The Semantic Structure of Words. Polysemy

In every language there are words having only one meaning - monosemantic (from Greek mono 'one') and more than one meanings - polysemantic (Gk. poly 'many'). To monosemantic words belong the majority of scientific and technical terms. Monosemy is an important property of terms, because polysemy in terminological systems would bring about confusion and misunderstanding. Besides terms to monosemantic words belong those having low frequency of occurrence, most of them are borrowed from other languages, such as menagerie (Fr.), alumnus (Lat.), etc.

The majority of words in English have more than one meaning, they are polysemantic. Polysemy is one of the means of language economy. It?s more typical of the English language than Russian. Short monosyllabic words which have developed polysemy prevail in English. For instance the words like to get, to take, to set, to have count dozens of meanings.

Polysemy in recent years has been treated as one of the manifestations of semantic variability. Each particular meaning of the word has been termed its lexico-semantic variant (LSV), the term was introduced by A.I.Smirnitsky. The common material (sound, graphic and grammar) form along with certain differences in the semantic aspect of the lexical unit makes it posible to distinguish lexico-semantic variants, e.g.: shade1?comparative darkness caused by the cutting off of direct rays of light?, shade 2 ?degree or depth of colour?; man 1 ?human being?, man 2 ?adult male human being?, get 1 ?receive, obtain?, get 2?become?, etc [?????????? 1956: 42]. A.I.Smirnitsky defined a lexico-semantic variant as a two-facet unit, the outer facet of which is the sound form of the word and its inner facet is one of the meanings of the word, i.e. denotating a certain class of objects.

So, monosemantic words are represented in the language system by one lexico-semantic variant, accordingly polysemantic words by a number of LSVs. Thus, the notion of lexico-semantic variability corresponds to the idea of word polysemy, the phenomenon which had been discovered long before the linguistic science was established, and which is of paramount importance for the description of the language system and for the practical tasks of correct presentation of the words? meanings in dictionaries, their use in speech and text analysis while teaching languages.

The integrity of the lexeme presupposes its semantic unity. All the LSVs of the word are not isolated from one another but interrelated and make up a certain unity, a system. The systematic interconnection of various LSVs of one and the same lexeme makes up its semantic structure which might be defined as ?the ordered (revealing the systematic interrelation of its elements) multitude of the LSVs of one and the same word? [?????????? 1987: 72]. As it follows from the above definition, the notion of the semantic structure can be applied only to polysemantic lexemes.

What is it that underlies the unity of all the LSVs of the lexeme? There were different opinions expressed in linguistic literature to this end. There were the opinions that it might be the ?semantic centre?, ?the common or the general meaning of the word?, ?the common notion?, etc. At present there came to light in linguistics the notion of the invariant (from Lat. invarians ?unchangeable?) and variability in word meaning. The integrity of the word meaning is conditioned by the invariant meaning uniting all the LSVs of a certain lexeme while each particular LSV is a variant. The notion of invariant was borrowed from mathematics. In linguistics it was first applied to the phonetic units of the language ? the phonemes, and then spread to other levels of linguistic analysis. It came to denote an abstract unit of the language embracing the totality of the main properties and features of all its actual manifestations which are regarded the variants of the unit in question. V.?.S?lntsev defines the invariant as ?something common which objectively exists in a class of relatively homogeneous objects or phenomena? [??????? 1977: 214]. Thus the notion of invariant is opposed to the notion of variant as the actual realization of the language unit, and this opposition corresponds to the dichotomy of language and speech: invariant is the unit of language-as-a-system and the variant is its actual realization in speech (language-in-action). Hence, invariant is all that is constant in word meaning. All the lexico-semantic variants make up the semantic structureof the lexeme.

For instance, the verb to jump has 12 LSVs according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (COD). The denotational aspect of the lexical meaning includes the semantic components: ?movement?, ?sudden?, ?overcoming obstacles?. These are constant, invariant components of the verb?s meaning (?f. to jump the stream, to jump the ditch, the fence, etc.) which can be traced practically in all the LSVs of the lexeme. Each particular LSV has certain variable semantic components differentiating it from other LSVs.

