Valency as the basic principle of word-grouping
Lexicology deals not only with words, but with word-groups as well. A word group may be defined as the largest two facet lexical unit comprising more than one word. The two main linguistic factors that unite words in groups are: the lexical and grammatical valency of the words.
Lexical valency (or collocability) is the aptness of a word to appear in various combinations. The noun question, e.g., is combined with such adjectives as vital, urgent, disputable, delicate. This noun is often used in such word combinations as to raise a question, a question of a day, a question of great importance.
There is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word in a language. Words habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliche. To them belong such word-groups as keen sight, put forward a question, to gain victory.
The word's collocability is also defined by grammatical valency which is the aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structure. The range of grammatical valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each word is dependent on the grammatical structure of the language. But it doesn't mean that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical. E.g., compare grammatical valency of the words "suggest" and "offer".
Individual meaning of a polysemantic words can be described through its grammatical valency. Thus, different meanings of the adjective keen may be described in a general way through different structures of the word-groups keen + N (keen sight, hearing "острый"), keen + on + N (keen on sports "увлеченный"), keen + inf. (keen to know "сильно желающий").
Structure of word groups
Word-groups may be classified according to different criteria:
(1) through the order and arrangement of the components:
• a verbal - nominal group (to sew a dress);
• a verbal - prepositional - nominal group (look at something);
(2) by the criterion of distribution, which is the sum of contexts of the language unit usage:
• endocentric, i.e. having one central member functionally equivalent to the whole word-group (blue sky);
• exocentric, i.e. having no central member (become older, side by side);
(3) according to the headword:
• nominal (beautiful garden);
• verbal (to fly high);
• adjectival (lucky from birth);
(4) according to the syntactic pattern:
• predicative (Russian linguists do not consider them to be word-groups);
• non-predicative - according to the type of syntactic relations between the components:
(a) subordinative (modern technology);
(b) coordinative (husband and wife).
Meaning in word-groups
As with word-meaning, the meaning of word-groups may be analysed into lexical and grammatical.
The lexical meaning of a word-group may be defined as the combination of lexical meanings of the component words. But it is not the mere additive result of the lexical meanings of its components.
Interdependence of the lexical meanings of the constituent members of word-groups can be readily observed in word-groups made up of polysemantic words. The polysemantic words are used only in one meaning. Thus, in nominal group "lucky fisher" only one meaning of the word "fisher" , i.e. "a fisherman", is combined with the lexical meaning of the adjective lucky. The meaning of the same noun in "brown fisher" is different "a foxlike marten of North America".
Structural meaning of word-groups may be compared with the arrangements of morphemes in words. Such word-groups as school grammar and grammar school are semantically different because of the difference in their pattern. Structural pattern is the carrier of the semantic component not necessarily dependent on the actual lexical meaning of its members. E.g., in school grammar structural meaning may be described as "quality-substance" meaning.
Patterns of word-groups in English
The most frequent patterns of word-groups in English are the following: Adj. + N V+N
N + prep. + N V + Prep. + N V + N + Prep. + N V + V (Inf.)
Motivation in word-groups. Idiomaticity
Word-groups like words may be motivated. They may be motivated lexically and structurally.
Word-groups are described as lexically motivated if the combined lexical meaning of the groups is deducible from the meaning of their components. Thus, large window, huge book are lexically motivated, while the promised land is lexically non-motivated.
Word-groups are said to be structurally motivated if the meaning of the pattern is deducible from the order and arrangement of the member-words of a group. The word-groups large window, huge book are motivated as the meaning of the pattern quality - substance can be deducible from the order and arrangement of the words, whereas seemingly identical pattern the promised land cannot be interpreted as quality - substance.
Degree of motivation may be different. Between the extremes of complete motivation and lack of motivation there are intermediate cases:
black dress - black market - black death.
Sometimes seemingly identical word-groups are found to be motivated or non-motivated depending upon their semantic interpretation. Thus a slice of the cake is structurally and lexically motivated in its direct meaning, while when used as "something is very easy to do" it is non-motivated. In such cases we deal not with polysemy, but homonymy of word-groups.
