Polysemy as an expressive means. Polysemy of words

The content of the article

POLYSEMY (from the Greek polysémos “multi-valued”), the presence of more than one meaning in a linguistic sign ( cm. MEANING) . Polysemy is also called polysemy. In those linguistic traditions for which the concept of the word is central, polysemy is usually spoken of in relation to words, and since the European linguistic tradition is word-centric, the basic problems of studying polysemy will be considered below mainly on the basis of the polysemy of words (lexical polysemy). However, it is important to keep in mind that any linguistic signs can have polysemy: lexical units smaller and larger than a word (i.e. morphemes - both root and auxiliary - and phraseological units various types; cm. PHRASEOLOGY), as well as grammes, models of syntactic structures, intonation contours, etc. Thus, the meaning of the instrumental case form in a sentence Raskolnikov killed an old pawnbroker with an ax differs from the meaning of the same case in a sentence Porfiry Petrovich was a skilled investigator. In the first case, the form of the instrumental case has the meaning of an instrument (this is the prototypical meaning of the instrumental case), and in the second case, it is a predicative. Here we are dealing with the so-called grammatical polysemy, as opposed to lexical polysemy.

In inflectional languages, polysemy is also characteristic of most affixes. For example, the Russian console pro- inherent, in addition to some others, are such clearly opposed meanings as “by” ( aboutwalk past a store without entering it) and "" completely, from top to bottom" ( aboutdrill through the board). Using this example, looking ahead a little, we can show the relativity of the criteria for selecting values. If, in the metalinguistic description of individual meanings, we focus on the highest level of generalization, then within the framework of one meaning we can combine a large number of semantic options. So, if one of the values ​​of the prefix pro- formulated as “completely”, this will include such cases of implementation of this prefix as drill, burn through, fry, squander, squander, eat through. If we choose more specific formulations, then within this group we can distinguish different subgroups: “through and through” ( drill, burn), "thoroughly" ( fry) and "completely use up" ( squander, squander, eat). The “correctness” of a particular method of description depends primarily on its adequacy to the tasks set. This, however, should not be understood in the sense that the presence of more than one meaning for a linguistic sign (i.e., different understandings, semantic interpretations) is not an ontological property of the sign. The plane of expression and the plane of content of a linguistic sign are not in a one-to-one relationship, but in an asymmetrical relationship, from which it objectively follows that one signifier tends to express more than one signified, and vice versa (cf. the work of S.O. Kartsevsky On the asymmetric dualism of the linguistic sign, 1929).

Problems of studying polysemy.

Describing the polysemy of lexical units (and primarily words) is one of the most difficult tasks of lexical semantics. The main issues in the scientific description of the polysemy of lexical units are related to determining the boundaries of this category. Basic theoretical problems in this area can be formulated as

(a) distinguishing between homonymy and polysemy (i.e., establishing the boundaries within which it is reasonable to talk about different meanings of the same word, as opposed to cases in which we are dealing with different words that have the same form) and

(b) distinguishing between polysemy and monosemy (i.e., establishing the extent to which differences in specific uses of a word can be considered as contextually determined variations within one meaning, as opposed to cases where the next use of a word should be described as the implementation of a different meaning) .

Determining the boundaries of the category of polysemy - both in parameter (a) and in parameter (b) - does not lend itself to clear operationalization. A significant amount of research has been devoted to the search for criteria that allow us to distinguish between polysemy and homonymy, on the one hand, and polysemy and monosemy, on the other. However, any of the proposed criteria, taken separately, is only relative.

Traditionally, the distinction between homonyms and individual meanings of a polysemantic word (also called sememes or lexical-semantic variants) is carried out on the basis of the criterion of presence - absence of common semantic features ( cm. SEMA) for comparable units. Yes, the words bow 1"garden plant, vegetable" and bow 2“hand weapon for throwing arrows” no general non-trivial semantic features can be found. Wed. Also braid 1"braided hair" and braid 2"agricultural implement for cutting grass." It is even easier to identify homonyms where only one of the forms of the corresponding words matches, cf. three as a numeral and three as an imperative form of a verb rub. Homophones are also easily distinguished ( pond And rod, meadow And onion) and homographs ( castle And castle, flour And flour). But in most cases, it is much more difficult to find an unambiguous answer to the question whether the two lexical units being compared have common semantic features or not. Yes, lexeme braid 3"long narrow sandbank", interpreted by dictionaries as a third homonym in relation to the words braid 1 And braid 2, clearly reveals a common semantic feature with the lexeme braid 2: something like a similarity in shape. Should this feature be considered significant enough to consider lexemes braid 2 And braid 3 as lexical-semantic variants of one word, or is it more correct to describe them as homonyms?

Obviously, the answer to such questions depends not only on the purposes of the description, but also on the metalanguage used, since general features can be operationally identified only if they are compared with coinciding elements of interpretation. Since the semantic description of lexical units is a theoretical construct obtained as a result of analysis carried out for one purpose or another, it is clear that the same unit can be described in different ways. Depending on how one or another sememe is interpreted, the semantic features that it shares with other sememes can be highlighted and recorded in the interpretation or not, especially if these features are weak and neutralizable. In other words, the absence of common features in the interpretation does not mean that they cannot be distinguished in the corresponding semantic structures in principle. On the contrary, the identification of common features as a basis for postulating polysemy can be challenged in a number of cases, since not only their potential presence is significant, but also their status in terms of the content of the interpreted unit. In particular, these may be etymologically distinguished features that are not included in the actual meaning of the word at the synchronic level.

For example, the German verb scheinen There are two main meanings - “to shine” and “to seem”. Traditionally these sememes are described as different meanings one word. An indication of visual perception is highlighted as a general feature. The significance of this semantic feature as a criterion for polysemy can be questioned. For the sememe "to seem" in contexts like es scheint mir, dass er recht hat“It seems to me that he is right” the idea of ​​visual perception is hardly relevant. Here we can only talk about some potentially significant connection at the metaphorical level with an indication of vision, in the sense in which many mental predicates are etymologically and/or metaphorically connected with the idea of ​​visual perception; Wed I see that he is right; It’s clear/obvious to me that he’s right. It is characteristic that the attribute “visual perception”, which is assigned the role of a connecting link between the meanings of “shine” and “appear” of the verb scheinen, stands out more in theoretical works in semantics than in dictionary interpretations. In lexicography, when assigning a particular pair of lexical units to the area of ​​homonymy or polysemy, what is significant is, first of all, the established tradition of dictionary description (cf. the above example with oblique).

The relativity of the criteria for distinguishing between polysemy and homonymy, as well as a certain subjectivity in choosing a method of dictionary description, is confirmed by the fact that the same words are interpreted differently by different dictionaries. For example, foot as in "lower leg" and foot as a “repeating rhythmic unit of verse” are described in the dictionary ed. D.N. Ushakova within the same dictionary entry as different meanings, while in the Small Academic Dictionary (MAS) these words are given as homonyms.

The use of the criterion of general semantic features is further complicated by the fact that for an adequate and economical description of the corresponding lexical unit, its semantic structure as a whole should be taken into account. There are two main types of semantic structure of a polysemantic word: chain And radial polysemy. Chain polysemy differs from radial polysemy in that in this case the individual meanings of the word X“B”, “C” and “D” are connected by common features not with some main value “A” that motivates all the others, but as if along a chain: the value “A” has a certain common feature with the value “B”, “ B" is some other general attribute different from the previous one with the value "C", etc. In this case, the “extreme” values ​​“A” and “D” may not have common features. Similarly, in the case of radial polysemy, semantic connections between the meanings "A" and "B", "A" and "C", "A" and "D" can be made on the basis different signs. Then it turns out that the values ​​of "B", "C" and "D" are not directly related to each other. Nevertheless, when systematically considering all the meanings of “A”, “B”, “C”, “D” it is reasonable to talk about the polysemy of the word X, instead of breaking it down into a series of homonyms. It follows that the criterion of the presence/absence of general semantic features, taken by itself, in a number of cases turns out to be insufficient. It is obvious that the location of the individual seeds of a polysemantic word is by no means indifferent to understanding its semantic structure as a kind of unity, since, for example, the opposition of the meanings “A” and “D” without intermediate links “B” and “C” (in the case of chain polysemy ) would impose a different interpretation.

