Semantic equivalence and synonymy

Lexical units may also be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and semantic contrasts. The terms generally used to denote these two types of semantic relatedness are synonymy and antonymy.

Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence. Semantic equivalence however can exist between words and word-groups, word-groups and sentences, sentences and sentences. For example, John is taller than Bill is semantically equivalent to Bill is shorter than John. John sold the book to Bill and Bill bought the book from John may be considered semantically equivalent.

As can be seen from the above these sentences are paraphrases and denote the same event. Semantic equivalence may be observed on the level of word-groups, Thus we may say that to win a victory is synonymous with to gain a victory, etc.

Here we proceed from the assumption that the terms synonymy and synonyms should be confined to semantic relation between words only. Similar relations between word-groups and sentences are described as semantic equivalence.¹ Synonyms may be found in different parts of speech and both among notional and function words. For example, though and albeit, on and upon, since and as are synonymous because these phonemically different words are similar in their denotational meaning.

Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but identical or similar in meaning. This definition has been severely criticised 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 (cf. 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.

In the discussion of polysemy and context² we have seen that 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.).

Word-groups

It is an indisputable fact that words are used in certain lexical contexts, i.e. in combination with other words. The noun question, e.g., is often combined with such adjectives as vital, 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 verbs lift and raise, e.g., are usually treated as synonyms, it is only the latter that is collocated with the noun question.

One 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 of word-groups. The adjective heavy, e.g., is combined with the words food, meals, supper, etc. in the meaning ‘rich and difficult to 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 or heavy sausage implying that the cheese or the sausage is 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 the lexical valency of the word, for example, the different meanings of the adjective heavy may be described through the word-groups heavy 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.

The meaning of word-groups may be analysed into lexical and grammatical components.

The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group red flower may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red and flower. As a rule, the meanings of the component words are mutually dependent and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the lexical meaning of its constituents.

As with polymorphemic words word-groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. A certain parallel can be drawn between the meaning conveyed by the arrangement of morphemes in words and the structural meaning of word-groups.¹ It will be recalled that two compound words made up of lexically identical stems may be different in meaning because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the stems. For example, the meaning of such words as dog-house and house-dog is different though the lexical meaning of the components is identical. This is also true of word-groups. Such word-groups as school grammar and grammar school are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words.

Linear relations of words in connected speech are called syntagmatic relations or the relations on the horizontal level. Syntagmatic relations define the meaning of a word when it is used in combination with other words in speech. Words put together in speech make functional units called phrases or word groups also called word combinations or collocations. The word group is the largest two-facet functional lexical unit (assuming that the word is the basic lexical unit) comprising more than one word on the syntagmatic level of analysis.

Collocability of words that is their ability to combine with other words in speech is based on their valency. Valency and collocability may be lexical and grammatical, or syntactical.

The aptness of a word to be used in certain grammatical or syntactical pattern is called grammatical valency. In other words grammatical valency is the possibility of syntactical connection of a word on the syntactical level. Grammatical or syntactical collocability is the realization of the grammatical valency in speech which is achieved through lexical collocability. Lexical valency is the aptness of a word to appear in various combinations with other words in speech. Lexical valency is the possibility of connecting a word with other words on the lexico-semantic level. Lexical collocability is the realization of lexical valency in speech. Valency and collocability are linguistic factors that determine the co-occurrence of English words, but they are not the only factors that influence the co-occurrence of words in speech.

Word groups may be classified according to different principles: according to the order and arrangement of the component members; according to the criteria of distribution (endocentric and exocentric word groups); according to their head-word (nominal, adjectival, verbal, adverbial, etc.); according to their syntactic pattern (predicative and non-predicative); according to the degree of motivation and the degree of the semantic and structural cohesion of the members (motivated, free, or variable word-groups; semi-motivated and non-motivated). Non-motivated word-groups are called stable word-groups, set-phrases, idioms, or phraseological units. They are studied in Phraseology.

 

Meaning of word-groups

As with word-meaning, the meaning of word-groups may be analysed into lexical and grammatical components.

