6. Results of semantic change. Changes in the denotational meaning.

Results of semantic change can be generally observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word (restriction, narrowing, specialization and extension, broadening, generalization of meaning) or in the alternation of its connotational component ( “elevation”, “degradation” of meaning).

1) Changes in the denotational meaning may result in the restriction of the types or range of referents denoted by the word. This may be illustrated by the semantic development of the word hound which used to denote ‘a dog of any breed’, but now denotes only ‘a dog used in the chase’. So, when the types or range of referents denoted by the word is restricted, we speak about restriction or narrowing of meaning.

If the word with the new meaning passes from a general sphere to some special sphere of communication it is usual to speak of specialization of meaning. For example, the verb to glide (OE. glīdan) had the meaning ‘to move gently and smoothly’ and has now acquired a restricted, narrowed, specialized meaning in aviation ‘to fly with no engine’ (glider).

When we speak about the narrowing of meaning we imply that the range of the second meaning is more narrow than that of the original meaning.

Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is commonly described as extension, broadening, generalization of meaning.

The process of the extension of meaning may be illustrated by the word target which originally meant ‘a small round shield’ but now means ‘anything that is fired at, any result aimed at’. If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialized vocabulary into common use, we call it the generalization of meaning.

7. Results of semantic change. Changes in the connotational meaning.

2) There are other cases when the changes in the connotational meaning come to the fore. The words change connotational meaning and especially evaluatory component.

The semantic change in the word boor may serve to illustrate the so called “deterioration, degradation, degeneration” of meaning. This word was originally used to denote ‘a villager, a peasant’ (cf. OE ebur ‘dweller’), and then acquired a derogatory, contemptuous connotational meaning and came to denote ‘a clumsy or ill-bred fellow’. The word acquired derogatory emotive charge.

The ameliorative development or the “improvement” of the connotational meaning may be observed in the change of the semantic structure of the word minister which in one of its meaning originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’ but now it means ‘a civil servant of higher rank’. In this case the original meaning denoted a humble ordinary person and the second denotes a person of high rank. This fact is extralinguistic.

The examples given above show that the terms “deterioration, degradation, degeneration” and “amelioration, elevation” of meaning are imprecise. They do not reflect objectively the semantic phenomena they describe. The meaning in itself cannot become better of worse. It would be more credible to state that some cases of transference based on contiguity may result in development or loss of evaluative connotations.

Hyperbole and litotes in linguistic meaning are also examples of the changes in the connotational meaning.

Hyperbole is a transfer of the meaning when the speaker uses exaggeration to express his emotional attitude. Here denotative and emotional (connotative) meanings combine.

To make out description of the change of meaning complete we should use all the three criteria: for example, we take the word fowl and analyse it from the three mentioned points. The semantic change in this word was 1) brought about by linguistic causes (discrimination of synonyms) 2) it is characterized by metaphoric nature (similarity of referents) 3) it resulted in the restriction of the original meaning (earlier it meant any bird, now just domestic).

18+19. Phraseology.

Phraseology is a branch of linguistics studying word–groups consisting of two or more words whose combination is integrated as a unit (structure is stable) with a specialized meaning of the whole (with a transferred meaning), such as: ups and downs, for love or money. By the term ‘phraseology’we also mean the sum total of the mentioned expressions in the language.

Continued (intelligent) devotion to the problems of phraseology of such scholars as N.N. Amosova, A.V. Koonin and many, many others has turned phraseology into a full–fledged linguistic discipline.

Units of phraseology or phraseological units or idioms, as they are called by western scholars, represent the most expressive part of the language’s vocabulary.

Phraseological units or idioms are characterized by a double sense: the current meanings of constituent words build up a certain picture, but the actual meaning of the whole unit has little or nothing to do with this picture, in itself creating an entirely new image. A dark horse is not a horse of a dark colour, but ‘any mysterious person about whom little is known’.

So, together with synonymy and antonymy, phraseology represent expressive resources of vocabulary.

In modern linguistics there is considerable confusion about the terminology associated with these word–groups. Most Russian scholars use the term ‘phraseological unit’ (фразеологическая единица - ФЕ), introduced by academician V.V. Vinogradov. The term ‘idiom’ is widely used by western scholars. In Russian phraseology the term ‘idiom’ is applied only to a certain type of phraseological units (with completely transferred meaning).

Other terms denoting the same linguistic phenomenon are: set expressions, set phrases, fixed word–groups, collocations.

The confusion in the terminology reflects insufficiency of wholly reliable criteria by which phraseological units can be distinguished from free word–groups.

Free word–groups are so called not because of any absolute freedom in using them but simply because they are each time built up anew in the speech process whereas idioms are used as ready–made units with fixed and constant structures.

Difference between phraseological units and free groups.

This is the most discussed and the most controversial problem of phraseology. The task of distinguishing between free word–groups and phraseological units is complicated by the existence of a great number of marginal cases, so–called semi–fixed or semi–free word–groups, also called non–phraseological word-groups such as: to go bed, to take a shower, to force a smile, to wear a grin, etc. Such semi-fixed word-groups are as structurally stable as phraseological units are, but they lack semantic unity and figurativeness.

There exist two major criteria for distinguishing between phraseological units and free word–groups, they are:

1) Semantic criterion: phraseological units are characterized by semantic unity and completely or partially transferred meaning.

By semantic unity we understand the fact that phraseological units convey a single concept. The meanings of each constituent part of phraseological units merge and produce an entirely new meaning. In free word–groups each meaningful component stands for a separate concept.

Possession of semantic unity makes phraseological units similar to words.

Professor A.V. Koonin: “A phraseological unit is a stable word–group characterized by a completely or partially transferred meaning”.

So, the degree of semantic change in a phraseological unit varies. It may affect either the whole word–group or only one of its components.

1. The semantic change affects the whole word–group, e.g. to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds ‘to play a double game’.

The term ‘idiom’ both in this country and abroad is mostly applied to phraseological units with completely transferred meaning.

2. The semantic change affects only one of the components of a word–group, the other component preserves its current meaning, e.g. the lungs of London ‘London parks’.

2) Structural criterion means structural invariability of phraseological units, though some of them possess it to a lesser degree than others.

a) Substitution in phraseological units is restricted. As a rule, no word can be substituted for any meaningful component without destroying its sense. In free word–groups substitution does not lead to any serious consequences.

2. Introduction of additional components into the structure of a phraseological unit is also restricted, no word can be added to a word–group. One cannot say to out one’s *big foot into one’s *little mouth but only used without any adjectives it will be a phraseological unit to out one’s foot into one’s mouth and will mean ‘to make a rough mistake’.

Yet, in fiction such variation of idioms happen for stylistic purposes.

2. Phraseological units are grammatically invariable. One cannot say to find faults with somebody, but only to find fault with somebody, you cannot say from head to feet but only from head to foot.