6. Негізгі және қосымша әдебиеттер тізімі.

6.1 Негізгі әдебиеттер

1. Апресян Ю.Д. Избранные труды. Интегральное описание языка и системная лексикография. Т. 1. М.: Школа «Языка русской культуры», 1995.

2. Арутюнова Н.Д. Язык и мир человека. М.: Школа «Языка русской культуры», 1999.

3. Гинзбург Р. З. и др. Лексикология английского языка. М.: Высшая школа. 1979

4. Кубрякова Е.С. Язык и словообразование. М.: Языки русской культуры. 2006

5. Телия В.Н. Коннотативный аспект семантики языковых единиц. М.: Наука, 1986.

6. Уфимцева А.А. Типы словесных знаков. М. Языки русской культуры. 2008

7. Wierzbicka A. Lingua Mentalis. Sydney etc.: Acad. Press, 1980. – 367 p.

6.2 Қосымша әдебиеттер

1. Арнольд О.С. Лексикология современного английского языка. М.: Высшая школа, 1973

2. Щерба Л.В. Языковая система и речевая деятельность. Л., 1974.

3. Кунин А.В. Фразеология современного английского языка. М.: Высшая школа, 1972 4. Interpretation // Proceeding of the Fifth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, August, 1997. Cambridge (Mass.). p. 43-49.

7. Білімді бақылау және бағалау

Білімді бақылау және бағалау аудиториялық дәрістер, практикалық сабақ СОӨЖ және СӨЖ бақылау жұмыстарынан құрылады.

Тәртіп бойынша бақылау шегі үлгерімнің жоғары көрсеткіші деп анықталады– 60 % және қорытынды аттестация (емтихан) – 40 % және 100% құрайды, яғни қорытынды баға формула бойынша анықталады:

И_% =Р1+Р2/2 *0,60+Э*40

Сол Р1 – бірінші рейтинг бағасының пайыздық құрамы;

Р2 – екінші рейтинг бағасының пайыздық құрамы;

Э – емтихан бағасы пайыздық құрамы

Сондықтан қорытынды бағаны есептеу үшін оқушының бақылау шегінен бағалау керек. 0 ден 100%.

Бағалау жүйесі:

• Бақылау жұмыстары 20 %

• Дәрістерде белсенділігі 10 %

• Жеке презентация 10 %

• Аралық бақылау жұмысы 20 %

• Емтихан 40 %

• Қорытынды 100%

Пән бойынша студенттердің білімін бағалау қорытындысы

Әріптік бағалау жүйесі	Баллдар	%-дық құрамы	Дәстүрлі бағалау
А	4.0	95-100	Үздік
А-	3.67	90-94
B+	3.33	85-89	Жақсы
В	3.0	80-84
В-	2.67	75-79
С+	2.33	70-74	Қанағаттанарлық
С	2.0	65-69
C-	1.67	60-64
D+	1.33	55-59
D	1.0	50-54
F	0	0-49	Қанағаттанарлықсыз

8. Оқу пәнінің саясаты:

Пән дәріс, сондай-ақ студенттердің өздік жұмысты қарастырады. Өздік жұмысы оқушылардың практикалық дағдыларын қалыптастыру және шығармашылық белсенділіктерін арттыру мен логикалық ойлау жүйесін дамыту үшін ойластырылған. Курс келесі бақылаудың түрлері мен тәсілдерін енгізеді: ағымдық және қорытынды бақылау. Бақылау тақырыптық бақылау жұмыстары, аралық тестер, мәселелі сұрақтарға жеке жасалым, зерттеу жұмыстары (реферат) қорытынды емтихан ретінде жұргізіледі. Бақылаудың барлық түрлеріне қатысқан жөн.

Оқу үрдісінің тиімді болуы үшін студент келесі тәртіпті сақтау керек:

• Дәріске қалмау;

• Дәріс үстінде сөйлемеу;

• Ұялы телефонды өшіру;

• Дәрісті босатпау, ауырған жағдайда анықтама әкелу;

• Үй жұмыстарын уақытылы және дұрыс орындау;

• Оқытушы мен басқа студенттерге төзімді және сыйластықпен қарау;

• Міндетті және төзімді болу.

Lecture 1. Introduction. Lexicology: a branch of linguistics. Purpose, topical issues, subject of the course

PLAN

Introduction

1. The subject matter(s) of Lexicology

2. Lexical units.

1. Lexicology is a branch of linguistics. The literal meaning is of the term LEXICOLOGY is the science of the word. (Реформатский), or the science of the word-stock (lexicon, lexis) of a language. (Ахманова), (ЛЭС). The term was first introduced by D. Didrot and J.- L. d’ Allambert in “French encyclopedia”, 1765. The science has its long tradition, and embraces the following questions:

- meaning(s) of words,

-invariant / variants of the word,

- systemic relations of lexis.

The meaning of words: the semantic structure of a word which includes information about the world. Types of meanings, change of meaning, word-groups, word-formation (building), etymological study of the English word-stock, variants and dialects, lexicography.

The variant / invariant study covers actual / common (usual) meaning of a word. Cf. sour has three semantic variants: having the taste that is not bitter, salty, or sweet, and is produced esp. by acids (Lemons are sour); having the taste of fermentation (chemical action by bacteria) (The milk has gone sour); having or expressing bad temper, unfriendly, sullen (He gave me a sour look); infml bad or wrong, disappointing (The project turned / went sour on us when we found no oil and our backers pulled out their money).

Systemic relations of lexis (paradigmatic and syntagmatic) are based on identity of meanings and forms. (synonyms, homonyms, hyponyms, etc).

Modern interpretation of lexicology deals with the description of word-meaning(s) as the integral part of the description of the whole language.

2. Despite the fact that Lexicology is originally the science of the word it studies various lexical units (words, morphemes, word-groups, and phrasiological units). In this respect, the notion of ‘word’ is far from being clearly defined. As Yu.S. Maslov defined it is the basic unit of language system: it has meaning and can stand alone, the last characteristic makes the word different from the morpheme which also has meaning. Moreover, the word is the smallest unit ready for syntactic use.

In the frame of Lexicology the word can be defined in its meaning and form. In semiotics the word is a name for things, actions, and qualities. It is a sign with meaning. However, word-groups (phraseological units, idioms, set-expressions, etc) are also meaningful units, they are names but, in their form, not identical to the notion of word. They translate one idea. Thus, the borders of Lexicology are not clearly determined. In general, Lexicology is aimed at giving a systemic description of the word-stock.