§ 4. Lexical Meaning

The lexical meaning of the word-group may be defined as the combined lexical meaning of the component words. Thus the lexical meaning of the word-group red flower may be described denotationally as the combined meaning of the words red and flower. It should be pointed out, however, that the term combined lexical meaning is not to imply that the meaning of the word-group is a mere additive result of all the lexical meanings of the component members. As a rule, the meanings of the component words are mutually dependent and the meaning of the word-group naturally predominates over the lexical meaning of its constituents.

Even in word-groups made up of technical terms which are traditionally held to be monosemantic the meaning of the word-group cannot be described as the sum total of the meanings of its components. For example, though the same adjective atomic is a component of a number of terminological word-groups, e.g. atomic weight, atomic warfare, etc., the lexical meaning of the adjective is different and to a certain degree subordinated to the meaning of the noun in each individual word-group and consequently the meaning of the whole group is modified.

Interdependence of the lexical meanings of the constituent members of word-groups can be readily observed in word-groups made up of polysemantic words. For example, in the nominal group blind man (cat, horse) only one meaning of the adjective blind, i.e. ‘unable to see’, is combined with the lexical meaning of the noun man (cat, horse) and it is only one of the meanings of the noun man — ‘human being’ that is perceived in combination with the lexical meaning of this adjective. The meaning of the same adjective in blind type (print, handwriting) is different.

As can be seen from the above examples, polysemantic words are used in word-groups only in one of their meanings. These meanings of the component words in such word-groups are mutually interdependent and inseparable. Semantic inseparability of word-groups that allows us to treat them as self-contained lexical units is also clearly perceived in the analysis of the connotational component of their lexical meaning. Stylistic reference of word-groups, for example, may be essentially different from that of the words making up these groups. There is nothing colloquial or slangy about such words as old, boy, bag, fun, etc. when taken in isolation. The word-groups made up of these words, e.g. old boy, bags of fun, are recognisably colloquial.

Structural Meaning

As with polymorphemic words word-groups possess not only the lexical meaning, but also the meaning conveyed mainly by the pattern of arrangement of their constituents. A certain parallel can be drawn between the meaning conveyed by the arrangement of morphemes in words and the structural meaning of word-groups.¹ It will be recalled that two compound words made up of lexically identical stems may be different in meaning because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the stems. For example, the meaning of such words as dog-house and house-dog is different though the lexical meaning of the components is identical. This is also true of word-groups. Such word-groups as school grammar and grammar school are semantically different because of the difference in the pattern of arrangement of the component words. It is assumed that the structural pattern of word-groups is the carrier of a certain semantic component not necessarily dependent on the actual lexical meaning of its members. In the example discussed above (school grammar) the structural meaning of the word-group may be abstracted from the group and described as ‘quality-substance’ meaning. This is the meaning expressed by the pattern of the word-group but not by either the word school or the word grammar. It follows that we have to distinguish between the structural meaning of a given type of word-group as such and the lexical meaning of its constituents.

Meaning and polysemy

So far we have been discussing the concept of meaning, different types of word-meanings and the changes they undergo in the course of the historical development of the English language. When analysing the word-meaning we observe, however, that words as a rule are not units of a single meaning. Monosemantic words, i.e. words having only one meaning are comparatively few in number, these are mainly scientific terms, such -as hydrogen, molecule and the like. The bulk of English words are polysemantic, that is to say possess more than one meaning. The actual number of meanings of the commonly used words ranges from five to about a hundred. In fact, the commoner the word the more meanings it has.

The word table, e.g., has at least nine meanings in Modern English: 1. a piece of furniture; 2. the persons seated at a table; 3. sing. the food put on a table, meals; 4. a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood, etc.; 5. pl. slabs of stone; 6. words cut into them or written on them (the ten tables); ² 7. an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.; 8. part of a machine-tool on which the work is put to be operated on; 9. a level area, a plateau. Each of the individual meanings can be described in terms of the types of meanings discussed above. We may, e.g., analyse the eighth meaning of the word table into the part-of-speech meaning — that of the noun (which presupposes the grammatical meanings of number and case) combined with the lexical meaning made up of two components The denotational semantic component which can be interpreted

as the dictionary definition (part of a machine-tool on which the work is put) and the connotational component which can be identified as a specific stylistic reference of this particular meaning of the word table (technical terminology). Cf. the Russian планшайба, стол станка.

In polysemantic words, however, we are faced not with the problem of analysis of individual meanings, but primarily with the problem of the interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of one and the same word.

17. Polysemy and Homonymy.

The problem of polysemy is mainly the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word. Polysemy viewed diachronically is a historical change in the semantic structure of the word resulting in disappearance of some meanings (or) and in new meanings being added to the ones already existing and also in the rearrangement of these meanings in its semantic structure. Polysemy viewed synchronically is understood as coexistence of the various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period and the arrangement of these meanings in the semantic structure of the word.

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 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, e.g., in seal₁ — ‘a sea animal’ and seal₂ — ‘a design printed on paper by means of a stamp’.

Homonyms are words that sound alike but have different semantic structure. The problem of homonymy is mainly the problem of differentiation between two different semantic structures of identically sounding words.

Homonymy may be described as the sameness of form associated with the difference of meaning. Homonyms are words identical in sound and/or in spelling but different in meaning. The intense development of homonymy in English is due to the monosyllabic character of its vocabulary and the analytical structure of the English language. Different sources of homonymy in English may by subdivided into two main groups: 1) homonymy which developed due to convergent sound development (etymological, or heterogeneous homonyms); 2) homonymy which developed from polysemy through divergent sense development. In other terms this case is called disintegration or split of polysemy (semantic or homogeneous homonyms). The majority of homonyms in English are etymologically different.

The traditional classification of homonyms recognizes: perfect homonyms, or homonyms proper, homophones, homographs. Besides the traditional classification of homonyms there are other ways of classifying homonyms. 1. All the cases of homonymy may be divided into full homonymy, or the homonymy of words having identical paradigms, and partial homonymy, or the homonymy of word-forms. 2. According to Professor Smirnitsky’s classification all homonyms may be divided into lexical homonyms which differ only in lexical meaning; lexico-grammatical homonyms which differ both in lexical and in grammatical meanings; grammatical homonyms which differ only in grammatical meaning. 3. Homonyms belonging to one and the same part of speech are called simple. Complex homonyms are those belonging to different parts of speech.

One of the most debatable problems in Semasiology is the demarcation line between polysemy and homonymy, i.e. between different meanings of a polysemantic word and the meanings of different homonymous words.

To solve the problem a number of criteria may he applied: etymological and semantic criteria and the formal criteria of distribution, spelling and pronunciation. Sometimes only the combination of several criteria may solve the problem. Besides, linguists try to develop new more efficient criteria and methods of differentiating homonymy and polysemy.

 

Word-Formation

A derivational base unlike a stem does not predict’ the part of speech of the derivative, it only outlines a possible range and nature of the second IC and it is only the unity of both that determines the lexical-grammatical class of the derivative.

Derivational affixes are ICs of numerous derivatives in all parts of speech.

A derivational pattern is a regular meaningful arrangement. Patterns of derivative structures are usually represented in a generalised way as conventional symbols: small letters v, n, a, d, пит stand for the stems of the respective parts of speech: verbs, nouns, adjectives, adverbs, numerals. In words of the long-fingered or sit-inner type the derivational bases are represented by bracketed symbols of the parts of speech making up the corresponding collocations, for example (a+n)+ +-ed), (v+d) + er.

According to their derivational structure words fall into two large classes: simple, non-derived words or simplexes and derivatives or complexes. Complexes are classified according to the type of the underlying derivational pattern into: derived and compound words. Derived words fall into affixational words, which in their turn must be classified into suffixal and prefixal derivatives, and conversions.

1. There are two levels of approach to the study of word-structure: the level of morphemic analysis and the level of derivational or word-formation analysis.

2. The basic unit of the morphemic level is the morpheme defined as the smallest indivisible two-facet language unit.

3. Three types of morphemic segmentability of words are distinguished in linguistic literature: complete, conditional and defective. Words of conditional and defective segmentability are made up of full morphemes and pseudo (quasi) morphemes. The latter do not rise to the status of full morphemes either for semantic reasons or because of their unique distribution.

4. Semantically morphemes fall into root-morphemes and affixational morphemes (prefixes and suffixes); structurally into free, bound and semi-free (semi-bound) morphemes.

5. The structural types of words at the morphemic level are described in terms of the number and type of their ICs as monomorphic and polymorphic words.

6. Derivational level of analysis aims at finding out the derivative types of words, the interrelation between them and at finding out how different types of derivatives are constructed.

7. Derivationally all words form two structural classes: simplexes, i.e. simple, non-derived words and complexes, or derivatives. Derivatives fall into: suffixal derivatives, prefixal derivatives, conversions and compounds. The relative importance of each structural type is conditioned by its frequency value in actual speech and its importance in the existing word-stock.

Each structural type of complexes shows preference for one or another part of speech. Within each part of speech derivative structures are characterised by a set of derivational patterns.

8. The basic elementary units of the derivative structure are: derivational bases, derivational affixes, derivational patterns.

Derivational bases differ from stems both structurally and semantically. Derivational bases are built on the following language units: a) stems of various structure, b) word-forms, c) word-groups or phrases.

 

Affixation

Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding derivational affixes to different types of bases. Derived words formed by affixation may be the result of one or several applications of word-formation rule and thus the stems of words making up a word-cluster enter into derivational relations of different degrees. The zero degree of derivation is ascribed to simple words, i.e. words whose stem is homonymous with a word-form and often with a root-morpheme, e.g. atom, haste, devote, anxious, horror, etc. Derived words whose bases are built on simple stems and thus are formed by the application of one derivational affix are described as having the first degree of derivation, e.g. atomic, hasty, devotion, etc. Derived words formed by two consecutive stages of coining possess the second degree of derivation, etc., e.g. atomical, hastily, devotional, etc.

In conformity with the division of derivational affixes into suffixes and prefixes affixation is subdivided into suffixation and prefixation. Distinction is naturally made between prefixal and suffixal derivatives according to the last stage of derivation, which determines the nature of the ICs of the pattern that signals the relationship of the derived word with its motivating source unit, cf. unjust (un-+ just), justify, (just+

+ -ify), arrangement (arrange + -ment), non-smoker (non- + smoker). Words like reappearance, unreasonable, denationalise, are often qualified as prefixal-suffixal derivatives. The reader should clearly realise that this qualification is relevant only in terms of the constituent morphemes such words are made up of, i.e. from the angle of morphemic analysis. From the point of view of derivational analysis such words are mostly either suffixal or prefixal derivatives, e.g. sub-atomic = sub- + (atom + + -ic), unreasonable = un- + (reason + -able), denationalise = de- + + (national + -ize), discouragement = (dis- + courage) + -ment.

A careful study of a great many suffixal and prefixal derivatives has revealed an essential difference between them. In Modern English suffixation is mostly characteristic of noun and adjective formation, while prefixation is mostly typical of verb formation. The distinction also rests on the role different types of meaning play in the semantic structure of the suffix and the prefix.¹ The part-of-speech meaning has a much greater significance in suffixes as compared to prefixes which possess it in a lesser degree. Due to it a prefix may be confined to one part of speech as, e.g., enslave, encage, unbutton or may function in more than one part of speech as, e.g., over- in overkind a, to overfeed v, overestimation n; unlike prefixes, suffixes as a rule function in any one part of speech often forming a derived stem of a different part of speech as compared with that of the base, e.g. careless a — cf. care n; suitable a — cf. suit v, etc. Furthermore, it is necessary to point out that a suffix closely knit together with a base forms a fusion retaining less of its independence than a prefix which is as a general rule more independent semantically, cf. reading — ‘the act of one who reads’; ‘ability to read’; and to re-read — ‘to read again.'

