3. The Semantic Structure of Words. Polysemy

In every language there are words having only one meaning - monosemantic (from Greek mono 'one') and more than one meanings - polysemantic (Gk. poly 'many'). To monosemantic words belong the majority of scientific and technical terms. Monosemy is an important property of terms, because polysemy in terminological systems would bring about confusion and misunderstanding. Besides terms to monosemantic words belong those having low frequency of occurrence, most of them are borrowed from other languages, such as menagerie (Fr.), alumnus (Lat.), etc.

The majority of words in English have more than one meaning, they are polysemantic. Polysemy is one of the means of language economy. It’s more typical of the English language than Russian. Short monosyllabic words which have developed polysemy prevail in English. For instance the words like to get, to take, to set, to have count dozens of meanings.

Polysemy in recent years has been treated as one of the manifestations of semantic variability. Each particular meaning of the word has been termed its lexico-semantic variant (LSV), the term was introduced by A.I.Smirnitsky. The common material (sound, graphic and grammar) form along with certain differences in the semantic aspect of the lexical unit makes it posible to distinguish lexico-semantic variants, e.g.: shade1 ‘comparative darkness caused by the cutting off of direct rays of light’, shade 2 ‘degree or depth of colour’; man 1 ‘human being’, man 2 ‘adult male human being’, get 1 ‘receive, obtain’, get 2 ‘become’, etc [Смирницкий 1956: 42]. A.I.Smirnitsky defined a lexico-semantic variant as a two-facet unit, the outer facet of which is the sound form of the word and its inner facet is one of the meanings of the word, i.e. denotating a certain class of objects.

So, monosemantic words are represented in the language system by one lexico-semantic variant, accordingly polysemantic words by a number of LSVs. Thus, the notion of lexico-semantic variability corresponds to the idea of word polysemy, the phenomenon which had been discovered long before the linguistic science was established, and which is of paramount importance for the description of the language system and for the practical tasks of correct presentation of the words’ meanings in dictionaries, their use in speech and text analysis while teaching languages.

The integrity of the lexeme presupposes its semantic unity. All the LSVs of the word are not isolated from one another but interrelated and make up a certain unity, a system. The systematic interconnection of various LSVs of one and the same lexeme makes up its semantic structure which might be defined as “the ordered (revealing the systematic interrelation of its elements) multitude of the LSVs of one and the same word” [Беляевская 1987: 72]. As it follows from the above definition, the notion of the semantic structure can be applied only to polysemantic lexemes.

What is it that underlies the unity of all the LSVs of the lexeme? There were different opinions expressed in linguistic literature to this end. There were the opinions that it might be the “semantic centre”, “the common or the general meaning of the word”, “the common notion”, etc. At present there came to light in linguistics the notion of the invariant (from Lat. invarians ‘unchangeable’) and variability in word meaning. The integrity of the word meaning is conditioned by the invariant meaning uniting all the LSVs of a certain lexeme while each particular LSV is a variant. The notion of invariant was borrowed from mathematics. In linguistics it was first applied to the phonetic units of the language – the phonemes, and then spread to other levels of linguistic analysis. It came to denote an abstract unit of the language embracing the totality of the main properties and features of all its actual manifestations which are regarded the variants of the unit in question. V.М.Sоlntsev defines the invariant as “something common which objectively exists in a class of relatively homogeneous objects or phenomena” [Солнцев 1977: 214]. Thus the notion of invariant is opposed to the notion of variant as the actual realization of the language unit, and this opposition corresponds to the dichotomy of language and speech: invariant is the unit of language-as-a-system and the variant is its actual realization in speech (language-in-action). Hence, invariant is all that is constant in word meaning. All the lexico-semantic variants make up the semantic structure of the lexeme.

For instance, the verb to jump has 12 LSVs according to the Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English (COD). The denotational aspect of the lexical meaning includes the semantic components: ‘movement’, ‘sudden’, ‘overcoming obstacles’. These are constant, invariant components of the verb’s meaning (Сf. to jump the stream, to jump the ditch, the fence, etc.) which can be traced practically in all the LSVs of the lexeme. Each particular LSV has certain variable semantic components differentiating it from other LSVs.