For example, among the meanings of the word knee In particular, sememes are distinguished: “the part of the leg in which the joint connecting the thigh and lower leg is located, the place where the leg is bent” ( kneel) and “branching of a clan, generation in a genealogy” ( up to the tenth generation). It is very difficult to find a common semantic feature among these meanings. When considering them in isolation, it seems more adequate to describe them as homonyms. However, taking into account such meanings of the word knee, as “a separate part of something that runs in a broken line from one fold or turn to another” ( drain pipe elbow), "a separate joint in the stem of cereals, in the trunk of some plants" ( bamboo knees) and “a separate part, a complete motive in a musical work” ( intricate accordion knees), the semantic connections between all the listed sememes become more obvious.

It is clear that the difficulties in defining the boundaries between polysemy and homonymy are explained by the very structure of the language. In reality, we are not dealing with clearly demarcated phenomena, but with gradual transitions, i.e. with some graduated scale, at one end of which there are “classical” homonyms like bow 1 And bow 2, and on the other - closely related meanings, the common part of the semantics of which has a greater share than the relevant semantic differences (cf., for example, field in combinations like wheat field and in combinations like football field).

As for determining the boundaries of the category of polysemy according to parameter (b), in other words, developing criteria for distinguishing between polysemy and monosemy, it is important to initially clearly understand that in real speech we are dealing with an infinite variety of different uses of lexical units, and not ready-made lists seven If a linguistic description is faced with the task of determining how many meanings a word has X, and to characterize these meanings meaningfully, then the starting point is not some “ general meaning", virtually inherent in this word, and its various uses in speech. In a sense, each of the uses turns out to be unique, since the word, considered as a unit of speech, i.e. used in a specific communication situation acquires additional meanings brought by this situation. Somewhat exaggerating, it can be argued that a word should have as many actual, speech, situationally determined meanings as there are different contexts of its use that can be found.

The reduction of actual, speech meanings into linguistic, usual meanings is the result of the work of a linguist. Depending on his theoretical ideas about the nature of the object and practical settings, he can, in principle, make different decisions regarding which differences between specific speech meanings can be abstracted from and which cannot. The only general principle that can be named here is the desire not to multiply the number of values ​​unnecessarily, which corresponds to the general methodological principle of scientific research known as Occam's razor (“Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily”).

For example, for the word window meanings such as (1) “a hole in the wall of a building,” (2) “the glass covering that hole,” and (3) “the frame into which the glass is inserted” could be distinguished. Such a division could, in principle, be useful for describing the combinability of the word window. So, in the phrase climb into the room through the window means (1), in the phrase to break the window– (2), and in combination paint the window– (3). In other words, in each of these cases we interpret window somewhat differently. However, none of the known dictionaries resorts to this method of description, but prefers interpretations that combine all three interpretations; Wed “an opening in the wall of a building for light and air, and a glazed frame covering this opening” (MAS). The possibility and expediency of such a combination is explained by the fact that the differences between (1), (2) and (3) are derived according to fairly regular principles: when placed in one or another context, a word can focus, emphasize some features that are important in a given context, and mute , as if to lead into the shadows other signs potentially present in its meaning. So, speaking he broke the window, we emphasize the sign “glazed”, and when saying he painted the window- a sign of the presence of a frame at the window. Moreover, in both cases, the concept of a window with all its essential features remains identical to itself. From this point of view, refusal to distinguish independent meanings (1), (2) and (3) turns out to be justified. Describing these interpretations as pragmatically determined variations of the same semantic entity seems more parsimonious and more intuitively acceptable. Here we are dealing with so-called discourse implicatures, i.e. with certain rules for the interpretation of statements and their elements, linking certain fundamentally “underspecified” semantic structures with the situation under discussion.

An additional argument in favor of such a syncretic description is the presence of contexts in which the word window appears as if simultaneously in several variants of use, cf. he climbed into the room through a broken window, Where window is understood as both (1) and (2) at the same time. In this case, the differences between uses of types (1) and (2) are neutralized, which can be interpreted as directing the focus of attention to several elements of the semantic structure at once. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the mere neutralization of semantic differences in certain contexts is not evidence of a lack of polysemy. What in some cases is economically and intuitively acceptable to describe as features of focusing parts of some essentially unified semantic structure, in other cases it is more convenient to describe as the neutralization of differences between individual meanings. Such arguments in favor of monosemy are significant only in combination with other factors that prevent the identification of several meanings.

So, on the one hand, the principle of economy of linguistic description requires minimizing the number of postulated meanings, but, on the other hand, the same principle requires the establishment of polysemy wherever it is convenient for describing the linguistically significant properties of a given lexical unit. For example, even if we do not take into account the actual semantic features, the meaning of the verb go out in contexts like Windows overlook the garden it is easier and more economical to describe it as a separate sememe, different from the implementation of this verb in contexts like Children go out to the garden, if only because the verb go out in the first case it does not have a perfective form, but in the second it does, cf. inappropriateness (indicated by an asterisk) of the expression * The windows overlook the garden with completely normal The children went out to the garden. Otherwise, differences in species formation would have to be explained by extensive descriptions of contextual conditions. Similarly, the meaning of a noun Job in the context It's time to go to work useful to describe as different from the meaning The student turned in the work on time. In the first case there is no plural form (* They go to work at their institutes every day at normal They go to work every day at their institutes), and in the second it is ( Students submitted their work on time).

It is clear that the more different linguistic properties the compared uses of the word in question reveal, the appeal to which is necessary for a comprehensive description of its functioning in the language, the more grounds there are to consider these uses to have different meanings. These may be differences in the formation of forms, in syntactic position, in the filling of valences ( cm. VALENCE), etc. If the differences are minimal and to a certain extent trivial due to their regularity and predictability, then they can be neglected. A clear illustration of this point can be the dictionary description of the verb proposed by Yu.D. Apresyan burn.

Meaning X is lit[The porridge is burning] = "fire-cooked food product X becomes unfit for consumption as a result of too long or too intense heat treatment, thereby emitting a characteristic odor" must be separated from the meaning of this verb in contexts such as We burned three times that year. This is necessary if only because of the different perfective forms ( burn out And get burned respectively), and also due to different filling of subjective valence. On the other hand, within the “food meaning” the metonymic use of the type the kettle/frying pan is on fire(which in principle is a kind of regular polysemy - cf. below), although in this case the interpretation is significantly modified: X is lit= “from X as a result of too much incandescence there is fumes”; X burned down= "as a result of heating X too much, it became unfit for consumption." Here there is also a change in the semantic class of the subject valency filler. But due to the regularity of such cases (cf. the water is boiling - the kettle is boiling; your milk has run out there– colloquial your pan ran away there) in a dictionary description, metonymic transfers of this kind may not be separated into separate meanings, considering that they are deducible according to the rules of the “grammar of the lexicon”.

Criteria for selecting values.

Let us briefly dwell on the main criteria that allow us to make decisions about the advisability of distinguishing different values. All criteria proposed in the specialized literature can, with a certain degree of convention, be divided into three groups: paradigmatic, syntagmatic and conceptual.

TO paradigmatic criteria refers, first of all, to the so-called Kurilovich-Smirnitsky principle. According to this principle, different uses of a given word should be considered different meanings of that word if they have different synonyms. Sometimes this criterion works well, but often gives conflicting results. For example, in the example above with the word window its uses (2) and (3) have different synonyms: to break the window» break glass, paint window» paint the frame. However, as we have seen, it is hardly advisable to talk about different meanings in this case. Along with the presence of different synonyms, the presence of different antonyms (the Weinreich, or Weinreich principle) can also serve as a criterion for delimiting meanings. Wed, however, adjective cold meaning "having low temperature", which, depending on the combinability characteristics of its contextual partner, is associated with different antonyms: cold day – hot day, But cold water - hot water . It hardly makes sense to distinguish two different meanings here. Paradigmatic criteria should also include the presence of a word in different meanings of different conversions and derivatives, but these criteria also turn out to be relative.

Syntagmatic criteria are based on the assumption that the same word in different meanings should be combined differently with other words. While being a generally successful heuristic (indeed, where else can we learn anything about which of the meanings of a word is meant if not from compatibility?), this set of criteria also does not always give unambiguous results. Thus, almost all semantic-syntactic theories recognize that a word, taken in any one meaning, may have alternative control models. Wed. also known cases of valency variation of type he is reading a book And he reads a lot. From the fact that in the first case the verb read controls the direct object, but in the second it does not, it does not follow that we are dealing with different meanings of this verb.

