Section IV lexical meaning as a linguistic category. Semantic analysis of words. Polysemy and homonymy

Semantics as a branch of linguistics which is concerned with the study of meaning. Linguistic meaning as the reverberation in the human consciousness of objects of the reality which becomes a fact of language because a constant connection is established between the reverberation and a certain sound complex. The importance of the sound form as the physical expression of the content and the means of communicating it to other people.

Differences in the degree of complexity of reverberation and the relationship between form and meaning.

The concept of polysemy. Semantic structure of the word. The importance of polysemy for covering new phenomena of reality. The problem of semantic analysis of a polysemantic word. The unity of syntagmatics and paradigmatics. Investigation of the semantic structure of a word by studying the word’s relationships with other words. The method of semantic components as based on the logical approach and on dictionary definitions. Denotation and connotation.

The approach elaborated by V.V.Vinogradov. Nominative, nominative-derivative, linguistically conditioned, phraseologically bound meanings.

The process of development and change of meaning. Transference based on similiarity (lexical metaphor) and contiguity (lexical metonymy). Narrowing and widening of meaning. “Degeneration” and “elevation” of meaning.

The concept of homonyms. Homonyms as the next step in polysemy (split polysemy). Homonyms as the result of sound development. Other sources of homonyms: borrowing, word-building.

Classification of homonyms. Full lexical homonyms. Partial homonyms: simple lexico-grammatical partial homonyms, complex lexico-grammatical partial homonyms, partial lexical homonyms. Homonyms proper vs homophones and homographs. Enantiosemy as distinct from homonymy.

Working Definitions of Principal Concepts

Meaning	the reverberation in the human consciousness of an object of extralinguistic reality which becomes a fact of language because of its constant association with a definite linguistic expression
Semasiology	the branch of linguistics that studies the semantics of linguistic units
Semantics	the meaning of words, word-combinations or grammatical forms
Polysemy	the existence within one word of several connected meanings as the result of the development and changes of its original meaning
Referent	the element of objective reality as reflected in our minds
Concept	a generalized reverberation in the human consciousness of properties of the objective reality
Paradigmatics	associative relationship of words in language (as distinct from linear relationship of words in speech)
Syntagmatics	linear relationship of words in speech (as distinct from associative relationship of words in language)
Denotation	the expression of the main meaning of a linguistic unit
Connotation	supplementary meaning which is added to the word’s main meaning and serves to express emotional, expressive, evaluative overtones
Combinability	realization of potential ability of linguistic elements to combine in speech
Context	a) the linguistic environment of a unit of language which reveals the conditions and the characteristic features of its usage in speech; b) the semantically complete passage of written speech sufficient to establish the meaning of a given word (phrase)
Nominative meaning	the main, direct meaning of a word
Nominative-derivative meanings	other meanings of a polysemantic word which are connected with the main nominative meaning and are characterized by free combinability
Linguistically conditioned meanings	meanings of a polysemantic word which depend on lexical-phraseological and morphosyntactical combinability
Lexical metaphor	A meaning which appeared as a result of associating two objects (phenomena, qualities, etc.) due to their outward similiarity

Lexical metonymy	A meaning which appeared as a result of association based on contiguity (objects may be associated on the principle of cause and effect, of common function, of the material and an object which is made of it, etc)
Homonymy	the coincidence in the same sound form or orthographic complex of two (or more) different linguistic units
Homonyms	words which are identical in sound and spelling, or, at least, in one of these aspects, but different in their meaning
Homophones	words which have different morphological structure but coincide in their sound form
Homographs	different words coinciding in their spelling
Narrowing of meaning	restriction of the semantic capacity of a word in the course of its historic development
Widening of meaning	extension of the semantic capacity of a word in the course of its historic development

1. Read the text and explain the difference between 1)‘meaning’ and ‘purport’, 2)‘meaning’ and ‘concept’. How do words differ in the degree of complexity of reverberation and relationship between form and meaning?

Meaning is a fact of language because of a complex and firmly established association between a given segment of conceptual material and a given piece of linguistic expression. It is always an abstraction from the concrete facts of extralinguistic experience. Meaning must be carefully distinguished from the purport (soderzhanije-namerenije) of utterances, which can be conceived and passed on only in interpretable contexts – larger chunks of discourse and (or) in special contexts of situation. Concrete utterances with their situation-bound purports are facts of speech.

Meaning as the content of words (and word-like nominative phrases or ‘monemes’) cannot be equated with concepts. Although, like the latter, it is a reveberation in the human consciousness of phenomena, relationships, qualities and processes of reality, it becomes a fact of language only when a constant and indissoluble connection is established between the reverberation and a certain sound-complex or (phonetic-orthographic) ‘caul’ or ‘envelope’. The latter is indispensable not only because it is the physical expression of the content and the vehicle of communicating it to other people, but also because without it a particular meaning could not come into being, exist and develop. This is the only way for monemes (primarily, of course, the ‘monolexemic’ ones) to be ‘definitely moulded’ and to take as much or as little of the conceptual material of the whole thought as the genius of the language cares to allow.

As far as ontology is concerned we could go further in our discussion of the relationship between expression and content in the ‘moulding’ of linguistic meaning. Heuristically, however, it is necessary to dwell on the different kinds, or types, of the connection. Briefly the main varieties can be represented as follows:

1. It is very easy to understand and explain the meaning because side by side with the specific ‘national’ expression there exists a secondary semiotic system. Thus, for example, the fact that quatre-vingts and eighty, or soixante-quinze and seventy-five mean exactly the same thing is borne out by the generally accepted figures – 80 and 75.

2. It is very easy to understand the meaning of, for example, Russian ruka or noga, in spite of the fact that in English, French and German there are two different terms to cover (or ‘mould’) each of these bits of reality – main/bras, hand/arm, foot/leg, etc., because the referents are directly observable, immediately tangible. Unlike (1) the different structure of the expression plane does affect thinking. Russians when learning English or French do have to accustom themselves to the unfamiliar taxonomies; but no serious ‘semantic’ problems are likely to arise.

3. ‘Meaning’ becomes a problem with abstract notions which cannot be seen and touched, or conveniently represented by generally accepted symbols: know, znat’, savoir/connaitre, wissen/kennen; want/wish/desire, vouloir/desirer, wunschen/erlangen, etc. The ‘reverberation’ is a “complicated combination of elements”. It follows that the way must be found to isolate the semantic elements, consider them one by one and thus arrive at an overall system of ‘componential analysis’.

The number and variety of publications devoted to the splitting up of the recalcitrant ‘semantic structures’ is legion – from the very interesting and convincing analyses to the unconvincing mechanical ‘checklists’. The trouble with it – the reason why nothing can ever come of it as far as natural human languages are concerned, is that it violates the basic principle of indissoluable unity of expression and content. As far as linguistics, jazykoznanije, the science of natural human languages is concerned semantic components (or semes) simply do not exist, for nobody has ever succeeded in explaining how they could be related to the overall phonetic/orthographic composition of the parent moneme. The human child gradually develops into a full-fledged member of a given speech community because he is systematically subjected to a ‘two-in-one reverberation’ – the extralinguistic object and the word or phrase that naturally goes with it [9].

2. Study the following excerpt and explain V.V.Vinogradov’s approach towards the study of meaning.

The overall meaning of the word is approached, according to V.V.Vinogradov, in terms of nominative, nominative-derivative, colligationally and collocationally conditioned and phraseologically bound meanings. The nominative meaning is the basis of all the other meanings of the word, it denotes the extralinguistic reality in a direct and straightforward way. The nominative-derivative meaning depends on the main nominative one, it is secondary with respect to the latter. Thus, for example, the word ‘sweet’ in combinations like ‘sweet face’, ‘sweet voice’, ‘sweet singer’, ‘sweet temper’, etc. is not just a metaphoric use on occasion, but a realization of the nominative-derivative meaning of the word which is included as a lexical-semantic variant in the word’s semantic structure. This means that alongside the main nominative meaning of ‘sweet’ – ‘tasting like sugar or honey’ that is realised in combinations like ‘sweet candy’, ‘sweet milk’, etc. the word possesses the nominative-derivative meaning of ‘pleasant, attractive’ which has become part and parcel of its semantic structure. …

There is a constant interaction between language and speech. This process is directed from the sphere of speech realizations towards that of language – in this way language is enriched, endowed with new and original means which are indispensable for its development.

The interaction of language and speech is manifested most clearly when we set out analysing colligationally and collocationally conditioned meanings of words. The former is determined by morpho-syntactic combinability of words largely as parts of speech, whereas the latter is based on lexical-phraseological ties of the word, on its realization in speech in combination with other lexical units. Thus, for example, the following collocations with the adjective ‘burning’ function in the language as well-established units, entering the domain of non-idiomatic phraseology: a burning thirst, a burning desire, a burning question, etc. These collocations are quite acceptable: they are registered in most dictionaries which testifies to the fact that they are included in the lexical-semantic system of the language. But if we consider the combination ‘the burning sickness of his jealousy’ (John Galsworthy) we shall not be able to regard it as a conventional collocation, for it is obviously a very specific use of ‘burning’ within a highly metasemiotic utterance [10].