactic function of the verb, e.g. that of the predicate (to
make ma-
chines, tables,
etc.) excludes the possibility of the meaning ‘t o 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
w h i с h of its individual meanings the word in question is used. If we
compare the contexts of different grammatical structures, e.g.
to
take+
nown
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 p a t t e r n
or s t r u с t u r e to denote grammatical contexts. Patterns may be repre-
sented in conventional symbols, e.g.
to take smth.
as
take
+N.
to take
to
smb. as
take to+
N
.
2
It is argued that difference in the distribution of the
word is indicative of the difference in meaning. Sameness of
1
See also ‘Methods and Procedures of Lexicological Analysis’, § 4, p. 246.
2
See ‘Semasiology’, § 3, p. 1-7. Conventional symbols habitually used in distributional
patterns are as follows:
N
— stands for nouns or their functional equivalents, e.g. personal pronouns.
V
—
stands for verbs except auxiliary and modal verbs
(be, have, shall,
etc.).
A
— stands
for adjectives or their functional equivalents, e.g. ordinal numerals.
D
— stands for
adverbs or their functional equivalents, e.g.
at home.
49
§ 42. Grammatical Context
distributional pattern, however, does not imply sameness of meaning. As
was shown above, 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
only 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 ulti-
mately 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 deter-
mined 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 de-
termining word-meaning.
It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the con-
notational component of meaning may be affected by the context. Any
word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain contexts
acquire emotive implications. Compare, e.g.,
fire
in
to insure one’s prop-
erty against fire
and
fire
as a call for help. A stylistically and emotively
neutral noun, e.g.
wall,
acquires tangible emotive implication in Shake-
speare’s
Midsummer Night’s Dream
(Act V, Scene 1) in the context “O
wall, О sweet and lovely wall".
1
Here we clearly perceive the combined effect of both the linguistic arid
the extra-linguistic context. The word
wall
does not ordinarily occur in
combination with the adjectives
sweet
and
lovely.
So the peculiar lexical
context accounts for the possibility of emotive overtones which are made
explicit by the context of situation.
Another type of classification almost univer-
sally used in practical classroom teaching is
known as thematic grouping. Classification
of vocabulary items into thematic groups is based on the co-occurrence of
words in certain repeatedly used contexts.
In linguistic contexts co-occurrence maу be observed on different lev-
els. On the level of word-groups the word
question,
for instance, is often
found in collocation with the verbs
raise, put forward, discuss,
etc., with
the adjectives
urgent, vital, disputable
and so on. The verb
accept
occurs
in numerous contexts together with the nouns
proposal, invitation, plan
and others.
1
St. Ullmann.
Semantics. Oxford, 1962, pp. 130, 131. See also ‘Semasiology’,
§
8, p.
20.
50
§ 43. Extra-Linguistic Context
(Context of Situation)
§ 44. Common Contextual
Associations.
Thematic Groups