References:

1. Ахманова О.С. Словарь лингвистических терминов. М.: Наука, 1966.

2.ЛЭС – Лингвистический энциклопедический словарь / Под ред. В.Н. Ярцевой. М.: Наука, 1990

3. Маслов Ю.С. Введение в языкознание. М.: высшая школа, 1975.

4. Реформатский А.А. Введение в языкознание. М.: Наука, 1967

5. Уфимцева А.А. Лексическое значение. М.: Наука, 1986.

6. Блумфилд Л. Язык. Перев. с англ. яз. М., 1968

7. Смирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956

Lecture # 2. Referential approach to meaning

There are different approaches to the meaning of the word. One of them is the referential approach defining meaning by establishing interdependence between words and the things / concepts they denote. This approach distinguishes the components closely connected to meaning: the sound form of the linguistic sign (sign), the concept (designatum) and the actual referent (denotatum), i.e. the part of the real to which the linguistic sign refers. They make up “the basic triangle” of the meaning.

1. Concept is a category of human cognition. It is a form of thinking. It reflects the essential common and typical features of the referent. The words expressing a concept in different languages may have different meanings (soul – душа, friendship / friend - дружба / друг). Some scholars make difference between concept and meaning (concept – mental category – universal to all cultures, meaning – linguistic category – specific to one language / culture), e. g. the concept of movement is universal, on the linguistic in level it can be denoted in English by go, walk, move, stride, etc; in Russian by ходить, ехать, двигаться, шагать и т.д. (go / ехать – ходить). For other scholars concept is not only a mental category but also a linguistic one. Thus, it can have some universal and specific characteristics. In fact, it is hardly possible to make a borderline between concept and meaning, cognition and language / speech, for speaking is uttering of thoughts.

2. To distinguish meaning from referent one point should be taken in account that meaning is a linguistic category whereas the referent is an out - linguistic phenomenon. One thing of the world can be named by more than one word with different meanings; it depends on the characteristic of the denoted object which is highlighted in the speech (Jack – my brother – he, flower – rose –it, to work – to sweat blood).

Besides, there have been other fundamental approaches to meaning, functional or pragmatic ones, in particular, and others.

The word is the major linguistic unit of the language, denoting the out-linguistic world. It has phonetic (phonetic features forming its sounding), grammatical (morphological structure), and semantic characteristics (lexical and grammatical meanings) specific to the definite language. Grammatical meanings build a grammatical form of the word (leave–left-leaving). In speech a word is in a definite grammatical form. Lexically, the word is a lexeme. The word has its basic and derived forms. Semantic and grammatical characteristics define it as a part of speech. Syntactically, the word is a constituent part of the sentence (utterance).

As a meaningful unit the word embodies the accumulated human knowledge of the extra-linguistic world. It denotes notions: ideas, beliefs, or opinions (e.g., friend). The notion (concept) is in language users’ mind. In the early times of language studies the attention was drawn to the form (sound and morphological structure) and meaning of the word. The grammar theory by Panini dealt with the morphological structure. In Ancient Greece Plato and Aristotle studied the semantic structure of the word, i.e., the relations ‘the word and its referent or its notion’. In the Middle Ages the subject matter of the European scholars’ researches was the interrelation between the word and the notion (referent), whereas the Arabs studied the morphological structure. The 19^th century: Gumboldt, A.A. Potebnya, Paul, Breal, etc. continued this view.

In the 20^th century a new approach to the language as to a system highlighted the main issues: the word is a language and speech unit, techniques of research, and the definition of the word. In the 60s and 70s USSR and abroad: word – building and dynamic models of language (transformational models by Chomsky: the meaning and the form was explained by different syntactic constructions, explanation of the intercourse between ‘he’s arrived’ and ‘his arrival’. The 80s: meaning of the derived word (Kubryakova), nomination (Сахарный, Кубрякова, Милославский).

The definition of the word is closely connected with its boundary (e.g., get up – one or two words). Different criteria: the graphic one – the sequence of signs gapped between. This criterion is used in applied linguistics. The phonetic criterion – there can be a pause before and after the word, a stress, syllabic structure, positional modifications of sounds and tone, other features (some sounds cannot be in the beginning or the end of the word, e.g.,  in the beginning). However, the phonetic word does not have the same boundaries as the lexical and grammatical word. The morphological criterion says that elements of the word cannot be divided, replaced, or clipped without destroying its semantic and grammatical constitution. This criterion cannot be accepted either (e.g., upbrinning – bring up).

Syntactic criterion: the word is the smallest unit of the sentence (Sapir, Jacobson, Бодуен де Куртене). However, it does not differentiate morphemes from secondary parts of speech which cannot form a sentence. It highlights a part of speech not a word.

Semantic criterion: the word is a unit which denotes a notion (А.А.Реформатский, Л. Ельмслев). It is the smallest meaningful unit. However, this criterion does not differentiate the word (especially compound word) from the phraseological unit.

The definition of the word is of great importance for our topic. Referential approach seems to meet the traditional interpretation of the word. If the forms of the word refer to the same object theу are the forms of the same word. If the forms of the word denote different objects they are different words. So, we can state that the form built from another one should have different referents. Another problem to be discussed is the usage of the same word in different meanings (polysemantic word or homonym): if the use of a polysemantic word is the use of a separate word or the same word with another meaning. Потебня stated that the separate word is every use of it in a new meaning. This question can be considered in connection with etymology of the word.

The criteria cited above, separately, did not give the appropriate understanding of the word. Some scholars suggested that the word should not be considered as the main unit of language. Some gave up the ‘word’ term (F. Boas, Ch. Bally, A. Martinet). Bally replaced the ’word’ with ‘semanteme’ – non actualized sign with one lexical meaning and ‘syntactic molecule’ – actualized unit with a lexical meaning and grammatical properties functioning in a sentence. Martinet introduced ‘moneme’ (morpheme) term instead of the ‘word’ term. These are meaningful units to form a phrase or a sentence. Others thought that the ‘word’ term cannot be applied to inflectional and amorphous languages. Although the ‘word’ has been denied as an operational term it has been used by most linguists so far. One of the reasons for it is that the users feel and spontaneously differentiate the word in the intercourse. They speak by sentences but recognize the language due to the word. The word encodes all the human background of the culture. The knowledge is connected with the knowledge of the word.

