4.2. Regional varieties of the english vocabulary

The outline of the problem discussed

1. The terminological distinction between dialects and variants of English in

Great Britain.

2. Peculiarities of Cockney as one of the Southern dialects of English.

3. Scottish and Irish variants of English.

4. The American variant of the English language.

5. Canadian, Australian and Indian variants of English.

Standard English - the official language of Great Britain taught at schools and

universities, used by the press, the radio and the television and spoken by educated

people may be defined as that form of English which is current and literary,

substantially uniform and recognized as acceptable wherever English is spoken or

understood. Its vocabulary is contrasted to dialect words or dialectisms. Local

66

dia1ects are varieties of the English language peculiar to some districts and having

no normalized literary form. Regional varieties possessing a literary form are called

variants. In Great Britain there are two variants: Scottish English and Irish English,

and five main groups of dialects: Northern, Midland, Eastern, Western and Southern.

Every group contains several (up to ten) dialects.

One of the best known Southern dialects is Cockney, the regional dialect of

London. According to E. Partridge and H.C. Wylde, this dialect exists on two levels.

As spoken by the educated lower middle classes it is a regional dialect marked by

some deviations in pronunciation but few in vocabulary and syntax. As spoken by the

uneducated, Cockney differs from Standard English not only in pronunciation but

also in vocabulary, morphology and syntax. B. Shaw’s play "Pygmalion" clearly

renders this level of Cockney as spoken at the time when the play was written.

"The Encyclopaedia Britannica" treats Cockney as an accent, not

acknowledging it the status of dialect.

Cockney has attracted much literary attention, and so we can judge of its past

and present on the evidence of literature. As recorded by Ch. Dickens over a century

ago, Cockney was phonetically characterized by the interchange of the labial and

labio-dental consonants [w] and [v]: wery for very and vell for well. This trait was

lost by the end of the 19th century. The voiceless and voiced dental spirants [T] and

[D] are still replaced - though not very consistently - by [f] and [v] respectively: fing

for thing and farver for father (inserting the letter r indicates vowel length). This

variation is not exclusively characteristic of Cockney and may be found in several

dialects. Another trait not limited to Cockney is interchange of the aspirated and nonaspirated

initial vowels: hart for art and 'eart for heart. The most marked feature in

vowel sounds is the substitution of the diphthong [ai] for standard [ei] in such words

as day, face, rain, way pronounced: [daI], [faIs], [raIn], [waI].

There are some specifically Cockney words and set expressions such as up the

pole 'drunk', you'll get yourself disliked (a remonstrance to a person behaving very

badly).

Cockney is lively and witty and its vocabulary imaginative and colourful. Its

specific feature not occurring anywhere else is the so-called rhyming slang, in which

some words are substituted by other words rhyming with them. Boots, for instance,

are called daisy roots; hat is tit for tat; head is sarcastically called loaf of bread; and

wife – trouble and strife.

The study of dialects has been made on the basis of information obtained with

the help of special techniques: interviews, questionnaires, recording by phonograph

and tape-recorder, etc. Data collected in this way show the territorial distribution of

certain key words and pronunciations which vary from region to region.

Dialects are now chiefly preserved in rural communities, in the speech of

elderly people. Their boundaries have become less stable than they used to be; the

distinctive features are tending to disappear with the lifting of population due to the

migration of working-class families in search of employment and the growing

influence of urban life over the countryside. Dialects are said to undergo rapid

changes under the presure of Standard English taught at schools and the speech habits

cultivated by radio, television and cinema.

67

The dialect vocabulary is remarkable for its conservatism: many words that

have become obsolete in standard English are still kept in dialects, e. g. to and

'envy'<OE andian; barge 'pig'<OE berg; bysen 'blind'<OE bisene and others.

The Scottish and Irish English have a special linguistic status as compared

with dialects because of the literature composed in them. The name of Robert Burns,

the great national poet of Scotland, is known all over the world. A few examples from

his poetry: slee'st meaning 'slyest', pawkie 'cunning', 'sly', rief 'robbery', prief 'proof',

aboon 'above', shoon 'shoes'.

The poetic features of Anglo-Irish may be seen in the plays by J.M. Synge and

Sean O'Casey. The latter's name is worth an explanation in this connection. 0' is

Gaelic and means 'of the clan of'. Compare with Mac - Gaelic for 'son' found in both

Scottish and Irish names. Sean, also spelled Shown and pronounced [SO:n], is the Irish

for John.

Words from dialects and variants may penetrate into Standard English. The

Irish English gave, for instance, blarney n 'flattery', shamrock (a trifoliate plant, the

national emblem of Ireland), etc.

The contribution of the Scottish dialect is very considerable. Some of the most

frequently used Scotticisms are: bairn 'child,', billy 'chum', bonny ‘handsome’,

brogue ‘a stout shoe’, glamour ‘charm', laddie, lassie, slogan, tartan, wee, kilt, etc.

The variety of English spoken in the USA has received the name of American

English. The term ‘variant’ appears most appropriate for several reasons. American

English cannot be called a dialect although it is a regional variety, because it has a

literary normalized form called Standard American (or American National

Standard), whereas by definition given above a dialect has no literary form. Neither

is it a separate language, as some American authors, claim, because it has neither

grammar nor vocabulary of its own. From the lexical point of view we shall have to

deal only with a heterogeneous set of Americanisms.

An Americanism may be defined as a word or a set expression peculiar to the

English language as spoken in the USA. E.g. cookie ‘a biscuit’; apartment ‘flat’;

guess ‘think’; mail ‘post’; store ‘shop’; elevator ‘lift’, etc.

A general and comprehensive description of the American variant is given in

Professor A.D. Schweitzer's monograph. An important aspect of his treatment is the

distinction made between Americanisms belonging to the literary norm and those

existing in low colloquial and slang. The difference between the American and

British literary norm is not systematic.

The American variant of the English language differs from British English in

pronunciation, some minor features of grammar, but chiefly in vocabulary.

Speaking about the historic causes of these deviations it is necessary to

mention that American English is based on the language imported to the new

continent at the time of the first settlements, that is on the English of the 17th century.

The first colonies were founded in 1607, so that the first colonizers were

contemporaries of W. Shakespeare, E. Spenser and J. Milton. Words which have died

out in Britain, or changed their meaning may survive in the USA. Thus, I guess, was

used by G. Chaucer for I think. For more than three centuries the American

vocabulary developed more or less independently of the British stock and was

68

influenced by the new surroundings. The early Americans had to coin words for the

unfamiliar fauna and flora. Hence bullfrog 'a large frog', moose (the American elk),

opossum, raccoon (an American animal related to the bears) for animals; and corn,

hickory, etc. for plants.

American political terms show the influence of extra-linguistic factors upon

vocabulary, too: absentee voting 'voting by mail', dark horse 'a candidate nominated

unexpectedly and not known to his voters', gerrymander 'to arrange and falsify the

electoral process to produce a favourable result in the interests of a particular party or

candidate', all-outer 'an adept of decisive measures'.

Many of the foreign elements borrowed into American English from the Indian

languages or from Spanish penetrated very soon not only into British English but also

into several other languages, Russian not excluded, and so became international due

to the popularity of J.F. Cooper and H. Longfellow. They are: canoe, moccasin,

squaw, tomahawk, wigwam, etc. and translation loans: pipe of peace, pale-face and

the like, taken from Indian languages. The Spanish borrowings like cafeteria,

mustang, ranch, sombrero, etc. are very familiar to the speakers of many European

languages.

The American spelling is in some respects simpler than its British counterparts

in other respects just different. The suffix – our is spelled -or, so that armor and

humor are the American variants of armour and humour. Altho stands for although

and thru for through. More examples:

British spelling

cosy

offence

practice

jewellery

traveling

American spelling

cozy

offense

practise

jewelry

traveling

Here are some examples to show that different words are used for the same

referent in England and the USA:

English

beer

cinema

chemist

goods

goods train

seaside

underground

sweets

tart

tin

tram car

typist

wireless

American

ale

movie

druggist

freight

freight train

beach

subway

candy

pie

can

trolley car

typewriter

radio

English

automobile

railway

petrol

postman

porridge

flat

leader (article)

lorry

lift

luggage

letter card

maize

American

motor car

railroad

gazoline

letter carrier

oatmeal

apartment

editorial

truck

elevator

baggage

post card

corn

69

There are cases where the semantic structure of a word is different, e.g. the

word pavement means in the first place 'covering of the street'. In England the derived

meaning is ‘the footway at the side of the road’. The Americans use the noun

sidewalk for this, while pavement with them means 'the roadway'.

It sometimes happens that the same word is used in American English with

some difference in emotional and stylistic colouring. Nasty, for example, is a much

milder expression of disapproval in England than in the States, where it was even

considered obscene in the 19th century.

There may be a marked deference in frequency characteristics. Thus, timetable

which occurs in American English very rarely, yielded its place to schedule.

It should of course be noted that American English is not the only existing

variant. There are several other variants where difference from the British standard is

normalized. Besides the Irish and Scottish variants, there are Australian English,

Canadian English, Indian English. Each of these has developed a literature of its

own, and is characterized by peculiarities in phonetics, spelling, grammar and

vocabulary.

Canadian English is influenced both by British and American English but it

also has some specific features of its own. Specifically Canadian words are called

canadianisms. They are not very frequent outside Canada, except shak ‘a hut’ and

fathom out ‘to explain’.

The vocabulary of all the variants is characterized by a high percentage of

borrowings from the language of the people who inhabited the land before the

English colonisers came. Many of them denote some specific realia of the new

country: local animals, plants or weather conditions, new social relations, new trades

and conditions of labour. The local words for new notions which penetrate into the

English language later on may become international, if they are of sufficient interest

and importance for people speaking other languages. International words coming

through the English of India are for instance: bungalow n, jute n, khaki a, mango n,

nabob n, pyjamas, sahib, sari.

Similar examples, though perhaps fewer in number, such as boomerang, dingo,

kangaroo, are all adopted into the English language through its Australian variant

and became international. They denote the new phenomena found by English

immigrants on the new continent.

4.3. THE PROBLEM OF THE CHANGE OF MEANING IN ENGLISH: ITS

CAUSES, NATURE AND RESULTS

The outline of the problem discussed

1. A brief introduction to the problem discussed.

2. The extra-linguistic and purely linguistic causes of semantic change.

3. The nature of semantic change.

4. The result of semantic change.

Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical development

of language. Change of meaning has been thoroughly studied and, as a matter of fact,

monopolized the attention of all semanticists whose work up to the early 1930's was

70

centered almost exclusively on the description and classification of various changes

of meaning. Abundant language data can be found in almost all the books dealing

with semantics. Great contribution to the study of this problem was made by St.

Ullmann, G.Leech, J. Lyons, F. Palmer, M. Breal, H. Paul and many others.

According to St. Ullmann to avoid the ensuing confusion of terms and

concepts it is necessary to discriminate between the causes of semantic change, the

results and the nature of semantic change. These are three closely bound up, but

essentially different aspects of one and the same problem.

Discussing the causes of semantic change we concentrate on the factors

bringing about this change and attempt to find out why the word changes its meaning.

Analysing the nature of semantic change we seek to clarify the process of this change

and describe how various changes of meaning were brought about. Our aim in

investigating the results of semantic change is to find out what was changed, i.e. we

compare the resultant and the original meanings and describe the difference between

them mainly in terms of the changes of the denotational or connotational components.

The factors accounting for semantic changes may be roughly subdivided into

two groups: a) extra-linguistic and b) linguistic causes.

By extra-linguistic causes we mean various changes in the life of the speech

community, changes in economic and social structure, changes of ideas, scientific

concepts, way of life and other spheres of human activities as reflected in the word

meaning. Although objects, institutions, concepts, etc. change in the course of time,

yet in many cases words which denote them are retained but the meaning of such

words is changed. To put it in other terms, the referent becomes modified in the

course of the development of the speech community, whereas the sound-form of the

word remains unaltered. The word car, e.g., ultimately goes back to Latin carrus

which meant ‘a four-wheeled wagon’ but now that other means of transport are used

it denotes ‘a motor-car’ or ‘a railway carriage’ (in the USA). The word atom can be

easily traced down to Greek atomos which meant indivisible and was borrowed into

English from French (autome) with the meaning ‘a body too small to be divided, the

ultimate particle of matter’. Now that the latest scientific discoveries have radically

changed our concept of atomic indivisibility, the word atom is still retained to denote

a totally different scientific concept. One more example of this kind: in OE the word

“eorthe” used to mean “the ground under people’s feet”, “the soil” and “the world of

man” as opposed to “heaven” that was supposed to be inhabited first by Gods and

later on, with the spread of Christianity, by God, his angels, saints and the souls of

the dead. With the progress of science earth came to mean the third planet from the

Sun. With the development of electrical engineering earth n means ‘a connection of a

wire conductor with the earth’, either accidental (with the result of leakage of current)

or intentional (as for the purpose of providing a return path). There is also a

corresponding verb to earth, e.g.: When we buy a washing-machine it must be

earthed.

Some changes of meaning are due to what may be described as purely

linguistic causes, i.e. factors acting within the language system. The commonest

form which this influence takes is the so-called ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two

words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to its partner. The verb to

71

starve, e.g., in Old English had the meaning ‘to die’ and was habitually used in

collocation with the word ‘hunger’. Already in the XVI century the verb itself

acquired the meaning ‘to die of hunger’. Similar semantic changes may be observed

in Modern English when the meaning of one word is transferred to another because

they habitually occur together in speech. This seems to account for the change of

meaning, e.g. in the words sale (from cut-price sale), a daily (from a daily

newspaper), to propose (from to propose marriage), summit (from summit meeting)

and others.

Another linguistic cause is discrimination of synonyms which can be

illustrated by the semantic development of a number of words. The word land, e.g., in

Old English meant both ‘solid part of earth's surface’ and ‘the territory of a nation’.

When in the Middle English period the word country was borrowed from French as

its synonym, the meaning of the word land was somewhat altered and ‘the territory of

a nation’ came to be denoted mainly by the borrowed word country.

Some semantic changes may be accounted for by the influence of a peculiar

factor usually referred to as linguistic analogy. It was found out, e.g., that if one of

the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning other members of this set

change their meaning, too. It was observed, e.g., that all English adverbs which

acquired the meaning “rapidly” (in a certain period of time-before 1300) always

develop the meaning “immediately”, similarly, verbs synonymous with catch, e.g.

grasp, get, etc., acquired another meaning - ‘to understand’.

Speaking about the nature of semantic change it should be pointed out that a

necessary condition of any semantic change, no matter what the cause, is some

connection, some association between the old meaning and the new one. As a rule,

there are two kinds of association involved in various semantic changes, namely: a)

similarity of meanings, and b) contiguity of meanings.

Similarity of meanings or metaphor may be described as a semantic process

of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. The

word hand, e.g., acquired in the XVI century the meaning of ‘a pointer of a clock or a

watch’ because of the similarity of one of the functions performed by the hand (to

point at something) and the function of the clock-pointer. Since metaphor is based on

the perception of similarities it is only natural that when analogy is obvious, it should

give rise to a metaphoric meaning. This can be observed in the wide currency of

metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of human body: ‘the leg of a table’,

‘the foot of a hill’, ‘the neck of a bottle’, etc. Sometimes it is similarity of form,

outline, etc. that underlies the metaphor. The word crest, e.g., acquired the meaning

‘ridge’ because the ridge of a mountain when seen at a distance resembles the crest

on an animal’s head. The words warm and cold came to denote certain qualities of

human voices because of some kind of similarity between these qualities and warm

and cold temperature. It is also usual to perceive similarity between colours and

emotions: e.g. “to be in blue mood”, “black despair”, etc.

Metaphors, as H. Paul, points out, may be based upon different types of

similarity: the similarity of shape, e.g., a head of a cabbage, the neck of a bottle; the

similarity of function, e.g., the Head of the school, the key to a mystery; the

similarity of position, e.g., the foot of a page / of a mountain; the similarity of

72

behaviour, e.g., a bookworm, a wirepuller.

The slang meanings of words such as nut, onion = head; saucers = eyes; hoofs

= feet and others are all formed by transference based on similarity.

