PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION 3 страница

In some cases the functional meaning predominates. The morpheme -icein the word justice,e.g., seems to serve principally to transfer the part-of-speech meaning of the morpheme just — into another class and namely that of noun. It follows that some morphemes possess only the functional meaning, i.e. they are the carriers of part-of-speech meaning.

Besides the types of meaning proper both to words and morphemes the latter may possess specific meanings of their own, namely the differential and the distributional meanings. Differential meaning is the semantic component that serves to distinguish one word from all others containing identical morphemes. In words consisting of two or more morphemes, one of the constituent morphemes always has differential meaning. In such words as, e. g., bookshelf,the morpheme -shelfserves to distinguish the word from other words containing the morpheme book-,e.g. from bookcase, book-counterand so on. In other compound words, e.g. notebook,the morpheme note-will be seen to possess the differential meaning which distinguishes notebookfrom exercisebook, copybook,etc. It should be clearly understood that denotational and differential meanings are not mutually exclusive. Naturally the morpheme -shelfin bookshelfpossesses denotational meaning which is the dominant component of meaning. There are cases, however, when it is difficult or even impossible to assign any denotational meaning to the morpheme, e.g. cran-in cranberry,yet it clearly bears a relationship to the meaning of the word as a whole through the differential component (cf. cranberryand blackberry, gooseberry)which in this particular case comes to the fore. One of the disputable points of morphological analysis is whether such words as deceive, receive, perceiveconsist of two component morphemes.¹ If we assume, however, that the morpheme -ceivemay be singled out it follows that the meaning of the morphemes re-, per, de-is exclusively differential, as, at least synchronically, there is no denotational meaning proper to them.

¹ See ‘Word-Structure’, § 2, p. 90. 24

Distributional meaning is the meaning ofthe order and arrangement of morphemes making up the word. It is found in all words containing more than one morpheme. The word singer,e.g., is composed of two morphemes sing-and -erboth of which possess the denotational meaning and namely ‘to make musical sounds’ (sing-)and ‘the doer of the action’ (-er). There is one more element of meaning, however, that enables us to understand the word and that is the pattern of arrangement of the component morphemes. A different arrangement of the same morphemes, e.g. *ersing,would make the word meaningless. Compare also boyishnessand *nessishboyin which a different pattern of arrangement of the three morphemes boy-ish-nessturns it into a meaningless string of sounds.¹

WORD-MEANING AND MOTIVATION

From what was said about the distributional meaning in morphemes it follows that there are cases when we can observe a direct connection between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning. This relationship between morphemic structure and meaning is termed morphological motivation.

The main criterion in morphological motivation is the relationship between morphemes. Hence all one-morpheme words, e.g. sing, tell, eat,are by definition non-motivated. In words composed of more than one morpheme the carrier of the word-meaning is the combined meaning of the component morphemes and the meaning of the structural pattern of the word. This can be illustrated by the semantic analysis of different words composed of phonemically identical morphemes with identical lexical meaning. The words finger-ringand ring-finger,e.g., contain two morphemes, the combined lexical meaning of which is the same; the difference in the meaning of these words can be accounted forby the difference in the arrangement of the component morphemes.

If we can observe a direct connection between the structural pattern of the word and its meaning, we say that this word is motivated. Consequently words such as singer, rewrite, eatable,etc., are described as motivated. If the connection between the structure of the lexical unit and itsmeaning is completely arbitrary and conventional, we speak ofnon-motivated or idiomatic words, e.g. matter, repeat.

It should be noted in passing that morphological motivation is “relative”, i.e. the degree of motivation may be different. Between the extremes of complete motivation and lack of motivation, there exist various grades of partial motivation. The word endless,e.g., is completely motivated as both the lexical meaning of the component morphemes and the meaning of the pattern is perfectly transparent. The word cranberry is

¹ А. И. Смирницкий. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956, с, 18 — 20.

only partially motivated because of the absence of the lexical meaning in the morpheme cran-.