Conclusion: the ‘word’ is not a homogeneous structure (notional and secondary words), without any clear borderlines between language units. For the purpose of our course, i.e. interrelation ‘morpheme – word – word-group’ there should be distinguished: inseparable morpheme, auxiliary morpheme - word (preposition, conjunction), notional single word, notional compound word (childcare), and notional complex word (childish). A word may have its variants (graphic – theater / theatre), phonetic (garage), stylistic (because / cos), lexical (different meanings), derived (syntactic / syntactical) and others.

The word-formation analysis is aimed at studying the interrelation between the basic and the derived unit, i.e. defining the internal feature which is at the basis of nomination, ways of building a new form and meaning. A new meaning formed in a derived word is termed a new formed meaning. Other supplementary grammatical and stylistic meanings can be added. So, there can be a complex meaning with the basic and supplementary ones.

Word-building is connected with nomination, reference, culture, background. Modern cognitive linguistics is interested in modeling linguistic meanings.

А.И. Смирницкий. Лексикология английского языка

Щерба Л.В. Что такое словообразование. ВЯ, 1962, № 2

Соболева Моделирование словообразования. В кн.: Проблемы структурной лингвистики. М.: 1972

Виноградов в.В. Словообразование в его отношении к грамматике и лексикологии. В кн. Избранные труды. Исследования по русской грамматике.

Г.О. Винокур, Ю.Д. Апресян, Степанов.

Lecture # 3. Types of meaning: denotative and connotative meanings

The above-mentioned points can be called pragmatic (Apresjan), connotation (Teliya), expressive (Городецкийj), stylistic (Винокур). This problem has been studied for the last 40 years, as a result of turning off the analysis of language as a system of symbols to the analysis of language in conversation.

1. Most words do not have in their meanings the information about the attitude of the speaker to the phenomenon they denote (horse, politician, to look, etc.). However, there are some words which have in their meaning a component revealing the evaluative judgment of the speaker to the denoted (cop, to flatter).

The words which express an evaluative judgment of the speaker in the pragmatic component of the lexical meaning are different from other words which also denote the speaker’s evaluative attitude. In this connection there should be mentioned the words which have an evaluative meaning in their cognitive (intentional) component (like, hate, irritate, etc). According to I.M.Kobozeva these kinds of words don’t denote any attitude of the speaker to the referent. Such words like hospitable, coward, stingy, brave denote phenomena which basically have evaluative characteristics: it is good to be hospitable in Kazakh culture, but it is bad to be stingy. However, they don’t mean a positive or negative attitude of the SPEAKER to such humans. They denote a common opinion of the PEOPLE in this area. Other scholars consider such meanings as pragmatic (Чернейко, Телия). Anyway, the pragmatic component is one of the constituent parts (another part is the cognitive component) of the whole lexical meaning.

There are words with the pragmatically oriented lexical meaning, e, i, their lexical meaning expresses an attitude of the speaker to the denoted phenomenon. E.g., He only ate three apples. The ‘only’ can be interpreted as ‘the speaker thinks that X is few’.

2. In pragmatic component of the lexical meaning there might be a positive – neutral – negative attitude of the speaker to the hearer: that how he considers his own and hearer’s statuses, their feelings, opinions, etc. U. D. Apresjan studied the cases of distant / non – distant relations on the example of the Russian pronoun ‘ты’. He invented the term of ‘personal sphere of the speaker’ by which he means the speaker’s picture of the world including himself, people and things he appreciate best of all, everything which is in his mind at the moment of speaking (Апресян, 1995).

Pragmatic meaning is the meaning of a lexeme actualized in a conversation by a speaker to achieve his/her communicative aim. There follows that it is considered not as a separate unit of lexical system but a word –constituent of an utterance. The spectrum of pragmatic functions of a word is derived from the lexical meaning. U. D. Apresjan called them trivial, e. g., the trivial pragmatic meaning of the Imperative Mood is causing an action: the speaker causes the hearer to act. The trivial meaning of the modal words such as evidently, apparently, probably, certainly, sure, etc, is to indicate the degree of certainty of the uttered phenomenon.

The words can have non – trivial pragmatic functions that are not derived directly from the lexical meaning, e.g., Mr and sir, врач и доктор (при обращении используется второе слово, это ограничение не объясняется исходя из лексического значения). E.g., the pragmatic function of the modal word sure can be that of yes - answer: He’s tired. – Sure (certainly).

Compare: sure enough – exactly as was expected, e.g., They said it would fall down and sure enough it did.

3. Another component of the pragmatic meaning of the word is connotation which denoted “non essential but constant characteristics of the concept”. («несущественные, но устойчивые признаки выражаемого ею понятия, которые воплощают принятую в данном языковом коллективе оценку соответствующего предмета или факта действительности» Апресян 1995, 159), or «совокупность … закрепленных в культуре данного общества ассоциаций», образующих сопутствующие лексическому значению «содержательные элементы, логические и эмотивные, которые складываются в стереотип» (Bartminski 1980, 13-14). The evident fact is that connotation refers not only to the Speaker but to the community as well. There can be cited the following examples: осел (признаки упрямства и тупости), пилить (признак монотонности), ветреный (признак легкомысленности), Greek (that it is beyond someone’s understanding in the utterance “It’s all Greek to me”), bear (characteristic – a rough, bad-mannered, bad-tempered man), to rabbit (derog. To talk continuously, esp. in an uninteresting or complaining way: He keeps rabbitting on his health).

Such linguistic phenomena as Life is life or Немец есть немец are tautological from the logical and formal points of view because they are uninformative in this sense. However, they are informative due to that the speaker on the basis of stereotypes rooted in his language community implicitly attributes such characteristics to the X.

L. V. Scherba pointed out the difference between the pragmatic meanings of the Russian word ‘вода’ and French word ‘eau’. Having a similar cognitive meaning they possess specific connotations: the first means ‘something deprived of content’ which is not proper to the second. The Russian term underlines the idea of no food use of the water. (Щерба, 1958: 86) Connotations are cross - culturally specific par excellence.

