Words as Meaningful Units

Introduction

Language is defined as a human system of communication that uses arbitrary signals, such as voice sounds, gestures, or written symbols. But frankly speaking, language is far too complicated, intriguing, and mysterious to be adequately explained by a brief definition. The organic function of the language is to carry meaning. Most of the problems in linguistic science are intimately bound to question of semasiology and call for scientific analysis of communication in words. The study of words is not exclusively a study of roots and stems, of prefixes or suffixes. The mysterious world of words is an object of scientific investigation.

Theoretical problems of linguistic form and meaning as relevant to the progressive development of language have attracted the attention of scholars, philosophers and grammarians since the times of Plato and Aristotle. From those times sameness of meaning was not very easy to deal with but there seemed nothing inherently difficult about difference of meaning. The situation is the same nowadays. Not only different words have different meanings; it’s also the case that the same word may have a set of meanings. This phenomenon is called polysemy.

The semantic structure of a polysemantic word is treated as a system of meanings. Some semantic structures are arranged on a different principle. In the following list of meaning of the adjective dull one can hardly hope to find a generalized meaning covering and holding together the rest of the semantic structure.

The important researches in the sphere of polysemy were made by Lyon who considers polysemy and homonymy as two types of lexical ambiguity and introduce some criteria for deciding when it is polysemy and when it is homonymy. One criterion is etymological information about the lexical item in question. Lexical items with the same origin are considered as polysemantic, whereas if they have evolved from distinct lexemes in some earlier stage of the language then they are regarded as homonymous. Lexical meaning of every word depends upon the part of speech to which the word belongs.

The importance of studying the phenomenon of polysemy is obvious because it is the object of confusion and in order to provide a quantitative and qualitative growth of the language’s expressive resources it is extremely important to investigate the semantic changes in the system of meanings in the English language. To understand a text, learners need to know words and knowing a word involves knowing: its spoken and written contexts of use its patterns with words of related meaning. When teaching vocabulary it is then necessary to consider aspects like denotation, polysemy, connotation and sociocultural aspects when teaching a second or foreign language so that learners are able to get meaning from texts.

The objective of this research is the investigation of polysemy in diachronic and synchronic dimensions. According to the objective there are following tasks:

1)  to show historical background of the polysemy;

2)  to describe semantic structure of polysemantic words;

3)  to discover the impact of the context on the meaning of polysemantic words;

4)  to describe the practical usage of the polysemy.

To solve all these tasks my course paper was designed.

Words as Meaningful Units

1.1 Polysemy as the Source of Ambiguities in a Language

Polysemy is a semantic inherent in the fundamental structure of the language. All languages have polysemy on several levels. A wide-spread polysemy in English is rightly considered as one of its characteristic features conditioned by the peculiarities of its structure.

The main source of the development of regular polysemy is the metaphoric and metonymic transference, which is commonplace and appears to be fundamental in living language.

Polysemic words make up a considerable part of the English vocabulary. Potential polysemy of words is the most fertile source of ambiguities in language.

In a limited number of cases two meanings of the same English words are differentiated by certain formal means, as, for instance, by spelling: born — borne, draft — draught; by word-order: ambassador extraordinary — extraordinary ambassador; by inflexion: hanged — hang. The distinctions between thing-words (countables) and mass-words (uncountables) is easy enough if we look at the idea that is expressed in each single instance. But in practical language the distinction is not carried through in such a way that one and the same word stands always for one and the same idea [ 9; 112 ].

On the contrary, a great many words may in one connection stand for something countable and in the other for something uncountable. Compare:

1)  Have an ice.

2)  There is no ice on the pond.

In the first example ice — any frozen dessert, especially one containing cream, as a water ice, sherbet or frappé. In the second example ice — water frozen icing frosting, any substance looking like ice.

The problem of polysemy, in other words, the use of the same word in two or more distinct meanings in relevant to a number of other important questions. These are: the development of different types of synonyms, as a result of semantic transpositions of lexical units and homonymy.

Defining polysemy as a linguistic development, Charles Bally made distinction between its two aspects: first, when one linguistic sign has several meanings, and then, when meaning is expressed by several linguistic signs.

Words may grow in connotative power in accordance with the nature with the meanings connected with them. In the power of connotation lies the reserve force of language. Without this language would lose much of its expressivity and flexibility.

It is extremely important not to lose sights of the fact that few words have simple meanings. Practically most words have, besides their direct meaning, a fringe of associated meanings. As a matter of fact, language owes very much of its expressive power to the ideas and emotions associated with words. There are usually a variety of associated meanings which appear in varying degrees of prominence determined by the context.

The course followed by words used in different context and the shifts of meaning presents a major interest in contrastive lexicology and typological study of languages.

The distributional analysis of meaning makes it possible to reveal a great deal about the total functioning and use of words in a language. It gives sufficient evidence to recognize that part of the total meaning of many words in all languages is to be determined by their relations with other words in both the basic dimensions of linguistic analysis, syntagmatic and paradigmatic. Words as individual lexical items are structurally related to each other .

The verbs to live and to dwell, for instance, do not show any special contrast in this respect. In spoken English ‘dwell’  is now usually replaced by ‘live’.

But if we compare such verbs as to be, to stay and to live, we shall see that they differ essentially in expressing the durative character of the action and are not always interchangeable. For example,

She is in the house.

She stays in the house.

She lives in the house.

The verb to reside is stylistically marked member of the synonymic group characterized by its use in formal English.

It is of interest to note that transferred meanings of words in different languages do not always coincide. By the way of illustration:

1)  back — Մեջք

2)  the back of a chair — Աթոռի հենք

The problem of polysemy in grammar is one of the most important, the one which is very complex and seems to be relevant to a number of aspects. Like words which is very complex and seems to be relevant to a number of aspects. Like words which are often signs not of one but of several things, a single grammatical form can also be made to express a whole variety of structural meanings. This appears to be natural and is a fairly common development in the structure of any language. This linguistics mechanism works naturally in many ways to prevent ambiguity in patterns of grammatical structure. Orientation towards the content will generally show which of the possible meanings is to be attached to polysemantic grammatical form.

Most grammatical forms are polysemantic. On this level of linguistic analysis distinction should be made between synchronic and potential polysemy. Thus, for instance, the primary denotative meaning of the Present Continuous is characterized by three semantic elements:

1)  present time

2)  something progressive;

3)  contact with the moment of speech.

The three elements make up its synchronic polysemy. So thus, we can clearly see importance of researches of polysemy in grammar.

1.2 Historical Development of the Polysemy

The modern term polysemy was popularized by Bréal in 1887. Most modern linguistics dealing with the topic of polysemy refer to the crucial date , but they rarely look further back into the past.

The “roots” of the concept of polysemy lie in the Greek philosophy, that is, the debate surrounding the problem of naturalness or arbitrariness of signs as debated in Plato’s (429-347B.C.) Cratylus. In his account of Plato’s contribution to linguistics, Fred Householder points out that Democritus (460-mid-4th century B.C.) offered four arguments in favour of arbitrariness:

1)  homonymy or polysemy — the same sequence of phonemes may be associated with two or more unrelated meanings;

2)  polyonymy or isorrophy — the existence of synonyms;

3)  metonymy — the fact that words and meaning change;

4)  nonymy — the non-existence of single words for simple or familiar ideas.

Polysemy meant primarily what was later to be called “homonymy”, referring to the multiple, but unrelated meaning of a word. Bréal still subsumed homonymy under the heading of polysemy.

The term polyonymy was also used by the Stoics studying how one and the same object may receive many different names, how it can become “manynamed” or polyonomous.

During the Middle Ages the interpretation by the Holy Scriptures came up against the problem of polysemy that was acknowledged, but one that had been tampted (by the theory of four senses).

The first who used the tern polysemous in a relatively modern sense was Dante, who wrote about polysemous character of a poem: “Istius operis non est simplex sensus, immo dici potest polysemum, hoc est plurium sensum” (“this work doesn’t have one simple meaning, on the contrary, I say that it can be polysemous, that is can have many meanings”).

When presenting his poem to Cangrante della Scala, Dante makes immediately clear that it has to be read as a “polysemous”  (“polysemantic”) message. One of the most celebrated examples of what Dante means of polysemy is given in his analyses of some verses of Psalm, in “Exit Israel de Aegypto”. Following the medieval theory, Dante says concerning the fierst verse of the Psalm: “ If we look at the letter it means the exodus of the sons of Israel from Egypt at the time of Moses; if we look at the allegory, it means our redemption through Christ; if we look at the moral sense it means the conversation of soul from the misery of sin to the state of grace; if we look at the mystical sense it means the departure of sanctified spirit from the servitude of his corruption to the freedom of eternal glory”.

Thinking about meaning, language and it’s relation to the real and figurative word advanced enormously during the Renaissance, but real research into the multiplicity of meaning only began in the 18th century, with the study of neologisms, synonyms and the figures of speech.

Bréal observed modern meaning of the word, yesterday’s and today’s meaning, with which we first become familiar—something recently rediscovered in England. In 1985, the department of English at the Birmingham ran of computer analysis of words as they are actually used in English and came up with the surprising results. The primary dictionary meaning of words are often far from the sense in which they were actually used. Keep, for instance, is usually defined as to retain, but in fact the word is much more often employed in the sense of continuing, as in “keep cool” and “keep smiling”. See is only rarely required in the sense of utilizing one’s eyes, but much more often used to express the idea of knowing, as in “I see what you mean”  [12; 83 ].

Language understanding and language acquisition follow the opposite route of language change. I both cases, the last, not the first or primitive meaning of a word is a basic meaning.

In Anglo-American world, polysemy was rediscovered with the advent of cognitive semantics in 1980s. Cognitive linguists began to reconnect synchronic and diachronic research into meaning.

Bréal knew that, diachronically, polysemy stems from the fact that the new meaning or values that words acquire in use do not automatically eliminate the old ones — polysemy is therefore the result of semantic innovation. The new and the old meaning exist in the parallel. And yet, synchronically, or in language use, polysemy doesn’t really exist — sense selection in the comprehension process is not a problem at all. In the context of discourse a word has one meaning — except, one should point out, in jokes and puns. The most important factor that brings about the multiplication of meaning diachronically and that helps to “reduce” the multiplicity of meaning synchronically is the context of discourse. We understand polysemous words because the words are always used in the context of a discourse and a situation, which eliminate all the adjoining meaning in favour of only one in question [ 12; 91 ].

However, in the constant dialectical relation between synchrony and diachrony, and between meaning and understanding incremental changes in the meaning of words occur having understood a word in a certain context in a slightly divergent way, become themselves speakers and might use a word in the newly understood way in yet another context, which again bring about different types of understanding, and so on. In the long run, these slightly variations in use and uptake may lead to major semantic changes.

Bréal was fascinated by the fact that when talking to each other we neither get confused by the multiplicity of meaning that a word may have, nor are we bothered with the etymological ancestry of a word, traced by historical dictionaries. The scientist was acutely aware of the fact that semantic, cognitive and developmental side of the language was not yet on a par with the advances made in the study of phonetics, of the more physiological side of language. With Bréal semantics as a linguistic discipline made a first step into the future, the future in which we are still participating and to which we are still contributing beyond the end of the 20th century.

Modern linguists also pay great attention to the investigations in the semantic sphere. The traditional distinction between polysemy and homonymy is based on whether there is one or two lexical items involved.

 

1.2.1 The Diachronic Approach to Studying Polysemy

Polysemy is inherent in the very nature of words and concepts as every object and every notion has many features and a concept reflected in a word always contains a generalisation of several traits of the object.

