1) Object –object (*a part of body- a part of the clothing(leg, foot, scat))

• A container - its contents (cup, bag)

• Place (territory, transport)- people occupying it (house, flat)

• A place – an event to have occurred or to take place there (Chernobyl, Borodino)

• A place – a thing originating from it (cognac, champaign)

• A person – anything produced by them in science, art or industry (mackintosh)

The association 2) property-object yields the following generic senses: * material – a thing made of it

• Space – time duration of an action done in the place named (school)

Whole-part * animal – it’s meat (salmon, rabbit)

• A natural phenomenon – this kind of weather (rain)

• A part of the body – the body, an object – it’s part (phone)

The property-property categorical frames illustrated by the sense “cause – consequence” (crazy-midly excited, suffering from mental disorders)

Metaphor – the categorical level indicates the direction of association from one sphere of reality to another (obj-obj, man, physical phenom, psycholog. Ph, abstract things)

(sister – an organization that belongs to the same group and closely connected to it & thus, brides two fields of reality “man” and abstract thing)

The 2nd generically lex level of the metaph model determines the type of a common feature, to relate 2 obj function.

50. Specialization and generalization of connotation.

Changes in the denotational meaning may result in the restriction of the types of range of referents denoted by the word. This may be illustrated by the semantic development of the word «hound» (DE hund) which used to denote «a dog of any breed», but now denotes only «a dog used in the chase». «fow» which in DE denoted «any bird» but in ME denoted «a domestic hen or cock». This is generally described as «restriction of meanings» and if the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized vocabulary of some limited group within the speech community it is usual to speak of specialization of meaning. We can observe restriction and specialization of meaning in the case of 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».

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.

e.g. the word «camp» which was originally used as a military term and meant the place where troops are lodged in tents, extended and generalized its meaning, and now denotes «temporary quarters». In that case the scope of the new notion is wider than that of the original one, whereas the content of the notion is poorer. In most cases generalization is combined with a higher order of abstraction than in the notion expressed by by the earlier meaning. The transition from a concrete meaning to an abstract one is the most frequent feature in the sem history of words. The change may be explained as occasional by situations in which of all the features of the notions rendered are of equal importance of the message. Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is commonly 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 figuratively «any result aimed at».

51. Amelioration and pejoration of connotation.

Generally, the denotational component of the hill is affected while the connotational component remains unaltered. But there are cases when the changes in the connotational component come to fore.

There are changes as a rule accompanied by the change in the denotational component, may be subdivided into 2 groups:

1. pejorative development of the acquisition by the word of some emotive charge.

2. ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning.

1. e.g. the semantic change in the word «boor» may serve to illustrate the 1st group. This was originally used to denote a villager, and then acquired to derogatory connotational meaning and came to denote «a clumsy or ill-bred fellow».

2. e.g. the ameliorative development of the connotational meaning may be observed in the change of the sem structure of the word «minister» which in 1 of its meanings originally denoted «a servant, an attendant» but how a civil servant of higher rank, a person, «administering a department of state or accredited by 1 state to another».

It is of interest to note that in derivational clusters a change in the connotational meaning of 1 member does not necessarily affect all the others.

e.g. this peculiarity can be observed in the words «accident», «accidental». The hill of the word «accident» has undergone pejorative development, denotes not only smth that happens by chance «but usually smth unfortunate». The derived adj. «accidental» doesn’t possess its sem structure this negative connotational meaning ( also fortunate – bad/good and fortunate).

52. Polysemy – origin, definition.

Words hardly ever name single phenomenon thanks to the analytical type of the mind, i.e. the power to establish connections between things, actions etc. a word has become a means to combine several relative to name dif. bites of life, which aren’t connected in reality, but include in their lex.meanings some common semantic components to make them related.

Polysemy is based upon the presents of a common association in the seemingly dif.meaning of the word. Polysemy has the reason as a result of generalization and specification of the brains analysis connection various domains of reality. The names of dif.objects under the same plane of expression in a way dif. to the natural themes.

In polysemy the grouping is based on a common semantic component. Of the notions of the dif.objects named by those meanings in reality grouping of objects is semantic-situational.

Polysemy makes nominating possibilities unlimited, whereas the number of meanings limited. Polysemy alongside with w.-b. are mechanisms of unlimited nomination. Both are secondary means realize through association.

Polysemy is a result of:

1. Shifts in application

Ex.: adj. red: red ink (is really red) - red hair - red deer - red cabbage - red Indian

2. Specialization

Ex.: partner

Basic meaning; a type of relationship between 2 or more people.

- business partner

- marriage partner

- partner in crime

3. Metaphorical extension (a fundamental feature of any language)

Ex.: leaf of a tree – leaf of a book

hands of a person – hands of a clock

Polysemy has been complicated by the tendency of words to pick up the meanings from other dialects, languages & slang.

Ex.: executive

BrE – one who acts under the direction of somebody – исполнитель

AmE – a manager

now: AmE meaning is more widely used.

New & old meanings become interrelated, form a hierarchy. They have some common semantic features, which preserve the integrity of the word.