Tasks

1. Analysis of ‘you’

2. Analyze surely, certainly, definitely.

3. Give the connotations of the animal’s names (rabbit, fox, etc)

In semantic theories common meaning is represented as a list of obligatory conditions which can cover all actual meanings of the word. In modern linguistics, i.e. cognitive semantics a new way of analysis of a diffused lexical meaning was carried out by E.Rosh. At the basis of this viewpoint there is the theory of prototypes by G.Lakoff, Ch. Fillmore and other scholars developing cognitive approach to the language. They suggest defining the meaning of a word by a list of prototypes’ features (this word can be used to denote other referents sharing with the prototype not all the features but a part of them). Ch. Fillmore distinguished in the prototyped meaning of the verb ‘climb’ two features ‘moving up’ and ‘using feet and hands’:

E. g. : The monkey climbed up / down a flagpole.

The prototyped meaning can be presented by a cluster of semantic components, e. g. mother = the woman who bore a baby; brought him up; is a wife of his father; etc. /Lakoff1988, 42/. The list of components is not obligatorily finished.

There is a question: Does a polysemantic word in different conversations have the same or different meaning? There might be several reasons for discussion:

1. The difference of referents

Pete looked in the mirror at his tongue and saw it was white

Mother tongue is a native language

2. Semantic combination of a word and combinational characteristics of other words to be matched.

He mastered five languages

He mastered the medical language

The verb ‘walk’ has semantic limits onto the words to be combined with it: it is to possess the semantic component ‘a human being able to move’ whereas the verb ‘go’ does not.

3. Syntactic combination of a word.

He is walking in the garden

He is walking his dog in the garden.

He is walking (quickly) to the garden

Grammatical meaning – general, common meaning of the words of the same part of speech. It can be identified by distributional analysis.

Lexical meaning – this component is common to all forms of the word (drive-driving-drove: the same lexical meaning of moving by car but different grammatical meanings), i. e. the meaning of the lexeme.

The difference between two meanings is not a completely solved matter. In fact, a concept may be expressed lexically and grammatically (the concept of the plural). I.M. Kobozeva believes that grammatical meanings do not reflect the world (as lexical meanings do it) but its structure from speaker’s position. She follows Talmy’s ideas.

Lexical meaning contains denotative and connotative components. A lexeme contains not only a lexical meaning but also pragmatic and syntactic components.

Glossary

Cognition – the act or experience of knowing including consciousness of things and judgment about them

Cognitive – of or about cognition

Pragmatics – the study of the way words and phrases are used in conversation to express meanings, feelings, and ideas which are sometimes different from the actual meaning of the words used.

Common meaning (узуальное значение) - a wide spread meaning of the word registered in the dictionary

Actual meaning (актуальное значение) – the meaning actualized in a concrete situation of communication

Referent – a denoted object or a thing of the reality

Denotative meaning - the information on the real or imaginative world which is meant by the linguistic unit. A linguistic unit denotes a thing or state of affaires in the real or unreal world which are called referents.

Cognitive (conceptual, сигнификативное, the intentional) meaning – information on the features and properties on the basis of which the things and states of affaires are classified.

Pragmatic meaning – information on the conversational factors: speaker / hearer, their communicative purpose, attitudes, relationships, etc.

Connotation – meaning related to the pragmatic meaning or in other terms ‘semantic associations’. In modern linguistics connotative meaning is different from other pragmatic meanings for it refers not one speaker but to all the speakers of the community. Thus, the speaker expresses the common evaluation to the denoted object but not his / her personal attitude. E.g., the connotative meaning of stupidity in the word осёл is well-known to every speaker of the Russian community; the use of this word in speech to characterize a person is common. Cf., such statements ‘Life is life’ (implicitly a stereotyped characteristic is expressed associated in speaker’s mind with such kinds of phenomena).

Lecture # 4. Word form and word meaning

Semantic structure of the word: semantic invariant and semantic variant (сема, дифференциальный признак). Semantic differences in meaning can be dealt with psychological, social and other characteristics of the speaker. A speaker with his/her knowledge and experience can have specific associations with the word he/she pronounces (homonymy, semantics, etc). In such cases a variation of designatum (сигнификативное значение) is meant. A word out of context (conversational situation) can be identified as a word in its usual (common) meaning. The common meaning is the abstract meaning (which consists of uncountable actual meanings of the word in conversation) or the invariant (in the theory of diffused meanings by D.N. Shmelyov, A.A. Ufimtseva) with unclear features. The difference of actual meanings in the following examples can be explained by means of out-linguistic factors.

a) Having seen the officer she dropped her glove

b) Being in a hurry she dropped her glove

In both sentences there are two situations with different referents:

Drop a) = X intentionally let Y drop, as a result Y falls down;

Drop b) = X unintentionally let Y drop, as a result Y falls down

According to I.M.Kobozeva the verb ‘drop’ has the same common meaning ‘X let Y drop, as a result Y comes down’. The semantic component ‘intentionally/unintentionally’ can interpreted as extralinguistic:

1) Awareness of peculiarities of meeting people in a society;

2) Knowledge of lack of control, in a hurry, over one’s actions.

This type of meaning is called conversational polysemantic meaning (U.D.Apresjan)

By ‘semantic structure of the word’ is meant the total of common meanings of the word semantically derived from each other. How are these meanings connected? What are the ways of semantic derivation? The meanings of a polysemantic word are connected by conceptual relations. Conceptual relations can be different: causal, temporal, spatial, part-whole etc. E. g., metonymy (I would like one coffee), synecdoche (He was a skirtchaser)-part-whole (cloth-man), metonymy (the leg of the table).

Synchronic Approach

Synchronically polysemy is interpreted as the coexistence of various meanings (semantic variants) of the same word at a certain historical period of the development of English. The problems to be discussed are: if all the meanings are equal representatives of the semantic structure of the word; if all the meanings should be registered in the dictionary. We may find it difficult in some cases to single out the invariant since two or more meanings may be felt as equally ‘central’ in the semantic structure of the word (table p.35 Guinsbourg). One of the traditional viewpoints is that the meaning which has the highest frequency in speech is the representative of the whole semantic structure of the word. So, the problem of polysemy is that of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word.

Traditionally all relations between the meanings of the polysemantic word are classified in metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche. Metaphorical relations between meanings are based on similarity of the denoted things (flame – flame of love). Metonymical relations are well understood on adjunct functions of the denoted objects (Work is not only a kind of activity but a place where this activity happens: I left my book at work). Synecdoche – part-whole relations (French people – people opposite to elite)

In cognitive semantics these relations are interpreted in terms of experience, e.g. frame – the structure of experience data which elements are called slots. Metonymic meaning is considered as transference of a name from one slot of the frame to another. Cf. name of thought.