Thus LSV1 ?Spring from ground, etc. by flexion and sudden muscular extension of legs or (fish) tail? includes the semantic component which indicates the way the action is performed ?by flexion and sudden muscular extension of legs?. This semantic component distinguishes LSV1 from LSV2 ?Rise suddenly in price or quantity (The price of gold has jumped on the Stock Exchange)?, where the invariant component ?sudden? is found but the way the result is achieved is not indicated. Relevant for this LSV are the denotational components ?increase? and ?quantity?. The component ?sudden? is also present in to jump over a fence, to jump into a taxi, to jump for joy, her heart jumped, to jump at an offer, etc. The variable component of this verb?s meaning might be the object which is the obstacle. It might be not only the physical obstacle on the way but people standing in line: to jump the queue, a part of written matter: to jump a paragraph, several pages.

The invariant components of meaning make all the LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme interrelated and interconnected, they make the lexeme a single whole, prove its integrity.

It?s very important to determine the types of the LSVs within the semantic structure of a lexeme and their interrelations. Here two approaches can be applied: the synchronic and the diachronic ones. Using the synchronic approach the linguist describes the semantic structure at a given period of time without taking into account the time of appearance of each LSV and also excluding the obsolete, archaic LSVs and those which fell into disuse.

The diachronic approach to the investigation of the semantic structure enables the lingiust to trace the processes of changes in the semantic structure, to single out the primary meaning of the word, to determine which LSVs were preserved since the earlier times and which ones fell out of use, to fix the newly emerged LSVs, i.e. to spot all the changes which happened in the semantic structure of the word in the course of its historical evolution.

Let?s illustrate the relations between the LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme floor, which according to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) has the following LSVs:

1. Lower surface of room, boards etc. of which it is made;

2. Bottom of sea, cave, cavity, etc.;

3. Level area;

4. Colloq. (cricket) the ground;

5. Part of legislative assembly where members sit and speak;

6. Right to speak next in debate, e.g. have or be given the floor;

7. Minimum of prices, wages, etc;

8. Set of rooms on the same level in building.

The LSVs in the dictionaries of the OED type, which are compiled on synchronic principles, are presented in the order of their significance or frequency of usage in speech notwithstanding in what historical period they were fixed.

A synchronic classification of types of meaning within the semantic structure of the word was worked out by V.V.Vinigradov [?????????? 1977]. He distinguished the following types of meaning:

1) direct nominative meanings which are directly related to the referent. They are characterized by a high degree of stability and are independent of the context;

2) nominative derivative meanings are derived from direct nominative meanings and they are dependent on the contexts of their usage;

3) phraseologicallybound meanings are dependent on limited and specific contexts of phraseological units.

For instance, the lexeme floor has its direct nominative meaning represented by LSV 1 ?lower surface of a room?. The direct nominative meaning comes first in synchronic dictionaries. There are several nominative derivative LSVs, e.g. LSV 2 ?number of rooms on the same level in a building?, LSV 3 ?bottom of the sea, of a cave, etc.? and a phraseologically bound meaning (LSV 6) ?right to speak next in a debate? in to take (have, be given) the floor.

Diachronically within the semantic structure of words are distinguished primary (etymological) and secondary meanings (LSVs). The primary meaning is the meaning which appeared earlier than others, which are secondary. According to the OED the primary LSV of the lexeme floor is LSV2 - bottom of sea, cave, cavity, etc. Then go LSVs 1, 3, 8, 5, 6, 7.

As we see the correlation of LSVs while the diachronic approach differs from that of while applying the synchronic approach. Also compare the primary meaning of the word fellow borrowed from the Old Norse word felagi whichis ?comrade, companion?, with the secondary one ?man, boy?, although in modern synchronic dictionaries the latter one is registered as LSV 1.

V.V.Vinogradov considers direct nominative meanings to be the basic ones in the semantic structure of the lexeme. They play a very important role in lexico-semantic variability. However, not all the nominative-derivative LSVs can be motivated immediately by direct nominative meanings. There might be LSVs derived from nominative-derivative LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme. For instance, examining LSVs in the semantic structure of the noun crack: 1. Line or division where sth. is broken, but not into separate parts; 2. Sudden, sharp noise; 3. Sharp blow which can be heard, etc. we observe that LSV 3 derived from LSV 2 but not right from LSV 1.

There are distinguished three main types of relations between LSVs in the semantic structure: 1) radial, 2) chain, 3) radial and chain combined.

Such types of relations are sometimes shown by graphs, though such graphs represent a somewhat simplified picture of semantic relations.