Prefixation

Prefixation is the formation of words with the help of prefixes. The interpretation of the terms prefix and prefixation now firmly rooted in linguistic literature has undergone a certain evolution. For instance, some time ago there were linguists who treated prefixation as part of word-composition (or compounding). The greater semantic independence of prefixes as compared with suffixes led the linguists to identify prefixes with the first component part of a compound word.²

At present the majority of scholars treat prefixation as an integral part of word-derivation regarding prefixes as derivational affixes which differ essentially both from root-morphemes and non-derivational prepositive morphemes. Opinion sometimes differs concerning the interpretation of the functional status of certain individual groups of morphemes which commonly occur as first component parts of words. H. Marchand, for instance, analyses words like to overdo, to underestimate as compound verbs, the first components of which are locative particles, not prefixes. In a similar way he interprets words like income, onlooker, outhouse qualifying them as compounds with locative particles as first elements.

There are about 51 prefixes in the system of Modern English word-formation.

According to the available word-counts of prefixal derivatives ^l the greatest number are verbs — 42.4%, adjectives comprise 33,5% and nouns make up 22.4%. To give some examples.-

prefixal verbs: to enrich, to coexist, to disagree, to undergo, etc.;

prefixal adjectives: anti-war, biannual, uneasy, super-human, etc.;

prefixal nouns: ex-champion, co-author, disharmony, subcommittee,

etc.

It is of interest to mention that the number of prefixal derivatives within a certain part of speech is in inverse proportion to the actual number of prefixes: 22 form verbs, 41 prefixes make adjectives and 42 — nouns.

Proceeding from the three types of morphemes that the structural classification involves ² two types of prefixes are to be distinguished:

1) those not correlated with any independent word (either notional or functional), e.g. un-, dis-, re-, pre-, post-, etc.; and

2) those correlated with functional words (prepositions or preposition like adverbs), e.g. out-, over-, up-, under-, etc.

Prefixes of the second type are qualified as semibound morphemes, which implies that they occur in speech in various utterances both as independent words and as derivational affixes, e.g. ‘ over one’s head’, ‘ over the river’ (cf. to over lap, to over pass); ‘to run out ’, ‘to take smb out ’ (cf. to out grow, to out line); ‘ to look up ’, ‘hands up ’ (cf. upstairs, to up set); ‘ under the same roof, ‘to go under ’ (cf. to under estimate, under current), etc.

It should be mentioned that English prefixes of the second type essentially differ from the functional words they are correlated with:

a) like any other derivational affixes they have a more generalised meaning in comparison with the more concrete meanings of the correlated words (see the examples given above); they are characterised by a unity of different denotational components of meaning — a generalised component common to a set of prefixes and individual semantic component distinguishing the given prefix within the set.

b) they are deprived of all grammatical features peculiar to the independent words they are correlated with;

c) they tend to develop a meaning not found in the correlated words;

d) they form regular sets of words of the same semantic type.

Of late some new investigations into the problem of prefixation in English have yielded interesting results. It appears that the traditional opinion, current among linguists, that prefixes modify only the lexical meaning of words without changing the part of speech is not quite correct with regard to the English language. In English there are about 25 prefixes which can transfer words to a different part of speech in comparison with their original stems. Such prefixes should perhaps be called conversive prefixes, e.g. to begulf (cf. gulf n), to debus (cf. bus n); to embronze (cf. bronze n), etc. If further investigation of English prefixation gives

more proofs of the conversive ability of prefixes, it will then be possible to draw the conclusion that in this respect there is no functional difference between suffixes and prefixes, for suffixes in English are also both conversive (cf. hand — handless) and non-conversive (cf. father — fatherhood, horseman — horsemanship, etc.).

Some recent investigations in the field of English affixation have revealed a close interdependence between the meanings of a polysemantic affix and the lexico-semantic group to which belongs the base it is affixed to, which results in the difference between structural and structural-semantic derivational patterns the prefix forms. A good illustration in point is the prefix en-.

When within the same structural pattern en - +n —> V, the prefix is combined with noun bases denoting articles of clothing, things of luxury, etc. it forms derived verbs expressing an action of putting or placing on, e.g. enrobe (cf. robe), enjewel (cf. jewel), enlace (cf. lace), etc.

