Classification of lexical groups

Lecture 8. Semantic relationship between words

Outline

Classification of lexical groups

Homonymy in English

Synonyms in English

Antonyms in English

Classification of lexical groups

Unlike most codes, there is noone-to-one relationship between meanings and signs in a natural language. When several related meanings are associated with one written or spoken word, that word is called polysemantic; when two or more unrelated meanings are associated with the same form – these are homonyms, full or partial, or homophones if only their spoken forms coincide, or homographs if their written forms coincide but spoken do not; when two or more different forms are associated with the same – or nearly the same – denotational meaning these words are synonyms. Lexicology also studies antonyms, or words with a directly opposite or polar meaning; hyponyms and hyperonyms, i.e. words whose meanings either include or are included, by meanings of other words; word-families, i.e. words related in meaning but different in form and belonging to different parts of speech; and thematic groups of words loosely associated in meaning. Of these, homonyms and word-families are often brought together by dictionaries, while synonyms and thematic groups are brought together by a thesaurus, a conversation-book or a school textbook.

2. Homonymy in English

Homonyms are traditionally defined as words identical in both sound and spelling – or at least one of these aspects (homographs, homophones) – but having different meanings. Thus match – a competition and match – a stick of wood for striking fire are grammatically identical and are thus full homonyms whereas rose (n) – a flower and rose - past tense of rise are partial homonyms (note that in Ancient Greek homonymos was having the same name).

Homonyms exist in many languages, but English is particularly rich in them. They are mostly one-morpheme, one-syllable, words, numbering about 2.5 thousand. Most homonyms exist in pairs, but there are isolated examples like baric, bay, etc. that represent three or four meanings. In most cases, a pair of homonyms is a linguistic accident of a pair of words, often of different origin, gradually becoming identical in form. Only about 7 per cent of English homonyms are a result of splitting up of polysemantic words. If synonyms and antonyms could be used as an additional expressive means in a language, homonyms are of no interest in this respect, and are hardly of any use in communication. Moreover, as an isolated word form of this type, like sound or fast, may potentially assume different meanings in different contexts, a homonym is a powerful source of ambiguity and misunderstanding.

The ambiguity of a homonym, when it arises, may only be resolved in a context - a boxing match or to strike a match are hardly ambiguous. If ambiguous contexts do arise, they are either a result of carelessness on the part of the speaker or writer, or a deliberate device of humour known as a pun. For example, a tailor's motto We guarantee you a perfect fit may be a promise of very good work – or very bad one.

Among the factors contributing to the number of homonyms in English are the monosyllabic character of English words and the analytical tendencies in the language, as well as the abundance of root words. As monosyllabic words tend to be the most frequent (according to Zipf's law), they tend to acquire meanings that may in the course of time stray veryfar from the original word. If an intermediate or linking meaning falls out of use, all connection with the original word is lost, and a new meaning starts on its separate existence. Thus board – a long, thin piece of wood, board – meals provided for the day and board – a group of people set up to examine a problem or run a business company are no longer felt as related because a fourth meaning, a piece of furniture, which originally held them together, dropped out of use as it was replaced by table. Similarly, spring – act of springing, spring – a source of water and spring – a season of the year are all related to the Old English verb springan (cf. German springen), which used to mean jump and all but disappeared in Modern English. The process is known as splitting or disintegration of polysemy.

Another, more frequent source of homonymy is the phonetic changes that words undergo in the course of their development. As a result, two or more words that used to be pronounced differently lose their endings, drop unstressed syllables, mutate almost out of recognition due to phonetic assimilation, and finally coincide. Thus niht and kniht used to be pronounced differently in Old English, but the initial k was dropped in the second, although the difference in spelling was preserved (night –knight).

More typically, a borrowed word, in a final stage of its phonetic adaptation, may coincide with either a native word or another borrowing.

Historically, homonyms are an interesting field of study; ironically, they are a constant source of worry for lexicographers, teachers of English, and specialists in information processing. The problems here are the criteria for distinguishing homonyms from synonyms, and recognizing different meanings of the same homonyms. For a lexicographer, the chief problem is establishing word boundaries. The only reliable evidence for distinguishing different words identical in sound form, and different meanings of the same word, is etymology. If this is disregarded, the problem becomes almost impossible to solve. Neither can it be ignored, for the convenience in the use of the dictionary depends upon it.

Actual solutions differ. English lexicographers often place phonetically identical words showing similarity of lexical meaning within one entry, even if they belong to different parts of speech. English-Russian dictionaries usually make a distinction, etymology is often disregarded if it doesn’t fit the present-day state of the language: thus ear in an ear of corn is now felt to be a metaphorical extension of the word meaning an organ of hearing, although etymologically it’s a different word – one is related to Latin auris, the other to the Old English ecʒ (related to Modern English edge).

As for those teaching English, their main problem is patterned homonymy which is often found in frequently used words, that may easily have different part-of-speech meanings. That for example, is both a conjunction and a pronoun, above is a preposition, adverb and adjective – and there are countless other examples. The only clue to the part-of-speech meaning of manyEnglish words seems to be their distribution, or ability to occur in different environments. Nouns, for example, have a very typical pattern of (article + adjective + noun), while a verb typically follows a noun. So in You’d have a bigger laugh if you laugh at yourself, the first laugh is very clearly a noun while the second is a verb.

3. Synonyms in English

Synonyms are often defined as words different in form but identical in meaning. In reality, however, this is not so. By the very nature of language, each and every word has its own history, its typical contexts and motivation. Hence synonymous words could only be similar, but never really identical in meaning. There is always a difference, if very small, between either denotational or connotational meaning or both.

Synonyms, therefore, could be defined as belonging to the same part of speech, and possessing one or more identical, or nearly identical, denotational meanings. Synonyms are interchangeable – at least in some contexts – without any considerable change in meaning. However, they differ in morphemic composition, phonemic shape, shades of meaning, connotation, style, valency and idiomatic use – or at least in some of these parameters.

That synonyms are interchangeable leads one to believe the difference between their denotational meanings may, least under certain conditions, be neutralized. However, this often applies to certain contexts but not to others: so undergo changes and suffer changes seem to be identical in meaning, but in suffer atrocities, there is no replacing suffer, as, unlike undergo and experience, it implies pain.

Much synonymic group includes, among others, a dominant element, or a synonymic dominant. This seems to contain all, most, specific semantic features possessed also by the specific members of the synonymic group, and so is the most general term that could, if necessary, replace any other member of synonymic group in most contexts. An example is hope as used to anticipate, expect, look forward to: hope is most neutral word, while look forward is definitely colloquial and anticipate is bookish.

Traditionally, the Soviet linguists, following V.V. Vinogradov, distinguished between ideographic synonyms, defined words conveying the same notion but differing in shades of meaning, stylistic synonyms, differing in stylistic characteristics, and absolute synonyms, which coincided in all shades of meaning and all their stylistic characteristics. This, however, leaves more questions than answers. Firstly, absolute synonyms are very rare; whenever they appear – usually as a result of borrowings – one of them tends to drop out of use, or acquire a specialized meaning. Secondly, shades of meaningis something so vague that it evades definition. Thirdly, many synonyms are distinguished both by their shade of meaning and their stylistic colouring, or, in other words, both in their denotational and connotational meaning.

A more reliable approach to synonymy is presented by the componential theory of meaning. In terms of this theory, synonyms may be defined as word with the same denotation, but differing in connotations, or secondary components of meaning. To study a group of synonyms, we collect and analyze their definitions, preferably from different dictionaries. After that, we subject the definitions to semantic transformations to single out the components of meaning. Thus stare, glare and gaze all imply looking and a manner of this action that may be described as steady or lasting. However, in addition, stare implies surprise, glare – anger or fury, gaze implies admiration or wonder.

The synonymic dominant should not be confused with a hyperonym. This is a generic term which, although it can be used to replace any word in a synonymic group, implies not equivalence but inclusion, as animal is a hyperonym for wolf, dog or mouse. Dog, in its turn, is a hyperonym for collie, poodle, bull-dog, etc., which are its hyponyms. Unlike synonymy, which is symmetrical, a hypo-hyperonymic relation is asymmetrical, which the forms hypo- (Greek under) and hyper- (over) clearly signify.

A polysemantic word may belong, in its various meanings, to several different synonymic groups, as fresh is related, in its different meanings, to original, new, pure, inexperienced and rude. Two polysemantic words may have more than one meaning in common, but never coincide completely.

In a great number of cases, the semantic difference between synonyms is supported by a difference in valency, which may be syntactical, morphological, orlexical. Syntactically, for example, seem and appear differ from look in that seem and appear may be followed by that or an infinitive, and look is neverfound in such constructions. Other differences include the use of different prepositions (answer a question – reply to a question), or difference in lexical valency: gain a victory, but win a war. Difference in combinability extends to phraseological combinations: cast combines with glance but not with glimpse, although cast a look is perfectly possible, while steal, shoot or throw only combine with glance. This is akin to contextual or context-sensitive synonymy, where two words could on interchangeable under some very specific conditions, as their semantic difference is contextually neutralized. Buy and get, for example, are not synonyms, but the difference between them all but disappears when both are used colloquially, as in Go get some bread and Go buy some bread. Bear and stand, too, are hardly similar, but can’t bear and can’t stand are practically identical in meaning.

Diachronically, borrowings from various languages comprise the vast majority of English synonyms. A typical pattern is a word alongside that of a Latin origin (bodily – corporal, brotherly – fraternal), or a native word versus Greek or French (answer – reply), where the native word is typically neutral or colloquial, while the borrowed is bookish or literary.

The role of borrowings should not be overestimated, as new words are also created by other word-formation processes, and, once coined, become synonyms to those already in use. Of particular importance here is the formation of so-called phrasal verbs (abandon – give up, postpone – put off) and compound nouns related to them (conscription – call-up; reproduction – playback, etc.). Important causes of synonymy are creation of euphemisms, and the so-called synonymic attraction in colloquial speech, where notions of an emotionally significant, often partially taboo character (alcohol, sex, drugs) invite numerous slangy nominations, often current in teenage slang.