Contrastive studies of the development of the semantic structure of English and Ukrainian words

Descriptive synchronic approach demands a study not of individual words but of semantic structures typical of the language and of its general semantic system. This chapter presents an attempt to discover some 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.

The contrastive study of the semantic structures of English and Ukrainian should aim at establishing the most generalized, as well as the most specific relations between word meanings. First of all, it should be indicated that the systemic organization of lexicon is conditioned in all languages by lingual as well as by extralingual factors which are of universal nature. The most important extralingual factors, predetermining the systemic organization of lexicon are: a) physical and mental factors, b) environmental factors, c) social factors.

Thus, due to the physical needs of human beings the contrasted languages, and actually all existing natural languages, have a great number of common notions, for example, actions designated by such verbs as live, die, eat, sleep, run, sit, cry etc. Due to the common mental activity of man languages have the notions designated by such words as think, ask, answer, imagine, understand and lots of others. Due to the natural environment of human beings languages possess words which reflect the natural phenomena like the sun, the moon, the stars, the wind, the sky, thunder, rain. At the present time there is no reason to believe that human beings in different linguistic communities have different conceptual systems. But there is ample evidence that languages can differ from each other in terms how they express concepts. The classic example of how languages can differ from each other in the expression of concepts involves the words for snow in Eskimo, where we can discover different words to denote “snow on the ground”, “falling snow”, “drifting snow” and some others. The types of differences we are considering involve lexicalization, the process whereby concepts are encoded in the words of a language. Some lexicalization differences may correlate with social factors. The latter involve various social phenomena as well as relationships and activities of man. These become obvious already at the family level. Such words as mother, father, child, sister, brother, grandmother, grandfather, and some other denoting members of the family, are identically lexicalized in English and in Ukrainian but in English there is no differentiation between двоюрідний брат and двоюрідна сестра, стрийко and вуйко, no equivalents for швагро, братова, etc.

In any language we can discover culturally biased words such as the English farthing, shilling, haggis, or Ukrainian кутя, думи, кобзар, січовики.as

Therefore, we can divide all the lexicon of the contrasted languages into two typologically relevant groups: universal lexicon and nationally specific lexicon [Korunets’ 2003, p.119 - 120].

Trying to compare universal lexicon of the two languages we proceed from the idea that the basic lexicalization assumption should be explained within the framework of even more fundamental ideas of a language sign nature and its realization during its life. The assumptions about the most probable direction of any word semantic development in its history is the key point for understanding main lines of a possible mechanism for historical development of the entire language system. This assumption has to deal with fact that there are more senses than words, so a word, at least potentially, is polysemous, possesses some degree of semantic uncertainty.

Polysemy exists only in language, not in speech. The sum total of many contexts in which the word may occur permits us to observe and record cases of identical senses and cases that differ in sense. Thus sense can be termed as the minimum variable semantic content of a word in speech while meaning is assumed to be a minimum invariant semantic content [Goursky 1975, p.36]. Therefore, when we speak about polysemy we mean that the word can be used in different senses not meanings. When distinctive semantic components of meaning are realised in speach they make up the sense of the word. The source of new meanings for a word is actually in the sense sphere. Every new meaning is an abstraction from the sum of senses attracted at some time by a word for fulfilling a new function. The general direction of meanings’ quality differentiation within the succession of them acquired one by one by a word in its history is the result of some basic semiotic preference principle in acquisition of new sign meanings, namely, from relatively concrete quality of some meaning at the beginning of its appearance in language towards its gradually increasing abstractness. Any word in language possesses semantic potential manifested by the ability of every word’s meaning for associative interaction with other meanings. Any kind of association is based on a certain type of similarity of images in terms of coincidence of their features, components. This versatile ability of human brain gives communicants the possibility of creating a broad area of senses by means of limited number of meanings.