One more point should be noted in connection with the problem in question. A synchronic approach to morphological motivation presupposes historical changeability of structural patterns and the ensuing degree of motivation. Some English place-names may serve as an illustration. Such place-names as Newtownsand Wildwoodsare lexically and structurally motivated and may be easily analysed into component morphemes. Other place-names, e.g. Essex, Norfolk, Sutton,are non-motivated. To the average English speaker these names are non-analysable lexical units like singor tell.However, upon examination the student of language history will perceive their components to be East+Saxon, North+Folk and South+Townwhich shows that in earlier days they .were just as completely motivated as Newtownsor Wildwoodsare in Modern English.

Motivation is usually thought of as proceeding from form or structure to meaning. Morphological motivation as discussed above implies a direct connection between the morphological structure of the word and its meaning. Some linguists, however, argue that words can be motivated in more than one way and suggest another type of motivation which may be described as a direct connection between the phonetical structure of the word and its meaning. It is argued that speech sounds may suggest spatial and visual dimensions, shape, size, etc. Experiments carried out by a group of linguists showed that back open vowels are suggestive of big size, heavy weight, dark colour, etc. The experiments were repeated many times and the results were always the same. Native speakers of English were asked to listen to pairs of antonyms from an unfamiliar (or non-existent) language unrelated to English, e.g. ching — chungand then to try to find the English equivalents, e.g. light — heavy, (big — small,etc.), which foreign word translates which English word. About 90 per cent of English speakers felt that chingis the equivalent of the English light(small) and chungof its antonym heavy(large).

It is also pointed out that this type of phonetical motivation may be observed in the phonemic structure of some newly coined words. For example, the small transmitter that specialises in high frequencies is called ‘a tweeter’, the transmitter for low frequences ‘a woofer’.

Another type of phonetical motivation is represented by such words as swish, sizzle, boom, splash,etc. These words may be defined as phonetically motivated because the soundclusters [swi∫, sizl, bum, splæ∫] are a direct imitation of the sounds these words denote. It is also suggested that sounds themselves may be emotionally expressive which accounts for the phonetical motivation in certain words. Initial [f] and [p], e.g., are felt as expressing scorn, contempt, disapproval or disgust which can be illustrated by the words pooh! fie! fiddle-sticks, flim-flamand the like. The sound-cluster [iŋ] is imitative of sound or swift movement as can be seen in words ring,sing, swing, fling,etc. Thus, phonetically such words may be considered motivated.

This hypothesis seems to require verification. This of course is not to

deny that there are some words which involve phonetical symbolism: these are the onomatopoeic, imitative or echoic words such as the English cuckoo, splashand whisper:And even these are not completely motivated but seem to be conventional to quite a large extent (cf. кукареку and cock-a-doodle-doo). Inany case words like these constitute only a small and untypical minority in the language. As to symbolic value of certain sounds, this too is disproved by the fact that identical sounds and sound-clusters may be found in words of widely different meaning, e.g. initial [p] and [f], are found in words expressing contempt and disapproval (fie, pooh)and also in such words as ploughs fine,and others. The sound-cluster [in] which is supposed to be imitative of sound or swift movement (ring, swing)is also observed in semantically different words, e.g. thing, king,and others.

The term motivation is also used by a number of linguists to denote the relationship between the central and the coexisting meaning or meanings of a word which are understood as a metaphorical extension of the central meaning. Metaphorical extension may be viewed as generalisation of the denotational meaning of a word permitting it to include new referents which are in some way like the original class of referents. Similarity of various aspects and/or functions of different classes of referents may account for the semantic motivation of a number of minor meanings. For example, a woman who has given birth is called a mother;by extension, any act that gives birth is associated with being a mother, e.g.in Necessity is the mother of invention.The same principle can be observed in other meanings: a mother looks after a child, so that we can say She became a mother to her orphan nephew,or Romulus and Remus were supposedly mothered by a wolf.Cf. also mother country, a mother’s mark (=a birthmark), mother tongue,etc. Such metaphoric extension may be observed in the so-called trite metaphors, such as burn with anger, break smb’s heart, jump at a chance,etc.