The radial relations of LSVs are represented by the semantic structure of the lexeme honest:1) not telling lies, not cheating; 2) showing, resulting from: an honest face, done conscientiously; 3) sincere, frank: honest confession 4) genuine, not false: honest wool; 5) virtuous: an honest wife:

The example of chain relations in the semantic structure is the lexeme column: 1) upright pillar; 2) sth. shaped like or suggesting a column: a column of smoke, the spinal column etc.; 3) vertical division of a printed page; 4) series of numbers arranged under one another; 5) line of ships following one another. The following graph represents the chain relation of the LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme column:

Most widely spread are semantic structures combining chain and radial relations. They might be of quite different configurations. E.g. the lexeme wave: 1) long ridge of water, especially on the sea, between two hollows; 2) waving movement; 3) curve like a wave of the sea: the waves in a girl?s hair; 4) steady increase and spread: a wave of enthusiasm; 5) wave-like motion by which heat, sound or electricity is spread:

The above-mentioned relations are linear ones, that is why they somehow simplify the actual relations between LSVs in the semantic structure. Closer to the real state of things would be spherical representations of such relations. Besides linguists distinguish relations of inclusion (hypo-hyperonymic) and the similative relations between LSVs in the semantic structure of lexemes. The relations of inclusion can be exemplified by the semantic structure of the lexeme man where according to the COD dictionary the volume of meaning of LSV2 ?the human race? includes the meanings of LSV1 ?human being?, LSV4 ?adult male?, LSV10 ?husband? and others. The example of similative relations, which can be based on different types of transferences, is the lexeme dog, where LSV2 ?worthless or surly person?, LSV4 ?kind of mechanical device for gripping? (cf. Rus. ???????). For details see [?????????? 1992: 68 ? 70].

Word meaning might undergo certain changes in actual contexts of the word?s usage. Hence there emerge contextual semantic variants of the word meaning. Contextual variability is defined as a certain modification of the word?s meaning in context, depending on individual peculiarities of the referent [?????????? 1987].

Let?s regard some examples of contexts with the verb to fly:

Most birds and some insects fly.

A bee flew in through the open window.

The damaged aircraft was flying on only one engine.

That businessman flies great distances every month.

Dead leaves and bits of paper were flying about.

The player gave a great kick, and the football flew across the field.

Angry words were flying as the crowd grew more and more threatening.

I?m late, I must fly.

The thief was flying from justice. (LD).

Even if we do not take into account that the contexts of the above examples are not broad ones and thus are typified to a certain degree, it?s clear enough that in some contexts the meaning of the verb to fly ?move through air with wings? (COD) is subject to considerable modifications.

The semantic structure of words should be distinguished from its semic structure. If the semantic structure is the ordered multitude of the LSVs of the word, its semic structure presents the semantic content of the word on the level of minimal components of meaning ? semes. The analysis of the semic structure of the word meaning is known as componential analysis (see also ch.3.1).

Comparing meanings of various lexemes, it is possible to single out minimal components of meaning which make up the semic structure of a lexeme or LSV. The first sample of componential (componental) analysis was the analysis of kinship terms by F.L.Lounsbury and W.H.Goodenough. For example, comparing the kinship terms mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, etc., one can distinguish the following components of their meanings (semes): gender, generation, lineality (direct, indirect) and then represent the semic structure of each lexeme as a set of semantic components or as semantic formulas [???????? 1980].

Each particular LSV possesses a semic structure, accordingly polysemantic words possess both semantic and semic structures while monosemantic ones possess only semic structures.

4. ?auses, Types and Results of Semantic Change

Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical evolution of the language. Changes of lexical meaning are determined by diachronic semantic analyses of many commonly used English words. Thus the word silly (OE sælig) meant ?happy?, the word glad (OE glæd) had the meaning of ?bright, shining?, etc. Polysemy is the result of semantic change, when new LSVs emerge on the basis of already existing ones according to certain patterns of semantic derivation.

It is necessary to discriminate between the causes, the nature and the results of semantic change. Discussing the causes of semantic change we attempt to find out why the word changed its meaning. The factors accounting for semantic changes are of two kinds: a) extra-linguistic and b) linguistic causes. By extra-linguistic causes are meant changes in the life of a speech community, various spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Historical, economic, political, cultural, technological, etc. changes result in either appearance of new objects which require new names or the existing objects undergo changes to such an extent that it causes semantic changes. Although objects, concepts, institutions, etc. change in the course of time, in many cases the sound form of the word is retained. The word car from Latin carrus which meant ?a four-wheeled wagon? now denotes ?a motor-car? and ?a railway carriage?. The meaning of the word ship (OE scip) also considerably changed from the primary ?vessel with bowsprit and three, four or five square-rigged masts? to modern ?any sea-going vessel of considerable size? and ?spacecraft?.

