Lectures in Contrastive Lexicology of the English and Ukrainian Languages

donkey (осел)- a foolish person;

monkey (мавпа)- a mischievous child;

serpent (змія)- a treacherous, malicious person.

But it should be mentioned here that different peoples structure the world differently. E.g.: the word bug has such figurative meanings in the English language as a crazy, foolish person and an enthusiast, the word shark means a swindler. In the Ukrainian language the words жук and акула do not have such meanings. Sometimes words in different languages can have different meanings. E.g.: the word gull means a fool, a swindler, in the Ukrainian language the word чайка can be applied to a woman or a girl. The word hawk possesses a negative meaning in the English language (a deceiver), the word сокіл is applied to a handsome and strong young man.

Metals possess well-established connotations, derived from their individual qualities. The word gold is associated with great worth. Iron and steel connote strength, brass - audacity, lead - sluggishness or weight.

Words may also contain an element of emotive force as part of the connotational meaning. This is in fact one of the objective semantic features proper to some words as linguistic units and forming part of the connotative value. Such are, for example, stylistically coloured words synonymous with their neutral counterparts: child - kid - kiddie; girl - lass - girlie - lassie.

In interjections this meaning is known to prevail.

We must naturally distinguish between the emotive element as inherent in some words forming part of the connotation and the subjective use of words that are not otherwise emotionally coloured.

In actual speech expressive nuances may be obtained in different ways. In various contexts, linguistic or situational, words devoid of any emotive element may be endowed with a distinct expressive function depending on the speaker's attitude towards his interlocutor or to the thing spoken about.

There are some other types of lexical meaning. They are abstract and concrete (hope, love - window, book); primary and secondary (wall of the room - wall of misunderstanding); bookish and colloquial (young man - chap, lad).

4. Polysemy of Words

A word that has more than one meaning in the language is called polysemantic. Its meanings form its semantic structure. It is an organised set of recurrent variants and shades of meaning a given sound complex can assume in different contexts, together with their emotional colouring, stylistic peculiarities and other typical connotations, if any. The semantic structure of the word is a fact of language, not of speech. It is developed and fixed in the course of the history of the language.

Since the number of lexical units is not necessarily increased with the appearance of new ideas and objects it is usually achieved by making an already existing word do this work. Change of meaning is a commonplace and indeed it would appear to be fundamental in the living language.

Examples to illustrate the statement are not far to seek. When watches were invented no new words were invented to denote this object and its parts. The word face meaning front part of a human head was made to serve as the name of the front part of the watch where all the changes of time were shown; the word hand meaning part of a human body used to work and indicate things with was made to serve as the name of the indicator.

Or the Ukrainian word лінія - вузька смужка, що тягнеться на якій-небудь поверхні. Closely connected with it are the following meanings: уявна смужка (лінія горизонту), шлях (трамвайна лінія), послідовний ряд кровно споріднених осіб (по материнській лінії), спосіб дії (лінія поведінки).

Thus words develop plurality of meanings, or, in other words, become polysemantic.

In polysemantic words we are faced not with the problem of the analysis of different meanings but primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of the same word.

Some questions can arise in this connection.

- Are all meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of the word?

- Is the order in which the meanings are enumerated 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?

The most objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in speech.

Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as not only words but individual meanings too may differ in their stylistic reference. The stylistic status of monosemantic words is easily perceived.

e.g.: daddy can be referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the word parent - to bookish.

Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any much restrictive labels. There is nothing colloquial or slangy about the word jerk in the meaning of a sudden movement or stopping of movement. But when jerk is used in the meaning of an odd person it is slangy.

Stylistically neutral words are more frequent.

It should be mentioned that some meanings are representative of the word in isolation, i.e. they invariably occur to us when we hear the word or see it written. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used in certain contexts. The meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are described as free or denominative meanings.

By the word context we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word.

The meaning or meanings of polysemantic words observed only in certain contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (lexical and grammatical or verbal) or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.

In lexical contexts of primary importance are the lexical groups combined with the polysemantic word under consideration.

e.g.: The verb to take in isolation has the meaning to lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize. When combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (to take a bus, a train) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb to go. 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.

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.

e.g.: One of the meanings of the verb to make (to force, to induce) is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure make + N+Infinitive ( to make somebody do something). Another meaning to become is observed when make is followed by an adjective or noun (to make a good teacher) . Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically or structurally bound meanings.

In a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the grammatical aspect should be taken into consideration. If, for example, we compare the contexts of different grammatical structures (to take+N and to take to+N) we can 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+N (to take tea, books, a bus) that we can say that the context determines the meaning.

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.

There are cases when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by linguistic factors but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used. The meaning of the phrase I've got it is determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context but by the actual speech situation. To get may mean to possess or to understand.

Monosemantic words are comparatively rare in the English language. These are pronouns and numerals. The greatest number of monosemantic words can be found among terms, the very nature of which requires precision. But even here we must mention that terms are monosemantic only within one branch of science.

e.g.: to dress - to bandage a wound (medical terminology);

to dress - to prepare the earth for sowing (terminology of agriculture);

to dress - to decorate with flags (naval terminology).

Words belonging to the most active, vitally important and widely used part of the English vocabulary are generally polysemantic.

5. The Main Semantic Processes

Extension of meaning means extension of the word range. In most cases it is naturally combined with a higher degree of abstraction than implied in the earlier meaning of the word.