Contiguity of meaning or metonymy may be described as the semantic

process of associating two referents one of which makes part of the other or is closely

connected with it.

Metonymy may be conditioned by various relations between two referents: a

part for the whole or vice versa: the royal horse for “cavalry”; foot for “infantry”;

“I want to have a word with you” for “a talk” or vice versa: the word town may be

used to denote “the people living in it”; the word House may denote “the members of

the House of Commons or Lords”; the sign for the thing signified: from the cradle

to the grave (from childhood to death); the instrument for the agent: the best pens

of the day – the writers; the container for the contained: “The kettle is boiling”.

Sometimes metonymy originates from geographical or proper names: china

means dishes made of porcelain; tweed – a wool material – from the river Tweed.

The name of a painter is often transferred onto one of his/her pictures: a Matisse

means a painting by Mattise.

Results of semantic change can be generally observed in the changes of the

denotational meaning of the word - restriction or extension of meaning or in the

alteration of its connotational component - amelioration or pejoration of meaning.

These changes have received the particular attention of all semanticists and

have been widely used as the basis of the classification of all changes of meaning in

different languages.

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 a chase’. This is also the case with the word fowl

which in Old English used to denote ‘any bird’, but in Modern English denotes ‘a

domestic hen or cock’. This is generally described as ‘restriction of meaning’ and if

the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized vocabulary of

some limited group within the speech community it is usual to speak of

specialization of meaning. For example, we can observe restriction and

specialization of meaning in the case of the verb to glide which had the meaning ‘to

move gently and smoothly’ and has now acquired a restricted and specialized

meaning ‘to fly with no engine’ (cf. a glider).

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 of

meaning and may be illustrated by the word target which originally meant ‘a small

round shield’ but now means ‘anything that is fired at’ and also figuratively ‘any

result aimed at’.

If the word with the extended meaning passes from the specialized vocabulary

into common use, we describe the result of the semantic change as the generalization

of meaning. The word camp, e. g., which originally was used as a military term and

meant ‘the place where troops are lodged in tents’ extended and generalized its

meaning and now denotes ‘temporary quarters’ (of travellers, nomads, etc.). The verb

73

“to arrive” (a French borrowing) began its life in English in the narrow meaning “to

come to shore; to land”. In Modern English it developed a more general meaning “to

come in any manner”: to arrive to a village, town, city, at a hotel, a theatre, etc.

As can be seen from the discussion of the results of the semantic change it is

mainly the denotational component of the lexical meaning that is affected while the

connotational component remains unaltered. There are other cases, however, when

the changes in the connotational meaning come to the fore. These changes, may be

subdivided into two main groups: a) pejorative development or the acquisition by

the word of some derogatory emotive charge, and b) ameliorative development or

the improvement of the connotational component of meaning. The semantic change

in the word boor may serve to illustrate the first group. This word was originally used

to denote ‘a villager, a peasant’ and then acquired a derogatory connotational

meaning and came to denote ‘a clumsy or ill-bred fellow’. The noun “villain” used to

denote “a farm servant” and later came to denote “a base, vile person”. The same is

true of the adjective “silly”. It used to denote “happy”, later it came to denote

“foolish”.

The ameliorative development of the connotational meaning may be observed

in the change of the semantic structure of the word minister which in one of its

meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’ but now – ‘a civil servant of a

higher rank’. In Old English the word “queen” used to mean just “a woman”. In

Modern English it is used to denote “the highest royal rank”; “knight” used to mean

“a manservant”. Later – “a noble courageous man”. Lord used to mean “master of the

house”, “head of the family”. Later – “baronet” (aristocratic title).

Causes, nature and result of semantic changes should be regarded as three

essentially different but closely connected aspects of one and the same linguistic

phenomenon. Any change of meaning should be analyzed in all its complexity, taking

in account all the three aspects: causes, nature and results of this process.

4.4. SEMANTIC SIMILARITY AND POLARITY OF WORDS WITHIN THE

LEXICAL SYSTEM OF MODERN ENGLISH (SYNONYMS AND ANTONYMS)

The outline of the problem discussed

1. Similarity and polarity of meaning as one of the principles of semantic

classification of the English vocabulary.

2. The criteria of synonymy and the problem of its definition.

3. The classification of synonyms.

4. The origin of synonymy and patterns of synonymic sets in Modern English.

Modern English has a very extensive vocabulary; the number of words

according to the dictionary data is no less than 500,000. A question naturally arises

whether this enormous word-stock is composed of separate independent lexical units,

or may it perhaps be regarded as a certain structured system made up of numerous

interdependent and interrelated sub-systems or groups of words. This problem may

be viewed in terms of the possible ways of semantic classifying vocabulary items,

which gives us a better insight into some aspects of the Modern English word-stock.

The English word-stock may be analyzed into numerous sub-systems the members of

74

which have some features in common, thus distinguishing them from the members of

other lexical sub-systems. Classification into monosemantic and polysemantic words

is based on the number of meanings the word possesses. More detailed semantic

classifications are generally based on the semantic similarity or polarity of words or

their component morphemes.

Semantic similarity or polarity of words may be observed in the similarity of

their denotational or connotational meaning. Similarity or polarity of the denotational

component of lexical meaning is found in lexical groups of synonyms and antonyms.

Similarity or polarity of the connotational component serves as the basis for stylistic

stratification of vocabulary units.