When added to noun bases referring to various land forms, means of transportation, containers and notions of geometry it builds derived verbs denoting an action of putting or placing in or into, e.g. embed (cf. bed), entrap (cf. trap), embark (cf. bark), entrain (cf. train), encircle (cf. circle), etc.

In combination with noun bases denoting an agent or an abstract notion the prefix en- produces causative verbs, e.g. enslave (cf. slave), endanger (cf. danger), encourage (cf. courage), etc.

Classification of prefixes.

Unlike suffixation, which is usually more closely bound up with the paradigm of a certain part of speech, prefixation is considered to be more neutral in this respect. It is significant that in linguistic literature derivational suffixes are always divided into noun-forming, adjective-forming, etc. Prefixes, however, are treated differently. They are described either in alphabetical order or subdivided into several classes in accordance with their origin, meaning or function and never according to the part of speech.

Prefixes may be classified on different principles. Diachronically distinction is made between prefixes of native and foreign origin.¹ Synchronically prefixes may be classified:

1) according to the class of words they preferably form. Recent investigations, as has been mentioned above, allow one to classify prefixes according to this principle. It must be noted that most of the 51 prefixes of Modern English function in more than one part of speech forming different structural and structural-semantic patterns. A small group of 5 prefixes may be referred to exclusively verb-forming (en-, be-, un-, etc.).

The majority of prefixes (in their various denotational meanings) tend to function either in nominal parts of speech (41 patterns in adjectives, 42 in nouns) or in verbs (22 patterns);

2) as to the type of lexical-grammatical character of the base they are added to into: a) deverbal, e. g. rewrite, outstay, overdo, etc.; b) denominal, e.g. unbutton, detrain, ex-president, etc. and c) deadjectival, e.g.

uneasy, biannual, etc. It is of interest to note that the most productive prefixal pattern for adjectives is the one made up of the prefix un- and the base built either on adjectival stems or present and past participle, e.g. unknown, unsmiling, unseen, etc.;

3) semantically prefixes fall into mono- and polysemantic ¹;

4) as to the generic denotational meaning there are different groups that are distinguished in linguistic literature:

a) negative prefixes, such as: un₁-, non-, in-, dis₁-, a-, e.g. ungrateful (cf. grateful), unemployment (cf. employment), non-politician (cf. politician), non-scientific (cf. scientific), incorrect (cf. correct), disloyal (cf. loyal), disadvantage (cf. advantage), amoral (cf. moral), asymmetry (cf. symmetry), etc.

It may be mentioned in passing that the prefix in- occurs in different phonetic shapes depending on the initial sound of the base it is affixed to; in other words, the prefixal morpheme in question has several allomporphs, namely il- (before [l]), im- (before [p, m],) ir- (before [r]), in- in all other cases, e.g. illegal, improbable, immaterial, irreligious, inactive, etc.;

b) reversative or privative prefixes, such as un₂-, de-, dis₂-, e.g. untie (cf. tie), unleash (cf. leash), decentralise (cf. centralise), disconnect (cf. connect), etc.;

c) pejorative prefixes, such as mis-, mal-, pseudo-, e.g. miscalculate (cf. calculate), misinform (cf. inform), maltreat (cf. treat), pseudo-classicism (cf. classicism), pseudo-scientific (cf. scientific), etc.;

d) prefixes of time and order, such as fore-, pre-, post-, ex-, e.g. foretell (cf. tell), foreknowledge (cf. knowledge), pre-war (cf. war), post-war (cf. war), post-classical (cf. classical), ex-president (cf. president);

e) prefix of repetition re-, e.g. rebuild (cf. build), re-write (cf. write), etc;

f) locative prefixes, such as super-, sub-, inter-, trans-, e.g. super- structure (cf. structure), subway (cf. way), inter-continental (cf. continental), trans-atlantic (cf. Atlantic), etc. and some other groups;

5) when viewed from the angle of their stylistic reference English prefixes fall into those characterised by neutral stylistic reference and those possessing quite a definite stylistic value. As no exhaustive lexico-stylistic classification of English prefixes has yet been suggested, a few examples can only be adduced here. There is no doubt, for instance, that prefixes like un₁-, un ₂-, out-, over-, re-, under- and some others can be qualified as neutral prefixes, e.g., unnatural, unknown, unlace, outnumber, oversee, resell, underestimate, etc. On the other hand, one can hardly fail to perceive the literary-bookish character of such prefixes as pseudo-, super-, ultra-, uni-, bi- and some others, e.g. pseudo-classical, superstructure, ultra-violet, unilateral, bifocal, etc.