Lecture # 5. Origin and change of meaning

Diachronic approach

If polysemy is viewed diachronically, it is interpreted as the development and change in the semantic structure of the word. There appears a question of interrelation between the previous and new meanings. If they are interdependent or not (there is no connection, they are different).

Derived meanings which then make up the semantic structure of a word can have various results: metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche and other figures of speech. The derivation of meanings has the sources as follows: broadening and narrowing of semantic structure.

Broadening or generalization is transference from more concrete to more general or abstract notions. That is the most frequent way of forming new meanings. Metaphor is the result of this generalization based on similarity of characteristics of two referents. The similarity can be various: shape (The head of the government), position (the foot of the mountain), function (whip – in the British system of government a member of Parliament who is responsible for making other members of his or her party attend at voting time), behaviour (He is a lion in battle), colour (orange, hazel, chestnut), any look (in the sunshine of his smile), antonomasia - some proper names become common due to transfer the qualities to more referents (He is a Don Juan). The simile is another way of broadening meanings (I feel like a fish out of water), the metaphorical epithet (when I say he has green fingers. I mean he is good at gardening).

Narrowing or specialization or the narrowing is proper to the referents with special properties. The ‘case’ (circumstances in which a person or a thing is) has been specialized in a ‘lawsuit’, a ‘paradigm of a ‘noun’, ‘patient’s medical record’, etc. One of the synonyms can acquire more specialized meaning or common names can stand for proper ones (the City-the business center of London). Another way is ellipsis (‘dining room’, ‘sleeping room’ meant ‘space for dinning’, ‘space for sleeping’ and now the ‘room’ can be used without specializing words, for it took up a new meaning). Metonymy is a meaning formed on contiguity of characteristics of referents, i.e., the substitution of a word referring to an attribute for the thing that is meant. The mental patterns can be various: material stands for the product (glass-a glass, iron-iron), the form or place stand for the content (the amphitheatre for people; the Houses for members of Parliament), instruments stand for the performer (he is the first violin), the names of inventors stand for their inventions or trademarks for the product (Watt, Xerox).

Man does not invent a new word (a name), but uses the capacities of the patterns building new words. Thus, new objects, events, and concepts are denoted by linguistic units existing in a language. The new meanings, i.e., derived meanings appear due to certain mental processes.

Lecture # 6. Multi | mono semantics

Most words have more than one meaning, so they are considered as polysemantic words: a new meaning can even oppositely deviate from the basic or dictionary meaning. They appear as contextual meanings. U. D. Apresjan called them speech meanings, the ones which are not appropriate to the language and created in current communication. Stylistically, they are transferred, particularly metaphorical meanings. The transferred meanings may be fixed in dictionaries as a result of frequent use. The dictionary meaning, in different works, can be termed as basic, primary, literal, denotative, logical, cognitive, common and invariant one. The transferred meaning may be the figurative, connotative, actual, contextual, pragmatic, emotional, evaluative meaning.

Lexical stylistic devices

Lexical stylistic devices are specific linguistic tools formed on different principles: affinity (metaphor), substitution (metonymy, synecdoche), Conceptual relations can be different: causal, temporal, spatial, part-whole etc. E. g., metonymy (I would like one coffee), synecdoche (He was a skirtchaser)-part-whole (cloth-man). Metaphor is used to imply a resemblance, e.g. He is a lion in battle. They are called figures of speech.

1. All links between close meanings of a word are divided into metaphor, metonymy and synecdoche. Metaphoric relationship between the meanings is based on similar characteristics of denoted phenomena: tongue, mother tongue; flame, flame of love, etc. In cognitive semantics there is a theory of conceptual metaphor by G. Lakoff and M. Johnson. It is a way of thinking about a thing through another. The speaker transfers cognitive structures (frames, conceptual schemes, etc.) from source to target. E. g. Our relations have come to a dead end. The metaphorical meaning of the word ‘end’ reflects conceptual metaphor ‘love is traveling’.

Source Target

Traveling - Love

Travelers - Lovers

Means of transport - Relationships

Place of destination - Purpose of life

Obstacles - Difficulty

Forks - Decisive moment

The theory of conceptual metaphor has the following important points:

- metaphor is an important means with the help of which we understand abstract notions and make judgments of them.

- metaphor is not a linguistic but conceptual phenomenon

- metaphoric language is reflection of conceptual metaphor

- metaphoric concept is based on non-metaphoric concept but on sensory experience

2. Metonymic relations between meanings of a word are based on adjacent associations of denoted phenomena. E. g., work is an activity and a place where this work is done. (I am at work)

3. Synecdoche is based on correlation ‘part - total’ of denoted referents. E. g., people is all population of a state (German people) and working class in opposition to the elite (we should be close to people). OR, 50 head of cattle for 50 cows.

Other figures of speech:

4. Zeugma is a word used to modify or govern to or more words although appropriate to only one of them or making a different sense with each (Mr Pickwick took his hat and his leave)

5. Pun is the use of words to exploit ambiguities and innuendoes for humorous effect; a play on words. E.G., Ben Battle was a soldier bold, And used to war’s alarms: But a cannonball took off his legs, So he laid down his arms (Thomas Hood)

Lecture 4 Lexical devices.

Interplay between the denotative and emotive meanings:

Epithet is a lexico-syntactic device. The epithet expresses the subjective attitude of the speaker to the denoted referent. It is based on the interplay of the denotative and emotive meanings. The speaker characterizes the referent with the aim to give his /r individual perception of its properties (wild wind, cruel wind, etc.). The hearer can feel evaluation (positive, neutral, negative) in the epithet. Fixed (dead) epithet: burning heart, sweet smile. Genuine epithet, the one which is invented by a writer, or a speaker and not commonly used. Simple and compound epithets.

Oxymoron – Rhetoric. An epigrammatic effect, by which contradictory terms are used in conjunction: beautiful tyrant, awfully nice. The adverb lost its denotative meaning and functions as an intensifier.

Interplay between denotative, nominative and connotative meanings:

Antonomasia is 1. the substitution of a title or epithet for a proper name, such as his highness; 2. the use of a proper name for an idea. He is a real Mr X. The name serves the purpose of identification and gives connotative information about the bearer. It is used in Belles-Lettres, in Media style. Some proper names acquire new denotative meanings: quisling-derrog., someone who helps an enemy country that has taken control of his/her own country.