Synonymy and antonymy are usually felt to be correlative notions: firstly

because the criterion of synonymy is semantic similarity which is in exact opposition

to the criterion of antonymy - semantic polarity. Secondly, because synonymy and

antonymy seem to overlap in a number of cases. When we speak of the words daddy

and parent as synonyms, we do so because of the similarity of their denotational

meaning: “a male parent” and polarity of their stylistic reference (cf. daddy -

colloquial, parent - bookish).

The problem of synonymy is treated differently by different linguists. The most

debatable problem is the definition of synonyms.

Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but

identical or similar in meaning. This definition has been severely criticized on many

points. Firstly, it seems impossible to speak of identical or similar meaning of words

as such, as this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. It is

inconceivable that polysemantic words could be synonymous in all their meanings.

The verb look, e.g., is usually treated as a synonym of see, watch, observe, etc., but in

another of its meanings it is not synonymous with this group of words but rather with

the verbs seem, appear: e.g. to look at smb and to look pale. The number of

synonymic sets of a polysemantic word tends, as a rule, to be equal to the number of

individual meanings the word possesses.

One of the ways of discriminating between different meanings of a word is the

interpretation of these meanings in terms of their synonyms, e.g. the two meanings of

the adjective handsome are synonymously interpreted as handsome – “beautiful”

(usually about men) and handsome—“considerable, ample” (about sums, sizes, etc.).

Secondly, it seems impossible to speak of identity or similarity of lexical

meaning as a whole as it is only the denotational component that may be described as

identical or similar. If we analyse words that are usually considered synonymous, e.g.

to die, to pass away; to begin, to commence, etc., we find that the connotational

component or, to be more exact, the stylistic reference of these words is entirely

different and it is only the similarity of the denotational meaning that makes them

synonymous. The words, e.g. to die, to walk, to smile, etc., may be considered

identical as to their stylistic reference or emotive charge, but as there is no similarity

of denotational meaning they are never felt as synonymous words.

Thirdly it does not seem possible to speak of identity of meaning as a criterion

of synonymity as identity of meaning is very rare even among monosemantic words.

In fact, cases of complete or absolute synonymy are very few and are, as a rule,

75

confined to technical terms completely identical in meanings as, for example, spirant

and fricative in phonetics, velocity and speed in physics.

Words in synonymic sets are in general differentiated because of some element

of opposition in each member of the set. The word handsome, e.g., is distinguished

from its synonym beautiful mainly because handsome implies the beauty of a male

person or, broadly speaking, only of human beings, whereas beautiful is opposed to it

as having no such restrictions in its semantic structure.

The verbs look, seem, appear, e.g., are viewed as members of one synonymic

set as all three of them possess a common denotational semantic component ‘to be in

one's view, or judgement, but not necessarily in fact and come into comparison in this

meaning (cf. he seems (looks) (appears) tired). A more detailed analysis shows that

there is a certain difference in the meaning of each verb: seem suggests a personal

opinion based on evidence (e.g. nothing seems right when one is out of sorts); look

implies that opinion is based on a visual impression (e.g. the city looks its worst in

March), appear sometimes suggests a distorted impression (e.g. the setting sun made

the spires appear ablaze). Thus similarity of denotational meaning of all members of

the synonymic series is combined with a certain difference in the meaning of each

member. It follows that synonymity implies certain differences in the denotational

meaning of synonyms.

Thus, it seems necessary to modify the traditional definition of synonyms as

follows: synonyms are words different in sound-form but only similar, not identical

in their denotational meaning or meanings.

In this connection a few words should be said about the traditional

classification of synonyms, which proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may

differ either in the denotational meaning (ideographic-synonyms) or the connotational

meaning, i.e. stylistic reference (stylistic synonyms). The adjectives fast, rapid, swift

have a common denotational component but they differ in some way from each other:

fast emphasizes the way in which the moving object covers the ground, rapid

characterizes the movement itself and often suggests its astonishing speed; swift

implies great rapidity often coupled with ease or facility of movement, etc. If we take,

for instance, the synonymic pair to begin – to commence these words are

differentiated as belonging to different styles of speech. The word to commence is

appropriate in official style, while to begin is neutral in style e.g.: We commence

hostilities, though we begin a quarrel. Two words denoting the same thing, having the

same denotative meaning, but differing in stylistic connotations are known as

stylistic synonyms. Thus begin and commence are stylistic synonyms. The same

holds true for the pair enemy – foe.

Synonyms may differ in emotive connotation. Take, for instance, the

synonyms father – daddy which coincide in their denotative meaning but differ in

emotive connotation (father is a non-emotional word, whereas daddy is an emotional

child’s word.

So, the classification of synonyms into ideographic and stylistic ones is open to

criticism as synonymous words always differ in the denotational component

irrespective of the identity or difference of stylistic reference.

76

Consequently, the interrelation of the denotational and the connotational

meaning of synonyms is rather complex. Difference or rather variation of the

denotational component does not imply difference in the stylistic reference or the

emotive charge of members of synonymic series. Difference of the connotational

semantic component is invariably accompanied by some variation of the denotational

meaning of synonyms. Therefore it would be more consistent to subdivide

synonymous words into purely ideographic (denotational).

It should be pointed out that neither the traditional definition of synonyms nor

the modified version suggested here provide for any objective criterion of similarity

of meaning. Judgement as to semantic similarity is based solely on the linguistic

intuition of the analyst.

Recently attempts have been made to introduce into the definition of

synonymity the criterion of interchangeability in linguistic contexts. It is argued that

for the linguistic similarity of meaning implies that the words are synonymous if

either of them can be used in the same context.