In many ways, assessing the reliability of syntagmatic criteria depends on the theory within which a given linguist works. For example, in verb-centric concepts such uses of the English verb sell"sell" as he sells books"he sells books" and the book sells well“the book is selling well” are considered as realizations of different meanings, which is motivated by serious differences in the syntactic behavior of this verb. If a syntactic theory is built on the postulate of the central role of the verb in the syntactic organization of an utterance, it is natural to consider such differences as a sufficient basis for distinguishing different meanings. On the contrary, in the “theory of constructions” by Charles Fillmore, such cases are described as realizations of the same meaning, since it is allowed that a verb can be included in different constructions without changing its meaning. In other words, verbs have a lower status within this theory. They do not so much “generate” a sentence, opening up valence spaces for their actants, as they themselves fill the spaces open to them in the corresponding syntactic models. Accordingly, changes in the syntactic behavior of the verb are not considered a sufficient reason for postulating a separate meaning. Wed. also German jmdm. in den Mantel helfen(lit. “help someone with a coat” in the sense of “give someone a coat”). Although in the standard case helfen controls an infinitive rather than a prepositional phrase with a locative meaning, such a departure from the usual control pattern need not be described as a separate meaning.

The description and interpretation of such cases is given much attention in the works of the American linguist J. Pusteevsky, whose concept is based on the (generally not entirely convincing) idea of ​​the existence of relatively regular rules for the generation of usage variants for a wide variety of words. In accordance with this concept, different meanings of one word (primarily syntactically determined) can not be specified as a list, but can be derived according to rules affecting certain parts of the semantic structure.

Along with differences in syntactic compatibility, syntagmatic criteria include differences in semantic compatibility. A special place among them is occupied by the so-called inclusive disjunction test. If the use of "A" and "B" words X can be implemented according to the principle either "A" or "B", and according to the principle "A" and "B" at the same time, without creating the effect of a language game based on zeugma, this means that we have before us the realization of one meaning. Wed. famous example of Yu.D. Apresyan: X goes out= "X stops burning or shining" (rather than (1) "X stops burning" and (2) "X stops shining") because stylistically neutral contexts like the wood in the fireplace and the neon lights outside went out almost simultaneously.

If such a combination within one sentence creates a pun, we're talking about, as a rule, about different meanings, cf. Vanya is swinging on a swing, and Petya is in the gym. This seemingly clear and reliable criterion “works,” however, only in the sense that the absence of game effects can be interpreted as an indicator of monosemy. Attempts to use this criterion “in the opposite direction” are not always successful. Wed. such an obvious zeugma as he loves Antonioni films and bloody meats. Does this mean that the verb be in love There are two different meanings to be distinguished here: one for works of art, the other for food? Of course not. Verb be in love used here in the same meaning: “to feel an inclination, interest, attraction, addiction to something.” Apparently, in relation to lexemes with broad semantics that can be combined with words of very different semantic classes, the test for inclusive disjunction is ineffective.

Conceptual criteria the selection of meanings is based on the knowledge of native speakers about the similarities and differences of concepts (as well as the corresponding denotations) denoted by a given word. These criteria seem to be primary in a certain sense. So, for native speakers of Russian it is quite obvious that the word language used in combinations like bite your tongue in a different meaning than in combinations like English language. In order to verify this, there is no need to analyze the paradigmatic connections of this word or the features of its combinability. A completely sufficient argument for distinguishing two different meanings is intuitive knowledge that language as an "organ in the mouth" and language as a “system of signs” designate very different entities. Accordingly, they have different mental representations behind them.

The problematic nature of conceptual criteria is that they can hardly be formalized in any way. What kind of conceptual differences should be recognized as sufficient to postulate a new meaning? Where is the boundary between variation within one conceptual invariant and the transition to another concept? Due to their non-operational nature, until recently, these criteria were almost never used in theoretical semantics. Within the framework of the cognitive approach to language research ( cm. COGNITIVE LINGUISTICS) in last decades Certain ways have been outlined to give conceptual criteria theoretical status. In particular, the metalinguistic apparatus of so-called frames and scripts makes it possible to describe the conceptual structures behind linguistic expressions and to integrate these descriptions into linguistic constructs. So, language in the meaning of “organ in the mouth” fits into the frame “human body”, and language in the meaning of “system of signs” – into the frame “semiotic systems” or into the scenario “communication between people”. Belonging to different frames is a sufficient basis for identifying independent meanings.

In prototype semantics, one of the most influential areas of cognitive linguistics, it has been shown that categories are not always constituted on the basis of a set of necessary and sufficient features. In some cases, membership in a category is determined by similarity to some prototypical representative of this category. Thus, differences in the set of features may not be interpreted as a basis for distinguishing different meanings. For example, from the fact that there are birds that cannot fly, do not have feathers or even wings, it does not follow that the word bird acts to designate them in a meaning different from “normal”. It also does not follow that the interpretation of the word bird should contain only those characteristics that are inherent in all birds without exception. On the contrary, the interpretation is formulated for the prototypical representatives of the category, which does not contradict the possibility of using the corresponding lexeme in relation to the marginal representatives of this category without semantic modifications.

Regular polysemy.

Very important for research in the field of theoretical semantics is the concept of regular polysemy, which in most works is understood as a combination of the semes of a polysemantic word, inherent in all or at least many words included in a certain semantic class. So, words like school, university, institute have, along with the meaning of “educational institution”, the meaning of “building” ( new school burned down(A)), "people in this building" ( the whole school left(A)for an excursion), "training sessions" ( he's tired of school(A)) and some others. Such semantic parallels suggest that in some cases polysemy can be described using certain more or less general rules. This idea, despite all its theoretical attractiveness, turns out to be ineffective, since regularity in the field of lexical polysemy is very relative and can only be established at the level of certain tendencies. So, school has another meaning not inherent in words university And institute; Wed he created his own school.

As another example, consider adjectives that denote emotions. All words of this semantic class can be combined not only with nouns denoting people ( sad girl), but also with designations of products of creative activity. However, the semantic result of such a transfer is not entirely regular. Thus, sad novel- this is “a novel that makes the reader sad”, and angry romance is “a novel imbued with the anger of its author.” The lack of true regularity in the field of lexical polysemy becomes especially obvious when referring to material from different languages. In most cases, words comparable in basic meaning have different polysemy structures.

Does it follow from this that searching for regular correspondences in this area makes no sense in principle? Of course not. It is only important to correctly determine the status of these correspondences. On the one hand, they, as a rule, do not predict the structure of polysemy of all members of a given semantic class and in this sense turn out to be unproductive. Describing polysemy was and remains the task of the dictionary. No system of rules will allow us to derive all the really existing meanings of a word without referring to empirical facts. On the other hand, the discovery of certain regular tendencies that form a kind of “grammar of the lexicon” is an extremely useful matter, since knowledge of the existence of such tendencies has heuristic value, and also explains with the help of which cognitive operations the understanding of occasional metaphorical and metonymic word usages is carried out.

Literature:

Smirnitsky A.I. Lexicology in English. M., 1956
Zvegintsev V.A. Semasiology. M., 1957
Kurilovich E. Notes on the meaning of the word. – In the book: Kurilovich E. Essays on linguistics. M., 1962
Shmelev D.N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary. M., 1973
Vinogradov V.V. On some issues in the theory of Russian lexicography. – In the book: Vinogradov V.V. Lexicology and lexicography: selected works. M., 1977
Gak V.G. Comparative lexicology. M., 1977
Weinreich W. Experience of semantic theory. – In the book: New in foreign linguistics, vol. X. M., 1980
Fillmore Ch. On the organization of semantic information in a dictionary. – In the book: New in foreign linguistics, vol. XIV. M., 1983
Paducheva E.V. On the paradigm of regular ambiguity(using sound verbs as an example). - NTI. Ser. 2. 1988, no. 4
Lakoff J., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by. – In the book: Theory of metaphor. M., 1990
Apresyan Yu.D. Dictionary entry for the verb to burn. – Semiotics and computer science, vol. 32. M., 1991
Apresyan Yu.D. Lexical semantics, 2nd ed., rev. and additional M., 1995
Baranov A.N., Dobrovolsky D.O. Postulates of cognitive semantics. – News of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Series of literature and language, vol. 56. 1997, no. 1
Apresyan Yu.D. Principles of systematic lexicography and explanatory dictionary. – In the book: Poetics. History of literature. Linguistics: Sat. to the 70th anniversary of Vyach. Sun. Ivanova. M., 1999
Kobozeva I.M. Linguistic semantics. M., 2000

Polysemy is polysemy. Some words have only one lexical meaning. They are called unambiguous. But most words in Russian have several meanings. That is why they are called polysemantic.

Definition

Polysemy is a lexical phenomenon that is realized in written or oral speech. But it is possible to understand the semantic connotation of a particular lexeme only in context. The polysemy of the word "house" - shining example a phenomenon that in linguistics is called “polysemy”. Examples:

1. The house is located on the river bank (structure, building).
2. The house was managed by a housekeeper.
3. Since then they have been friends with houses (families).