Non-motivated word-groups are described as phraseological units.
Phraseological units
The term phraseological unit was introduced by Russian linguists and is generally accepted in our country. English and American linguists use the term idiom for different words, word-groups and sentences interesting from the point of view of their style, usage, origin. This understanding differs from what Russian linguists mean by the term idiom.
There are a lot of problems in phraseology. One of them is a divergence of opinion as to the principles of distinction between free word-groups and set expressions. Free word-groups are only relatively free because the collocability of its members is delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable.
The differences in terminology reflect the differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and phraseology. The term set phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idiom implies that the main feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack of motivation. The term word-equivalent stresses hot only semantic but functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their function in speech as single words.
Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. This definition proceeds from the assumption that the essential feature of PhUs are stability of the lexical components and lack of motivation.
Taking into account mainly the degree of idiomaticity Vinogradov V.V. classified PhUs into three groups:
(1) phraseological fusions - completely non-motivated word-groups (no soap "you have tried to do smth but have failed", cook with gas "преуспеть", put smth to bed "you achieve it or complete it successfully");
(2) phraseological unities - partially non-motivated as their meaning can usually be perceived through the metaphoric meaning of the whole phraseological unit (on top "in a successful or victorious condition", hand smth to somebody on a silver plate, clear the way for smth);
(3) phraseological collocations - are motivated but are made up of words possessing specific lexical valency which accounts for a certain degree of stability in such word-groups. E.g., take a liking, give a helping hand, lay a scheme.
But the criterion of idiomaticity is inadequate to single out phraseological units from other word-groups, because there are too many borderline cases where "feeling of the language" comes to the fore. The criterion is impractical in borderline cases within phraseological units themselves: between unities and collocations, collocations and free word-groups. E.g. have in min'd, make up one's mind in some dictionaries are marked like idioms, in others like free phrases.
The criterion of stability is also criticized. We observe regular substitution of at least one of the lexical components in phraseological units. In hit below the belt the verb hit may be replaced by strike', go to hell is just one of the possible variants of the phrase go to the devil /pot /pigs and whistles.
It is also argued that stability of lexical components -does not presupposes lack of motivation. The word group shrug one's shoulders does not allow any substitution. The meaning however is motivated, because it is deducible from the meanings of its components. So, the word-group is motivated though stable.
Stability viewed in terms of probability of occurrence seems a more reliable criterion in differentiating between set-phrases and free word groups. But it cannot be relied upon to single out phraseological units.
Two other approaches are contextual and functional. The functional approach puts forward an objective criterion for singling out a small group of word-equivalents possessing all the basic features of words as lexical items. The contextual approach makes the criterion of stability more exact.
Each of the three approaches has its merits and demerits.
All the three approaches are sufficient to single out the extreme cases: highly idiomatic phraseological units and free word-groups. The status of the bulk of word-groups possessing different degrees of idiomaticity cannot be described with certainty by applying the criteria available in linguistics science.
According to new approach, suggested by Koonin, phraseology is regarded a self-contained branch of linguistics not a part of lexicology.
PhUs can be traced to free word-groups. In the process of loosing motivation PhUs turn into free word-groups. Causes:
a) one of the components becomes archaic and drops out of the language (loss of motivation - to and fro);
b) one meaning of the polysemantic word disappears (to have a mind to do smth);
c) a free word-group from professional speech comes into general literary use (to pull strings/wires);
d) a part of a proverb, a saying begins to be used as a self-contained unit (a new broom);
e) a part of a quotation from literary sources, mythology or the Bible > a self-contained unit (a green-eyed monster).
The following euphonic, imaginative and connotative features enhance stability of set phrases: rhythm, rhyme, alliteration, imagery, even the muscular feeling one gets pronouncing them.