Social factors play a very important part in semantic change, especially when the words become jargonisms and professionalisms, i.e. used by certain social or professional groups. Each group uses its own denominations, and in consequence words acquire new content, new LSVs emerge, developing the words? polysemy. Such are the polysemantic lexemes ring and pipe. The lexeme ring developed such professionalisms as ?circular enclosure of space for circus-riding?, ?concentric circles of wood when the trunk is cut across?, ?space for the showing of cattle, dogs, etc (at farming exhibitions, etc) and others; pipe ?musical wind instrument?, geol. cylindrical vein of ore, ?cask for wine, esp. as measure? and others.

To linguistic causes of semantic change refer changes of meaning due to factors acting within the language system. They are as follows: a) ellipsis: in a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to another, e.g. the meaning of the word daily was habitually used in collocation with the word newspaper. Later the noun newspaper was omitted and the adjective daily acquired the meaning of the whole phrase ?daily newspaper?; b) discrimination of synonyms: when a new word is borrowed or coined in the language, it sometimes influences meanings of its synonyms, e.g. the Old English word hlaf which had the meaning of modern bread changed its meaning under the influence of the word bread,and now the OE hlaf is loaf which means ?mass of bread cooked as a separate quantity?; the word fowl (OE fugol) had the meaning of modern bird but under the influence of its synonym bird [OE brid ?young bird?] the word fowl developed a new LSV ?domestic cock or hen?;c) linguistic analogy: it was found out, that if one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning, other members of this set change their meaning too, for instance, verbs synonymous with catch, e.g. grasp, get, etc. acquired another meaning - ?to understand? [Ginzburg 1979: 29].

Change of meaning presupposes using the existing name of a certain particular object for nominating another object. Such processes lately have got the name of secondary nomination. The processes of secondary nomination are also called transference of meaning, though it is more correct to speak of the transference of names and emerging of new meanings.

Changes in meaning become possible because there is a certain connection, association between the old meaning and the new or the two objects (referents) involved in the processes of nomination. Associations of meanings reflect our perception and understanding of things. There are two main types of association involved in semantic change: similarity of meanings and contiguity of meanings.

A very productive type of semantic change is metaphor which is based on similarity of meanings. Thisis a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some ways resembles the other. Similarity of meaning may be based on different aspects of objects: similarity of their forms - the nose of a kettle, the bridge of the nose, the lip of a crater, the eye of a potato;similarity of position in space - the leg of the table, the foot of the hill, the mouth of a river, etc.In many languages there are regular patterns which serve as basis for metaphoric transference. The above examples illustrate the most obvious pattern of transfer of terms for parts of the human body to external objects in nature. Another obvious pattern is the case when names of animals through metaphoric transference are used to give names to people whose behaviour resembles that of animals, e.g. cat ? (fig.) an excitable woman, goose ? simpleton, cow ? awkward woman, cuckoo ? crazy person, chicken ? cowardetc.

A subtype of metaphoric transferences is the so-called synesthesia. Synesthetic transferences are based on similarities of the physical and emotional perception of two objects. Adjectives denoting physical properties (temperature, light, size, taste, etc.) come to denote emotional or intellectual properties: a sharp smell, a warm feeling, a cold reception, a sharp pain, soft music, a bright idea, etc.Within verbs synesthetic transferences are observed in lexemes denoting physical qualities which come to denote emotions and intellectual activity: to grate ?have an irritating effect?, to rasp on one?s nerves ?to annoy?, to crack a code ?to decipher a code?, to smash a theory ?to disprove a theory?.

The above examples in no way exhaust all the multitude of metaphoric transferences, which result in appearance of many new LSVs in polysemantic lexemes. The role of metaphor is extremely important in the processes of cognition and nomination. In their book ?Metaphors We Live By? [Lakoff, Johnson 1980] the authors contend that metaphor is not only a language phenomenon but also a daily conceptual reality when we are thinking about one sphere in the terms of another one. Based on similarity of objects, metaphor is closely linked with man?s cognitive activity, as it presupposes cognition through comparing objects.

Metonymy or contiguity of meanings may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents, one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it. There are various patterns of metonymy based on spatial, temporal relations, relations of cause and result.

There are distinguished certain patterns of metonymic transferences. Thus, to examples of metonymy based on spatial relations belongs the pattern when people or objects placed in the proximity of some other object, on or within the object get the name of that object. In the sentence Keep the table amused, the word table denotes people sitting around the table. In the example The hall applauded people got the name hall according to their location inside the hall at the moment. This pattern of spatial relations can be described as the relations between ?the container and the thing contained?.

