Words as Meaningful Units

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.

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. 

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.

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. )

In a number of contexts, however, we find both the lexical and grammatical aspects should be taken into consideration. The grammatical structure of the context although indicative of the difference between the meaning of the word in this structure and the meaning of the same word in a different grammatical structure may be insufficient to indicate in which of its individual meaning the word in question is used.

It is of interest to note that not only the denotational but also the connotational component of meaning may be affected by the context. Any word which as a language unit is emotively neutral may in certain context acquire emotive implications. Compare, e.g., fire in to ensure one’s property against the fire and Fire! as a call for a help. So the peculiar lexical context accounts for the possibility of emotive overtones which are made explicit by the context of situation.

Instances are not few when the meaning of a word is signaled by the context much larger than a given sentence or by a whole situation of the utterance, in other words, by the actual situation in which this word occurs. Numerous examples of such utterance will be found in syntactic structures including idioms of different types.

Another important aspect to consider is sociocultural group which refers to the fact that the language used by a sociocultural group is closely connected with its values, attitudes and beliefs. Consequently, learning a language involves understanding and interpreting the culture of which it is part

The two or more less universally recognized main types of linguistic contexts serve to determine individual meanings of words are the lexical and grammatical contexts. These types are differentiated depending on whether the lexical or grammatical aspect is predominant in determining the meaning.

Meaning should always be understood as involving the relation of language to the rest of the world and such meaningfulness is an essential part of the definition of language.

Practical Usage of Polysemy in Teaching English

2.1 Polysemy in Teaching English on Intermediate Level

Practicing polysemy is distinguishing between the various meaning of a single word form with several but closely related meanings (head: of a person, of a pin, of an organization). In my opinion the most important aspect of vocabulary teaching for intermediate learners is to foster learner independence so that learners will be able to deal with new lexis and expand their vocabulary beyond the end of the course. Therefore guided discovery, contextual guesswork and using dictionaries should be the main ways to deal with discovering meaning. Teachers can help students with specific techniques and practice in contextual guesswork, for example, the understanding of discourse markers and identifying the function of the word in the sentence .

In my opinion the most important aspect of teaching polysemy for learners is to foster independence so that learners will be able to deal with new lexis and expand their vocabulary beyond the end of the course. Therefore guided discovery, contextual guesswork should be the main ways to deal with discovering meaning.

So, the exercise should be of various kinds, they have to be creative and develop pupils critical thinking and memory. Teacher should encourage his/her pupils, get them interested in learning the language on deeper level. Below, there are exercise, which are suitable for this level of language learning. They will help pupils to adopt more material, to be able to differentiate polysemantic meanings of the words through the context of the sentences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Conclusions

Language tends to change in time and space. These universal characteristics of language are permanent interest of scholarship. The most important function of any language is to carry the meaning. But as we know not only the sound-form but also the meaning of the word is changed in the course of historical development of a language. It happened under the influence of many factors. Change of meaning is affected through association between the existing meaning and the new one. This association is generally based on the similarity or the contiguity of meanings. Due to numeral changes of meaning such a phenomenon as multiplicity of word meanings or polysemy appeared.

In my investigation I touched upon the problem of polysemy in diachronic and synchronic dimensions. Diachronic approach considers polysemy as historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. While synchronic one understands it as a co-existence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word. 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 development of language. Diachronic and synchronic ties are closely interconnected as the new meanings are understood thanks to their motivation by the older meanings.

This research also highlights the significance of polysemy in grammar. Most grammatical forms are polysemantic. It is sometimes maintained that the case of grammatical polysemy can be observed in various structural meanings inherent in the given form, one of them being always invariable, found in any context of the use of the form. The semantic structure of polysemantic words is not homogeneous as far as the status of individual meaning is concerned. Some meanings are representatives of the word in isolation, others are perceived only in certain contexts. Context is a minimal stretch of speech necessary to determine individual meanings.

In the conclusion, I can say that the problem of polysemy may cause difficulties during the translation or communication. To overcome them pupils need to see and practice words in context, since it is the context that allows them to understand the meaning of the word.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

List of References

 

3.  Arnold I.V. The English word. — M.: High School, 1979. — 302p.

4.  Barskaya D.J. Words and how to use them. A text reference book of word meaning and combinations. — L.: Lviv University Press, 1972. — 256p.

5.  Bunskuy D. I. Common difficulties for students of English. — M.: High School, 1976. — 224p.

6.  Deyeva I.M. Lexico-grammatical difficulties of English. — L.: Lviv University Press, 1976. — 278p.

7.  Fedorenko O.I., Sukhorolsko S.M. English grammar theory. — L.: Lviv University Press, 2008. — 360p.

8.  Grinberg L.E., Kusnets M.D. Exercise in modern English lexicology. — M.: Foreign language publishing house, 1960. — 258p.

9.  Ginzburg E.S., Khidekel S.S. A course in modern English lexicology. — M.: High school, 1979. — 269p.

10.   Kashcheyeva M.A., Potapova I.A. Practical lexicology. — L.: Lviv University Press, 1974. — 235p.

11.   Kveselevich D.I., Sasina V.P. Modern English lexicology in practice. — V.: Nova Knyha, 2003. — 136p.

12.  Kuznietsova V.D. notes of English lexicology. — K.: Radyanska Schkola, 1966. — 135p.

13.   Lyons J. Linguistic Semantics. — Cambridge University Press, 1995. — 376p.

14.   Nerlich B., Todd Z. Trends in modern linguistics. Polysemy. — Berlin, 2003 — 272p.

15.   Mednicova E.M. Seminars in modern English lexicology. — M.: High school, 1978. — 140p.

16.   Minayeva L.V. English lexicology and lexicography. — M.: High school, 2003. — 224p.

17.   Palmer F.R. Semantics: A new outline. — M.: High school, 1982. — 110p.

18.   Ravin Y. Leacock C. Polysemy: Theoretical and computational approaches. — Oxford University Press, 2000. — 105p.

19.   Rayevska N.O. English lexicology. — K.: Radyanska Shkola, 1961. — 201p.