PRINCIPLES OF SYSTEMATIZATION. LEXICAL SYSTEMS IN ENGLISH
1. The term system denoted not only the sum total of English words, but a set of elements associated in functioning together according to certain laws. It is a coherent homogeneous whole, constituted by interdependent elements of the same order related in certain specific ways. The vocabulary of a language is an adaptive system.
A Set is a collection of definite objects to be conceived as a whole.
The lexical system of every epoch contains:
productive elements typical of this particular period,
others that are obsolete and dropping out of usage,
some new phenomena, significant marks of new trends for the epochs to come.
The present status of the system is an abstraction, because the actual system of the language is in constant development.
2. Lexicology studies that system by determining the properties of its elements and the different relationships of contrast and similarity existing between them within a language, as well as the ways in which they are influenced by extra-linguistic reality. The extra-linguistic relationships refer to the connections of words with the elements of objective reality they serve to denote, and their dependence on the social, mental and cultural development of the language community. The language reflects the objects of reality by means of word-meanings, which render the notions. But that reflection is selective, only relevant to human activity things are taken.
The abstract system of the language was called by V.V. Vinogradov “the lexico-semantic system” and meant by that term the sum total of words and expressions and the derivational and functional patterns of word forms and word-groups, semantic groupings and relationships between words.
It is more or less universally accepted that word-meaning can be perceived through intralinguistic relations that exist between the words. Intralinguistic relations of words can be of two types:
syntagmatic – define the meaning the word possesses when it is used in combination with other words in the flow of speech;
paradigmatic – exist between individual lexical items which make up one of the subgroups of vocabulary items (synonyms, lexico-semantic groups, etc.) and define the word-meaning through its interrelation with other member of the subgroup in question. There can be closed and open subgroups (personal pronouns : : synonyms).
3. Syntagmatic relations.
context – the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word.
l
inguistic
(verbal) context extra-linguistic (non-verbal) context
lexical grammatical (context of situation)
Thematic grouping (based on co-occurrence in certain repeatedly used contexts).
Usually thematic groups deal with contexts on the level of the sentence. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking of these things or events. Words making up a thematic group belong to different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning.
4. Paradigmatic grouping.
parts of speech (noun, adjective, verb, pronoun, numeral, adverb, preposition, conjunction…)
according to morphological structure (simple, derived, compound, compound derivatives)
according to origin (native, borrowed (loan), international words, etymological doublets, translation-loans)
stylistic reference (emotionally coloured words (words with affective connotations) + emotional nonce-words, emotionally neutral words, intensifiers, evaluatory words, stylistically coloured words, stylistically neutral words)
semantic characteristics (verbs of perception, movement…)
terminological grouping (according to the branch of science or sphere of life; according to the origin and formation (formation of terminological phrases with subsequent clipping, ellipsis, blending, abbreviation; the use of combining forms from Latin and Greek; borrowing from another terminological system within the same language), according to the word-formation; borrowing from other languages)
hyponymic subsystems
- semantic relation of inclusion. Hyponymic relationships may be viewed as the hierarchial relationship between the meanings of the general and the individual terms.
general term = classifier, genus, hyperonym;
individual term = differentia, hyponym.
lexical (conceptual, semantic) fields
- according to the concepts underlying their meaning. S.F. – a closely knit sector of vocabulary characterized by a common concept. (colours, terms of kinship, (pleasant) emotions, etc.). The members are not synonymous but all of them are joined together by some common semantic component (common dominator of meaning). All members of the field are semantically interdependent as each member helps to delimit and determine the meaning of its neighbours and is semantically delimited and determined by them. That is, the word-meaning is to a great extent determined by the place it occupies in its semantic field.
Smaller groups consisting of words of the same part of speech are called lexico-semantic groups.
Different meanings of a polysemantic word can make it possible to refer it to different groups.
suppletivity (father-paternal; lip-labial; sun-solar…)
non-semantic grouping
- alphabetical organization of written words; rhyming organization; based on the length or the number of letters the words contain; based on a statistical analysis of the frequency of words)