Thus, polysemy is a semantic universal inherent in the fundamental structure of language. Both in English and in Ukrainian polysemy is widespread. But it is more characteristic of English due to the predominance of root words. The greater the relative frequency of the word, the greater the number of elements that constitute its semantic structure, i.e. the more polysemantic it is. G.K.Zipf termed this relationship the “principle of diversity of meaning”. He even tried to find a mathematical formula for it: his calculations suggested that “different meanings of a word will tend to be equal to the square root of its relative frequency (with the possible exception of the few dozen most frequent words). Put in a different way :

m = F^1/2

where m stands for the number of meanings and F for relative frequency.

E.g. the total number of meaning registered in NED for the first thousand of the most frequent English words is almost 25 000, i.e. the average number of meanings for each these most frequent words is 25.

The frequency of polysemy depends not only on purely linguistic factors but on cultural progress. The progress of civilization makes it necessary not only to form new words but to add fresh meanings to old ones.

In Breal’s formula, the more senses a term has accumulated, the more diverse aspects of intellectual and social activity it represents. (S.Ullmann - Readings... p.39).

Both in Ukrainian and English languages the main source of the development of regular polysemy is metaphoric and metonymic transference of meaning. Metaphor (from Greek μεταφορά – transposition ) is 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. Metaphor is actually based on comparison. It has been discussed by different linguists [ Shibles 1971, Тараненко 1980, Тараненко 1989, Арутюнова 1979, Телия 1988] and we can distinguish different approaches to its treatment:

1. Semasiological approach. It is considered to be one of the principal ways of the semantic change of linguistic units.

2. Onomasiological approach. It is treated as the general principle of nomination, for example in the process of lingual reflection of the cognition of the surrounding world in the designation of:

• relief by names of dishes (котел, жолоб),

• sea flora and fauna by names of land and river creatures and plants (морські заяць, окунь, капуста),

• means of transport – from water to air (летючий корабель, повітряний флот) and from land to water (річковий трамвай, водні лижі).

3. Stylistic approach. Metaphor is considered to be one of the tropes.

4. Linguaphilosophic and ethnolinguistic approaches. Metaphor is presented as the way of world perception, simulation of the world and creating of the lingual picture of the world.

Metaphorisation is most vividly represented on the lexical level and we can dicscover a lot of common features while analyzing linguistic metaphors in English and Ukrainian. Thus, the character of similarity making the basis of metaphors is basically the same:

1. Similarity by physical features:

   • form and sight, for example, Ukr.: стріла крана, гірський хребет, сонечко – комаха,Eng.:

• position, for example, Ukr.: голова колони,Eng.: foot of the mountain, a page, back of the sofa

• sounding, for example, Ukr.: барабанити у двері, Eng.: drum fingers

• peculiarities of movement, for example, Ukr.: коник – комаха, супутник – небесне тіло, Eng.:

• peculiarities of functioning, for example, Ukr.: повітряний флот,

English: leg of the chair, a bookworm

2. Similarity by physiological and psychological impressions from the perception of different objects:

1. Synesthetic. Synesthesy (from Greek συναίσΰησις – simultaneous perception) is treated in linguistics as the reflection of the semantic structure of physiological associations between different types of senses. Synesthetic metaphors can be based on the perception of hearing, sight, touch, taste, for example, Ukr.: крикливий (одяг), високий/низький (звук), солодкий (запах, голос, обійми),Eng.:

Most often such metaphors reflect the feeling of touch, for example, Ukr.: гострий(запах, блиск), м’який (голос, світло, рух),Eng.: soft (voice, colour), least often – smell. Most productive directions of their development are spheres of sight and hearing.

2. Transference from the sphere of the physical world to psychological and social spheres, to some abstract relations, for example, Ukr.:горіти (завзяттям), гострий (розум), дрібний (урядовець), Eng.: , in particular, from space to time, for example, довгий(день)

3. Transference through actualization of a relatively indistinctive semantic feature, often of emotional-evaluative character, for example, горить (взуття), прірва(безліч)

3. Similarity which exists only in the imagination of the speaker and is only desirable for him, for example, to give intimate colouring to communication one can address a person, who is not a good acquaintance or a relative, as друже, брате.

Creation of linguistic metaphors can be quite a regular process for certain classes of words, in both contrasted languages, like високий – низький or high –low (дерево, стеля – урожай, почуття, посада).

There are different classifications of directions of metaphoric development of the semantic structure of words. S.Ullmann suggests the following types of transference: a) anthropomorphic, b) zoomorphic, c) from concrete to abstract, d) synesthetic, e) from lexical units that attract a special attention of the society in that or other period. The last type reflects the position of some lexical units on the scale of the social values of the society. For example “religious” and “agricultural” metaphors used to be quite popular in Ukrainian (чорт, ірод, бусурман; нива, галузь, сіяти добро), but now the accent is mostly on sports, scientific revolution, space investigation, medical science (цейтнот, хід конем, орбіта інтересів, запрограмуватися на що-небудь, больові точки). It is interesting to mention the history of the “military” metaphors in Ukrainian which developed very rapidly after the revolution of 1917 and the civil war following it (культурний фронт, штаб суботника, командні висоти, битва за врожай) and gradually disappeared in the 80s.

Classification of the models of the metaphoric evaluative lexical units is based on the opposition bad – good which reflects the transference of the experience acquired in the physical world to the moral and social sphere. For example, „світло – морок” (світло знань – морок неуцтва), „тепло – холод” (теплий - холодний погляд), „відлига – заморозки” (у суспільстві), „верх – низ” (верхи - низи суспільства, висока - низька посада, підноситися – падати духом), „рух – непорушність” ( суспільний рух – застій) and others.

If the semantic change is based on the association of contiguity it is called metonymy. Metonymy (from Greek μετωνυμία – renaming ) is the result of the semantic process when a form of a linguistic unit or expressing of a linguistic category is transfered 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 as reflected in the speaker’s mind. The metonymic transfer like the metaphoric one can have different approaches to its treatment:

1. Semasiological approach. It is considered to be one of the principal

ways of the semantic change of linguistic units.

2. Onomasiological approach. It is treated as the general principle of nomination, for example naming of psychological phenomena on the basis of their external physiological expression, mimic, jests, for example, тремтіти – to be afraid, червоніти – to be ashamed, рвати на собі волосся – to be in despair

3. Stylistic approach. Metonymy is considered to be one of the tropes.

Metonymy occurs quite regularly, in comparison to other types of semantic change, within some semantic groups. Thus, for nouns:

• The container for the thing contained, for example, Ukr.: склянка (випив склянку), зал (аплодував), місто (зустрічає гостя), Eng.: a cup (drank a cup), a kettle (is boiling)

• The material for the thing made of it, for example, Ukr.: чай, салат (рослина – страва), золото (вироби з нього) Eng.: marble (the statue made of marble), silver (coin), glass(articles made of glass)

• The object for what is on it, for example, Ukr.:стіл (їжа), лікті (протерлися), Eng.:

• The object for a certain activity, for example, Ukr.:гкорона, скіпетр, трон (влада монарха), булава(гетьманство), Eng.:

• The sign for the thing signified, for example, Ukr.:номер (окремий примірник газети, журналу, окрема кімната в готелі, окремий виступ артиста), трійка (гральна карта, трамвай №3), , Eng.: from the cradle to the grave(from childhood to death), arena(Lat. Sand – a reminder that sand was used to strew the floors of the ancient amphitheatres)

• The feature (quality, action etc.) for its subject. Here metonymy can reflect the transference from abstract to concrete, from action to object etc. For example, Ukr.: магістр, граф (про носія титулу), талант (він талант),симпатія(про людину), весілля(святкування) Eng.: the authorities (were greeted)

• The action for its time, place, result, object or subject, for example, Ukr.: косовиця, прохід, набір, випуск, шиття, креслення,, рада), Eng.:

For verbs:

• Process the object in a way and obtain, extract or liquidate something as the result, for example, Ukr.: копати (землю/яму), доїти (корову/молоко), полоти (город/бур’ян), штопати (одяг/дірку), Eng.:

• The action of the subject and the state of the object, for example, Ukr.: протікає (вода/стеля), облазить (шкіра/спина), косовиця, прохід, набір, випуск, шиття, креслення,, рада), Eng.:

Metonymy frequently occurs in phraseological units, for example, Ukr.: до сивого волосся (до старості), піднімати руки (здаватися в полон), Eng.: Linguists recognize several other types of the semantic change besides metaphor and metonymy. These are: hyperbole, litotes, irony and euphemism. Hyperbole (from Greek ύπερβολή – overexaggeration) is based on intentional exaggeration of the quantity and size of objects, intensity of a feature or an act aimed at making the image of an object more distinct and thus, the utterance- more convincing. For example, Ukr.: півтора чоловіка (дуже мало людей), скажу два слова, море крові, черепашача швидкість; Eng.: haven’t seen you for ages, I hate troubling you, a thousand thanks.

Litotes (from Greek λιτότης – 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. Litotes can be based on

1. negation, for example, Ukr.: не заперечую (погоджуюсь), неважко (легко); Eng.: no coward, not bad;

2. double negation, for example, Ukr.: така подія не видається неможливою. Not characteristic of English.;

3. without negation, for example, Eng.: I could do with a cup of coffee. Not characteristic of Ukrainian.

I.V.Arnold indicates that it is doubtful whether litotes should be considered under the heading of semantic change at all, because as a rule it creates no permanent change in the semantic structure of the word concerned [Arnold 1973, p.134].

Irony (from Greek είρωνεία – mockery) is the type of the semantic change which occurs when a word with a positive or assertive connotation (in a wide sense) is used to denote opposite characteristics. It is usually pronounced with a specific intonation, which in written form can be marked by inverted commas. For example, Ukr.: святий та божий, частувати (палицею), нагородити (стусаном), Eng.: a pretty mess.

Euphemism (Greek εύφημισμός – mild expression, from εϋ – well and φημίζω – praise, glorify) is a word or phrase used for indirect, particularly, mild and polite designation of some objects, phenomena or actions to avoid using their already existing primary names which would be better logically motivated. The sources of euphemisms are the taboo phenomena and the desire to substitute some names by their neutral, “positive” or “negative” equivalents. For example, Ukr.: нерозумний (замість дурний), на заслужений відпочинок (на пенсію), пішов з життя (помер), знайтися (народитися); Eng.: queer (mad), deceased (dead),elevated (drunk).

Lecture 7

The stylistic layers of English and Ukrainian vocabulary

Formulating a theoretical basis on which the varieties of any language can be described and studied is one of the prime concerns of the branch of language study called sociolinguistics. This discipline is far from having achieved complete answers but what concerns the types of varieties of a language it is agreed that there are five major types:

1. region,

2. social group,

3. field of discourse,

4. medium,

5. attitude [ A comprehensive grammar p.16-19]

The first two types of variation relate primarily to the language user. People use a regional variety because they live in a region or have once lived in a region. Similarly, people use a social variety because of their affiliation with a social group. These varieties a relatively permanent for the language user.. Many people can communicate in more than one regional or social variety and can therefore (consciously or unconsciously) switch varieties according to the situation. And, of course people can move to other regions or change their social affiliations, and may then adopt a new regional of social variety.

The last three types of variation relate to language use. People select the varieties according to the situation and the purpose of the communication. The field of discourse relates to the activity in which they are engaged; the medium may be spoken or written and the attitude expressed through language is conditioned by the relationship of the participants in the particular situation. A common core or nucleus is present in all the varieties, so that however esoteric a variety may be, it has running through it a set of lexico-grammatical characteristics that are present in all the others. It is that fact that justifies the application of the name “English” or of the name “Ukrainian” to all the varieties.

Varieties according to region have a well-established label: dialects. Geographical dispersion is in fact the classic basis for linguistic variation, and in the course of time such dispersion may result in dialects becoming so distinct that we regard them as different languages. This stage was long ago reached with the Germanic dialects that are now Dutch, English, German, Swedish, etc, but it has not been reached with the dialects of English that have resulted from the regional separation of communities within the British Isles elsewhere in the world.

Ukrainian

Regional variation seems to be realized predominantly in phonology. We generally recognise a different dialect from a speaker’s pronunciation or accent before we notice that the vocabulary or LEXICON is also distinctive.

Social variation is variation in speech according to education, socioeconomic group, and ethnic group. Some differences correlate with age and sex. There is an important polarity between uneducated and educated speech in which the former can be identified with the nonstandard regional dialect and the latter moves away from regional usage to a form of a language that cuts across regional boundaries. Educated language naturally tends to be given the additional prestige of government agencies, the professions, the political parties, the press, the law court, and the pulpit – any institution which must address itself to a public. It is codified in dictionaries, grammars and guides to usage, and it is taught in the school system at all levels. It is almost exclusivelt the language of printed matter. It comes to be referred to as standard English or literary Ukrainian.

Of special interest for contrastive studies are varieties according to field of discourse. The field of discourse is the type of activity engaged in through language. A speaker of a language has a repertoire of varieties according to field and switches to the appropriate one as occasion requires. The number of varieties that speakers command depends upon their profession, training and interests. Typically the switch involves turning to the particular set of lexical items habitually used for handling the field in question.

The varieties according to medium are those conditioned by speaking and writing respectively. Since speech is the primary or natural medium for linguistic communication, it is reasonable to focus on the differences imposed on language when it has to be expressed in a graphic medium instead. As with varieties according to the field we are dealing here with two varieties that are in principle at the disposal of any user of a language as occasion may demand, irrespective of the variety of language they use as a result of region and education. But there are contingent constraints: some field varieties are difficult to compose except in writing (legal statutes especially), other varieties are restricted to speech (a radio commentary on a football match will be phrased very differently from a newspaper report of the same game).

Varieties according to attitude constitute, like field and medium varieties, a range of a language any section of which is in principle available at will to any individual speaker of a language, irrespective of the regional variant or national standard he may habitually use. This class of varieties is often called “stylistic”, but “styly” is a term which is used with several different meanings. In lexicology we are concerned with the choice of words that proceeds from our attitude to the hearer or reader, to the topic and to the purpose of our communication. We recognize a gradient in attitude between FORMAL (relatively stiff, cold, polite, impersonal) on the one hand and INFORMAL (relatively relaxed, warm, rude, friendly) on the other. The corresponding linguistic contrasts involve both grammar and vocabulary. For example:

Overtime emoluments are not available for employees who are non-resident…

Staff members who don’t live in can’t get paid overtime…

Many sentences like the foregoing can be rated ‘more formal’ or ‘more informal’ in relation to each other, but it is useful to acknowledge unmarked variety of English or Ukrainian, bearing no obvious colouring that has been induced by attitude. On each side of NEUTRAL language we may usually distinguish words that are markedly formal or informal.

The three-way contrast of formal-neutral-informal is not quite adaequate to describe the full range of linguistic varieties. We should add at least one category at each end of the scale. On the one hand, we need to account for the extremely ‘frozen’ variety of a language some times found in written instructions, e.g.

Distinguished patrons are requested to ascend to the second floor.

But we must account also for the intimate, casual or hearty – often slangy – language used between very close friends 9especially of a similar age0 or members of a family, or used when speakers feel for any other reason that they do not need to bother about what the listener or reader thinks of their choice of language. We might thus match the foregoing example with:

(Get) upstairs, you lot!

Now we have a potential five-term distinction: