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

II. Chapter two: Practical approach to lexical and stylistic analysis of the semantic field of “religion”
2.1 Examples and observations for semantic field analysis
Arbitrariness of linguistic signs implies that one cannot deduce from the sound form of a word the meaning or meanings it possesses. Languages differ not only in the sound-form of words; their systems of meanings are also different. It follows that the semantic structures of correlated words of two different languages cannot be coextensive, i.e. can never “cover each other”. A careful analysis invariably shows that semantic relationship between correlated words, especially polysemantic words is very complex. The actual meanings of polysemantic words and their arrangement in the semantic structure of correlated words in different languages may be altogether different. This may be seen by comparing the semantic structure of correlated polysemantic words in English and in Russian. As a rule it is only the central meaning that is to a great extent identical, all other meanings or the majority of meanings usually differ. If we compare, e.g., the nine meanings of the English word table and the meanings of the Russian word стол, we hall easily observe not only the difference in the arrangement and the number of meanings making up their respective semantic structures, but also the difference in the individual meanings that may, at first sight, appear similar.

Table стол

1. a piece of furniture 1. предмет обстановки (сидеть за столом)
2. the person seated at a table 2. Ср. Арх. за столица
3. the food put on a table, meals; 3. пища (подаваемая на стол) еда
cooking
Note: This meaning is rare in Note: Commonly used, stylistically neutral. Modern English. Usually the word
board (or cooking) is used.
(Cf. Board and lodging, plain cooking) (стол и квартира, простой, сытный, вегетарианский стол)
4. a flat slab of stone or board. 4. Ср. плита
5. slabs of stone (with words written 5. Ср. скрижали
on them or cut into them)
6. Bibl. Words cut into slabs of 6.Ср. заповедь
stone (the ten tables)
7. an orderly arrangement of facts, 7. Ср. таблица
figures, etc.
8. a part of a machine-tool 8. Cp. планшайба
9. a level area, plateau 9. Ср. плато
As can be seen from the above, only of the meanings and namely the central meaning ‘a piece of furniture’ may be described as identical. The denotational
meaning ‘the food put on the table’ although existing in the word of both languages has different connotational components in each of them. The whole of the semantic structure of these words is altogether different. The difference is still more pronounced if we consider all the meanings of the Russian word стол, e.g. “department, section, bureau” (cf.адресный стол, стол заказов) not to be found in the semantic structure of the word table.
Words identical in sound-form but different in meanings are traditionally termed homonyms.
Modern English is exceptionally rich in homonymous words and word-forms. 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.
When analyzing different cases of and 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, e.g., in seal₁–‘a sea animal’ and seal₂-‘a design 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 analyzing. In other cases, e.g. seal₁ –‘a sea animal’ and (to) seal, -‘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 partial homonymy. This is true of number of other cases, e.g. compare find [faind], found [faund], found [faund], and founded [`faundid], founded [`faundid]; know [nou], knows [nouz], knew [nju:], and on [nou]; nose [nouz], noses [`nouzis]; new [nju:] in which partial homonymy is observed.
Most of lexical items in English are polysematic. Michael Breat: “Polysemy is a semantic universal”.
“The alternative to it is quite unthinkable: it would mean that we would have to store in our brains a tremendous stock of words with separate names for any possible subject we might wish to talk about. It would also mean that there would be no metaphor that language would be robbed of much of its expressiveness and flexibility.”
Urban: “The double reference of verbal signs is precisely what makes language an instrument of knowing”.
Ex.:
family – She lost both of her parents.
parent – Envy is the parent of all evils.
My family comes from Scotland.
Ex.:
a lorry
a loudspeaker
In case of polysemy, we deal with modification of the content plane.
Different meanings of one and the same word are closely interrelated. From what has been said above about polysemantic words, it should become clear that the semantic structure of a polysemantic word presents a system within which all its constituent meanings are held together by logical associations. In most cases, the function of the arrangement and the unity if determined by one of the meanings.
Fire, n:
1. Flame
2. An instance of destructive burning: a forest fire
3. Burning material in a stove, fireplace: There is a fire in the next room. A camp fire.
4. The shooting of guns: to open (cease) fire.
5. Strong feeling, passion, and enthusiasm: a speech lacking fire.
If this meaning happens to disappear from word’s semantic structure,
associations between the rests of the meanings may be severed; the semantic
structure loses its unity and fails into two or more parts which then become accepted as independent lexical units.
Let us consider the history of three homonyms: