Lecture 4.

Semantic structure of English and

Ukrainian words
Semantics
 branch of linguistics which specializes in the study of
meaning;
 the expressive aspect of language in general;
 the meaning of one particular word in all its varied aspects
and nuances.

 Semantics deals with the conventional meaning conveyed

by the words and sentences of a language

 Semasiology syn. semantics (1900, M. Breal “Semantics”)

Meaning as a linguistic notion
 Analytical or referential definition of meaning (followers of Ferdinand
de Saussure)
basic triangle: the sound form, the concept and the actual referent;
 Functional or contextual definition of meaning (L.Bloomfield)
defining meaning in the situation in which the word is used;
Context is the minimum stretch of speech necessary and sufficient to determine the
meaning of the word;
e.g. to take a seat vs. to take to sth
 Operational or information-oriented definition of meaning
defining meaning through its role in the process of communication;
Meaning is information conveyed from the speaker to the listener in the process of
communication.
e.g. John came at 6.
Beside the direct meaning the sentence may imply that:
 He was late
 He failed to keep his promise
 He was punctual as usual
 He came but he didn’t want to
Lexical meaning
 “The meaning of the word is a certain reflection of the object, phenomenon or relation in the mind of
language users which creates the internal part of the word structure and in reference to this structure
the sound form is the material shell of the word which is necessary not only for reflecting the
meaning and sending the message to other members of the society but for creating of the word itself,
its formation, existence and development.” (M.Ivchenko, 1956)

 Denotative meaning (referential or extensional)

 Denotatum (Lat. denotatum – означуване) is a
notional nucleus of meaning, i.e. “objective” (“nominative”, “cognitive”, “representative”, “factual”)
component of meaning abstracted from stylistic, pragmatic, modal, emotional, subjective,
communicative and other shades.
e.g. booklet - “a small thin book that gives info about smth”
needle – “thin, sharp, steel instrument …”
 Connotative component of meaning (emotive charge or intentional connotation)
 Connotation (Lat. connoto – маю додаткове значення) is an emotional, evaluative or stylistic component
of meaning of a linguistic unit of regular or occasional character.
needle – “painful”
Connotation include:
 The emotive charge: daddy :: father
 Evaluation: банда :: група (людей)
 Intensity (expressiveness): to adore :: to love
 Imagery: to wade (eg. go through mud with difficulty) :: to wade through a book
Types of word-meaning
 Lexical meaning
 the realization of the notion by means of a definite language
system;
 meaning proper to the given linguistic unit in all its forms and
distributions: go, goes, went, going, gone [‘the process of movement’];
 Grammatical meaning
 expression in speech of relationship between words: asked,
thought, walked [‘tense meaning’];
 Part-of-speech meaning
 Word-classes (major WC: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs;
minor WC: articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc).
The pragmatic aspect of lexical
meaning
 Conveys information on the situation of communication
 Time and space relationship of the participants (come :: go);
 Participants and language community
1) They chucked a stone at the cops, and then did a bunk with the loot.
2) After casting a stone at the police, they absconded with the money.
 Tenor of discourse;
 There are three basic factors within tenor:
 agentive role, or the institutional (or not) roles of the participants, such as
doctor/patient, teacher/student, etc.;
 social role, or the power relationship between them which may be hierarchic or
nonhierarchic and includes expert/novice and also conferred social status and
gender, etc.;
 social distance, or the amount or nature of contact the participants may have,
which ranges from minimal (close friends) to maximal (formal settings).
 Register of communication
 Formal: cordial, fraternal, anticipate;
 Informal: to be kidding, hi, stuff.
Contrastive studies of
semantic systems of two languages
 focus on similarities and differences in the semantic
systems of the two languages in terms of
 Systemic organization of lexicon
 Changes in the semantic structure of words
 Semantic grouping in vocabulary systems
 Lexicalization is the process whereby concepts are
encoded in the words of a language.

 Universal lexicon: mother, father, child, sister, brother…

 Nationally specific lexicon: двоюрідний брат та
двоюрідна сестра, вуйко та стрийко.
Polysemy
 Semantic universal inherent in the fundamental structure of
language.
 Word can be used in different senses.
 The sense is the minimum variable semantic content of a word in
speech while meaning is assumed to be a minimum invariant
semantic content (Goursky, 1975).
 Every new meaning is an abstraction from the sum of senses
attracted at some time by a word for fulfilling a new function.
 G.K. Zipf “the principle of diversity of meaning”
1/2
 m=F
m – number of meanings
F – relative frequency
Polysemy and context
 Linguistic contexts:
 Lexical context:
 Heavy load, weight (of great weight)
 Heavy rain, storm, snow, wind (abundant, striking, strong);
 Heavy industry, arms, artillery (larger kind of sth).
 Grammatical context:
 to make + prn. + verb: to make sb. laugh (to force);
 to make + adj. + n.: to make a good wife, to make a good teacher (to become).

 Extra-linguistic context (context of situation):

John was looking for the glasses.
spectacles ? or drinking vessels?
Homonymy
 from Gr. Homs – ‘similar’ and onoma –
‘name’.
 words identical in sound form, spelling
but different in meaning, distribution
and in origin.
 Homonyms proper (absolute):
 ball (n., a round object used in
game) vs. ball (a gathering of
people for dancing);
 коса :: коса
 Homophones:
 piece (part separated from sth.) vs.
peace (no war situation)
 біль :: білль Думи мої, думи мої,
 Homographs: Квіти мої, діти.
 bow /bəʊ/ (a weapon) vs. bow /baʊ/
Виростав вас, доглядав вас.
(a formal movement) Де ж мені вас діти (Т.Шевченко)
 деревина :: деревина, замок ::
замок «— Як справи? — Як справа‚ так і зліва»
Metaphor
 (Gr. ‘transposition’) the result of the semantic process when a
form of a linguistic unit or expressing of a linguistic category is
transposed from one object of designation to another on the basis
of a certain similarity between these objects as reflected in the
speaker’s mind.
 based on comparison

Approaches:
 Semasiological
 Onomasiological
 Stylistic
 Linguaphilosophic and ethnolinguistic
 Conceptual/ cognitive
Metaphor
 Similarity by physical features:
 Form and sight: гірський хребет, сонечко (комаха);
 Position: foot of the mountain, back of the sofa, голова колони;
 Sounding: to drum fingers, барабанити у двері;
 Peculiarities of movement: коник (комаха), супутник (небесне тіло);
 Peculiarities of functioning: a bookworm, leg of the chair, повітряний флот
 Similarity by physiological and psychological impressions from the
perception of different objects:
 Synesthetic: soft (voice, colour), крикливий (одяг), гострий (запах)
 From physical to psychological and social spheres: горіти (завзяттям),
гострий (розум)
 Actualization of a relatively indistinctive semantic feature: прірва (безліч)
 Similarity which exists only in the imagination of the speaker: друже,
брате
Directions of metaphoric development
(S. Ullmann)
 Anthropomorphic: голова зборів; душа компанії,
 Zoomorphic: лис, fox;
 From concrete to abstract: золотий (дорогий);
 Synesthetic: гіркий досвід,
 From lexical units which attract a special attention of the
society in a particular period: чорт, ірод, галузь (знань), сіяти
(добро), запрограмуватися на, больові точки, культурний фронт

Conceptual metaphor theory
Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 1980. Metaphors we live by.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
 Gibbs (1999), Kövecses (2010), Quinn (1991), Cameron (2003), Chilton and
Ilyin (1993), Chudinov (2005), Santa (1999), Sandikcioglu (2000) and others;

 METAPHOR
 is viewed as a matter of thought and reasoning
rather than language;
 as a cognitive device for the construction and
interpretation of the reality;
 understanding one conceptual domain (target
domain) in terms of others (source domain)
A is B

 concepts, propositions, references

Metonymy
 (Gr. ‘renaming’) is the result of the semantic process when a form of a
linguistic unit or expressing of a linguistic category is transferred from
one object of designation to another on the basis of a certain contiguity
of these objects conditioned by spatial, temporal, causal, symbolic,
instrumental, functional and other relations.
 For nouns:
 The container for the things contained: a kettle (is boiling), зал (аплодував);
 The material for the thing made of it: silver (coin),
 The object for what is on it: стіл (їжа),
 The object for a certain activity: булава (гетьманство),
 The sign for the thing signified: номер (примірник газети, кімната в готелі),
 The feature for its subject: магістр, граф, талант, authorities;
 the action for its time, place, result, object, subject: прохід, випуск, креслення…
Hyperbole
 (Gr. ‘overexaggeration’)
I haven’t seen you for ages; a thousand thanks; море крові; черепашача швидкість

Litotes
(Gr. ‘simplicity’) is aimed at making the statement less categorical through the use of indirect
designation of a certain notion, namely through the negation of the notion that is opposite
to the given:
Not bad (good), не заперечую (погоджуюся)

Irony
(Gr. ‘mockery’)
A pretty mess, святий та божий, нагородити (стусаном)

Euphemism
(Gr. ‘mild expression’)
Pass away (die), elevated (drunk), нерозумний (дурний)б пішов з життя (помер)
Causes of semantic changes
 Extra-linguistic: OE hlaford ‘bread-keeper’ later lord ‘master,
ruler’
 Linguistic:
 Ellipsis: OE starve ‘ to die’, later ‘to die of hunger’
 Differentiation of meaning: OE land ‘solid part of earth’s surface’,
‘the territory of a nation’
 Fixed context: token vs. sign (love token, token of respect)
Results of semantic changes
 Denotative meaning
 Restriction of meaning (specification): hound (a dog of any breed),
meat (food: Once man’s meat, another’s poison)
 Extension (generalization): target (a small round shield), fee (cattle)

 Connotational meaning
 Amelioration (improvement): minister (servant) , queen (woman),
knight (servant);
 Deterioration (pejorative development): boor (peasant), silly
(happy, kind)