Another well-known definition also proceeding from the contextual approach

is the definition of synonyms as words which can replace each other in any given

context without the slightest alteration either in the denotational or connotational

meaning.

The contextual approach also invites criticism as words interchangeable in any

given context are rarely found. This fact may be explained as follows: words

synonymous in some lexical contexts may display no synonymity in others, e.g.

sentences “the rainfall in April was abnormal” and “the rainfall in April was

exceptional” may give us grounds for assuming that exceptional and abnormal are

synonymous. But the same adjectives in a different context are by no means

synonymous, as we may see by comparing “my son is exceptional” “my son is

abnormal”. So, it is evident that interchangeability alone cannot serve as a criterion

of synonymity.

We may safely assume that synonyms are words interchangeable in some

contexts. But the reverse is certainly not true as semantically different words of the

same part of speech are, as a rule, interchangeable in quite a number of contexts. For

example, in the sentence “I saw a little girl playing in the garden” the adjective little

may be formally replaced by a number of semantically different adjectives, e.g.

pretty, tall, English, etc.

Thus a more acceptable definition of synonyms seems to be the following:

synonyms are words different in their sound-form, but similar in their

denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some context.

The English word-stock is extremely rich in synonyms which can be largely

accounted for by abundant borrowing. Quite a number of words in a synonymic set

are usually of Latin or French origin. For instance, out of thirteen words making up

the set see, behold, descry, espy, view, survey, contemplate, observe, notice, remark,

note, discern, perceive only see and behold can be traced back to Old English (OE.

seon and behealdan), all others are either French or Latin borrowings.

Thus, a characteristic pattern of English synonymic sets is the pattern including

the native and the borrowed words. Among the best investigated are the so called

77

double-scale patterns: native versus Latin (e.g. bodily—corporal, brotherly—

fraternal); native versus Greek or French (e.g. answer— reply, fiddle—violin). In

most cases the synonyms differ in their stylistic reference, too. The native word is

usually colloquial (e.g. bodily, brotherly), whereas the borrowed word may, as a rule,

be described as bookish or highly literary (e.g. corporal, fraternal).

Side by side with this pattern there exists in English a subsidiary one based on

a triple-scale of synonyms: native— French and Latin or Greek (e.g. begin

(start)—commence (Fr.)—initiate (L); rise—mount (Fr.) — ascend (L)). In most of

these sets the native synonym is felt as more colloquial, the Latin or Greek one is

characterised by bookish stylistic reference, whereas the French Stands between the

two extremes.

The problem of antonymy is very much the same as the problem of

synonymy and are approached in similar ways. The definition of antonyms as words

characterised by semantic polarity or opposite meaning is open to criticism on the

points discussed already in connection with synonymy. It should only be added that

even this traditional definition is not consistently applied to antonymy as it is more or

less usual to refer to antonyms both words completely different in their sound-form

(e.g. kind— cruel) and words with phonemically identical root-morphemes (kind—

unkind). It is also evident that the term polarity of meaning is rather vague and allows

of essentially different interpretations.

If we compare the meaning of the words kind—‘gentle, friendly, showing love,

sympathy or thought for others’ and cruel—‘taking pleasure in giving pain to others’,

‘without mercy’ we see that they denote concepts that are felt as completely opposed

to each other. Comparing the adjectives kind and unkind we do not find any polarity

of meaning as here semantic opposition is confined to simple negation. Unkind may

be interpreted as ‘not kind’ which does not necessarily mean cruel, just as not

beautiful does not necessarily mean ugly.

Consequently, such words as unkind, unimportant, impossible, disagreeable

and others according to the principles of classification suggested here should be

regarded not as semantic groups singled out because of the similarity (or polarity) of

denotational meaning of the members, but as one of the groups of words with

semantic similarity of derivational morphemes. It can be easily seen that words with

negative prefixes make up a group in no way different from other lexical groups of

this type (e.g. teacher, orator, musician) in which we observe semantic similarity of

morphemes: -er, -or, -ian.

Antonymy in general shares many features typical of synonymy. Like

synonyms, perfect and complete antonyms are fairly rare. It is usual to find the

antonymous polarity restricted to certain contexts. Thus thick is only one of the

antonyms of thin (a thin slice—a thick slice), another is fat (a thin man—a fat man).

Polysemy may be analysed both through synonymy (e.g. a handsome man—a

beautiful man; a handsome reward —a generous reward, etc.) and also through

antonymy (e.g. a handsome man—an ugly man; a handsome reward—an unsufficient

reward, etc.). This is further confirmation of the fact that polysemantic words tend to

have as many antonymic sets as there are meanings.

78

Interchangeability in certain contexts discussed in connection with synonyms

is typical of antonyms as well. In a context where one member of the antonymous

pair can be used, it is, as a rule, interchangeable with the other member. For instance,

if we take the words thin and thick to be antonymous, they must be interchangeable in

the same context (e.g. a thin slice—a thick slice).

It is therefore advisable to apply the term “antonyms” only to words different

in sound-form and characterised by semantic polarity of denotational meaning and

interchangeability in some contexts.

There is one more minor point to be discussed in connection with antonymous

words. It is observed that in certain antonymic pairs one of the members has a more

generalized or abstract denotational meaning and in some contexts cannot be replaced

by the other member of the antonymic pair. The words old and young, e.g., are

undoubtedly antonymous as are light and heavy, big and small, short and tall. These

adjectives are interchangeable in numerous contexts (e.g. the man is young/old; the

room is big/small, etc.). In certain contexts, however, these adjectives are not felt as

antonymous as can be seen in the fact that we can ask “how old is the baby?” or “how

big is the room?” without implying that the baby is old or the room is big. Semantic

analysis of these adjectives shows that unlike their antonyms the words old, big, long

and other possess certain generalized meaning. This generalized meaning comes to

the fore when the adjectives are used to denote the exact size, age, etc. We say, e.g.,

“The baby is three month old”, “the road is twenty metres long”, etc.

4.5. HOMONYMY IN ENGLISH: SOURCES OF HOMONYMY;

CLASSIFICATION OF ENGLISH HOMONYMS

The outline of the problem discussed

1. The definition of homonyms.

2. The classification of English homonyms.

3. The sources of homonymy in English.

Two or more words identical either in sound or in graphical forms or in both

but different in meaning and very often in origin are traditionally termed homonyms.

Homonyms may be also described as two or more words having the identical sound

or graphic form, or both but not semantically related to each other.

Modern English is exceptionally rich in homonymous words. It is held that

languages where short words abound have more homonyms than those where longer

words are prevalent Therefore it is sometimes suggested that abundance of

homonyms in Modern English is to be accounted for by the monosyllabic structure of

the commonly used English words: e.g. son – сын, sun - солнце, ear - ухо, ear -

колос, tear - слеза, tear [Fq] - рвать, fast - быстро, fast - прочно.

Homonyms may be classified according to different criteria: 1) the degree of

identity of their morphological paradigms, 2) the type of meaning involved in

homonymy, 3) the identity of their sound or graphic forms.

When analysing different cases of homonymy we find that some words are

homonymous in all their forms, i.e. we observe full homonymy of the paradigms of

two or more different words as, e.g., in seal1 – ‘a sea animal’ and seal2– ‘a design

79

printed on paper by means of a stamp’. The paradigm ‘seal, seal's, seals, seals’ is

identical for both of them and gives no indication of whether it is seal1 or seal2 that

we are analysing. In other cases, e.g. seal1 - ‘a sea animal’ and (to) seal3 – ‘to close

tightly’, we see that although some individual word-forms are homonymous, the

whole of the paradigm is not identical. Compare, for instance, the paradigms:

seal1 (to)seal3

seal seal

seal’s seals

seals sealed

seals’ sealing, etc.

It is easily observed that only some of the word-forms (e.g. seal, seals, etc.) are

homonymous, whereas others (e.g. sealed, sealing) are not. In such cases we cannot

speak of homonymous words but only of homonymy of individual word-forms or of

partial homonymy. This is true of a number of other cases, e.g. compare find [faInd],

found [faund], found [faund] and found [faund], founded ['faundid], founded

['faundid]; know [nou], knows [nouz], knew [nju:], and no [nou]; nose [nouz], noses

[nouzIz]; new [nju:] in which partial homonymy is observed.

Consequently all cases of homonymy may be classified into full and partial

homonymy - i.e. homonymy of words and homonymy of individual word-forms.

From the examples of homonymy discussed above it follows that the bulk of

full homonyms are to be found within the same parts of speech (e.g. seal1 n – seal2 n),

partial homonymy as a rule is observed in words belonging to different parts of

speech (e.g. seal1 n – seal3 v). This is not to say that partial homonymy is impossible

within one part of speech. For instance in the case of the two verbs lie [laI] – ‘to be in

a horizontal or resting position’ – lies [laIz] – lay [leI] - lain [lein] and lie [laI] ‘to

make an untrue statement’ - lies [laIz] - lied [laId] - lied [laId] we also find partial

homonymy as only two word-forms [laI], [laIz] are homonymous, all other forms of

the two verbs are different. Cases of full homonymy may be found in different parts

of speech as, e.g., for [fO:]-preposition, for [fO:] - conjunction and four [fO:] -

numeral, as these parts of speech have no other word-forms.

Homonyms may be also classified by the type of meaning into lexical, lexicogrammatical

and grammatical homonyms. In seal1n and seal 2n, e.g., the part of

speech meaning of the word and the grammatical meanings of all its forms are

identical (cf. seal [sI:l] Common Case Singular, seal’s [sI:lz] Possessive Case

Singular, for both seal1 and seal2). The difference is confined to lexical meaning only

or, to be more exact, to the denotational component: seal1 denotes ‘a sea animal’, ‘the

fur of the animal’, etc., seal2 - 'a design printed on paper, the stamp by which the

design’ is made, etc. So we can say that seal1 and seal2 are lexical homonyms as they

differ in lexical meaning, only.

If we compare seal1 – ‘a sea animal’ and ((to) seal3—‘to close tightly’, we shall

observe not only a difference in the lexical meaning of their homonymous wordforms,

but a difference in their grammatical meanings as well. Identical sound-forms,

i.e. seals [sI:lz] (Common Case Plural of the noun) and (he) seals [sI:lz] (third person

Singular of the verb) possess each of them different grammatical meanings. As both

80

grammatical and lexical meanings differ we describe these homonymous word-forms

as lexico-grammatical.

Lexico-grammatical homonymy generally implies that the homonyms in

question belong to different parts of speech as the part-of-speech meaning is a blend of

the lexical and grammatical semantic components. There may be cases, however,

when lexico-grammatical homonymy is observed within the same part of speech as,

e.g., in the verbs (to) find [faInd] and (to) found [faund], where homonymic wordforms:

found [faund]—Past Tense of (to) find and found [faund]—Present Tense of

(to) found differ both grammatically and lexically.