In some cases, a narrow context is sufficient to clarify the meaning. You just need to remember any common adjective to understand what polysemy is. Examples are found in both written and oral speech.

The adjective "quiet" has many meanings. Examples:

1. The vocalist began to sing in a low voice.
2. The child had a quiet disposition.
3. The driver did not like the quiet ride.
4. That day the weather was sunny and calm.
5. Through thin wall you could hear her quiet breathing.

Even a little context helps clarify the meaning of a word. In each of the above examples, the adjective “quiet” can be replaced with another. Examples:

• quiet (not loud) voice;
• quiet (calm) disposition;
• calm (windless) weather.

Polysemy is a set of meanings inherent in the same lexeme. One of the meanings (the one that is always indicated first in the explanatory dictionary) is considered to be the main one. Others are derivatives.

Types

The meanings of one word or another are related to each other. They form a hierarchical semantic system. Depending on what connection unites derived meanings from the main one, types of polysemy can be distinguished. There are three of them in total.

Radial polysemy is a phenomenon in which each of the derived meanings has a connection with the main one. For example: cherry orchard, cherry jam, cherry blossom.

With chain polysemy, each meaning is connected to the previous one. Examples:

1. Right bank.
2. Right party.
3. Right movement.

A feature of mixed polysemy is the combination of characteristics.

Metaphor

Polysemy in the Russian language is not only a lexical, but also a stylistic phenomenon. Various figurative expressions are also derived meanings of a particular lexeme. Therefore, three types of polysemy can be distinguished: metaphor,

In the first case, we are talking about transferring a name from one object or phenomenon to another. The reason for this transfer is the similarities various signs.

Poetry is rich in metaphors. Yesenin has a phrase “Spit, wind, with armfuls of leaves.” The verb “spit”, as part of the expression “spit in the soul,” is found extremely often in the poetry of other authors. In both the first and second cases, metaphorization takes place. In a journalistic or scientific text, the verb “spit” can only be used in the sense described in the explanatory dictionary, that is, in its basic meaning. And Dahl explains this concept as “throwing saliva out of the mouth by force of air.”

Metonymy

There are other ways to create new meaning. Metonymy is the transfer of the name of one object to another based on some similarity. Examples:

1. She was stingy and suspicious, and therefore she kept the silverware not in the room, but in the bedroom, under the mattress.
2. Last year on international competition silver went to the performer from Sweden.
3. Silver is a metal known to people since ancient times.

With metonymy, objects or phenomena that are united by one name have a common connection. There are completely different associations in the texts. Sometimes, to denote a large number of people, they call the city in which they are located. For example: “Moscow said goodbye to a great artist.”

Synecdoche

This method of transferring meaning is based on replacing the plural with a singular. Nikolai Gogol, for example, in the poem “Dead Souls” talks about national characteristics population of Russia. But at the same time he says, “This is how Russian people are...”. At the same time, he expresses the opinion formed in the process of observing by different people showing subservience to high ranks and ranks.

Errors

Incorrect use of ambiguous words leads to a distortion of the meaning of the entire sentence. And sometimes even to inappropriate comedy. One of the commentators, noting the outstanding results of the athlete who took first place in shooting, said: “She shot all the men.” Another television journalist, while explaining the course of a chess game, abbreviated the expression “development of pieces,” resulting in a rather ambiguous phrase: “Gaprindashvili has lagged behind her opponent in development.”

The author, using polysemy, must take care of the accuracy of his wording. Otherwise, readers will interpret the text as they please. For example: “High school students visited the Art Museum and took away the most valuable and interesting things from there.”

In Chapter 2 we set ourselves the following tasks:

Consider the features of lexical polysemy and the reasons for its development

Consider the features of grammatical polysemy

Highlight the functions of polysemy depending on the role it plays in the text.

Lexical polysemy

Despite the difference in approaches to the definition of polysemy identified in the previous chapter of the work, most authors consider the basis of polysemy to be the presence of polysemy in the lexical meanings of a word. Therefore, it is further necessary to consider the basics of lexical polysemy and its possibilities for expressing expression. It is also important to see what effect grammatical polysemy has on the text.

In order to move directly to the expression of expression using polysemic structures, it is necessary to consider the main functions that these structures perform and identify among them the most important ones in terms of the emotional coloring of the text, the creation of ambiguity, irony or implicit meaning.

Lexical polysemy is the ability of one word to serve to designate different objects and phenomena of reality. For example, the noun "field" has the following lexical meanings:

1) field, meadow, large space 2) field 3) sports ground 4) all participants in the competition 5) battlefield 6) field of action 7) region, sphere of activity 8) background, ground (pictures) 9) herald. field or part of the field (shield) 10) el. excitation (current) 11) field.

Which of the lexical meanings a word appears in is determined by its compatibility with other words: “field theory” (field theory), “magnetic field”, “field hockey” (hockey field).

The realization of one or another meaning of a word is also carried out by a broader context or situation, the general theme of speech. Just as context determines the specific meaning of a polysemantic word, under certain conditions it can create semantic diffuseness, i.e. compatibility of individual lexical meanings when their differentiation is not carried out (and does not seem necessary). Some meanings appear only in combination with a qualifying word ("magnetic field"); in some combinations the meaning of a polysemantic word is presented as phraseologically related, for example “field of vision”. Not only lexical compatibility and word-formation features characterize the different meanings of words, but also, in some cases, features of grammatical compatibility.

There is a certain connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word, which gives grounds to consider them to be the meanings of one word, in contrast to the meanings of homonym words. Lexical meanings in a number of works they are designated as lexical-semantic variants. Depending on the lexical environment (context, situation), the word seems to be turned around by different facets of its inherent semantics, and detached meanings continue to potentially be present in this word usage, which, in particular, is evidenced by both the restrictions imposed on the semantic development of the word and the possibility the use of derivatives and the use of synonymous substitutions.

Forming a certain semantic unity, the meanings of a polysemantic word are connected on the basis of similarity of realities (in shape, appearance, color, position, common function) or contiguity, according to which metaphorical and metonymic connections of meanings are distinguished. There is a semantic connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word, which is also expressed in the presence of common elements - seme. However, in a number of cases, the figurative meanings of words are associated with the main, not general elements of meaning, but only with associative features: “to cast a shadow” and “a shadow of doubt”. The interpretation of these meanings does not contain an indication of those signs that are noted for other meanings of the same word.

When distinguishing the basic (main, direct) and derivative (figurative) meanings of a polysemantic word, the paradigmatic and syntagmatic conditionality of the word in individual meanings is taken into account. Basic meanings are paradigmatically more fixed and syntagmatically freer. This corresponds to the definition of primary meaning as the least contextually determined (or the meaning that first arises in the mind of a native speaker when a word is uttered out of context). The relationship between primary and figurative meanings does not remain unchanged: for some words, secondary (historically) meanings become main, basic. The set of meanings of a polysemantic word is always characterized by a certain organization, which is confirmed, in particular, by the redistribution of the meanings of the word (changes in its semantic structure). The identity of a word is usually not questioned. “It is difficult to identify a “general meaning” in the structure of a polysemantic word, since the correlation of the meanings of polysemantic words with various objects and phenomena of reality makes it impossible to attribute such a general meaning to a word - it would turn out to be cumbersome or empty.”

The peculiarities of polysemy are mainly determined by the originality of the vocabulary of the English language and the discrepancy between its semantic structure. Numerous borrowings, as well as the rapid development of the language due to its prevalence, played a major role in the creation of polysemy.

Among the reasons causing the reuse of an already existing name with a meaning assigned to it, the main ones, apparently, are reasons of an extralinguistic order. Various historical, social, economic, technological and other changes in people's lives give rise to the need for new names.

The answer to this need is the use of nominative means already existing in the language with new meanings. For example, the nouns collar "collar, collar", cage "cage", ship "ship", along with already existing meanings, began to be used in Lately and in such new meanings as: collar - those. sleeve, washer, cage - “an upper lace dress that is put on a sheath dress”, ship “a spacecraft launched into orbit into outer space using rocket devices.”

Words play a very important role in changing the semantics social factors, first of all, the use of words by certain social groups. Each social environment is characterized by the originality of its designations, as a result of which the word acquires a different content in the speech of different social, cultural, professional groups and, accordingly, becomes polysemantic. These are the polysemantic words ring "ring; ring for descent (mountain climbing); basket ring (basketball); circus arena; ring, platform (for wrestling); annual ring of wood; doctor "doctor, doctor; doctor (academic degree); learned theologian, theologian" and others in modern English.

