31. Antonyms. Definition. Morphological and semantic classifications of antonyms.

Antonymy is a type of paradigmatic relations based on polarity of meaning.

Antonyms (Gr. antí ‘against,’ ónyma ‘name’) are two or more words of the same language belonging to the same part of speech and to the same semantic field, identical in style and nearly identical in distribution, associated and often used together so that their denotative meanings render contrary or contradictory notions.

For the analysis of the semantic continuum where synonyms and antonyms interplay, one can use the ‘semiotic square’ model suggested by Algirdas Greimas, a Lithuanian-born linguist and semiotician who laid the foundations for the Paris School of Semiotics and is considered, along with Roland Barthes, the most prominent of the French semioticians.

According to the character of semantic opposition:

Antonyms proper (contrary antonyms) are antonyms which possess the following characteristics:

-they are gradable, i.e. there are some intermediate units between the most distant members of a set, e.g. cold – cool – tepid – warm – hot; never – seldom – sometimes – often – always;

-they are capable of comparison, e.g. good – better – best vs. bad – worse – worst;

-they can be modified by such intensifiers as very, slightly, extremely, fairly, rather etc., e.g. huge – very big – BIG – quite big – medium-sized – quite small – SMALL – very small – tiny;

-they do not deny one another, e.g. She is not beautiful ≠She is ugly;

-they refer not to independent absolute qualities but to some implicit norm, e.g. a big mouse vs a small elephant.

Contradictory antonyms (complementary antonyms) are mutually opposed (exclusive) and deny one another, e.g. male – female; married – single; asleep – awake; same – different. Their features:

-not gradable;

-truly represent oppositeness of meaning;

-cannot be used in the comparative or superlative degree;

-the denial of one member of such antonymic opposition always implies the assertion of the other, e.g. not dead – alive.

Conversive antonyms (conversives) are words which denote one and the same situation as viewed from different points of view, with a reversal of the order of participants and their roles, e.g. husband – wife; teacher – pupil; to buy – to sell; to lend – to borrow; to precede – to follow. These antonyms are mutually dependent on each other and one item presupposes the other.

Vectorial antonyms (directional antonyms) are words denoting differently directed actions, features, e.g. to rise – to fall; to arrive – to depart; to marry – to divorce; to learn – to forget; to appear – to disappear.

Morphological classification of antonyms by V. N. Komissarov (Dictionary of English Antonyms):

root antonyms (absolute antonyms) are antonyms having different roots, e.g. clean – dirty; late – early; day – night;

derivational antonyms are antonyms having the same root but different affixes, e.g. to fasten – to unfasten; flexible – inflexible; useful – useless.

32. Grammatical and lexical valency. Grammatical and lexical context.

The appearance of words in a certain syntagmatic succession with particular logical, semantic, morphological and syntactic relations is called collocability or valency.

Valency is viewed as an aptness or potential of a word to have relations with other words in language. Valency can be grammatical and lexical.

Collocability is an actual use of words in particular word-groups in communication.

Lexical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in various collocations, i.e. in combinations with other words. The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the E. plant and Ukr. рослина may be combined with a number of words denoting the place where the flowers are grown, e.g. garden plants, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. Ukr. садові рослини, оранжерейні рослини, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into combination with the word room to denote plants growing in the rooms (cf. pot plants — кімнатні рослини).

The interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy:

-the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members of word-groups, e.g. heavy, adj. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to digest’ is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc., but one cannot say *heavy cheese or *heavy sausage;

-different meanings of a word may be described through its lexical valency, e.g. the different meanings of heavy, adj. may be described through the word-groups heavy weight / book / table; heavy snow / storm / rain; heavy drinker / eater; heavy sleep / disappointment / sorrow; heavy industry / tanks, and so on.

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as the characteristic minimal lexical sets that operate as distinguishing clues for each of the multiple meanings of the word.

Grammatical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) structures. Its range is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical, e.g.

-the verbs suggest and propose can be followed by a noun (to propose or suggest a plan / a resolution); however, it is only propose that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb (to propose to do smth.);

-the adjectives clever and intelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency as clever can be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adj. + Prep. at + Noun (clever at mathematics), whereas intelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.

-The individual meanings of a polysemantic word may be described through its grammatical valency, e.g.

- keen + N as in keen sight ‘sharp’; keen + on + N as in keen on sports ‘fond of’; keen + V(inf) as in keen to know ‘eager’.

Lexical context determines lexically bound meaning; collocations with the polysemantic words are of primary importance, e.g. a dramatic change / increase / fall / improvement; dramatic events / scenery; dramatic society; a dramatic gesture.

In grammatical context the grammatical (syntactic) structure of the context serves to determine the meanings of a polysemantic word, e.g. 1) She will make a good teacher. 2) She will make some tea. 3) She will make him obey.