Word meaning the semantic structure of the word - Английский язык - Рефераты

Word meaning the semantic structure of the word

Загружено в:

20.09.2019

Скачано:

0

Размер:

59.5 KB

Word meaning the semantic structure of the word Plan: 1.The definition of the «meaning of the word» 2. Referential and functional approaches to the study of meaning.

Semantic structure of the word It is generally known that most words convey several concepts and thus possess the corresponding number of meanings. Most English words have many meanings. It should be noted that the wealth of expressive resources of a language largely depends on the degree to which polysemy has developed in the language. Sometimes people who are not very well informed in linguistic matters claim that a language is lacking in words if the need arises for the same word to be applied to several different phenomena. In actual fact, it is exactly the opposite. When analysing the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, it is necessary to distinguish between two levels of analysis. On the first level, the semantic structure of a word is treated as a system of meanings. For example, the semantic structure of the noun "fire" may be described in the following way: 1. огонь - олов 2. пожар - ўт 3. воодушевление, пыл - ташаббус, свечение - ёқиш 4. жар, лихорадка - иссиқлик 5. meaning (I) holds a kind of dominance over the other meanings conveying the concept in the most general way whereas meanings (II)—(V) are associated with special circumstances, aspects and instances of the same phenomenon. Meaning (I) (generally referred to as the main meaning) presents the centre of the semantic structure of the word holding it together. It is mainly through meaning (I) that meanings (II)—(V) (they are called secondary meanings) can be associated with one another, some of them exclusively through meaning (I) - the main meaning, as, for instance, meanings (IV) and (V). It would hardly be possible to establish any logical associations between some of the meanings of the noun "bar" except through the main meaning[l]: It is not in every polysemantic word that such a centre can be found.

Some semantic structures are arranged on a different principle. In the following list of meanings of the adjective "dull" one can hardly hope to find a generalized meaning covering and holding together the rest of the semantic structure. Dull, adj. 1. A dull book, a dull film - uninteresting, monotonous, boring. 2. A dull student - slow in understanding, stupid. 3. Dull weather, a dull day, a dull colour - not clear or bright. 4. A dull sound - not loud or distinct. 5. A dull knife - not sharp. 6. Trade is dull - not active. 7. Dull eyes (arch.) - seeing badly. 8. Dull ears (arch.) - hearing badly. There is something that all these seemingly miscellaneous meanings have in common, and that is the implication of deficiency, be it of colour (m. Ill), wits (m. 11), interest (m. 1), sharpness (m. V), etc. The implication of insufficient quality, of something lacking, can be clearly distinguished in each separate meaning. Dull, adj. 1. Uninteresting - deficient in interest or excitement. 2. ... Stupid - deficient in intellect. 3. Not bright- deficient in light or colour. 4. Not loud - deficient in sound. 5. Not sharp - deficient in sharpness. 6. Not active - deficient in activity. 7. Seeing badly - deficient in eyesight. 8. Hearing badly - deficient in hearing.

-The transformed scheme of the semantic structure of "dull" clearly shows that the centre holding together the complex semantic structure of this word is not one of the meanings but a certain component that can be easily singled out within each separate meaning. On the second level of analysis of the semantic structure of a word: each separate meaning is a subject to structural analysis in which it may be represented as sets of semantic components. The scheme of the semantic structure of "dull" shows that the semantic structure of a word is not a mere system of meanings, for each separate meaning is subject to further subdivision and possesses an inner structure of its own. Therefore, the semantic structure of a word should be investigated at both these levels: 1) of different meanings, 2) of semantic components within each separate meaning. For a monosemantic word (i. e. a word with one meaning) the first level is naturally excluded. Meaning and Context It's important that there is sometimes a chance of misunderstanding when a word is used in a certain meaning but accepted by a listener or reader in another. It is common knowledge that context prevents from any misunderstanding of meanings. For instance, the adjective "dull", if used out of context, would mean different things to .different people or nothing at all. It is only in combination with other words that it reveals its actual meaning; "a dull pupil", "a dull play 1 ', "dull weather", etc. Sometimes, however, such a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word, and it may be correctly interpreted only through a second- degree context as in the following example: "The man was large, but his wife was even fatter". The word "fatter" here serves as a kind of indicator pointing that "large" describes a stout man and not a big one. Current research in semantics is largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of investigating the semantic structure of a word is by