Most words begin as specific names for things. however, this precise denotation is lost ant the meaning of the word gets extended and generalised.

e.g.: Season once had the meaning spring, time for sowing. Now it embraces all parts of the year.

Salary once had the meaning the money to buy salt for. Now it means money to buy anything.

Thing once meant anything that can be agreed on in trade. Now it has a generic meaning.

Town once meant fence. Now it denotes a settlement.

Arrive once meant to land, to reach the shore. Now any place of destination is presupposed.

Free once meant dear. Then according to the process of generalisation it acquired the meaning free. At first it was used in regard to someone from the family of a slave-owner, who he loved and respected. Then it was applied to any relative of a slave-owner. The opposition - free and slave - brought to the extension and change of meaning of the word.

Стріляти meant випускати стрілу. Now it is used in a broader sense.

Столяр meant той, що виготовляє столи. Now it means той, хто виготовляє вироби з дерева.

Поле meant порожній великий простір. Now it means ділянка землі відведена під що-небудь, простір, у межах якого відбувається якась дія, сфера діяльності, смужка вздовж краю аркуша паперу, відігнуті краї капелюха.

Narrowing of meaning is the process when a word acquires a specialised sense in which it is applicable only to some of the objects it had previously denoted or a word of wide usage is restricted in its application and comes to be used only in a special sense.

e.g.: In Shakespeare's „King Lear“ there is a reference made to mice and rats and such small deer. In Old English deer meant any beast.

Coffin once meant a box. Then it began to mean a special box for the dead.

These are the cases in which narrowing took place due to the concretization of meaning. Sometimes narrowing takes place due to the differentiation of concepts. This is the case when two words were synonyms once and then they acquired different meanings.

e.g.: Stool once meant табурет і стілець. After the word chair was borrowed from French, the word stool began to be used only for табурет.

Attributes when used continuously with a word may lead to the narrowing of meaning: corn (Indian corn), private (private soldier).

Narrowing can take place when the name of the material is transferred onto the thing made of this material: iron, kids.

It is a well-known fact that people tend to specialise and thus to narrow the meanings of words connected with their special activities.

e.g.: The word operation(операція) has quite different meanings to a financial worker, to a mathematician, to a military man and to a physician.

Печиво meant усе спечене з борошна. Now it means кондитерські вироби з борошна.

Квас meant усе кисле. Now the word means кислуватий напій з житнього хліба або житнього борошна.

Elevation of meaning presupposes the following thing. Words often rise from humble beginnings to positions of greater importance. Such changes are not always easy to account for in detail, but, on the whole, we may say that social changes are of the very first importance with words that acquire better meanings.

Some highly complimentary words were originally applied to things of comparatively slight importance.

e.g.: Fame meant news (good or bad). Now it means glory.

Nice meant foolish. The word was gradually specialised in the sense foolishly particular about trifles. Then the idea of folly was lost and particular about small things, accurate came into existence.

To adore had the meaning to speak with, to greet, to address. Now it means to love, to worship.

The words офіс, менеджмент, кур'єр are considered to have better meanings than контора, управління, посильний.

Degradation of meaning is the process whereby for one reason or another a word falls into disrepute. Words once respectable may become less respectable. Some words reach such a low point that it is considered improper to use them at all.

e.g.: Idiot meant private in Greek and uneducated in Latin. Now it has a negative meaning of a fool in both languages.

Greedy meant hungry. Now it means stingy.

Villain meant a person living in the country. Now it means a scoundrel.

Metaphor is a transfer of name based on the association of similarity and thus is actually a hidden comparison. It presents a method of description which likens one thing to another by referring to it as if it were some other one. In actual usage the motivation of the word meaning may be obscured or completely lost. The latter leads to the development of the so-called fossilised or trite metaphors by origin. Fossilised metaphors belong to the vocabulary of a given language as a system. In such cases the connection between the original and transferred word meaning is lost. Such transpositions may lead to a complete semantic change of a word, wherein the secondary figuratively derived meaning becomes, in fact, primary. The word metaphor itself is a metaphor, meaning to carry over, across a term or expression from its normal usage to another.

Metaphors may be created on the similarity of different physical properties, such as:

- similarity of shape : needle's eye, table's leg; вушко голки, павутина доріг;

- similarity of size: midget, elephantine; карликовий;

- similarity of colour: orange, violet; трояндовий, бузковий;

- similarity of function: hand, finger-post; рушниця стріляє, металеве перо;

- similarity of position: back of the chair, foot of the mountain; підніжжя гори;

- similarity of firmness: egg-shell china, steel resolution; метал у голосі.

It must be borne in mind that linguistic metaphor is different from metaphor as a literary device. When the latter is offered and accepted both the author and the reader are to a greater or lesser degree aware that this reference is figurative, that the object has another name. The relationship of the direct denotative meaning of the word and the meaning it has in the literary context in question is based on the similarity of some features in the objects compared. The poetic metaphor is the result of the author's creative imagination. In a linguistic metaphor, especially if it is dead as a result of long usage, the thing named often has no other name. In a dead metaphor the comparison is completely forgotten. The meaning of such expressions as a sun beam or beam of light are not explained by allusions to a tree, although the word is actually derived from Old English beam (tree).

One can speak of different degrees of deadness as it were taking for illustration such metaphors as to ruminate (to think), originally applied to a cow's cud chewing or, say, such metaphors as time flies, a cold look which are quite faded. Such adjective metaphors as orange, violet are no longer felt as figurative.

Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9