Modern English abounds in homonymic word-forms differing in grammatical

meaning only. In the paradigms of the majority of verbs the form of the Past Tense is

homonymous with the form of Participle II, e.g. asked [a:skt]—asked [a:skt]; in the

paradigm of nouns we usually find homonymous forms of the Possessive Case

Singular and the Common Case Plural, e.g. brother's ['brADqz]—brothers [brADqz]. It

may be easily observed that grammatical homonymy is the homonymy of different

word-forms of one and the same word.

The two classifications: full and partial homonymy and lexical, lexicogrammatical

and grammatical homonymy are not mutually exclusive. All

homonyms may be described on the basis of the two criteria - homonymy of all forms

of the word or only some of the word-forms and the type of meaning in which

homonymous words or word-forms differ. So we speak of full lexical homonymy of

seal1n and seal2 n, of partial lexical homonymy of lie1v and lie2v, and of partial lexicogrammatical

homonymy of seal1n and seal3v.

It should be pointed out that in the classification discussed above one of the

groups, namely lexico-grammatical homonymy, is not homogeneous. This can be seen

by analysing the relationship between two pairs of lexico- grammatical homonyms,

e.g.

1. seal1 n ‘a sea animal’ - seal3v – ‘to close tightly as with a seal’;

2. seal2n – ‘a piece of wax, lead’ - seal3v – ‘to close tightly as with a seal’.

We can see that seal1 n and seal3v actually differ in both grammatical and

lexical meanings. We cannot establish any semantic connection between the meaning

‘a sea animal’ and ‘to close tightly’. The lexical meanings of seal2n and seal3v are

apprehended by speakers as closely related for both the noun and the verb denote

something connected with ‘a piece of wax’, lead, etc., a stamp by means of which a

design is printed on paper and paper envelopes are tightly closed’. Consequently the

pair seal2n and seal3v does not answer the description of homonyms as words or wordforms

that sound alike but differ in lexical meaning. This is true of a number of other

cases of lexico-grammatical homonymy, e.g. work n—(to) work v; paper n—(to)

paper v; love n—love v and so on. As a matter of fact all homonyms arising from

conversion have related meanings.

It is sometimes argued that, as a rule, the whole of the semantic structure of

such words is not identical. The noun paper, e.g., has at least five meanings (1.

material in the form of sheets, 2. a newspaper, 3. a document, 4. an essay, 5. a set of

printed examination questions) whereas the verb paper possesses one meaning ‘to

81

cover with wall-paper’. It follows that the whole of the semantic structure of the two

words is essentially different, though individual meanings are related.

In the discussion of the problem of homonymy we proceeded from the

assumption that words are two-facet units possessing both sound-form and meaning,

and we deliberately disregarded their graphic form. Some linguists, however, argue

that the graphic form of words in Modern English is just as important as their soundform

and should be taken into consideration in the analysis and classification of

homonyms. Consequently they proceed from the definition of homonyms as words

identical in sound-form or spelling but different in meaning. It follows that in their

classification of homonyms all the three aspects: sound-form, graphic-form and

meaning are taken into account. Accordingly they classify homonyms into

homographs, homophones and perfect homonyms.

Homographs are words identical in spelling, but different both in their soundform

and meaning, e.g. bow n [bou]— ‘a piece of wood curved by a string and used

for shooting arrows’ and bow n [bau]—‘the bending of the head or body’; tear n

[tIe]—‘a drop of water that comes from the eye’ and tear v [tFq]—‘to pull apart by

force’.

Homophones are words identical in sound-form but different both in spelling

and in meaning, e.g. sea n and see v; son n and sun n.

Perfect homonyms are words identical both in spelling and in sound-form but

different in meaning, e.g. case1 n— ‘something that has happened’ and case2 n—‘a

box, a container’.

The description of various types of homonyms in Modern English would be

incomplete if we did not give a brief outline of the diachronic processes that account

for their appearance.

The two main sources of homonymy are: 1) diverging meaning development of

one polysemantic word, and 2) converging sound development of two or more

different words. The process of diverging meaning development can be observed

when different meanings of the same word move so far away from each other that they

come to be regarded as two separate units. This happened, for example, in the case of

Modern English flower and flour which originally were one word (ME. flour, cf. OFr.

flour, flor, L. flos—florem) meaning ‘the flower’ and ‘the finest part of wheat’. The

difference in spelling underlines the fact that from the synchronic point of view they

are two distinct words even though historically they have a common origin.

Convergent sound development is the most potent factor in the creation of

homonyms. The great majority of homonyms arise as a result of converging sound

development which leads to the coincidence of two or more words which were

phonetically distinct at an earlier date. For example, OE. ic and OE. eaZe have become

identical in pronunciation (MnE. Í [ai] and eye [ai]). A number of lexico-grammatical

homonyms appeared as a result of convergent sound development of the verb and the

noun (cf. MnE. love—(to) love and OE. lufu—lufian).

Words borrowed from other languages may through phonetic convergence

become homonymous. Old Norse ras and French race are homonymous in Modern

English (cf. race1 [reis]—‘running’ and race2 [reis]—‘a distinct ethnical stock’).

There are four homonymic words in Modern English: sound —‘healthy’ was already

82

in Old English homonymous with sound—‘a narrow passage of water’, though

etymologically they are unrelated. Then two more homonymous words appeared in the

English language, one comes from Old French son (L. sonus) and denotes ‘that which

is or may be heard’ and the other from the French sonder—‘the surgeon’s probe’.