Lexico-syntactic devices

Hyperbole is a way of describing something in order to make it sound bigger, smaller, better, worse, etc. than it really is. ‘This chair weighs a ton’. This is an emphatic way of describing something.

Litotes is a way of expressing a thought by its opposite, esp. with ‘not’. “She is not bad (She is good)”

Personification – a figure of speech which attributes human qualities to the inanimate things and abstract notions. It is used in Belles-Lettres, Media style. In the saying ‘Time flies’ one can see the effect of personification.

Simile is an expression which describes one thing by directly comparing it with the another, using the words ‘like’, ‘as’, ‘as if’. Ordinary comparison and simile (a stylistic device) should not be confused. Comparison is made between the referents of the same class; simile is used to compare the referents of different classes. The compared thing turns up in unexpected light: ‘the obsession was as if the worm ….’ The properties compared in the simile are viewed from a specific angle.

Periphrasis is the re-naming an object by a phrase that bring out some particular features. The gentleman of the long robe – a lawyer. Most periphrastic synonyms are associated with the sphere of their application and the period they are (were) used. ‘A play of swords’ meant a battle. There may be common and genuine periphrases. Some authors use circumlocutions in order to obscure the truth. This round-about way of expression about common things has an unexpected effect.

Euphemism is a variety of periphrasis which is used to replace un unpleasant word or expression by a conventionally more acceptable one (to pass away, to depart – to die). There can be social, professional, political and other kinds of euphemism.

Lecture # 7. Word meaning in paradigmatics and syntagmatics

1. Lexical meaning and concept

1. This issue has been discussed for a long time, but it has not been given an overwhelming viewpoint. W. Gumboldt, E. Sepir, B. Worf, L. Weisberger, and others claimed that the meaning is determined by the structure of a language. So, the structure of a language determines the world vision. According to this theory in mind there represented two separate conceptual layers – the tier of meaning and the tier of concepts. The first is cross-cultural, that is its structure is specific in each language, the second is universal, it does not depend on a language.

2. The second point of view is that the world vision is not conditioned by the structure of a language but the reality and life background. The structure of the conscience is derived from the structure of the activities.

3. The main is that the humans have the common concept of class of things including within it all common (typical) and specific (noticeable) features of the things. The human does not have a separate scientific or common concept of a thing for he / she has unified concept of it based on his / her life experience. The new knowledge of a thing is based on the old information. It is deepened due to distinguishing specific and essential features of a thing. E. g. the human has two legs – specific feature, the human has memory and the ability to speak – essential feature.

4. Concept is a historic and developing category emphasizing a specific world vision. The historic nature of concept is conditioned by the human’s needs, lifestyle and standard of living. He / She can have different concepts of a thing: true or false, deep or narrow, but the concept is a definite mental form – form of thinking.

4. In human mind everything is structured. The human identifies things of the world and systemizes them according to the experience and creates conceptual structure of the mind.

5. The meanings of the linguistic symbols are also concepts but concepts connected with linguistic symbols. Thus, speaking on concepts and meanings we deal with the same conceptual content, but consider them with different purposes. In the first case we deal with what they denote, in the second with how the meaning is denoted. In the first case we are interested in the system and structure of the concept. In the second the attention is paid to the relations between meanings and symbols; how these meanings are distributed among the symbols.

6. The meanings are well-systemized and well-structured. Concepts, connected with symbols, become semantic units – meanings or semantic components. The total of meanings forms semantic systems of languages. Semantic systems are quite specific in each language.

- One of the reasons for it is that customs, beliefs and lifestyles determine cross-cultural differences. In spite of universal conditions of life there are specific ways of living and thinking which can form cultural gaps.

- The second reason for cross-cultural differences is that language leaves some freedom to choose the means of expression. Specific semantic systems exist as a result of proper linguistic peculiarities, not mental abilities.

- Moreover, there is no natural dependence between a symbol and a concept (symbol arbitrariness principle). E. g. the Russian word кора brings together three meanings of three concepts which are rendered in English separately: кора (earth) crust; кора (древесная) bark, rind; кора головного мозга cortex. The polysemantic structure of a word is specific in each language. In each language the concepts can be distributed among different linguistic levels: a concept can be expressed lexically or grammatically, e.g. little key – ключик, fatherless - не имеющий отца etc.

- Each language specifically combines its concepts; so, the languages can differ in the combination of concepts and distribution of meanings. E.g., ‘to man’ – укомплектовывать штатами, плотничать – to work as a carpenter.

- There can be some freedom in what might be expressed explicitly or implicitly (inferred from the context and communicative event). So, the state of affaires can be denoted with different degree of explicitness. This may relate to the grammatical level of languages: the Russian ‘Он работает’ corresponds to ‘He works’ and ‘he is working’. Both meanings are within one grammatical form, while the meaning of continuity is not a marked one, “not important” for a Russian speaking human, it is implicit. On the contrary, the aspectual meanings of repeated action and completed action are explicitly shown in Russian than in English: ‘Его вчера обманули’ ‘He was deceived yesterday’ и ‘Его вчера обманывали’ - ‘He was deceived (not once) yesterday’.

- Different conceptual and semantic systems can be displayed on the example of continuum, e.g., color spectrum, formed by a set of bands of colored light in the order of their wavelengths, into which a beam go light may be separated and may be perceived as a different color. The way of transition from one color to another is perceived specifically by humans of different cultures. In the continuum there may be distinguished a different amount of color units. As a result, the semantic systems of color meanings are specific: in English there are six of them, in Russian there seven due to the differentiation of light and dark – blue colors.

2. Structure of the lexical meaning

In the structure of the lexical meaning one can distinguish cognitive and pragmatic components or one of them. The words where the cognitive component is active have a descriptive meaning: they denote the semantic features of a concept (master, to go, rude). The pragmatic component relates to the evaluative meaning of the concept (scoundrel, rubbish, great). Some scholars consider it as a structural component of the meaning of the word which is given a priori (U.D. Apresjan), some of them consider it a result of interrelationship of the word and of the context. (M.V. Nikitin). Some words lose their cognitive meaning (cool, other slang). The essential point of such words is their evaluative meaning, i.e. subjective judgment of the speaker. The interjections only have a pragmatic meaning (wow, well, um).