In addition to these factors that determine the development of lexical polysemy, the psychological reasons for semantic changes also deserve attention. This is, first of all, the existence of various kinds of prohibitions, or taboos, dictated by a sense of fear and religious beliefs (out of superstition, people avoid calling the devil, evil spirits, God, etc. by their proper names), a sense of delicacy when it comes to unpleasant topics, for example, illness, death, etc., the desire to maintain decency when talking about phenomena related to the sexual sphere of life, certain parts and functions of the human body, as well as various kinds of changes in the emotional assessment of objects and phenomena. For these reasons, speakers begin to use euphemisms to express the necessary meanings, i.e. substitute words that, over time, acquire these meanings as their permanent semantic characteristics.

These are the origins of the new meanings of polysemous English nouns like hostess, which is used not only to designate the mistress of the house; hotel hostess, etc., but also for naming a paid partner in a dance hall, night club, head, whose set of meanings has been supplemented with one more - the meaning of “drug addict”, model mystery, which in recent years has acquired the meaning of “woman of easy virtue” and many others .

Along with extralinguistic reasons that determine the emergence of new meanings and thereby the development of polysemy of words, intralinguistic reasons operate. These traditionally include constant combinability and the resulting ellipse of the phrase, in which one remaining element of the phrase acquires the meaning of the entire phrase (for example, the Kremlin “Soviet government” as a result of the contraction of the phrase the Kremlin government, daily “daily newspaper; arriving daily domestic worker", etc.). Differentiation of synonyms can also lead to polysemy of a word, as exemplified by the English nouns bird “bird” and fowl “bird, poultry, especially chicken.” Polysemy can also be the result of semantic analogy, when a group of words united by a single conceptual core, under the influence of the fact that one of the words of the group acquires some new meaning, all other members of the group develop similar meanings. Thus, the words get, grasp, synonymous with the English catch “to seize, catch,” after the latter acquired the meaning “to grasp the meaning, to understand,” by analogy also acquired the meaning “to grasp with the mind, to understand, to realize.”

It should be noted, however, that the effect of intralinguistic reasons is not as obvious as the influence of extralinguistic factors that determine the appearance of polysemy, and as a result, much less has been studied.

Just as the causes of semantic changes can be, as shown above, very different, semantic changes themselves by their nature can also differ, because they can be based on different patterns. In other words, the use of the name of an object to designate some other object is not carried out randomly. The basis of the secondary use of names, usually described as the transfer of meanings, although, undoubtedly, it is more correct to talk about the transfer of names and the development of secondary meanings in them, are the laws of associative connections. They determine the types of semantic changes of a word in the course of its historical development, the types of relationships between meanings in diachrony and, as a final result, the types of meanings themselves in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word.

Introduction

1.1 Definition of polysemy

1.2 Factors determining the development of polysemy

Metonymy and synecdoche

Homonyms and polysemy

Paronyms

1.4 Functions of polysemy

Conclusion

Literature

Introduction

The ability of a word to have multiple meanings is considered one of the most common phenomena of language. Lexical polysemy is due, on the one hand, to the boundlessness outside world as a collection of objects and phenomena, and on the other hand, by the limited vocabulary of even the most developed language. The limited vocabulary, in turn, is associated with the principle of linguistic economy - potential combinations of phonemes can significantly increase the number of words in any language, but in practice this does not happen.

Lexical polysemy poses several serious theoretical and practical problems for researchers. Solving issues related to lexical polysemy is an essential part of any dictionary.

The purpose of the work is to consider the polysemy of the word using the material of the Russian and English languages.

To achieve this goal, we were assigned the following tasks:

· Define polysemy and its types.

· Consider the phenomenon of polysemy using the material under study.

· Systematize the results obtained for further use for educational purposes.

The research material was the dictionaries of V.K. Muller and S.I. Ozhegova.

The object of this course work is a literary text in English and Russian.

The subject of this work is polysemy.

The relevance of this work lies in its further use for educational purposes.

§I. Polysemy and its semantic ambiguity

1.1 Definition of polysemy

Polysemy (from the Greek polysemos - polysemantic) (polysemy) - the presence of more than one meaning in a language unit - two or more. [Nemchenko 2008: 281] Often, when they talk about polysemy, they mean, first of all, the polysemy of words as units of vocabulary. Lexical polysemy is the ability of one word to serve to designate different objects and phenomena of reality. [Shmelev 208: 382] For example, noun model- 1) an exemplary copy of something. products, as well as a sample for making smth. (exhibition of women's dress models);

) playback or diagram of something., usually in a reduced form (machine model);

) type, brand, sample, design ( new model car);

) something that serves as material, in kind, for artistic depiction, reproduction;

) a sample from which a mold is removed for casting or for reproduction in other material [Ozhegov 2010: 540].

The lexical meaning in which a word appears is determined by its compatibility with other words: dress model, world model, detail model.The realization of one or another meaning of a word is also carried out by a broader context or situation, the general theme of speech. Just as context determines the specific meaning of a polysemous word, under certain conditions it can create compatibility of individual lexical meanings when their delimitation is not carried out (and does not seem necessary). Some meanings appear only in combination with a qualifying word ( world model). Not only lexical compatibility and word-formation features characterize the different meanings of words, but also, in some cases, features of grammatical compatibility. [Nemchenko 2008: 282]

There is a certain connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word, which gives grounds to consider them to be the meanings of one word, in contrast to the meanings of homonym words. Lexical meanings in a number of works are designated as lexical-semantic variants. Depending on the lexical environment (context, situation), the word seems to be turned around by different facets of its inherent semantics, and detached meanings continue to potentially be present in this word usage, which, in particular, is evidenced by both the restrictions imposed on the semantic development of the word and the possibility the use of derivatives and the use of synonymous substitutions.

Forming a certain semantic unity, the meanings of a polysemantic word are connected on the basis of similarity of realities (in shape, appearance, color, position, common function) or contiguity, according to which metaphorical and metonymic connections of meanings are distinguished. There is a semantic connection between the meanings of a polysemantic word, which is also expressed in the presence of common elements - seme. However, in a number of cases, the figurative meanings of words are associated with the main elements of meaning, not the general ones, but only with associative features: shadow of doubtAnd be someone's shadow. The interpretation of these meanings does not contain an indication of those signs that are noted for other meanings of the same word.

The peculiarities of polysemy are mainly determined by the originality of the vocabulary of the English language and the discrepancy between its semantic structure.

.2 Factors determining the development of polysemy

Among the reasons that cause the reuse of an already existing name with a meaning assigned to it, the main ones, apparently, are various historical, social, economic, technological and other changes in people's lives, creating the need for new names.

Social factors, primarily the use of words by certain social groups, play a very important role in changing the semantics of a word. [Maslov 2005: 116] Each social environment is characterized by the originality of its designations, as a result of which the word acquires a different content in the speech of different social, cultural, professional groups and, accordingly, becomes polysemantic. These are ambiguous words ring; release ring(mountaineering); basket ring(basketball); circus arena; ring, playground(for fighting); wood ring; pipe; smoking pipe; flute, pipe, bagpipe; geol. elongated ore body; pipe; doctor, physician; doctor(academic degree); learned theologian, theologianin modern English.

Polysemy is considered as a result of the tendency of linguistic economy and is a consequence of the fact that to designate new objects, phenomena and situations included in the sphere of experience, a person does not invent new signs, but uses existing ones, adapting them to perform new functions.

Let us point out the reasons leading to the emergence of polysemy in the language:

· expansion of the word's meaning

· differentiation of meanings

·borrowing;

· the entry into use of a new meaning of a once outdated word;

· transfer of meanings (metaphorical and metonymic).

In updating the meanings of a polysemantic word, a special role is given to context, which is a condition for removing polysemy through the existing lexical and grammatical environment. In speech, as a rule, each polysemantic word realizes/actualizes only one of its meanings, which is a necessary condition formation of unambiguous communication. Depending on the contextual and situational distribution, a polysemantic word highlights different facets of its semantics. In a certain situation of verbal communication, only those meanings of a polysemantic word that are necessary due to the communicative task become communicatively relevant. In the process of decoding a situation, the addressee selects from possible semantic variants of a particular polysemantic lexeme. This variation in the meaning of a word depending on the specific communicative situation of its use is called lexical-semantic variation.

Since a polysemantic word appears in speech only in one actual meaning out of a number of possible ones, it is true that polysemy is neutralized in speech, there is a process of transition from polysemy to monosemy.

However, there are still examples of word ambiguity in speech use, the phenomenon of ambivalence/two-dimensionality of statements, which led to the need to revise the provision on neutralizing polysemy in speech. The presence of ambivalent statements indicates that the context can not only act as a guarantor against ambiguity when interpreting the meaning of an ambiguous word (the function of disambiguation), but can also perform the function of preserving the ambiguity of a statement.

Polysemy of words in speech is not a deviation from the norm; it is completely acceptable. In this case, it is legitimate to talk about speech polysemy.

We propose to distinguish accidental, unintentional, which is the “cost” of the polysemy of a word in a language, and deliberate speech ambiguity, which consists in a deliberate, conscious use of the ambiguity of the word.

Deliberate, deliberate ambiguity, which characterizes humor as such, can be created, according to scientists, due to the confrontation of individual semes in polysemy. The simultaneous implementation of two lexical-semantic variants/two dictionary fixed LSVs of a polysemantic word underlies the creation of a comic effect.

Thus, the fact that a polysemantic word usually appears in speech in only one actual meaning out of a number of possible ones is not in doubt. However, there are frequent cases of ambivalence in statements, when different meanings of the same word are simultaneously actualized in the same context. The resulting ambiguity in a statement can be either unintentional, accidental, or intentional, conscious. [Moskaleva 2010: 2]

In addition to the indicated factors that determine the development of polysemy of words, the psychological reasons for semantic changes also deserve attention. This is, first of all, the existence of various kinds of prohibitions, or taboos, dictated by a sense of fear and religious beliefs (people, out of superstition, avoid calling the devil, evil spirits, God, etc. by their proper names), a sense of delicacy when it comes to unpleasant topics, such as illness , death, etc., the desire to maintain decency when talking about phenomena related to the sexual sphere of life, certain parts and functions of the human body, as well as various kinds of changes in the emotional assessment of objects and phenomena. For these reasons, speakers begin to use euphemisms to express the necessary meanings, i.e. substitute words that, over time, acquire these meanings as their permanent semantic characteristics.

1.3 Types of semantic changes

Associative connections, being a reflection of our concepts and ideas about the interaction of facts and phenomena of the objective world, are complex and diverse. The most stable of them, which have entered into the social experience of the linguistic community and predetermine the emergence of the secondary use of words, are based on the real or fictitious connection and commonality of objects in the world around us established by our consciousness. Depending on what is the basis of associative connections - the connection, contiguity of phenomena or the commonality of some of their characteristics and the resulting similarity - metonymic and metaphorical transfers of meaning are distinguished and their varieties are synecdoche and functional transfer.

Metonymy and synecdoche

Metonymy is a type of semantic change in which the transfer of the name of an object or phenomenon to another object or phenomenon is carried out on the basis of real (and sometimes imaginary) connections between the corresponding objects or phenomena. Connection (contiguity) in time or space, cause-and-effect relationships, etc. can cause regular, stable associations, which allows us to establish some models of metonymic transfers.

Unfortunately, in English studies there is no more or less exhaustive description of the types of metonymic transfers that take place in the semantics of polysemantic words in the English language, and their characteristics in terms of the degree of productivity and regularity. It is known, however, that every sixth meaning of frequency nouns included in the first thousand frequency words is the result of metonymic transfer.

Metonymic transfers are characteristic not only of nouns, but also of words of other parts of speech: adjectives and verbs (for example, green - 1) green, green in color;

) unripe, unripe, green; old - 1) old, decrepit;

) venerable, gray-haired; wise (for years); sit - 1) sit;

) sit, hold a meeting;

) to concentrate on something, to sit on something. and etc.).

A type of metonymy, often interpreted as a separate type of semantic change, is synecdoche. Representing the transfer of a name from a part to a whole ( e.g., cat - 1) domestic cat;

) animal of the cat family; head - 1) head;

) Human;

) head of cattle;

) herd; flock (birds), etc.) or from whole to part (for example, doctor - 1) mouth. mentor, teacher, learned husband;

) doctor (academic degree);

) doctor, doctor),Synecdoche stands out as a separate type of transference because it is based on logical connections. With synecdoche, a change occurs in the circle of referents denoted by the word: the name of a narrower set is used to designate a wider set of objects, in which the narrow set is only integral part, and vice versa: the designation of a wide set becomes the designation of its individual subsets. In linguistic literature, this process is described both as an expansion and narrowing of meanings [Maslov 2008: 52].

Due to the universality of the laws of human thinking and the use of metonymy and synecdoche as a foundation, as a rule, objectively existing connections between objects and phenomena called by the same name, one would expect the appearance of correlative words in different languages same type of figurative meanings. As a comparison of polysemantic words in different languages ​​shows, such a coincidence does occur (cf. the previously cited models of metonymic transfers), but it is not absolute. Along with similar types of meanings (cf., for example, English. hope, love, lossand equivalent Russian ones. hope, love, loss, denoting both an action and, as a result of metonymic transfer, the object to which this action is directed, and many others) in the semantics of correlative polysemantic words in different languages, numerous metonymic gaps are observed. Yes, English. citation based on the meaning of “citation, citation” takes on the meaning of the object of the action “quote”, while in Russian it corresponds to two different words- quotation, quotation. English writingmeans both the process of “writing” and its result - “letter, note, inscription, writing”, etc. Rus. letterhas a different system of meanings:

)a written text sent to communicate something. to someone;

) ability to writeetc. Without increasing the number of examples of both similar metonymic transfers and their absence in the semantics of correlative words in different languages, which would be quite simple, one should draw a conclusion about the specifics of this phenomenon in each language. It is important, however, to emphasize that the uniqueness of metonymy does not lie in its foundations and procedural aspect (they are universal). The choice of starting point or name for metonymic transfer may be peculiar, due in part to the peculiarities of the system of nominative signs of each language. The choice of the type of connection (spatial, temporal, cause-and-effect, etc.) as the basis for transfer may be peculiar. Finally, the productivity of one or another model of metonymic transfers varies in different languages. All these factors, taken together, ultimately determine the uniqueness of the linguistic picture of the world in that part of it that is represented by meanings that arose as a result of metonymic transfers.

Metaphor and functional transfer

Another extremely productive type of semantic change, leading to the formation of secondary, derived meanings, is metaphor. Metaphor is the transfer of the name of an object or phenomenon to another object or phenomenon on the basis of their similarity, and the likening of one object to another can be carried out due to the commonality of a variety of characteristics: shape, color, appearance, position in space, evoked sensation, impression, ratings, etc. In the event that the name of an object or phenomenon is transferred to another object/phenomenon due to their functional commonality, functional transfer is distinguished as a type of metaphor. Various groups of vocabulary can serve as sources for metaphorical transfers. The metaphorical relationships between the meanings of words are also varied, one of which is primary, original, the second is secondary, derivative. All this makes it difficult to derive more or less stable models of metaphorical transfers. At the same time, we can note some regularities in the action of metaphor that are common to many languages. These include the frequent use of animal names to refer to people who are attributed the properties of animals ( e.g., donkey - 1) zool. domestic donkey, donkey;

) fool, ignoramus; cow - 1) zool. cow;

) colloquial a clumsy, stupid, annoying person; wolf - 1) zool. wolf;

) a cruel, ruthless or greedy person; wolf, predator, etc.; Wed rus, donkey, cow, wolf, dog, monkey, etc.),using body part names to refer to different parts of objects.

In the field of adjective vocabulary, the most regular transfer of the names of various physical characteristics (temperature, size, taste, light, etc.) to name intellectual characteristics, evaluation emotional state and others rational features(eg. warm - 1) warm; warmed, warmed;

) hot; cordial;

) hot, passionate, ardent; dry - 1) dry;

) dry, reserved; cold; impassive; sharp - 1) sharp, sharpened, pointed;

) smart, quick-witted; witty; insightful;

) dexterous, skillful; cunning, etc.; Wed rus. warm, cold, dryetc.). Very interesting among the adjectives are the so-called synesthetic transfers, in which the names of one type of sensory perceived features are used to designate another type of sensory perceived features.

Metaphor is omnipresent. It plays the role of a prism capable of providing consideration of the newly cognizable through the already cognized, recorded in the form of the meaning of a linguistic unit. Based on the similarity of things, metaphor is closely related to human cognitive activity, because it involves the comparison of at least two objects and the establishment of some common features that function during semantic changes as the basis for the transfer of a name. In the selection of properties that serve as the basis for metaphorical transfer, the anthropocentricity and anthropometricity of the metaphor play an important role. These two parameters, according to which natural phenomena, abstract concepts, etc. are thought of as living beings or persons (anthropocentricity), and the standard, guideline, measure of all things is the person himself (anthropometricity), combined with the mode of fictitiousness, which is the assumption that X is like Y, provide the extraordinary productivity of the metaphor, and together with it and the actual human - anthropocentric - interpretation of the conceptual model of the world. Thanks to the above properties, metaphor becomes the most important means creating a linguistic picture of the world, which stores, respectively, not only the names of the realities of both the visible, sensory world and the invisible, mental world, but also the associations associated with them [Shmelev 2008: 56].

This linguistic picture of the world, captured in the meanings that arose as a result of metaphorical transfers, is characterized by significant originality in different languages, much greater than the originality of metonymic meanings. Despite numerous analogies, apparently dictated by the universal laws of associative thinking (see the previously given examples), in the semantics of correlative words there are even more numerous divergences of metaphorical meanings (for example, the word leg in such meanings as: leg; support, stand; rack; stage, part of the fetters and; sport. round, circle; ruler (rails); those. joint; knee; square; email phase; shoulder (three-phase system) "and many others).

Currently, the most popular concept of metaphor is called interactionist. According to this concept, in its version, metaphorization proceeds as a process in which two subjects, or two entities, and two operations through which interaction is carried out interact. One of these entities is the subject that is designated metaphorically. The second entity is an auxiliary subject, which is correlated with the denoted of a ready-made linguistic name. The mechanism of metaphor is that a system of “associated implications” is attached to the main subject associated with the auxiliary subject. These implications are usually nothing more than generally accepted associations associated in the minds of speakers with an auxiliary subject, but in some cases they may also be non-standard implications established by the author. As an example, let us give the metaphorical expression man is a wolf. The effect of the metaphorical use of the word "wolf" in relation to a person, it consists in updating the corresponding system of generally accepted associations. If a person is a wolf, then he hunts other living beings, is ferocious, is constantly hungry, is involved in an eternal struggle, etc. All these possible judgments must be instantly generated in the mind and immediately connected with the existing idea of ​​the main subject (the person). The wolf-man metaphor eliminates some details and emphasizes others, thus organizing our view of man.

Summarizing the meaning of the interactionist concept of metaphor, we note that in the process of communication the speaker does not resort to the use of new words, but selects the signs he needs (usually marginal) contained in a certain lexeme, and transports them into the structure of another sign belonging to a different conceptual sphere, as a result, the latter condenses its semantic content and acquires new properties that it did not possess before. Such an interactive process has a clearly expressed emergent character, its result is the emergence of the so-called " emergent lexeme/metapheme", possessing qualitatively new properties that were absent in its constituent parts.

We emphasize that context plays an extremely important role in actualizing the metaphorical potential of a particular lexeme. It is the context that carries out the “selection of relevant semantic parameters of the lexeme” and is a necessary condition for identifying a metaphor, that the figurative/metaphorical meaning of a word is revealed in several steps and assumptions. First, a sufficient context is established that allows one to determine the subject-referential area of ​​the utterance. This allows us to judge which words are used in their direct meanings, and which, with their primary meanings, do not fit into the given subject-referential area of ​​the message. Then last words rethink, guided by knowledge of the world, its connections, as well as general universal connections of associating concepts. From the primary meanings, semantic features are selected that correspond to the structure of a given subject-referential area, and then these features are organized into structures - secondary meanings.

In a metaphorical connection of meanings, the common part is usually the semes of the implicature and, less often, the semes of the intension of the original meaning, which in the derived meaning play the role of a hyposeme. The “hyperseme” of a derived meaning is the concept of a class, in which a subclass is distinguished, constituted by a feature - a hyposeme. In metaphorical word use, the “categorical seme” is neutralized while maintaining at least one seme (base of comparison).

So, in actualizing the metaphorical potential of a particular lexeme, the leading role is given to the context, since it is the context that is a necessary condition for the identification of a metaphor. The context must be sufficient to establish the subject-referential area of ​​the utterance, within the framework of which this or that lexeme fits either with its direct or figurative, metaphorically reinterpreted meaning. [Moskaleva 2010: 41]

Concluding the description of the types and nature of semantic changes, it must be said that metonymic and metaphorical transfers as ways of creating secondary meanings differ from metonymy and metaphor as special techniques of figurative speech - tropes used for stylistic purposes. Their main difference is that, arising initially in a statement, metaphorical and antonymic transfers of the first type as a result frequent use become facts of language and must be acquired by people studying the corresponding language, while the techniques of figurative speech - metaphorical and metonymic transfers - remain facts of speech that create special expressiveness, imagery and influence the artistic perception of the listener or reader.

Homonyms and polysemy

In the German lexical system, there are words that sound the same but have completely different meanings. Such words with outwardly matching shells (meanings) and different meanings in linguistics are usually called lexical homonyms, and the sound and grammatical coincidence of different linguistic units that are not semantically related to each other is called homonymy(gr. homos - same, onyma - name). Hence, homonymysuggests that behind one word-sign there are two lexical concepts that are practically unrelated to each other and point to different denotations.

Phenomenon homonymy, which has long attracted the attention of scientists, is an absolute linguistic universal; the presence of homonyms in natural languages ​​is obligatory and natural. Among the reasons causing the emergence of homonyms in a language, scientists name the following:

· the coincidence of words that previously differed in sound;

· divergence of meanings of the same word (disintegration of polysemy);

· borrowing or forming new words that have the same sound as words already in the language.

Various forms of homonymy are known in the linguistic literature. In particular, homonymy can be complete or partial. Complete homonymyassumes that words belonging to one part of speech are the same in all forms. At partial homonymycoincidence in sound and spelling is observed for words belonging to one part of speech, but not in all grammatical forms.

In accordance with the fact that there are complete and partial forms homonymy, scientists point to the presence of different types of homonyms:

· complete homonyms- words that match in all forms in sound and spelling;

· homophones- words that match in sound, but not in spelling;

· homoforms- words that coincide only in some of their forms;

· homographs- words that have the same spelling but different pronunciation.

As for the use of homonyms in speech, the question arises whether homonymy does not reduce the informative function of the word, since different meanings receive the same form of expression. Since the meanings of homonyms are not linked into one semantic bundle and form different words, they imply different contexts. It is the context that clarifies the semantic structure of homonymous words, excluding their inappropriate interpretation. Homonyms belonging to different spheres of use and having different functional relevance, as a rule, do not collide in speech, their “paths do not cross.” In this regard, it is obvious that misunderstandings arising on the basis of the similarity in sound of homonymous lexemes are unlikely.

But in some contexts, the meanings of homonyms can punously collide, come closer in semantic terms, when one word is used with a hint of another or instead of the expected word, in the same formal shell, but with a completely different meaning. As a result of such a violation of inter-sign relations, the effect of “deceived expectations” arises. Cases when, in a situation of verbal communication, misunderstanding still arises between communicants due to a collision within the same context of formally similar, but not related to each other semantically homonymous lexemes, are called in foreign linguistics conflict of homonyms.

Reasons for creating comedy through sound form lie in the peculiarities of the psychophysiological mechanisms of perception of the sound flow of speech. When homonymous lexical units come together, an unexpected clash of meanings occurs.

Thus, homonymous lexemes that are not semantically related to each other imply different contexts of their use. However, the formal similarity of homonyms provokes their inappropriate/erroneous interpretation in the context. [cm. Moskaleva 2010: 42-44]

Paronyms

One of the rather controversial, but constantly addressed in lexicology is the question of determining the content of the term " paronym".

Some researchers refer to paronyms (from the Greek. para - near, near; onyma - name) words that are similar in sound but do not have the same meaning.

However, in linguistics there is a broader approach to determining the essence of paronymic formations, which makes it possible to classify into the class of paronyms any semantically nonequivalent and close, but not identical in sound, words, both the same root and different roots.

This states that paronymic lexical units have, along with identicalalso distinctive features.

As identical signslinguists call morphological and structural similarity, similarity of conceptual and subject matter. TO breeding signsinclude semantic differences, derivation and non-derivativeness of stems, differences in prefixes and suffixes.

Paronyms, like any other lexical units, are not isolated from the speech system.

Paronymous words are characterized by an almost complete discrepancy in the spheres of lexical compatibility, which excludes the use of one paronymic lexeme instead of another in the same context. The linguistic literature emphasizes that the reader or speaker must have the skill of “clearly differentiating paronymic lexemes,” since their confusion in speech can lead to misunderstandings and speech errors.

