Дипломная работа: The problem of polysemy in the English language

The synchronic approach analyzes a particular something at a given, fixed point in time. It does not attempt to make deductions about the progression of events that contributed to the current state, but only analyzes the structure of that state, as it is.

The synchronic approach studies language as a theoretical “point” in time. It refers to descriptive lexicology as branch of linguistics deals with the vocabulary and vocabulary units of language at a certain time. Synchronically we understand polysemy as the coexistence of various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period of the development of the language. In that case the problem of interrelation and independence of individual meanings making up the semantic structure of the word must be investigated along different lines.

In connection with the polysemantic word table discussed above we are mainly concerned with the following problems: are all the nine meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of this word? Does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the word table? Intuitively we feel that the meaning that is actually representative of the word, the meaning that first occurs to us whether we hear or see the word table, is “an article of furniture”. This emerges as the basic or the central meaning of the word and other meanings are minor in comparison.

It should be noted that whereas the basic meaning is representative of the word table in isolation its minor meanings are observed only in certain contexts, e.g. “to keep the table amused”, “a piece of contents” etc. Thus we can assume that the meaning “a piece of furniture” occupies the central place in the semantic structure of the word table. As to other meanings of this word it’s hard to grade them in order of their comparative value. Some may, for example, consider the second and the third meanings (“the persons seated at the table” and “put food on the table”) as equally “important”, some may argue that the meaning “put food on the table” should be given priority [ 21; 253-254 ]. As viewed synchronically there is no objective criterion to go by, it may be found difficult in some cases to single out even the basic meanings as two or meaning of the word may be felt as equally “central” in its semantic structure. If we analyse the verb to get, e.g., which of the two meanings “to obtain” (get to London, to get into bed) shall we regard as the basic meaning of this word?

A more objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in the speech. There is a tendency in a modern linguistics to interpret the concept of the central meaning in terms of the frequency of occurrence of this meaning. It a study of five million words made by a group of linguistic scientists it was found that the frequency value of individual meanings is different.

Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as not only words but individual meanings to may differ in their stylistic reference. Stylistic (or regional) — status of monosemantic words is easily perceived. For instance, the word daddy can be referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the word parent to bookish. The word movie is recognizably American and barnie is Scotish. Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any such restrictive labels. To do it we must state the meaning in which they are used. There is nothing colloquial or slangy or American about the word yellow denoting colour, jerk in the meaning of “a sudden or stopping movement” as far as these particular meanings are concerned. But when yellow Is used in the meaning of “sensational” or when jerk is used in the meaning of “an odd person” it’s both slang and American [ 10; 47-48 ].

Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent. The polysemantic words worker and hand, for example, may both denote “the man who does manual work”. But whereas this is the most frequent and stylistically neutral meaning of the word worker, it is observed only in 2.8% of all occurrences of the word hand, in the semantic structure of which the meaning “a man who does the manual work” (to hire factory hands) is one of its marginal meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference. Broadly speaking the interdependence of style and frequency in meanings is analogous to that existing in words.

It should be noted that the meaning of the highest frequency value is the one representative of the whole semantic structure of the word. This can be illustrated by analyzing the two words under discussion. The meaning representative of the word worker is undoubtedly “a man who does manual work” [ 21; 258 ].

In conclusion, polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as co-existence of various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

polysemy language context

1.3 Polysemy and its Connection with the Context

In modern linguistics context is defined as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal meaning for words. This is not to imply that polysemantic words have meanings only in context. The semantic structure of the word has an objective existence as a dialectical entity which embodies 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 the context. The meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are sometimes described as free or denominative meanings.

Against the background of linguistic thought as it has developed in modern linguistics we define context as the minimal stretch of speech necessary to signal individual meaning of words. There are several types of context: linguistic and extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.

Linguistic context include lexical and grammatical context. These two types of contexts are differentiated depending on whether lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in making the meaning of the word explicit. The interaction between lexical and grammatical aspects in the semantic structure of the word is most complex and needs special comments.

1) Lexical context is best illustrated by the fact that there are groups of words in any language that are semantically compatible only with certain classes of agents. Lexical incongruity of words often serves to make the necessary meaning clear narrowing down the various potential meanings of the word, and no ambiguity arises.

The verb to run, for instance, has primarily the meaning ‘to move swiftly or with quick action’, as a stream, wagon, person; with words denoting something written, inscribed, worded, or the like the verb run means to sound (eg. This is how the verse runs); with agents denoting various plants the verb run is synonymically correlated to grow — to become bigger; with agents denoting engines or machines by which physical power is applied to produce a physical effect, the verb to run means — to turn off the engine (to leave the engine running).

In all the examples given above the meaning of the verb to run is signaled by the lexical meanings of the nouns in the position of the subject. The predominance of the lexical contexts in determining the meaning of the verb in such uses is quite evident.

Examples of lexical contexts which operate to convey the necessary meaning of a polysemic word may be given in numbers. Resolution of structural ambiguity by lexical probability is a frequent occurrence.

Compare also the following variant meanings of the adjective green which has primarily the meaning ‘of the colour green’: green walls, green wound, green memories — variation in meaning in each case is signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun involved in a given syntagma. The adjective heavy in its primary sense means ‘weighty, not easy to lift, of great weight’ [ 4; 126-127 ].

In combination with words denoting natural phenomena heavy means violent: heavy storm, heavy rain, heavy snow. Not less characteristic are such uses of the adjective as: heavy work, heavy style, a heavy sky, with a heavy heart—the meaning of the adjective in each case is signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun with which it occurs.

Further typical examples of lexical context determining the word meaning will be found in the distribution of various classes of adjectives.

Observe, for instance, the use of the following phrases with the adjective warm whose meaning in each case is signaled by the lexical meaning of the noun involved: warm milk, warm climate, warm clothing, warm welcome, warm temper, warm support, warm imagination, warm colours.

As can be seen from above examples, the lexico-semantic variation of the adjective warm makes it synonymous with such words as mild, heated, cordial, enthusiastic, eager, keen, responsive.

2) Grammatical context. Instances are not few when the individual lexical meaning of a polysemic word is determined by the grammatical structure in which it occurs, syntactic patterns in the main. Familiar examples of grammatical context will be found in cases like the following:

1) The horse stopped drinking.

2) The horse stopped to drink.

In the first example stop+ing — finish doing something, in the second—stop+to+ infinitive — stop temporarily in order to.

Highly indicative in this respect are verbs of generic force, such as do, make and the verbs of the ‘move and change’ class: go, come, grow, get, fall, run, take, turn.

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word. One of the meanings of the verb to make, eg. “to force, to enduce”, is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure to make somebody do something or in simpler terms this practical meaning occurs only if the verb make is followed by a noun and the infinitive of some other verb (to make somebody laugh, work, etc. ) [ 5; 182-183 ].