Before analyzing the structure of the lexical meaning of the word a special attention should be drawn to the term of ‘semantic component (feature)’. It is a feature denoted in the meaning of the linguistic unit. It can cover the whole meaning (smart woman) or constitute the part of it (smart car). So, the lexical meaning can have a simple structure, so are the meanings of some adjectives and verbs, they are not divided into semantic components. But, the lexical meaning of the most words represents a total of semantic components. These components being a structure make up the intentional and the implicational (part). The first one is the nucleus of the lexical meaning, whereas the second is its periphery of semantic components surrounding the nucleus.

The intentional being the structured total of semantic components denote the class of referents (objects). The intentional is at the basis of cognitive operations when classifying and naming objects, e.g., all mothers are women and parents, these two components (parent and female gender) are the intentional of the word ‘mother’.

The information on the objects is made up of the intentional and some implicational components of the lexical meaning actualized by the context. Some implicational components may constitute the obligatory part of the lexical meaning; they can be presented in the entries (словарные статьи) of the dictionaries. Most of them are out of the obligatory part of the lexical meaning because, theoretically, the lack of such a feature of the object does not exclude it from the class. E. g., the intentional of the word ‘winter’ is the season from December to February (in the North part of the Earth). The implicational components are ‘the coldest season of the year’, ‘it snows’, ‘there is some ice’, ‘people wear warm cloths’, ‘and the sun hardly shines’, etc. If such a winter seems warmer than the other season of the year, however, it is winter the essential feature of which is the period of time.

The implicational components might be false, for there are all stereotyped associations true or false traditionally connected with a class: the fox is coward, the bear is… It should be noted that the implicational is culture-oriented. The cited implicational components are the fortis implicational.

The lenis implicational can be formed from other more or least probable features of the class, e. g., the fortis implicational of the word ‘girl’ are formed with the aid of usual and expected features of appearance, clothing, behavior, etc. of the girl. The lenis implicational might be rendered by traits of character, color, etc. These are gaps to fill and form the whole concept of the ‘girl’.

The existence of two parts of the lexical meaning can be proved by analysis of the oxymoron. It connects the intentional of the first word with the implicational of the second which is not proper to the first (женатый холостяк). The word with the direct meaning keeps its intentional but loses its implicational and borrows it from the other word.

The intentional is connected with cognitive activity of the human and coincides with the logic aspect of the concept. On the contrary, in the implicational there represented the probable structure of the world. The intentional is the constant component of the meaning, whereas the implicational is varied one, depending on the context.

The lexical meaning is not a structure with stable components because its nature has the base of probability.

3. Semantic structure of the word

By the semantic structure of the word is meant the total of common meanings of the word semantically derived from each other. How are these meanings connected? What are the ways of semantic derivation? The meanings of a polysemantic word are connected by conceptual relations. The meanings of homonyms are, on the contrary, not semantically connected, for they are derived from common component. Conceptual relations can be different: causal, temporal, spatial, part-whole etc. E. g., metonymy (I would like one coffee), synecdoche (He was a skirtchaser)-part-whole (cloth-man), metonymy (the leg of the table).

Syntactic expressive means can be called rhetorical expressive means, for they organize the text structure: its cohesion, timing and sequencing. The text structuring is aimed at producing an effect on the receiver. Syntactic means are realized in sentences (utterances), paragraphs and texts. A paragraph or a text can consist of more or less interdepended sentences.

A paragraph is a part of the text illustrating one of the themes of the whole text. It can be organized on the principle of strong cohesion. The whole of the paragraph has a gestalt, i.e., semantic and structural wholeness. So, gestalt is a whole which is different from all its parts put together and has qualities that are not present in any of its parts. It can, however, split into two syntactic wholes with a linking sentence. Between sentences there can be different connectors illustrated by conjunctions (however), adverbs (so, basically), and others.

The composition of the paragraph can be very complicated. In spite of the fact that a paragraph has a semantic (logical) unity with the leading idea, it can be divided into semantic sub-groups. Individual peculiarities in combining ideas into a graphical (syntactical and semantic) unity can be various ranging from what might be termed clearly-marked borderlines between the syntactic wholes to almost imperceptible semantic shifts. The paragraph can be marked by linguistic means as follows: intonation, pauses of various lengths, semantic ties, etc. During the analysis of a text there should be decoded its linguistic and extralinguistic components. The paragraph structure has a certain way of topicalization expressed by major sentences.

Lecture # 8. Word groups. Basic features

There may be various groups of words collocated on different principles.

1. lexical meanings (heavy book – great weight; heavy snow, traffic, smoker – great force, amount, or degree; heavy reading, work - great effort; heavy heart – great disappointment or sadness, heavy fruitcake – difficult for the stomach to digest; heavy clouds - ? ; infml Don’t be too heavy on her (severe or unsympathetic; infml This car is heavy on oil (using in large quantities); find something heavy going; make heavy weather of something, heavy duty clothes (tyres, machines), heavy industry, heavy metal, heavy-set people. But *heavy

Syntactic relations define the meaning the word possesses when it is used in combination with other words in the course of speech, e.g. He got a letter; He got tired; He got to London. Paradigmatic relations are between lexical items of a subgroup (sets of synonyms – get, obtain, receive, antonyms, semantic groups):

He got a letter

I received a note

She obtained the record by illegal means

The word – groups have lexical and grammatical meanings.

- The lexical meaning can be defined as the meaning of combined words. The meanings of combined words are more or less strongly interdependent. The meaning of the whole group of words is not a sum total of the meanings. Basically, only one meaning of a word can be combined with only meaning of another word (blind man, turn a blind eye, blind anger, as blind as a bat). Groups of words can be classified according to their strong or weak semantic inseparability. They are collocations, idioms, phrase logical units.

A collocation is a grouping of which “naturally” go together through common usage. Unlike idioms their meaning can usually be understood from the individual words (heavy smoker, not big). Common fixed collocations: you cannot change a word order and you cannot use other words even if they have simile meanings (call a halt to, not *stop a halt; a freak of nature, not *a monster of nature). The entries in the dictionaries show natural patterns of language, even if they are not fixed (by some strange freak, a film freak).

An idiom is a fixed group of words with a special meaning which is different from the meanings of the individual words. They are usually fixed (as blind as a bat, keep one’s head above water). She was over the moon about her new job. The exam was a piece of cake.

- The grammatical meaning is also important for the right interpretation of WG. In this respect, the word order, collocating prepositions, pattern arrangement as a whole interact with lexical meanings of words (school grammar – grammar school. The grammatical meaning of the whole pattern is expressed by the structural arrangement.

Lecture # 9 Structure and meaning in a word group

1. The sentence like any sign refers to the extralinguistic world – real or imagery. This relation between the sentence and extralinguistic world is named denotative or referential. The sentence denotes a state of thing: phenomena, events, states, process. On this principle there were carried out typologies of predicates.

The sentence can refer to:

a) the exact event with exact participants. E.g. Our boys are playing football

b) the class of things, (general statements) E.g. Boys play football

- E.g. John is a fisherman.

A) The name ‘John’ makes reference to the extralinguistic exact thing – person called John

B) The term ‘fisherman’ refers to the characteristic of being a member of the class

- E.g. The fisherman’s name is John

The term John refers not to the extralinguistic phenomenon, but to the name itself

Reference can be

1. definite or indefinite

The phenomenon can be known or unknown to the hearer from the speaker’s point of view. It is based on the knowledge about the world the speaker has in his mind. The definite reference can be emphasized by deictic means: е.g. I will buy this book, I am leaving now; by articles: e.g. The door is not locked, * A door is not locked, A man is coming, The man is coming, Входя в свою квартиру, Иван с удивлением отметил, что дверь не заперта.

Indefinite reference is based on the lack of knowledge: the speaker can not exactly identify the referent, e.g. Before leaving John spoke to someone on the phone. The speaker introduces a person in the discourse. The speaker knows nothing about him but he knows that John spoke to him.

2. unique or multiple

The quantitative aspect of reference in many languages is emphasized grammatically: the category of number represent the referent in one or more than one (two, three, etc.) number.

3. total or distributive

A plural referent can be perceived as a total: family, government is / are ; crime

Sentences

1. a) These books have valuable information

b) Each of these books has valuable information

2. a) These books crammed my room

b) *Each of these books crammed my room (total)

Task

All, each, every, any.

1. Yesterday all students received a student ID

2. Yesterday each student received a student ID

3. Yesterday every student received a student ID

4. *Any student received a student ID (definite temporal localization of the situation)

5 Any student has a student ID (a general proposition without any temporal characteristic)

Lecture # 10. Types of word-groups

Phraseological unit / set expression / idiom – a complex word-equivalent in which the globality of nomination reigns supreme over the formal separability of elements. It is reproduced in speech. – See Idiom proper

Typology of ph.us. (according to the degree of motivation):

- unities, phraseological (q.v.);

- combinations, phraseological (q.v.);

- fusions, phraseological (q.v.).

Phraseology.

Alongside with separate words speakers use larger blocks functioning as whole (consisting › 1 word). In any language there are certain restrictions imposed upon co-occurence of words.

They can be connected with linguistic factors or the ties in the extra-linguistic reality.

3 types of lexical combinability of words:

1).  Free combination Grammatical properties of words are the main factor of their combinability.

• Ex.: I’m talking to you. You are writing.

Free combinations permit substitution of any of its elements without semantic change of the other element.

2). Collocations.

• Ex.: to commit a murder

• Bread & butter

• Dark night

• Blue sky

• Bright day

They are the habitual associations of a word in a language with other particular words. Speakers become accustomed to such collocations.

Very often they are related to the referential & situational meaning of words. Sometimes there are collocations, which are removed from the reference to extra-linguistic reality. (collocations involving, colour words)

• Ex.: to be green with jealousy

• Red revolution

3).  Idioms

Idioms are also collocations, because they consist of several words that tend to be used together, but the difference – we can’t guess the meaning of the whole idiom from the meanings of its parts.

This criterion is called the degree of semantic isolation. In different types of idioms – it is different.

• Ex.: to cry a blue murder = to complain loudly

This classification of idioms according to their structure:

1. Fixed idioms

• a) fixed regular idioms It’s a 60-thousand dollar question = difficult question

• b) fixed irregular (can be varied on the grammatical level) to have a bee in one’s bonnet (She has.., I have...)

2. Variable (varied on the lexical level)

• Ex.: to add fuel to the fire/flame

• to mind one’s own business /to mind one business

• to nap a cat’s nap / to have a short nap (вздремнуть)

• dialectal: BrE: to have a skeleton in the cupboard

• AmE: to have a skeleton on the closet

Semantic classification:

2 criteria:

• The degree of semantic isolation

• The degree of disinformation

1.   Opaque in meaning (трудный для понимания) the meaning of the individual words can’t be summed together to produce the meaning of the whole.

• Ex.: to kick the bucket = to die

It contains no clue to the idiomatic meaning of this expression

The degree of semantic isolation is the highest. => phraseological fusions

2.    Semi-opaque

one component preserves its direct meaning

• Ex.:  to pass the buck = to pass responsibility – свалить ответственность

=> phraseological unities

3.    Transparent both components in their direct meaning but the combination acquires figurative sense

• Ex.: to see the light = to understand

=> phraseological combinations

There are lots of idioms (proverbs, saying).

• Ex.: Curiosity killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back

Idioms institutionalized formulas of politeness:

• · How do you do?

• · Good-bye (God be with you)

• · How about a drink?

Lots of clichés, quotations.

Clichés form a notable part of he public speaking style. They use clichés because of the intellectual laziness or in the hope of appealing to emotions of smb.

A talk based on clichés is easier to produce.

• Ex.: to see the light

• It’s high time to do smth

( these expressions are store in our mind, ready-made )

Quotations:

To support our arguments, to add some prominence

• Ex.: “I have a dream” M.L.King

• “To be or not to be” Shakespeare

They may be clipped or shortened.

• Ex.: To beer or not to beer (creates humorist effect)

• To bomb or not to bomb

• It was the last straw that broke the camels back.

Sources of idioms:

1. from our everyday life

• Ex.: to be born with a silver spoon in one’s mouth

• to sail under false colour (прятать истинное лицо)

• to loose track of smb (потерять кого-либо из виду, давно не видеть)

• a leopard can(’t) change its spots

2. from the Bible

• Ex.: black sheep, lost sheep (заблудшая овца)

• To cast pearls before swine (метать бисер перед свиньями)

3. World literature

• Ex.: to fight against Windmills

• an ugly duckling (Danish) – гадкий утенок

4. different languages

• Ex.: to lose face (Chinese)

• “The course of true love has never run smooth” Shakespeare “The 12th night”

• “The course of true reforms has never run smooth in Russia” – “the Times”

5. from history

• Ex.: to cross the Rubicon

• Labours of Hercules

• To bell the cat