V. Comment on the change of meanings in the italicized words.
1. They sat on the rug before the fireplace, watching the rising tongues of flame. 2. He inspired universal confidence and had an iron nerve. 3. He was burning with a desire to meet his old friends. 4. As I spoke, rage sparkled in my eyes. 5. Emotion squeezed Soames’ heart. 6. Here was the great mysterious city which was still a magnet for her. 7. Carrie’s anger melted on the instant. 8. Some books are to be tasted, others swallowed, and some few to be chewed and digested.
Chapter 3 english vocabulary as a system
1. Semantic Classes of Lexemes in the Lexico-semantic
System of the English Language
The vocabulary of the English language represents a system of interrelated and interconnected elements (morphemes, lexemes, phraseological units) which since Academician V.V.Vinogradov is referred to as “a lexico-semantic system”. The systematic character of the English vocabulary finds its manifestation in the hierarchical structure of the lexicon, i.e. the system as a whole includes a number of subsystems belonging to different levels of abstraction, which consist of lexical units as the elements of the system. The relations between elements are those of inclusion, equivalence, similarity, contrast, opposition, etc.
Investigating the systematic structure and properties of the lexicon, interrelations of lexemes in various groupings is one of important tasks of modern lexicology. The relations of lexemes in the lexico-semantic system reflect the actual relations of objects and phenomena in reality, and their reverberation in human mind. It was at the end of the XIX-th century that the outstanding Russian linguist M.M. Pokrovskiy paid attention to the fact that words combine (in our soul) irrespective of our conscience into various groupings. The basis of such combinations are associations reflecting the links of the objects in real life.
When we talk about the ‘structure’ of the lexicon, we are referring to the network of meaning relationships which bind lexemes together. No lexeme exists in splendid isolation. As soon as we think of one (e.g. uncle), a series of others come to mind (e.g. father, brother, aunt, nephew, etc.). If we mentally probe all aspects of the semantic network which surrounds uncle, we shall soon build up a large number of connections.
The basic relations between words in language and speech are paradigmatic and syntagmatic (F.de Saussure). Lexemes are related along two intersecting dimensions: horizontal and vertical. The syntagmatic relations are the relations of lexemes in a sequence, which means that they occur in collocation (combinations) with other lexemes in word combinations, sentences, texts. On the vertical dimension, we sense the way in which one lexeme can substitute for another, and relate to it in meaning. Prof. D.Crystal illustrates the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations by the following scheme [Crystal 1995: 160]:
Lexemes are arranged into certain groupings on the basis of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. More important for determining the systematic character of the lexicon are paradigmatic groupings based on a semantic principle, i.e. those classifications where the lexemes are grouped according to the criteria of similarities and differences of meanings.
Many lexico-semantic groups in different languages have been already described in detail. The principles and methods of semantic analyses of lexical groups have been worked out, their structural types and relations between the elements have been determined. All these principles and results of investigations formed the basis of the theory of semantic field. “A fruitful notion in investigating lexical structure is the semantic or lexical field - a named area of meaning in which lexemes interrelate and define each other in specific ways” [Crystal 1995: 157].
The major assumption of this theory is that the lexicon of any language is not a chaotic sum total of lexemes. Its systematic character is revealed in the fact that lexemes are distributed into groups according to integral meaning. These groups got different names: a lexical field, a lexico-semantic field, a lexico-semantic group, a thematic group, etc. The common feature underlying all such groupings is that the lexemes are brought together into a group or field on the basis of their semantic interrelations and interconnections. A lexico-semantic field or group covers a certain area of reality. Each lexeme belongs to a certain semantic field, and, moreover, it might belong to two or more semantic fields. Each LSV of a polysemantic lexeme might belong to a different field. For example iron 1 ‘commonest of all metallic elements’ belongs to the LSG ‘metals’, iron 2 ‘an implement used for smoothing clothes’ belongs to ‘home utensils’.
Thus, a semantic field embraces lexemes having an integral (common) component of meaning, thus relating to a particular notion and area of extra-linguistic reality. The lexemes, having a common component, differ in certain minor components which are called differential components. The method of distinguishing integral and differential components is known as componential analysis.
The main point of this analysis is that lexical meaning presents a structure consisting of a set of semantic components (semes) performing integrating and differentiating functions. The semantic components might be of different degrees of generalization. The most general are the categorial semantic components such as ‘substantivity’, ‘process’, ‘quality’, on the basis of which parts of speech are distinguished.
Subcategorial components are also distinguished in the lexical meaning, which form the semantic groups within parts of speech, e.g. verbs of motion, creation, destruction, cognition, etc.; nouns, denoting names of persons, animals, plants, etc.; adjectives denoting colour terms, various qualities of objects. These subcategorial components are further specified by the so-called classifying components, according to which, for instance, animals can be classified into domestic and wild, birds, reptiles, insects, etc.
The final stage of componential analysis is disclosing the differential semantic components, which determine the individual meaning of a lexeme and its difference from other lexical units. The common semantic components uniting lexemes into fields and groups are called integral semantic components. For instance, for the lexemes pool, pond, lake, sea, ocean the integral component is ‘an expanse of water’. Differential components are determined through the procedure of lexical oppositions. Comparing meanings of pairs of words, i.e. through binary lexical oppositions, such as pool :: pond, pond :: lake, lake :: sea, sea :: ocean we come to the conclusion that the meanings of each pair of lexemes differ in the component ‘size’. Hence, the differential component in this group is ‘size’.
The componential analysis proved to be fruitful but it was criticized for certain limitations and subjectiveness. These faults are caused by the complexity of the lexico-semantic system itself and also by the fact that there are no strict borderlines between lexico-semantic fields. Some lexemes seem to belong to fields which are vague or difficult to define, others belong to several fields or fall midway between two fields. As D.Crystal puts it: ‘is flavour part of the semantic field ‘taste’, or taste part of the semantic field of ‘flavour’, or are both members of some broader semantic field, such as ‘sensation’?’ [Crystal 1995: 157].
The first scholars to distinguish semantic fields were German linguists J.Trier, L.Weisgerber, W.Porzig. They investigated semantic fields of intellect, emotions, military ranks and some others. To a semantic field belong lexemes of various parts of speech. For instance, to the semantic field ‘intellect’ belong nouns a thought, an idea, verbs to think, to consider, adjectives clever, wise, etc. J.Trier claimed that the meaning of a lexeme is determined by meanings of other lexemes belonging to the same semantic field. For example, if we want to understand the meaning of the word captain, we must know whether this word belongs to the field of military or naval terms. Lexico-semantic groups (LSGs) include lexemes with an integral meaning component of the same part of speech, e.g. LSGs of verbs of motion, cognition, emotions, etc; nouns denoting kinship terms, parts of human body, etc.; adjectives denoting colour, etc.
Lexical fields and groups can be either closed or open. To closed groups belong those which include a limited number of lexemes, such as kinship terms, parts of human body, etc.
One can find similar lexico-semantic fields in many languages. In fact, this is one of linguistic universals. Lexico-semantic fields of different languages coincide in their main parameters but in each particular language they are marked by some specific features which testify to their national character. Compare, for instance, Russian палец and English finger ‘палец руки’, thumb‘ большой палец руки’ and toe ‘палец ноги’. It is surprising for Russian students of English to hear that ‘We have eight fingers, two thumbs and ten toes’. Two Russian words cиний, голубой stand for one English word blue.
Every semantic field or LSG is constructed around a dominant word, the one which possesses the most general meaning and reflects the notion underlying the lexical grouping. Other lexemes are of more concrete and specific meanings. E.g. the dominant word in the LSG of verbs of motion is to move.
Every field or LSG has a nucleus, i.e. lexemes which are more widely used for expressing the underlying notion, the ones which are closer to a dominant lexeme. In the field of motion, for instance, to the nucleus belong verbs to move, to go, to run, to walk, to come, to fly, to swim, etc. There might be certain areas of lexemes close to the nucleus and others which belong to the periphery of the field or group: lexemes rarely used or expressing the underlying concept not quite distinctly.
The relations between lexemes in semantic groupings are synonymic, antonymic and hyponymic. The hyponymic relations are based on inclusion. Thus, the concept animal includes dog, cat, cow, wolf, fox; colour includes black, white, red, green, etc. The hyponymic relationship may be viewed as the hierarchical relationship between the meanings of the general and individual terms. Hyponymic groups generally have 3 – 4 levels of abstraction. The hierarchy of a group plant, consisting of four levels, can be illustrated by the hyponymic structure represented below:
A more general word is called the hyperonym (from Gk. hyper- higher) or the classifier, and a more specific term is called the hyponym (from Gk. hypo- lower). For instance, the word plant is a hyperonym to all other words of the group which are hyponyms in relation to the word plant. The word tree in its turn is the hyperonym for the words pine, oak, ash, maple; the word pine is the hyperonym for the words white pine and yellow pine. Words of the same level, for instance, grass, bush, tree, shrub, flower are equonyms towards each other. The scheme represented here is not complete as the notions reflected by words grass, shrub, bush, flower include a lot of hyponyms - names оf flowers (tulip, rose, daffodil, etc.), grаsses, shrubs.
Synonyms and antonyms are also represented in lexical groupings. For example, in the field of emotions we find synonyms: joy, gladness, mirth merriment; аntоnyms: joy - sadness.
Another type of relations in lexical groupings is partonymy, i.e. relations of “part and whole”. A typical example is the LSG ‘parts of human body’: nail is a part of finger, which in its turn is a part of hand, which is a part of arm, a part of body. To lexical fields (groups) also refer the so-called cycles: winter, spring, summer, autumn and chains, for instance, names of military ranks: lieutenant, captain, major, general, etc.
A new approach to structuring of lexicon is put forward in modern cognitive linguistics. It is claimed that language and its lexicon are tools of human cognition. Words are used for human cognition not in isolation but in structured sets which are called frames [Ch.Fillmore]. The notion of a frame can be illustrated by the example of a frame describing the situation of ‘trading’, the essence of which is that ‘a person exchanges his money for certain goods secured from another person’ There are a lot of English lexemes, describing various parameters and aspects of this frame: shop assistant, saleswoman, customer, buy, sale, pay, spend, cost, price, money, change, goods and many others.