Ifmetaphorical extension is observed in the relationship of the central and a minor word meaning it is often observed in the relationship between its synonymic or antonymic meanings. Thus, a few years ago the phrases a meeting at the summit, a summit meetingappeared in the newspapers.

Cartoonists portrayed the participants of such summit meetings sitting on mountain tops. Now when lesser diplomats confer the talks are called foothill meetings. Inthis way both summitand its antonym foothillundergo the process of metaphorical extension.

1. Lexical meaning with its denotational and connotational components may be found in morphemes of different types. The denotational meaning in affixal morphemes may be rather vague and abstract, the lexical meaning and the part-of-speech meaning tending to blend.

2. It is suggested that in addition to lexical meaning morphemes may contain specific types of meaning: differential, functional and distributional.

3. Differential meaning in morphemes is the semantic component

which serves to distinguish one word from other words of similar morphemic structure. Differential and denotational meanings are not mutually exclusive.

4. Functional meaning is the semantic component that serves primarily to refer the word to a certain part of speech.

5. Distributional meaning is the meaning of the pattern of the arrangement of the morphemes making up the word. Distributional meaning is to be found in all words composed of more than one morpheme. It may be the dominant semantic component in words containing morphemes deprived of denotational meaning.

6. Morphological motivation implies a direct connection between the lexical meaning of the component morphemes, the pattern of their arrangement and the meaning of the word. The degree of morphological motivation may be different varying from the extreme of complete motivation to lack of motivation.

7. Phonetical motivation implies a direct connection between the phonetic structure of the word and its meaning. Phonetical motivation is not universally recognised in modern linguistic science.

8. Semantic motivation implies a direct connection between the central and marginal meanings of the word. This connection may be regarded as a metaphoric extension of the central meaning based on the similarity of different classes of referents denoted by the word.

CHANGE Of MEANING

Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical development of language. Changes of lexical meaning may be illustrated by a diachronic semantic analysis of many commonly used English words. The word fond (OE. fond)used to mean ‘foolish’, ‘foolishly credulous’; glad(OE, glaed)had the meaning of ‘bright’, ’shining’ and so on.

Change of meaning has been thoroughly studied and as a matter of fact monopolised the attention of all semanticists whose work up to the early 1930’s was centered almost exclusively on the description and classification of various changes of meaning. Abundant language data can be found in almost all the books dealing with semantics. Here we shall confine the discussion to a brief outline of the problem as it is viewed in modern linguistic science.

To avoid the ensuing confusion of terms and concepts it is necessary to discriminate between the causes of semantic change, the results and the nature of the process of change of meaning.¹ These are three closely bound up, but essentially different aspects of one and the same problem.

Discussing the causes of semantic change we concentrate on the factors bringing about -this change and attempt to find out why the word changed its meaning. Analysing the nature of semantic change we seek

i See St. Ullmann. The Principles of Semantics. Chapter 8, Oxford, 1963. 28

to clarify the process of this change and describe howvarious changes of meaning were brought about. Our aim in investigating the results of semantic change is to find out what was changed, i.e. we compare the resultant and the original meanings and describe the difference between them mainly in terms of the changes of the denotational components.

The factors accounting for semantic changes may be roughly subdivided into two groups: a) extra-linguistic and b) linguistic causes.

By extra-linguistic causes we mean various changes in the life of the speech community, changes in economic and social structure, changes in ideas, scientific concepts, way of life and other spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Although objects, institutions, concepts, etc. change in the course of time in many cases the soundform of the words which denote them is retained but the meaning of the words is changed. The word car,e.g., ultimately goes back to Latin carruswhich meant ‘a four-wheeled wagon’ (ME. carre)but now that other means of transport are used it denotes ‘a motor-car’, ‘a railway carriage’ (in the USA), ‘that portion of an airship, or balloon which is intended to carry personnel, cargo or equipment’.