54. Paradygmatic Typology of LSV

Paradygmologically all LSVs form different types of oppositions which are based on different principles:

1) The way of naming(?)

(direct-figurative, dependence of 1 upon the other)

2) Basic-derived

3) Etymology (primary – secondary)

These oppositions are discovered within 1 and the same polysemy word. Their coexistence may be vividly observed in the polysemy of word head.

1) The upper, most part of the human body and the most advanced part of the animal bode (basic, direct, primary)

2) A chief rules (derivative, secondary, figurative)

3) An individual animal of a flock (der., second., fig., meton.)

4) Top, highest part of the mountain (der., sec., fig., metaphor.)

5) Natural attitude or talent for something (a good head of business)

LSV are multisided language units in the plane of content. Besides, the sem. kinship which find expression in various types of connection of meanings and their hierarchy. These can be discovered other principles of their classification. Most obviously when we preceed from inside the sem. Structure LSV may be discriminated as direct naming the object in isolation by the immediate reference to it) and figurative naming the object through its similarity or connection with other phenomena.

e.g. key -d. a metal instrument for moving the bolt of lock

- f. something that provides an answer to a problem of mystery (metaphor)

Fresh - d. newly made

- f. – young, inexperienced.

Other oppositions:

1) Abstract-concrete

e.g. witness – abstract – evidence what can be said at smth

- concr. – a person who has 1st knowledge of an event and is able to describe it.

2) logical-emotional

e.g. log – a kind of small boneless creeping creature

emo – a contemptible person

2) General-particular (extended –narrow)

e.g. referee – g – a person to whom disputes are refereed for discussion

p – a person who controls matches

Judged from outside language lexical meanings represent the following types:

1) etymologically primary-secondary

2) present day – archaic

e.g. gentleman 1) a man who is honorable and well-bred

2) a man of good family attached to a con.

- frequent – rare

- stylistically neutral – marked

- common – dialectical

As all types are based on different principles they can easily characterize each separate meaning

e.g. man - denoting a male human being is contrasted to a “human being” as der. and narrow.

The paradigmatic relationship tries to establish sem. relation between LSVs within 1 and the same word.

55. Syntagmatic typology of LSV

Syntagmatic relations disclose the conditions of meaning, their lexical syntactic patterns. The linguistic sphere of their usage is called typical context. It may be classified into 3 types:

1. Thematical context which reproduces extra linguistic real connection of objective things and is limited only by them logical.

2. constructive (structural) context which outlines and restricts the syntactic conditions of a meaning to make its relation possible (syntactic) to make smb do smth, go pale.

3. phrasal context which is also linguistic in that it is divorced from objective logical L. is made wp of a list of words (lexical) e.g. black art, black magic

The typology of LSVs based on syntagmetic properties includes:

1. free (devoid of any lang. limitations) occur in thematic context.

2. structurally determined (occurring in specific syntactic patterns) –constructive context.

3. phrasal bound- connected with lex. Combination

56. Structure of a polysemantic word is a common component, interdependence of LSV –subord –n, cop??? – n. The presence of the common sem. Component in lsv explains why their comb-n isn’t accidental or chaotic. It underlines the stability __ isolability of a polysem w any isolated object consisting of a number of elements to perform a function of its own is looked upon as a system. Within each structure its members hold together thanks to specific connections in them which are characteristics of the nature of the object

To be theoretically precise ? can be defined as a structured set of ?? which are interrelated ? interdependent in, a way owing to the sem invariant ? its comparative value in them . the interconnection in the members of the polysem structure falls into 3 types

Subordination reveals the hierarchical arrangement of a member of units which are dependent due to the common sem component on this basic. Direct nominative lsv being derived and tig???tive

Eg 1 any peant with chiging seeds

2 a person hard to ???????? off

The hierarchy of ??? implies that the order of recording them isn’t occasional but reflects the value of the individual lsv’s ? their place in the sem structure of a W

Eg to run 1 to go by moving legs ????

2 to go to a ?? backward or forward

3 organize manage

4 to have a certain cource

2. coordination means sem equality in ?? . their relative antonymy orindependence of each other may be represented in 2 ways – either by the common component alongside with strongly pronounced distingnishing elements

Eg point 1 sharb end 2 small dot 3 essential thing 4 a single item 5 special quality 6 purpose

The implicit common component present in each LSv can be dominant

3. mixed type is characterized by the presence of both ??? or coord –n . it s most frequent in all parts of speech

59. National peculiarities of Polysemy.

How P. develops and what lands to its national colouring is clearly seen on the diachronic examination of the semantics of the word table in Russian and English.

In RUS “стол” primarily denoted “any place for food”, later “any raised place for food”. The idea of raised served as the sem.link between various objects in the same position (стул). Later on however after a special article of furniture had been designed, the original common component “raised” faded so much so that modern language consciousness no longer associates “стол” & “столица”. To replace it the idea of a place for food advanced to the fore around and further sem.development move on to name food («сытный стол»).

But since at present the object name “стол” is used for various purposes it obtained a new line of its sem.evolution.

In ENG it began to circulate a Latin borrowing from French, meaning “boards” made of wood, stone, metal. Later it came to denote boards with inscriptions. In middle English the word acquired the Meaning “a stand with a flat wooden board on top used to put anything on”. It gave rise to a new meaning “a article of kitchen furniture” and in addition to a few figurative ones. (meton: food, people)

It also began to name various kinds of table. But unlike RUS it has retained its primary meaning and developed further to mark what is written.

In comparison it’s seen that originally different histor. and cultural conditions offered ENG and RUS specific starting points. As people became closer, they began to bodice obj-s with the same functions. Besides the development of meanings has also been directed by the working of the associative mind which determines the structure of the lex.system of a language.

The comparative study of semantical structure of equivalent words in languages reveals a striking contrast between them.

60.Polysemy and homonymy

One of the most debatable problems in semasiology is the demarcation line between homonymy and polysemy, between different meanings of one word and and the m-ngs of two homonymous words.

If homonymy is viewed diachronically then all cases of sound convergence of two or more words may be safely regarded as cases of homonymy as by sound1, sound2, sound3,sound4, which can be traced back to four etymologically different words. The cases of semantic divergence, however, are more doubtful. The transition from polysemy to homonymy is a gradual process, so it is hardly possible to point out the precise stage at which divergent semantic development tears asunder all ties between the meanings and results in the appearance of two separate words.

Synchronically the differentiation between homonymy and polysemy is as a rule wholly based on the semantic criterion. It is usually held that if a connection between the various meanings is apprehended by the speaker, these are to be considered as making up the semantic structure of a polysemantic word, otherwise it is a case of homonymy, not polysemy.

Thus the semantic criterion implies that the difference between polysemy and homonymy is actually reduced to the differentiation between related and unrelated meanings. This traditional semantic criterion does not seem to be reliable, firstly, because various meanings of the same word and the meanings of two or more different words may be equally apprehended by the speaker as synchronically unrelated. For instance, the meaning ‘a change in the form of a noun or pronoun’ which is usually listed in dictionaries as one of the meanings of case1 seems to be synchronically just as unrelated to the meanings of this word as ’something that has happened’, or ‘a question decided in the court of law’ to the meaning of case2 — ‘a box, a container’, etc.

Secondly, in the discussion of lexico-grammatical homonymy it was pointed out that some of the meanings of homonyms arising from conversion (e.g. seal2 n — seal3 v; paper n — paper v) are related, so this criterion cannot be applied to a large group of homonymous word-forms in Modern English. This criterion proves insufficient in the synchronic analysis of a number of other borderline cases, e.g. brother — brothers — ’sons of the same parent’ and brethren — ‘fellow members of a religious society’. It is sometimes argued that the difference between related and unrelated meanings may be observed in the manner in which the meanings of polysemantic words are as a rule relatable. It is observed that different meanings of one word have certain stable relationship which are not to be found ‘between the meanings of two homonymous words. A clearly perceptible connection, e.g., can be seen in all metaphoric or metonymic meanings of one word (cf., e.g., foot of the man — foot of the mountain, loud voice — loud colours, etc.,1 cf. also deep well and deep knowledge, etc.).

Such semantic relationships are commonly found in the meanings of one word and are considered to be indicative of polysemy. It is also suggested that the semantic connection may be described in terms of such features as, e.g., form and function (cf. horn of an animal and horn as an instrument), or process and result (to run — ‘move with quick steps’ and a run — act of running).

The problem of discrimination between P. And H.in theoretical linguists is closely connected with the problem of the basis unit at the semantic level of analysis.

61. sources of homonymy

The description of various types of Sources homonyms in Modern English would of Homonymy incomplete if we did flat give flat brief outline of the diachronic processes that account for their appearance.

1) diverging meaning development of one polysemantic word, and 2) converging sound development of two or more different words. The process of diverging meaning development can be observed when different meanings of the same word move so far away from each other that they come to be regarded as two separate units. This happened, for example, in the case of Modern English flower and flour which originally were one word meaning 'the flower' and 'the finest part of wheat'. The difference in spelling underlines the fact that from the synchronic point of view they are two distinct words even though historically they have a common origin.

Convergent sound development is the most potent factor in the creation of homonyms. The great majority of homonyms arise as a result of converging sound development which leads to the coincidence of two or more words which were phonetically distinct at an earlier date. A number of lexico-grammatical homonyms appeared as a result of convergent sound development of the verb and the noun (cf. MnE. love--(to) love and OE. lufu--lufian).

Words borrowed from other languages may through phonetic convergence become homonymous. Old Norse has and French race are homonymous in Modern English (cf. race1 [reis]--'running' and race2 [reis] 'a distinct ethnical stock').

There are four homonymic words in Modern English: sound --'healthy' was already in Old English homonymous with sound--'a narrow passage of water', though etymologically they are unrelated. Then two more homonymous words appeared in the English language, one comes from Old French son (L. sonus) and denotes 'that which is or may be heard' and the other from the French sunder the surgeon's probe.