But, nevertheless, paronyms attract the attention of linguists potential for confusion in speech. So, words, often of the same root, having common grammatical features, having sound similarity, are often mixed in the mind of the speaker, and one is mistakenly used in speech instead of the other. In this case, the incorrect use of paronyms violates the accuracy of speech and complicates its perception. As a result, not only etymologically close pairs of words are considered paronyms, but also obvious speech errors that arise spontaneously in the flow of speech under the influence of various linguistic and extralinguistic factors.

It's obvious that context is especially important for decoding the meanings of paronyms. In this regard, it is rightly noted that it is in the context that all the nuances of shades of meaning are revealed, and what is very important for paronymy, “the logical chain necessary for understanding paronymic formations is highlighted.”

Thus, paronyms, characterized by a mismatch of spheres of lexical compatibility, should not be normatively used in the flow of speech one instead of the other. However, the sound similarity of paronymic lexemes can contribute to their erroneous use, which complicates the perception and understanding of speech. [cm. Moskaleva: 44-46]

.4 Functions of polysemy

One more important point in the description of semantic changes is the role they play in preserving the unity of the word and ensuring the semantic stability of significant layers of vocabulary. Very often, changes in objects and the world around us, as well as changes in our knowledge about the world, do not entail the replacement of old names, the semantics of which undergoes significant changes. On the contrary, already existing names are transferred to a new circle of objects or phenomena that arose during development, especially if their purpose and functional orientation remained the same. So, breadcurrently names a product that is significantly different from the one that given word denoted centuries ago, as well as the types of weapons denoted by the word weaponin modern English, completely different compared to the medieval period, although their intended use remains unchanged. Our idea of ​​the structure of the atom, which is no longer thought of as indivisible, as etymology suggests, has also changed, and the semantic content of the word atom has changed accordingly. Preservation of the name occurs not only in cases of change internal structure, the shape of objects, the nature of their actions, etc. The name is preserved even when the circle of denotations it designates changes - expands or narrows in the process of historical development - or the emotional-evaluative attitude towards the signified changes. For example, the word cookuntil the 16th century it was used to refer only to male cooks, currently its scope of reference includes women; uncleis used today not only to designate mother's brother (its original meaning), but also father's brother, aunt's husband, thereby greatly expanding the variety of people it designates.

The main thing, however, is that thanks to the transfer of names, constant semantic changes due to extralinguistic and linguistic reasons do not cause a radical change in the toxic composition of the language, which would be expected, but only a darkening or complete loss of the original motivation of words.

lexical polysemy homonym metaphor

Thus, semantic changes serve a dual function. On the one hand, they act as a factor ensuring the continuity and constancy of the lexical composition of the language. On the other hand, they are effective means the creation of secondary meanings and ultimately lead to the emergence of polysemy of lexical units. It should be emphasized once again that the paths of semantic changes, despite their universal nature and implementation technique, are specific in each language, which is also confirmed by examples of different semantic development of genetically identical words.

Conclusion

In this course work, the phenomenon of polysemy was investigated. The set goals were achieved, the main tasks were completed. A definition of polysemy was given, its types were described, and the factors causing this phenomenon in the English language were identified. The historical background for the emergence of polysemy was also described. It is shown which important role belongs to the context when translating polysemantic words. All studied material was systematized for the convenience of its further use for educational purposes.

So, polysemy is the polysemy of a word, the presence of one or more meanings in a word. This is the ability of one word to serve to designate different objects and phenomena of reality.

It should be said that a large amount of literature is devoted to the problem of polysemy, which indicates the great interest of lexicologists in the phenomenon of polysemy. Many books were studied in the process of writing this work.

The results of this course work only prove the relevance of the problem of polysemy in the English and Russian languages. There is no doubt that the phenomenon of polysemy includes many aspects and requires much more in-depth research.

Summarizing all of the above, it is necessary to emphasize that the issue of developing integrated approach to the study of such a phenomenon in lexicology as polysemy seems interesting and especially topical at the present time due to the huge (and growing) number of polysemantic words in both English and Russian languages ​​- this is another proof of the relevance of the subject of research of this course work and the fruitfulness of further thinking about it.

Literature

1.Vendina T.I. Introduction to linguistics. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Higher School, 2005. - 389 p.

2.Kolomeytseva E.M., Makeeva M.N. Lexical problems of translation from English into Russian. - Tambov: TSTU, 2004. - 92 p.

.Maslov Yu.S. Introduction to linguistics. 4th ed., M.: Publishing center "Academy", 2005. - 304 p.

.Moskaleva S.I. Linguistic ways of creating the comic in non-cooperative verbal communication. Dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. Ivanovo, 2010. - 200 p.

.Muller V.K. English-Russian dictionary. 24th ed. - M., 2010. - 1072 p.

.Nemchenko V.N. Introduction to linguistics. Textbook for universities / M.: Bustard, 2008. - 703 p.

.Nikitin M.V. Fundamentals of linguistic theory of meaning. - M.: Leningr. University, 1988. - 108 p.

.Ozhegov S.I., Shvedova N.Yu. - Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language. M., 2003. - 940 p.

.Reformatsky A.A. Introduction to linguistics: Textbook for universities / 5th ed., revised. - M.: Aspect Press, 2006 - 536 p.

.Shmelev D.N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary. M., 2008. - 280 p.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

There are grammatical and lexical polysemy. So, the shape of the 2nd person unit. Parts of Russian verbs can be used not only in their own personal meaning, but also in a generalized personal meaning. Wed: " Well, you'll outshout everyone!" And " I won't shout you down" In such a case, we should talk about grammatical polysemy.

Often, when they talk about polysemy, they primarily mean the polysemy of words as units of vocabulary. Lexical polysemy is the ability of one word to serve to designate different objects and phenomena of reality, associatively connected with each other and forming a complex semantic unity. It is the presence of a common semantic feature that distinguishes polysemy from homonymy and homophony: for example, the numeral “three” and “three” - one of the forms of the imperative mood of the verb “rub”, are not semantically related and are homoforms (grammatical homonyms).

On the other hand, the lexeme “drama” has a number of meanings, united by the sign of being related to dramatic works, and can have the meaning “ dramatic art as such», « theory and art of constructing and writing dramas», « the totality of dramatic works of an individual writer, country, people, era" and, finally, the metaphorical meaning " plot structure, compositional basis of a performance, film, musical work" At the same time, the distinction between homonymy and polysemy is in some cases very difficult: for example, the word “field” can mean “ algebraic structure with certain properties” and “a piece of land on which something is grown” - the definition of a common semantic feature that directly connects these meanings is problematic.

see also

Literature

• Pesina S. A. Polysemy in the cognitive aspect: Monograph. - St. Petersburg: Publishing house of the Russian State Pedagogical University named after. A. I. Herzen, 2005. - 325 p.

Links

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Polysemy” is in other dictionaries:

Polysemy... Spelling dictionary-reference book

Polysemy, polysemy, polysemy Dictionary of Russian synonyms. polysemy see polysemy Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical guide. M.: Russian language. Z. E. Alexandrova ... Synonym dictionary

The presence of different, but to some extent related interpretations of the same sign. In English: Polysemy See also: Signs Financial Dictionary Finam... Financial Dictionary

- [Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

polysemy- polysemi f. gr. poly many + sema sign. specialist. The presence of different meanings for the same word; polysemy. Polysemy of the word. Lex. TSB 1: polysemy/i... Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

- (from poly... and Greek sema sign) the presence of different (but to some extent related) meanings and (or) meanings for the same word (phrase, phrase), different interpretations for the same sign or symbol combinations. The concept of polysemy... ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

POLYSEMY, and, female. In linguistics: the presence of more than one meaning for a language unit, polysemy. P. words, grammatical form, syntactic structure. | adj. polysemic, oh, oh. Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949… … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

- (from the Greek polys many and sema sign). see MULTIPLE MEANING. Antinazi. Encyclopedia of Sociology, 2009 ... Encyclopedia of Sociology

POLYSEMY- (from Greek polys – numerous + sēma – sign). Same as polysemy. The presence of two or more meanings in a linguistic unit. They often talk about lexical PP - one of the difficulties in learning and using foreign language … New dictionary of methodological terms and concepts (theory and practice of language teaching)

polysemy- polysemy. Incorrect pronunciation [polysemy]... Dictionary of difficulties of pronunciation and stress in modern Russian language

polysemy- The presence of different, but to some extent related interpretations of the same sign. [GOST 7.0 99] Topics information library activities EN polysemy FR polysémie ... Technical Translator's Guide

Books

• Polysemy as a problem of general and dictionary lexicology. Monograph, Olkhovskaya Alexandra Igorevna. This study is devoted to lexical polysemy and is an attempt to fill the gaps in the field of its anthropocentric understanding and dictionary-oriented description.…