Lecture
Это окончание невероятной информации про полисемия.
...
(7,37).
An implicational connection is based on the interaction, the interdependence of entities of the objective world. It is the cognitive analogue of connections between things, between a part and a whole, between a thing and a feature, between the features of a thing. The most obvious example of implicational connections are strong cause-and-effect dependences, but this also includes weak dependences: spatial, temporal, etc. Implicational connection of meanings is widely represented in the semantic structures of polysemantic words. The concrete kinds of connections serving as the basis of implication are extremely varied: material – product, cause –effect, source – derivative, action – goal, process – result, part – whole, feature – thing, contiguity (adjacency) in space, succession in time, etc. For example, in the following words the cited meanings are connected by implication: slide -1) sliding; 2) a children's slide (for sliding down); ancient - 1) venerable, grey-haired, old; 2) wise with years; ballot -1) a ballot paper, a ballot ball; 2) balloting; secret voting; 3) a list of candidates to be voted on; 4) the results of a vote; the number of votes cast; write – 1) to depict, to convey speech graphically; 2) to compose, etc.
A special variety of implicational connections in the semantics of a polysemantic word is the conversive connection of meanings, which represent one and the same sense in different directions and, owing to the differently directed nature of the sense conveyed, stand in inverse relations to one another (cf. the words buy – sell, send – receive, etc., which are classic examples of conversives). Such are the connections between the meanings of the word sell – 1) to sell; 2) to be sold; colicky – 1) suffering from a sharp pain; 2) causing a sharp pain; read – 1) to read; 2) to read, to run (of a text); dust – 1) to wipe off, to brush off dust; to dust, to beat out, to knock out dust; 2) to become dusty; 3) to sprinkle, to dust, to pollinate, etc.
The objective basis of classificational connections is the commonality of entities of the objective world according to the features they possess or, in other words, the similarity of these entities, which is established as a result of comparison - one of the most important logical devices for cognizing the external world and spiritual values. Classificational connections may be: 1) hypo-hyperonymic (genus-species, inclusive-exclusive) and 2) similative. Hypo-hyperonymic connections are easily established between the meanings: 1) sport, a champion and 2) a winner (in a competition, exhibition, etc.); one who has received first prize, a first-prize winner (of a person, an animal, a plant, etc.) of the word champion, 1) chance, an accident; 2) a convenient occasion, an opportunity; 3) a lucky chance, good fortune, luck of the word chance, 1) to feel, to sense in general; 2) to feel by touch, to touch of the word feel, and many others, which are based on concepts of different levels of generalization. An inclusive connection (genus-to-species, a connection of specialization) corresponds to the relation of a broader concept – a hyperonym, to a narrower concept – a hyponym, while an exclusive connection (species-to-genus, or a connection of generalization), on the contrary, corresponds to the relation of a narrower concept to a broader one. Practically all cases of the narrowing and widening of word meanings belong to this type of connection, provided that both meanings - the source one and the derived one - are retained in the word.
A similative connection differs from the hypo-hyperonymic type of connection in that, although common features are present, there are no hierarchical relations between the meanings, since the meanings differ not in their scope but in some features peculiar to them alone. A similative connection may be object-logical, synaesthetic or emotive. In the first case it is established on the basis of a commonality of properties, which may be either real or the result of ascribing certain common properties to the referents. For example, intoxicate – 1) to make drunk; 2) to intoxicate, to excite; lame – 1) lame; 2) unsuccessful; unsatisfactory; dog - 1) a dog; 2) an iron support for firewood (in a fireplace); 3) tech. a clamp, a catch; a tooth (of a coupling); a cam (of a chuck); a pawl; a nail-puller, etc. A similarity of the sensations evoked by the referents, a commonality of impressions, underlies the synaesthetic connection. For example, mild - 1) mild, moderate; 2) lenient, not severe, not strict, gentle; 3) mild, meek, quiet; 4) not sharp, weak, not strong and so on. A similarity, a closeness of emotional evaluation, determines the emotive type of similative connection, which can be traced between the meanings of the words lousy –1) lousy; 2) rotten; vile; rotten – 1) rotten; 2) foul, lousy, disgusting, etc.
Such are the basic content types of intra-word connections in the semantic structure of a polysemantic word. Although the typology developed by M.V. Nikitin can be elaborated, modified, etc., its important merit lies in reflecting and contrasting two cardinal types: connections of meanings suggested and imposed by connections in objective reality, and connections established in the course of man's classificational activity, aimed at identifying objects by observable features, uniting them into a single class or, conversely, assigning them to different classes, determining the correlation of classes, etc. Making use of this typology, knowing the number of meanings of a polysemantic word, the direction of their connections and their content type, one can obtain a genuinely fuller picture of the intra-word relations in the semantic structure of a word than the one that has existed in scholarly usage up to now.
REVIEW TASKS
Часть 1 Polysemy: Semantic Ambiguity, Its Types and Semantic Change
Часть 2 - Polysemy: Semantic Ambiguity, Its Types and Semantic Change
Comments