A word which has more than one meaning is called polysemantic. Different meanings of a polysemantic word may come together due to the proximity of notions which they express e.g. the word “blanket”  has the following meanings: a woolen covering used on beds, a covering for keeping a horse warm, a covering of any kind (a blanket of snow), covering all or most cases used attributively, e.g. we can say “a blanket insurance policy”. There are some words in the language which are monosemantic, such as most terms, synonym, some pronouns (this, my, both), numerals. There are two processes of the semantic development of a word: radiation and concatenation. In cases of radiation the primary meaning stands in the centre and the secondary meanings proceed out of it like rays. Each secondary meaning can be traced to the primary meaning. E.g. in the word “face” the primary meaning denotes “the front part of the human head” Connected with the front position the meanings: the front part of a watch, the front part of a building, the front part of a playing card were formed. Connected with the word “face” itself the meanings: expression of the face, outward appearance are formed. In cases of concatenation secondary meanings of a word develop like a chain. In such cases it is difficult to trace some meanings to the primary one. E.g. in the word “crust”  the primary meaning “hard outer part of bread” developed a secondary meaning “hard part of anything (a pie, a cake)”, then the meaning “harder layer over soft snow” was developed, then “a sullen gloomy person”, then “impudence” were developed. Here the last meanings have nothing to do with the primary ones. In such cases homonyms appear in the language. It is called the split of polysemy. In most cases in the semantic development of a word both ways of semantic development are combined [ 2; 19-21 ].

In polysemantic words we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of the same word. The problem may be approached from two different angles. If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is understood as the growth and development or, in general, a change in the semantic structure of the word.

The term “diachronic” is composed of the Greek morphemes dia meaning “through” chromos meaning “time”. Thus, the diachronic approach in terms of special lexicology deals with changes and the development of vocabulary in the course of time. The two approaches in lexicology (synchronic and diachronic) should not be contrasted or set one against the other; in fact, they are interconnected and interdependent: every linguistic structure and system exist in a state of a constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evaluation, the result of the historical development of the language [ 16; 176-177 ].

The diachronic approach in terms of special lexicology deals with the changes and the development of vocabulary in the course of time. The two approaches shouldn’t be set one against the other. In fact, they are interconnected and interrelated because every linguistic structure and system exists in a state of constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evaluation , of its historical development.

A diachronic approach is one that analyzes the evolution of something over time, allowing one to assess how that something changes throughout history. You would use this approach to analyze the effects of variable change on something.

Polysemy in a diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meaning or meanings and at the same time acquire one or several new ones. Then the problem of interrelation and interdependence of individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be roughly formulated as follows: did the word always possess all its meanings or did some of them appear earlier than the others? If so what is the nature of this dependence? Can we observe any changes in the arrangement of the meanings?

In the course of a diachronic semantic analysis of the polysemantic word table we find that of all the meanings it has in Modern English, the primary meaning is “a flat slab of stone or wood” which was proper to the word in the Old English period (OE. tabule from L. tabula); all other meanings are secondary as they are derived from the primary meaning of the word and appeared later than the primary meaning. The terms “secondary” and “derived”  meaning are to a certain extent synonymous. When we describe the meaning of the word as “secondary” we imply that it could not have appeared before the primary meaning was existence. When we refer to the meaning as “derived” we imply not only that, but also that it is dependent on the primary meaning and somehow subordinate to it. In the case of the word table, e.g., we may say that the meaning “the food put on the table” is derived through metonymic transfer we can also describe it as secondary and metonymic [ 8; 203 ].

It follows that the main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word. As can be seen from the above, in diachronic analysis of polysemy we can use many concepts and terms discussed in the paragraphs devoted to the change of meaning. We can speak, for example of metaphoric or metonymic meanings if we imply the nature of dependence of the meanings, of extended or restricted meanings, if we are connected with the interrelation of meanings as a result of semantic change.

Polysemy may also arise from homonymy. When two words become identical in sound-form, the meanings of the two words are felt as making up one semantic structure. Thus, the human ear and the ear of corn are from the diachronic point of view two homonyms. One is etymologically related to Latin auris, the other to Latin acus, aceris. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one and the same word. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphor of the usual type (cf. the eye of the needle, the foot of the mountain) and consequently as one of the derived or, synchronically, minor meanings of the polysemantic word ear. Cases of this type are comparatively rare and, as a rule, illustrative of the vagueness of the border line between polysemy and homonymy.

Semantic changes result as a rule in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing in the semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or even disappear, but the bulk of English words tend to increase in a number of meanings [ 18; 43 ].

To conclude we may say that, polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in a new meanings being added to the ones already existing and in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. As the semantic structure is never static the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings of the same word may be different in different periods of the historical developments of language.

 

 

 

1.2.2 Synchronic Approach to Studying Polysemy

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.

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 ].