In the semantic structure of the lexeme school we find the following LSVs: school - 1) institution for educating children; 2) process of being educated in a school: Is he old enough for school?; 3) time when teaching is given, lessons: School begins at 9 a.m.; 4) all the pupils in a school: The whole school was present at the football match. LSVs 2 and 3 express metonymic transferences based on temporal relations, LSV4 ? those based on spatial relations.

To regular patterns of metonymic transferences also refer instrumental relations: the lexeme tongue ?the organ of speech? developed the meaning ?language?: e.g. ?mother tongue?, because tongue is an instrument which produces speech; the relations between the material and the thing made of this material: silver, bronze, e.g. ?table silver: spoons, forks, teapots, dishes?; ?the quality ? the subject of this quality?: beauty - 1) combination of qualities that give pleasure to the senses; 2) person, thing, feature that is beautiful: Isn?t she a beauty!; talent - 1) special, aptitude, faculty, gift; 2) persons of talent; ?action ? the agent of the action?: support as a noun: 1) supporting or being supported; 2) sb. or sth. that supports; and some other patterns.

A variety of metonymy is synechdoche, that is the transference of meaning from part to whole, e.g. the case when the nouns denoting the parts of human body come to denote human beings, as the word hand meaning?a workman? (Hands wanted) and ?a sailor? (All hands on deck!), the word head meaning cattle(a hundred head of cattle) and others.

The diachronic approach to the word meaning makes it possible to point out the results of semantic change. Results of semantic change can be observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word and also its connotational component.

Changes in the denotational meaning may result in either restriction or extension of meaning. Restriction or narrowing of meaning istransference of meaning from a wider, more general meaning to a narrower one: the modern verb to starve ?suffer or die of hunger? in Old English meant ?to die?, disease ?illness? previously had the meaning ?discomfort of any kind?, Restriction of meaning can be also illustrated by the example deer (Old English deor) which previously denoted ?any animal? and now it denotes ?(kind of) graceful, quick-running animal, the male of which has horns?. This is also the case with the word fowl which in Old English denoted ?any bird? but in Modern English denotes ?a domestic hen or rooster?. The word meat, which is today limited to ?flesh food? originally meant food in general, as is indicated in the archaic phrase meat and drink ?food and drink?.

If the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized vocabulary, it is usual to speak of specialization of meaning. For instance we can observe restriction and specialization in the verb to glide which had the meaning ?to move gently and smoothly? and has now acquired a restricted and specialized meaning ?to fly with no engine?.

Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is described as extension of meaning and may be illustrated by the word target which originally meant ?a small round shield? but now means ?anything that is fired at? and also ?any result aimed at?. The word to help previously meant ?to treat, to cure?, it has undergone extension of meaning, at present it means ?do sth. for the benefit of?. If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialized vocabulary into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the generalization of meaning. ?Numerous examples of this process have occurred in the religious field, where office, doctrine, novice and many other terms have taken on a more general, secular range of meanings? (Crystal, p.138). Here also belong such examples as the word camp previously belonging to military terms which at present denotes ?place where people live in tents or huts for a time?.

To semantic change based on extension also refers desemantization [??? 1977: 32 - 34], that is weakening of the lexical meaning of the word and its grammaticalization. Many verbs of motion lost their meaning ?manner of moving? in such examples as to run a risk, to fall into disuse, to fly into a temper, to come to a conclusion. In word combinations like to keep alive, to grow angry, etc. the first components keep, grow have undergone desemantization.

Changes in the denotational component of meaning can be accompanied by changes in the connotational component of meaning which include: a) pejorative development or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge, e.g. the word silly originally denoted ?happy, blessed? and then gradually it acquireda derogatory meaning ?foolish, weak-minded?; Modern English villain ?wicked man? in Middle English neutrally described a serf; b) ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning, e.g. minister which in one of its meanings originally denoted ?a servant, an attendant?, but now - ?a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a department of state?; angel initially having the meaning ?a messenger? developed positive connotational semes ?lovely, innocent, kind, thoughtful?.

Sure enough, not every word changed its meaning in the course of history of the language. But the diachronic analysis of various types of semantic changes proves that the lexical meaning is one of the most dynamic, changeable elements of the language system, its flexibility is conditioned by the necessity to adequately reflect the constantly changing world.

Date: 2016-06-12; view: 376