Some changes of meaning are due to what may be described as purely linguistic causes, i.e. factors acting within the language system. The commonest form which this influence takes is the so-called ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to its partner. The verb to starve,e.g., in Old English (OE. steorfan) had the meaning ‘to die’ and was habitually used in collocation with the word hunger (ME. sterven of hunger).Already in the 16th century the verb itself acquired the meaning ‘to die of hunger’. Similar semantic changes may be observed in Modern English when the meaning of one word is transferred to another because they habitually occur together in speech.

Another linguistic cause is discrimination of synonyms which can be illustrated by the semantic development of a number of words. The word land,e.g., in Old English (OE. land)meant both ’solid part of earth’s surface’ and ‘the territory of a nation’. When in the Middle English period the word country(OFr. contree)was borrowed as its synonym, the meaning of the word landwas somewhat altered and ‘the territory of anation’ came to be denoted mainly by the borrowed word country.

Some semantic changes may be accounted for by the influence of a peculiar factor usually referred to as linguistic analogy. It was found out, e.g., that if one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning other members of this set change their meanings too. It was observed, e.g., that all English adverbs which acquired the meaning ‘rapidly’ (in a certain period of time — before 1300) always develop the meaning ‘immediately’, similarly verbs synonymous with catch, e.g. grasp, get,etc., by semantic extension acquired another meaning — ‘to understand’.¹

¹ See ‘Semasiology’, § 19, p. 27,

Generally speaking, a necessary condition of any semantic change, no matter what its cause, is some connection, some association between the old meaning and the new. There are two kinds of association involved as a rule in various semantic changes namely: a) similarity of meanings, and b) contiguity of meanings.

Similarity of meanings or metaphor may be described as a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. The word hand,e.g., acquired in the 16th century the meaning of ‘a pointer of a clock of a watch’ because of the similarity of one of the functions performed by the hand (to point at something) and the function of the clockpointer. Since metaphor is based on the perception of similarities it is only natural that when an analogy is obvious, it should give rise to a metaphoric meaning. This can be observed in the wide currency of metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of the human body in various languages (cf. ‘the leg of the table’, ‘the foot of the hill’, etc.). Sometimes it is similarity of form, outline, etc. that underlies the metaphor. The words warmand coldbegan to denote certain qualities of human voices because of some kind of similarity between these qualities and warm and cold temperature. It is also usual to perceive similarity between colours and emotions.

It has also been observed that in many speech communities colour terms, e.g. the words blackand white,have metaphoric meanings in addition to the literal denotation of colours.

Contiguity of meanings or metonymy may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it.

, This can be perhaps best illustrated by the use of the word tongue — ‘the organ of speech’ in the meaning of ‘language’ (as in mother tongue;cf. also L. lingua,Russ. язык). The word benchacquired the meaning ‘judges, magistrates’ because it was on the benchthat the judges used to sit in law courts, similarly the Houseacquired the meaning of ‘members of the House’ (Parliament).

It is generally held that metaphor plays a more important role in the change of meaning than metonymy. A more detailed analysis would show that there are some semantic changes that fit into more than the two groups discussed above. A change of meaning, e.g., may be brought about by the association between the sound-forms of two words. The word boon,e.g.”, originally meant ‘prayer, petition’, ‘request’, but then came to denote ‘a thing prayed or asked for’. Its current meaning is ‘a blessing, an advantage, a thing to be thanked for.’ The change of meaning was probably due to the similarity to the sound-form of the adjective boon(an Anglicised form of French bondenoting ‘good, nice’).

Within metaphoric and metonymic changes we can single out various subgroups. Here, however, we shall confine ourselves to a very general outline of the main types of semantic association as discussed above. A more detailed analysis of the changes of meaning and the nature of such changes belongs in the diachronic or historical lexicology and lies outside the scope of the present textbook.

Results of semantic change can be generally observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word (restriction and extension of meaning) or in the alteration of its connotational component (amelioration and deterioration of meaning).

Changes in the denotational meaning may result in the restriction of the types orrange of referents denoted by the word. This may be illustrated by the semantic development of the word hound (OE. hund)which used to denote ‘a dog of any breed’ but now denotes only ‘a dog used in the chase’. This is also the case with the word fowl (OE. fuzol, fuzel)which in old English denoted ‘any bird’, but in Modern English denotes ‘a domestic hen or cock’. This is generally described as “restriction of meaning” and if the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialised vocabulary of some limited group within the speech community it is usual to speak of specialisation of meaning. For example, we can observe restriction and specialisation of meaning in the case of the verb to glide (OE. glidan)which had the meaning ‘to move gently and smoothly’ and has now acquired a restricted and specialised meaning ‘to fly with no engine’ (cf. a glider).

Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is commonly described as extension of meaning and may be illustrated by the word targetwhich originally meant ‘a small round shield’ (a diminutive of targe, сf. ON. targa)but now means ‘anything that is fired at’ and also figuratively ‘any result aimed at’.

If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialised vocabulary into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the generalisation of meaning. The word camp,e.g., which originally was used only as a military term and meant ‘the place where troops are lodged in tents’ (cf. L. campus — ‘exercising ground for the army) extended and generalised its meaning and now denotes ‘temporary quarters’ (of travellers, nomads, etc.).

As can be seen from the examples discussed above it is mainly the denotational component of the lexical meaning that is affected while the connotational component remains unaltered. There are other cases, however, when the changes in the connotational meaning come to the fore. These changes, as a rule accompanied by a change in the denotational’ component, may be subdivided into two main groups: a) pejorative development or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge, and b) ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning. The semantic change in the word boormay serve to illustrate the first group. This word was originally used to denote ‘a villager, a peasant’ (cf. OE. zebur ‘dweller’) and then acquired a derogatory, contemptuous connotational meaning and came to denote ‘a clumsy or ill-bred fellow’. The ameliorative development of the connotational meaning may be observed in the change of the semantic structure of the word ministerwhich in one of its meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’,

but now — ‘a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a department of state or accredited by one state to another’.

It is of interest to note that in derivational clusters a change in the connotational meaning of one member doe’s not necessarily affect a the others. This peculiarity can be observed in the words accident аn accidental. The lexical meaning of the noun accident has undergone pejorative development and denotes not only ’something that happens by chance’, but usually’something unfortunate’. The derived adjective accidental does not possess in its semantic structure this negative connotational meaning (cf. also fortune: bad fortune, good fortune and fortunate).

As can be inferred from the analysis of various changes of word-meanings they can be classified according to the social causes that bring about change of meaning (socio-linguistic classification), the nature of these changes (psychological classification) and the results of semantic changes (logical classification). Here it is suggested that causes, nature and results of semantic changes should be viewed as three essentially different but inseparable aspects of one and the same linguistic phenomenon as a change of meaning may be investigated from the point of view of its cause, nature and its consequences.

Essentially the same causes may bring about different results, e.g the semantic development in the word knight (OE. cniht) from ‘a boy servant’ to ‘a young warrior’ and eventually to the meaning it possesses in Modern English is due to extra-linguistic causes just as the semantic change in the word boor, but the results are different. In the case of bookwe observe pejorative development whereas in the case of knight we observe amelioration of the connotational component. And conversely, different causes may lead to the same result. Restriction of meaning, for example, may be the result of the influence of extra-linguistic factors as in the case of glide (progress of science and technique) and also of purely linguistic causes (discrimination of synonyms) as is the case with the word fowl. Changes of essentially identical nature, e. g. similarity of referent as the basis of association, may bring about different results, e.g. extension of meaning as in target and also restriction of meaning as in the word fowl.

To avoid terminological confusion it is suggested that the terms restriction and extension or amelioration and deterioration of meaning should be used to describe only the results of semantic change irrespective of its nature or causes. When we discuss metaphoric or metonymic transfer of meaning we imply the nature of the semantic change whatever its results may be. It also follows that a change of meaning should be described so as to satisfy all the three criteria.

In the discussion of semantic changes we confined ourselves only to the type of change which results in the disappearance of the old meaning which is replaced by the new one. The term change of meaning however is also used to describe a change in the number (as a rule

Поиск по сайту: