Questions:

1. What are antonyms?

2. Prove that opposite meaning doesn’t always mean polar meaning.

3. What are contradictories? Give examples.

4. What are contraries? Give examples.

5. What are incompatibles? Give examples.

6. Give example of polysemy analysis through antonymy.

7. Prove that interchangeability of antonyms depends on the context.

Tasks:

1. Find out where do we observe a) root-words b) derivatives c) compounds d) compound – derivatives?

day

undone

daybook

blue-eyed

do

bookish

notebook

blackbird

daily

left-handed

table

2. Refer the words to following groupings a) thematic b) semantic c) lexico-semantic d) homonymic e) synonyms f) antonyms

election, to nominate, nominee, polling station, voters, ballot

eye, leg, foot, ear, mouth

to get, to understand, to realize

car, bus, rickshaw, scooter, bicycle

big – fat, big – great

war – peace

up – down

3. Name the type of the following synonyms

idle, lazy, indolent

father – daddy

motherland – fatherland

to get – to buy

to surprise – to astonish

to say – to speak

alone –lonely – single

famous – well-known – notorious

refreshment – feast

money – cabbage – bax – beans – brass

to visit (the museum) – to attend (a lecture)

4. Make a synonym set for the given word:

fear, …

to love, …

5. Find euphoniums for the following words:

to die

burial

to kill

grave digger

pregnancy

to be poor

6. What type of antonyms do we observe here?

round – square

friend – enemy

left – right

like – dislike

good – bad

in the dry tree – in the green tree

to swim like a fish – to swim like a stone

Seminar 6

Syntagmatic Relations of Words Lexical and Grammatical Valency

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §1. Lexical Valency (Collocability), §2. Grammatical Valency [pp. 64-67]

To get a better insight into the essentials of structure and meaning of word-groups we must begin with a brief survey of the main factors active in uniting words into word-groups. The two main linguistic fac­tors to be considered in this connection are the lexical and the gram­matical valency of words.

I

Lexical valency (collocability)

t is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combination with other words. Thenounquestion, e.g., is often combined with such adjectives asvital, pressing, urgent, disputable, delicate, etc. This noun is a component of a number of other word-groups, e.g.to raise a question, a question of great importance,a question of the agenda, of the day, and many others.

The aptness of a word to appear in various combinations is described as its lexical valency or collocability.

The range of the lexical valency of words is linguistically restricted by the inner structure of the English word-stock. This can be easily ob­served in the selection of synonyms found in different word-groups. Though the verbslift andraise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the nounquestion. The verbtake may be synonymically interpreted as 'grasp', 'seize', 'catch', 'lay hold of, etc. but it is onlytake that is found in collocation with the nounsexamination, measures, precautions, etc., onlycatch incatch smb. nappingandgrasp ingrasp the truth.

T

Norm of lexical valency

here is a certain norm of lexical valency for each word and any de­parture from this norm is felt as a literary or rather a stylistic device. Such word-groups as for examplea cigarette ago, shove a question and the like are illustrative of the point under discussion. It is becausewerecognize thatshove andquestion are not normally collocable that the junction of them can be effective.

W

Clichés

ords habitually collocated in speech tend to constitute a cliché. We observe, for example, that the verbput forward and the nounques­tion are habitually collocated and whenever we hear the verbput forwardor see it written on paper it is natural that we should anticipate the word question. So we may conclude thatput forward a question constitutesahabitual word-group, a kind of cliché. This is also true of a number of other word-groups, e.g.to win (or gain) a victory, keen sight (or hearing). Some linguists hold that most of the English in ordinary use is thoroughly saturated with clichés.

The lexical valency of correlated words in different languages is not identical. Both the English wordflower and its Russian counterpart— цветок, for example, may be combined with a number of other words all of which denote the place where the flowers are grown, e.g.garden flowers, hot-house flowers, etc. (cf. the Russianсадовыецветы, оранжерейныецветы, etc.). The English word, however, cannot enter into com­bination with the wordroom to denote flowers growing in the rooms (cf. pot flowers —комнатныецветы).

O

Interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy

ne more point of importance should be discussed in connection with the problem of lexical valency—the interrelation of lexical valency and polysemy as found in word-groups.

Firstly, the restrictions of lexical valency of words may manifest themselves in the lexical meanings of the polysemantic members ofword-groups. The adjectiveheavy, e.g., is combined with the wordsfood, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning 'rich and difficultto digest'. But not all the words with more or less the same component of meaning can be combined with this adjective. One cannot say, for instance,heavy cheese orheavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausageis diffi­cult to digest.

Secondly, it is observed that different meanings of a word may be described through the possible types of lexical contexts, i.e. through thelexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of the adjectiveheavy may be described through the word-groupsheavy weight (book, table, etc.),heavy snow (storm, rain, etc.),heavy drinker (eater, etc.),heavy sleep (disappointment, sorrow, etc.),heavy industry (tanks, etc.), 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.

W

Grammatical valency

ords are used also in grammatical context. The minimal grammatical contextin which words are used when brought together to form word-groups is usually described as the pattern of the word-group. For instance, the ad­jectiveheavy discussed above can be followed by a noun (e.g.heavy storm or by the infinitive of a verb (e.g.heavy to lift), etc. The aptness of a word to appear in specific grammatical (or rather syntactic) struc­tures is termed grammatical valency.

The grammatical valency of words may be different. To begin with, the range of grammatical valency is delimited by the part of speech the word belongs to. It follows that the grammatical valency of each individ­ual word is dependent on the grammatical structure of the language.

This is not to imply that grammatical valency of words belonging to the same part of speech is necessarily identical. This can be best illustrat­ed by comparing the grammatical valency of any two words belonging to the same part of speech, e.g. of the two synonymous verbssuggestandpropose. Both verbs can be followed by a noun(to propose orsuggest a plan, a resolution). It is onlypropose, however, that can be followed by the infinitive of a verb(to propose to do smth.). The adjectivescleverandintelligent are seen to possess different grammatical valency asclevercan be used in word-groups having the pattern: Adjective+Preposition at+Noun(clever at mathematics), whereasintelligent can never be found in exactly the same word-group pattern.

Specific linguistic restrictions in the range of grammatical valency of individual words imposed on the lexical units by the inner structure of the language are also observed by comparing the grammatical valency of correlated words in different languages. The English verbinfluence, for example, can be followed only by a noun(to influence a person, a de­cision, choice, etc.). The grammatical valency of its Russian counter­partвлиять is different. The Russian verb can be combined only with a prepositional group (cf.влиятьначеловека,навыбор,…, etc.).

No departure from the norm of grammatical valency is possible as this can make the word-group unintelligible to English speakers. Thus e.g. the word-groupmathematics at clever is likely to be felt as a meaning­less string of words because the grammatical valency of English nouns does not allow of the structure Noun+at+Adjective.

I

Polysemy and grammatical valency

t should also be pointed out that the individual meanings of a poly­semantic word may be described through its grammatical valency. Thus, different meanings of the adjectivekeen may be described in a general way. through different structures of the word-groups keen+N,—keen sight (hearing,etc.),keen + on + N — keen on sports (on tennis,etc.), keen+V(inf.)—keen to know (to find out, etc.).

From this point of view word-groups may be regarded as minimal syn­tactic (or syntagmatic) structures that operate as distinguishing clues for different meanings of a polysemantic word.