Thus LSV1 ‘Spring from ground, etc. by flexion and sudden muscular extension of legs or (fish) tail’ includes the semantic component which indicates the way the action is performed ‘by flexion and sudden muscular extension of legs’. This semantic component distinguishes LSV1 from LSV2 ‘Rise suddenly in price or quantity (The price of gold has jumped on the Stock Exchange)’, where the invariant component ‘sudden’ is found but the way the result is achieved is not indicated. Relevant for this LSV are the denotational components ‘increase’ and ‘quantity’. The component ‘sudden’ is also present in to jump over a fence, to jump into a taxi, to jump for joy, her heart jumped, to jump at an offer, etc. The variable component of this verb’s meaning might be the object which is the obstacle. It might be not only the physical obstacle on the way but people standing in line: to jump the queue, a part of written matter: to jump a paragraph, several pages.

The invariant components of meaning make all the LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme interrelated and interconnected, they make the lexeme a single whole, prove its integrity.

It’s very important to determine the types of the LSVs within the semantic structure of a lexeme and their interrelations. Here two approaches can be applied: the synchronic and the diachronic ones. Using the synchronic approach the linguist describes the semantic structure at a given period of time without taking into account the time of appearance of each LSV and also excluding the obsolete, archaic LSVs and those which fell into disuse.

The diachronic approach to the investigation of the semantic structure enables the lingiust to trace the processes of changes in the semantic structure, to single out the primary meaning of the word, to determine which LSVs were preserved since the earlier times and which ones fell out of use, to fix the newly emerged LSVs, i.e. to spot all the changes which happened in the semantic structure of the word in the course of its historical evolution.

Let’s illustrate the relations between the LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme floor, which according to the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) has the following LSVs:

1. Lower surface of room, boards etc. of which it is made;

2. Bottom of sea, cave, cavity, etc.;

3. Level area;

4. Colloq. (cricket) the ground;

5. Part of legislative assembly where members sit and speak;

6. Right to speak next in debate, e.g. have or be given the floor;

7. Minimum of prices, wages, etc;

8. Set of rooms on the same level in building.

The LSVs in the dictionaries of the OED type, which are compiled on synchronic principles, are presented in the order of their significance or frequency of usage in speech notwithstanding in what historical period they were fixed.

A synchronic classification of types of meaning within the semantic structure of the word was worked out by V.V.Vinigradov [Виноградов 1977]. He distinguished the following types of meaning:

1) direct nominative meanings which are directly related to the referent. They are characterized by a high degree of stability and are independent of the context;

2) nominative derivative meanings are derived from direct nominative meanings and they are dependent on the contexts of their usage;

3) phraseologically bound meanings are dependent on limited and specific contexts of phraseological units.

1. For instance, the lexeme floor has its direct nominative meaning represented by LSV 1 ‘lower surface of a room’. The direct nominative meaning comes first in synchronic dictionaries. There are several nominative derivative LSVs, e.g. LSV 2 ‘number of rooms on the same level in a building’, LSV 3 ‘bottom of the sea, of a cave, etc.’ and a phraseologically bound meaning (LSV 6) ‘right to speak next in a debate’ in to take (have, be given) the floor.

1. Diachronically within the semantic structure of words are distinguished primary (etymological) and secondary meanings (LSVs). The primary meaning is the meaning which appeared earlier than others, which are secondary. According to the OED the primary LSV of the lexeme floor is LSV2 - bottom of sea, cave, cavity, etc. Then go LSVs 1, 3, 8, 5, 6, 7.

1. As we see the correlation of LSVs while the diachronic approach differs from that of while applying the synchronic approach. Also compare the primary meaning of the word fellow borrowed from the Old Norse word felagi which is ‘comrade, companion’, with the secondary one ‘man, boy’, although in modern synchronic dictionaries the latter one is registered as LSV 1.

1. V.V.Vinogradov considers direct nominative meanings to be the basic ones in the semantic structure of the lexeme. They play a very important role in lexico-semantic variability. However, not all the nominative-derivative LSVs can be motivated immediately by direct nominative meanings. There might be LSVs derived from nominative-derivative LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme. For instance, examining LSVs in the semantic structure of the noun crack: 1. Line or division where sth. is broken, but not into separate parts; 2. Sudden, sharp noise; 3. Sharp blow which can be heard, etc. we observe that LSV 3 derived from LSV 2 but not right from LSV 1.

1. There are distinguished three main types of relations between LSVs in the semantic structure: 1) radial, 2) chain, 3) radial and chain combined.

1. Such types of relations are sometimes shown by graphs, though such graphs represent a somewhat simplified picture of semantic relations.

1. The radial relations of LSVs are represented by the semantic structure of the lexeme honest: 1) not telling lies, not cheating; 2) showing, resulting from: an honest face, done conscientiously; 3) sincere, frank: honest confession 4) genuine, not false: honest wool; 5) virtuous: an honest wife:

1. 

1. The example of chain relations in the semantic structure is the lexeme column: 1) upright pillar; 2) sth. shaped like or suggesting a column: a column of smoke, the spinal column etc.; 3) vertical division of a printed page; 4) series of numbers arranged under one another; 5) line of ships following one another. The following graph represents the chain relation of the LSVs in the semantic structure of the lexeme column:

1. 

1. Most widely spread are semantic structures combining chain and radial relations. They might be of quite different configurations. E.g. the lexeme wave: 1) long ridge of water, especially on the sea, between two hollows; 2) waving movement; 3) curve like a wave of the sea: the waves in a girl’s hair; 4) steady increase and spread: a wave of enthusiasm; 5) wave-like motion by which heat, sound or electricity is spread:

1. 

1. The above-mentioned relations are linear ones, that is why they somehow simplify the actual relations between LSVs in the semantic structure. Closer to the real state of things would be spherical representations of such relations. Besides linguists distinguish relations of inclusion (hypo-hyperonymic) and the similative relations between LSVs in the semantic structure of lexemes. The relations of inclusion can be exemplified by the semantic structure of the lexeme man where according to the COD dictionary the volume of meaning of LSV2 ‘the human race’ includes the meanings of LSV1 ‘human being’, LSV4 ‘adult male’, LSV10 ‘husband’ and others. The example of similative relations, which can be based on different types of transferences, is the lexeme dog, where LSV2 ‘worthless or surly person’, LSV4 ‘kind of mechanical device for gripping’ (cf. Rus. собачка). For details see [Харитончик 1992: 68 – 70].

1. Word meaning might undergo certain changes in actual contexts of the word’s usage. Hence there emerge contextual semantic variants of the word meaning. Contextual variability is defined as a certain modification of the word’s meaning in context, depending on individual peculiarities of the referent [Беляевская 1987].

1. Let’s regard some examples of contexts with the verb to fly:

Most birds and some insects fly.

A bee flew in through the open window.

The damaged aircraft was flying on only one engine.

That businessman flies great distances every month.

Dead leaves and bits of paper were flying about.

The player gave a great kick, and the football flew across the field.

Angry words were flying as the crowd grew more and more threatening.

I’m late, I must fly.

The thief was flying from justice. (LD).

Even if we do not take into account that the contexts of the above examples are not broad ones and thus are typified to a certain degree, it’s clear enough that in some contexts the meaning of the verb to fly ‘move through air with wings’ (COD) is subject to considerable modifications.

The semantic structure of words should be distinguished from its semic structure. If the semantic structure is the ordered multitude of the LSVs of the word, its semic structure presents the semantic content of the word on the level of minimal components of meaning – semes. The analysis of the semic structure of the word meaning is known as componential analysis (see also ch.3.1).

Comparing meanings of various lexemes, it is possible to single out minimal components of meaning which make up the semic structure of a lexeme or LSV. The first sample of componential (componental) analysis was the analysis of kinship terms by F.L.Lounsbury and W.H.Goodenough. For example, comparing the kinship terms mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, etc., one can distinguish the following components of their meanings (semes): gender, generation, lineality (direct, indirect) and then represent the semic structure of each lexeme as a set of semantic components or as semantic formulas [Кузнецов 1980].

Each particular LSV possesses a semic structure, accordingly polysemantic words possess both semantic and semic structures while monosemantic ones possess only semic structures.