Uzbekistan state world languages university department of the theoretical aspects of the english language-i course paper in modern english lexicology

The object of course paper is to study the peculiarities of religion words in the English language.
The subject matter of the course paper is very actual as it is based on diachronic approach to the problem of religion words in the English language.
The novelty of the course paper is that we have tried to investigate religion words in the English language. The meanings of religion words and their arrangement in the semantic structure of correlated words in different languages may be altogether different. The number of meanings of the commonly used words ranges from five to about a hundred.
The practical value of the course paper is that the analyzed examples can be used in seminars and lectures on lexicology and the history of language as a manual for students and teachers.
The theoretical value of the research is detailed and comprehensive analysis of religion words in the English language which form a big layer of the English vocabulary.
The structure of the work.
The given course paper consists of introduction, two chapters and conclusion which are followed by the list of literature used in the course of research.
Introduction deals with the description of the structure of a qualification paper.
The first chapter deals with the historical background of semantic structure of the English word.
The second chapter deals with the study of lexical and stylistic analysis of the semantic field of “religion”.
Conclusion presents the results of the investigation the polysemantic words in the English language.
Bibliography gives the list of literature used in the course of the investigation.
I. Chapter one: Historical background of semantic structure of English words
1.1. Different points of view to the problem of semantic components and various classification of semantic structure
From the discussion of the diachronic and synchronic approach to polysemy, it follows that the interrelation, monosemantic words are easily perceived. For instance, the word movie is recognizably. American and bornie are Scottish. polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any such restrictive labels. To do it, we must state the meaning in which they are used.
There is nothing colloquial or slangy or American about the word yellow denoting color, jerk in the meaning “a sudden movement or stopping of concerned”: But when yellow is used in the meaning of sentimental or when jerk is used in the meaning of “an odd person”. It is both slang and American.
Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent. The polysemantic words: worker and hand e.g. may both denote “a man who does manual work” to hire factory hands is one of its marginal meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference. Broadly speaking, the interdependence of individual meaning are two different angels. These two approaches are not mutually exclusive but are viewed here as supplementing each other in the linguistic analysis of a polysemantic word.
It should be noted, however, that as the semantic structure is never static, the relationship between the diachronic and synchronic evaluation of individual meanings may be different and different periods, of the historical development of language.
This is the perhaps best illustrated by the semantic analysis of the word revolution. Originally, when this word first appeared in middle English it denoted “the revolving motion of celestial bodies and also” “the return or recurrence of a point or a period of time” later on the word acquired other meaning and among them that of “a complete overthrow of the established government or regime” and also “a complete change, a great reversal of conditions”.
In 1600 when these meanings were first registered in dictionaries the meaning “revolting motion” was both primary and central (synchronically).
In Modern English, however, while we can still diachronically described this meanings as primary it is no longer synchronically central as the arrangement of meanings in the semantic structure of the word revolution has considerably changed and its central as the most frequent meaning is “a complete overthrow of the established government or the regime” it follow that the primary meaning of the word may become synchronically one of the its minor meanings and diachronically a secondary meaning may function as the central meaning of the word.
The actual arrangement of meanings in the semantic structure of any word, in the historical period is the result of the semantic development of this word in the system of the given language.
There is one more point to be discussed in connection with the problem of the synchronic approach to polysemy. It will be recalled that in analyzing the semantic structure of the word table observed that same meaning are representative of the word in isolating. E.g. they invariably occur to us when we heard the word or see it written on paper meanings come to the fare only when the word is used in contain contexts².This is time of all polysemantic words. The objective yellow e.g. when used is isolation is understood to denote a certain color where as other meanings of this word e.g. “envious”, “suspicious” or , “corrupt are perceived only in certain contexts³.
The semantic structure of the word has an objective existence as a dialectical quantity which embodies dialectical permanency and variability.
The context individuality the meaning is determined try context.
Stylistically neutral meanings are naturally more frequent. The polysemantic words worker and hand e.g. may both denote “a man who does manual work” but whereas, this is the most frequent and stylistically neutral meaning of the word worker, it is observed only in 28% of all occurrences of the word hand, in the semantic structure of which the meaning “a man who does manual work” is one of its marginal meanings characterized by colloquial stylistic reference.
A polysemy is a word or phrase with multiple, related meanings. A word is judged to be polysemous if it has two senses of the word whose meanings are related. Since the vague concept of relatedness is the test for polysemy, judgments of polysemy can be very difficult to make. Because applying pre-existing is helpful in determining polysemy but not the may no longer be so.
Some apparently unrelated words share a common historical origin, however, so etymology is not an infallible test for polysemy and dictionary writers also often defer to speakers intuitions to judge polysemy in cases where it contradicts etymology. English has many words which are polysemous. For example, the verb “to get” can mean “take” (I`ll get the drinks) “become” (she got scarred), “have” (I`ve got three dollars), “understand” (I get in) etc.
There are several tests for polysemy, but one of them is zeugma when
applied in different contexts, it is likely that the contexts bring out different
polysemes of the same bring. If the two poly senses of the same word do not seem to hit, yet seem related, then it is likely that they are polysemous.
The leading semantic component in the semantic structure of a word is usually termed denotative component (also, the term referential component may be used). The denotative component expresses the conceptual content of a word.
The following list presents denotative components of some English adjectives and verbs:
Denotative components
Lonely, adj. ------>> [alone
Notorious, adj. ------->> [widely
Celebrated, adj. -------->>[widely
To glare, v. ------->> [to look] ..............................
To glance, v. -------->> [to look] ..............................
To shiver, v. ------->> [to tremble] ...........................
To shudder, v. ------->> [to tremble] ...........................
It is quite obvious that the definitions given in the right column only partially and incompletely describe the meanings of their corresponding words. Too give a more or less full picture of the meaning of a word, it is necessary to include in the scheme of analysis additional semantic components which are termed connotations or connotative components.⁴
Let us complete the semantic structures of the words given above introducing connotative components into the schemes of their semantic structures.
Denotative Connotative
Components Component
Lonely, adj. --------> Alone, Melancholy, Emotive
without + sad Connotation
company
Notorious, adj. -------->
The above examples show how by singing out denotative and connotative components one can get a sufficiently clear picture of what the word really means.
The schemes presenting the semantic structures of glare, shiver, shudder also show that a meaning can have two or more connotative components.
The given examples do not exhaust all the types of connotations but present only a few: emotive, evaluative connotations, and also connotations of duration and of cause. The words of different languages which are similar or identical in lexical meaning, especially in the denotational meaning are termed correlated words. The wording of the habitual question of English learners, e.g. “What is the English for
стол?”, and the answer “The English for сто is ‘table’” also shows that we take the words table, стол to be correlated. Semantic correlation, however, is not to be interpreted as semantic identity. From what was said about the arbitrariness of the sound-form of words and complexity of their semantic structure, it can be inferred that one-to-one correspondence between the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words in different languages is scarcely possible.⁵