studying the word's linear relationships with other words in typical contexts, i. e. its combinability or collocability. The scientists have established that the semantics of words which regularly appear in common contexts are correlated and, therefore, one of the words within such a pair can be studied through the other. They are so intimately correlated that each of them casts, as it were, a kind of permanent reflection on the meaning of its neighbour. If the verb "to compose" is frequently used with the object "music", so it is natural to expect that certain musical associations linger in the meaning of the verb "to composed". Note, also, how closely the negative evaluative connotation of the adjective "notorious" is linked with the negative connotation of the nouns with which it is regularly associated: "a notorious criminal", "thief, "gangster", "gambler", "- gossip", "liar", "miser", etc. All this leads us to the conclusion that context is a good and reliable key to the meaning of the word. It's a common error to see a different meaning in every new set of combinations. For instance: "an angry man", "an angry letter". Is the adjective "angry" used in the same meaning in both these contexts or in two different meanings? Some people will say "two" and argue that, on the one hand, the combinability is different ("man" —name of person; "letter" -name of object) and, on the other hand, a letter cannot experience anger. True, it cannot; but it can very well convey the anger of the person who wrote it. As to the combinability, the main point is that a word can realize the same meaning in different sets of combinability. For instance, in the pairs "merry children", "merry laughter", "merry faces", "merry songs" the adjective "merry" conveys the same concept of high spirits.

The task of distinguishing between the different meanings of a word and the different variations of combinability is actually a question of singling out the different denotations within the semantic structure of the word. 1) a sad woman, 2) a sad voice, 3) a sad story, 4) a sad scoundrel (- an incorrigible scoundrel) 5) a sad night (= a dark, black night, arch, poet.) Obviously the first three contexts have the common denotation of sorrow whereas in the fourth and fifth contexts the denotations are different. So, in these five contexts we can identify three meanings of "sad". Change of meaning of words The meaning of a word is a changeable category. The causes of semantic changes may be either linguistic or extra-linguistic. Extra-linguistic causes are different changes in the life of the people speaking the language, the coming into- existence of new notions and objects, changes in economic and social life, changes of ideas and etc. Ex. the word «mill» originally meant py чная мельница ( қўл тегирмони ). The development of industry gave use to the meaning «mill* Ex. a cotton mill, a steel mill. The word «atom» meant indivisible substance. Now the scientists discovered that atom can be divided and this changes our concept of atomic indivisibility. A change in the meaning may be brought about by different linguistic developments in the lexical system as a whole. "Tne word may change its meaning by the shortening of a word group. Ex. The old meaning of the verb «to starve* was «to die» and it was often used in the word group «to starve of hunger*. The modern meaning of the verb «to starve* is the result of the shortening of the word group, «to starve of hungers. The meaning of the word «week!y» a newspaper published weekly is the shortened form of the word group «weekly newspapers, «a musicals is the shortened form of the word group «a musical comedy* etc.

The appearance of a new word which is synonymous to the word already existing in the language may cause a change in the meanings of words. Ex. the old meaning of the word «deer» was an animal. It was used for all kinds of animals. When the Latin word «animal» came into the English language the meaning of the word «deer» was changed. Now it is used to name only one kind of animal (deer— олень , буғу ). The words may change their meaning when they are used transferently, i. e. metaphorically or metonymically. A metaphor is a shift of meanings caused by the likeness (se-milarity of some property of two objects). Metaphor is based on the semilarities of objects. Ex. the words «warm» and «cold» may be used to denote the certain qualities of human voices because of some kind of similarity between these qualities and warm and cold temperature. warm temperature cold temperature The similarity may be based on several shapes. 1) similarity of form. Ex. eye of a needle, a head of a pin; 2) similarity of function. Ex. the head of the state, the head of the demonstration; 3) similarity of position. Ex. the foot of the mountain, a foot of the page, the top of the table, the leg of the table. The usage of proper names for common nouns may cause a metaphor too. Some scientists use widely some characters. Ex. He is a pushkin of our days (he is a very strong poet). Ex. warm voice cold voice She is a Pushkin. Sometimes the names of animals are used to denote the human qualities. Ex. She is a fox (she is very cunny). She is a parrot (She is talkative). We must differ a metaphor from a simile. In simile we use before the words «as» and «like». Ex. She is a monkey (metaphor). She is like a monkey (similar).

Metaphor It is a transfer of the meaning on the basis of comparison. Herman Paul points out that metaphor can be based on different types of similarity: a) similarity of shape, e.g. head (of a cabbage), bottleneck, teeth (of a saw, a comb); b) similarity of position, e.g. foot (of a page, of a mountain), head (of a procession); c) similarity of function, behaviour e.g. a whip (an official in the British Parliament whose duty is to see that members were present at the voting); d) similarity of colour, e.g. orange, hazel, chestnut etc. In some cases we have a complex similarity, e.g. the leg of a table has a similarity to a human leg in its shape, position and function. Many metaphors are based on parts of a human body, e.g. an eye of a needle, arms and mouth of a river, head of an army. A special type of metaphor is when Proper names become common nouns, e.g. philistine - a mercenary person, vandals - destructive people, a Don Juan - a lover of many women etc. Metonymy is a shift of meaning or a change of meaning caused by a close, stable, constant connection between two or more objects. Metonomy should not be mixed up with a metaphor. In metonymy a part is used instead of the whole but metaphor is based on the likeness. Ex. She has a fox on (meto-nomy). It means she wears fur-coat made out of the fur of a fox. «Black shirtss was given for fascists in Italy because the fascists wore black shirts, «red - coat» means British soldiers because they wore red uniforms. The kettle is boiling (water is boiling). Sometimes names of human organs may be used metonymically. Ex. Will you lend me your ear? (listen to me). He has a good hand. (He has a good handwriting.) The name of a person can be used to denote a thing connected with that person. Ex. Do you know Byron? We mean his poems not himself. Ex. I like

Pushkin means I like his works. Geographical names are also used metonymically. Ex. boston — a name of town — material. Champaine — a province in France. It is a transfer of the meaning on the basis of contiguity. There are different types of metonymy: a) the material of which an object is made may become the name of the object, e.g. a glass, boards, iron etc; b) the name of the place may become the name of the people or of an object placed there, e.g. the House - members of Parliament, Fleet Street - bourgeois press, the White House - the Administration of the USA etc; c) names of musical instruments may become names of musicians, e.g. the violin, the saxophone; d) the name of some person may becom a common noun, e.g. «boycott» was originally the name of an Irish family who were so much disliked by their neighbours that they did not mix with them, «sandwich» was named after Lord Sandwich who was a gambler. He did not want to interrupt his game and had his food brought to him while he was playing cards between two slices of bread not to soil his fingers. e) names of inventors very often become terms to denote things they invented, e.g. «watt)), «oni)), «rentgen)> etc f) some geographical names can also become common nouns through metonymy, e.g. holland (linen fabrics), Brussels (a special kind of carpets), china (porcelain), astrachan ~ ( a sheep fur) etc. The result of semantic change can be observed in: 1) restriction (or narrowing) of meaning. Restriction of meaning is the capacity of a word to narrow its meaning in the course of historical development; 2) extention (or widening) of meaning. It is the expantion of polysemy in the course of its historical development, i.e. it is the widening of meaning. Ex. The word «fowl» meant in old English «any bird» but in modern English it denotes <a domestic hen or cock, —

old meaning of «affection» was —any feeling, new meaning is a feeling of love. The word «junk» originally meant sailor's word meaning «old rope». Now it means «rubbish, useless stuff*. This is an example of extention of meaning. The word «meat» originally meant «food» now it .means one special type of food. This is an example of narrowing of meaning. As a result of change of meaning a word may get a new meaning which will be broader or more generalized than the old one. Ex. season. The old meaning of the word «season» was «spring». The new meaning is any part o| the year. Here is another example. The old meaning of «to bootleg* was to sell alcocholic drinks illegally* New meaning is «to sell anything illegally*. The meaning of a word may become ameliorated as a result of semantic change. Ex. the old meaning of the word «nice» was «foolish», now it means «good», «fine». The old meaning of «marshal» was a servant who looked after horses. New meaning is a high military rank (Map шал ). The meaning of a word may become deteriorated as a result of semantic change. Ex. the old meaning of «villain was «farm labourers, new meaning is ярамас ( злодей ). The old meaning of «knave» was— бола ( мальчик ), new meaning is « қаллоб » ( машенник ).

Recommended literature: 1. P. 3. Гинзбург, C. C. Хидекель, Г. Ю. Kнязева, A. A. Caнкин. Jieксикология английс-кого языка. М. 1979. 2. C. C. Санкин, P. 3. Гинзбург, Г. Ю. Князева. A. A. Caнкин. Aнглийская лексикология в выдержках и извлечениях. Л., 1969. 3. A. И. Cмирницкий. Jieксикология английского языка. M., 1956. 4. M. И. Фомина. Cовременный русский язык. Лексикология. M., 1983. 5. Дж. Буранов. Cpaвнительная типология английского и тюркских языков. M., 1983. 6. У. K. lOcyпoв. Проблемы сопоставительной лингвистики. АДД. M., 1983. cтp. 21—25.

Похожие

The morphemic structure of English words and Word formation

Etymological survey of the English word-stock

Types of Meaning

Free word-groups

Divisions of the subject of lexicology