Sometimes one comes across pairs of prefixes one of which is neutral, the other is stylistically coloured/One example will suffice here: the

prefix over- occurs in all functional styles, the prefix super- is peculiar to the style of scientific prose.

6) prefixes may be also classified as to the degree of productivity into highly-productive, productive and non-productive.¹

Suffixation.

Suffixation is the formation of words with the help of suffixes. Suffixes usually modify the lexical meaning of the base and transfer words to a, different part of speech. There are suffixes however, which do not shift words from one part of speech into another; a suffix of this kind usually transfers a word into a different semantic group, e.g. a concrete noun becomes an abstract one, as is the case with child — childhood, friend — friendship, etc.

Chains of suffixes occurring in derived words having two and more suffixal morphemes are sometimes referred to in lexicography as compound suffixes: -ably = -able + -ly (e.g. profitably, unreasonably); -ically = -ic + -al + -ly (e.g. musically, critically); -ation = -ate + -ion (e.g. fascination, isolation) and some others. Compound suffixes do not always present a mere succession of two or more suffixes arising out of several consecutive stages of derivation. Some of them acquire a new quality operating as a whole unit. Let us examine from this point of view the suffix -ation in words like fascination, translation, adaptation and the like. Adaptation looks at first sight like a parallel to fascination, translation. The latter however are first-degree derivatives built with the suffix -ion on the bases fascinate-, translate-. But there is no base adap-tate-, only the shorter base adapt-. Likewise damnation, condemnation, formation, information and many others are not matched by shorter bases ending in -ate, but only by still shorter ones damn-, condemn-, form-, inform-. Thus, the suffix -ation is a specific suffix of a composite nature. It consists of two suffixes -ate and -ion, but in many cases functions as a single unit in first-degree derivatives. It is referred to in linguistic literature as a coalescent suffix or a group suffix. Adaptation is then a derivative of the first degree of derivation built with the coalescent suffix on the base adapt-.

Of interest is also the group-suffix -manship consisting of the suffixes -man ² and -ship. It denotes a superior quality, ability of doing something to perfection, e.g. authormanship, quotemanship, Upmanship, etc. (cf. statesmanship, or chairmanship built by adding the suffix -ship to the compound base statesman- and chairman- respectively).

It also seems appropriate to make several remarks about the morphological changes that sometimes accompany the process of combining derivational morphemes with bases. Although this problem has been so far insufficiently investigated, some observations have been made and some data collected. For instance, the noun-forming suffix -ess for names of female beings brings about a certain change in the phonetic shape of the correlative male noun provided the latter ends in -er, -or, e.g. actress

(cf. actor), sculptress (cf. sculptor), tigress (cf. tiger), etc. It may be easily, observed that in such cases the sound [9] is contracted in the feminine nouns.

Further, there are suffixes due to which the primary stress is shifted to the syllable immediately preceding them, e.g. courageous (cf. courage), stability (cf. stable), investigation (cf. investigate), peculiarity (cf. peculiar), etc. When added to a base having the suffix -able/-ible as its component, the suffix -ity brings about a change in its phonetic shape, namely the vowel [i] is inserted between [b] and [1], e.g. possible — possibility, changeable — changeability, etc. Some suffixes attract the primary stress on to themselves, there is a secondary stress on the first syllable in words with such suffixes, e.g. `e mploy ´ ee (cf. em´ploy), ` govern ´ mental (cf. govern), ` pictu ´ resque (cf. picture).

Classification of suffixes.

There are different classifications of suffixes in linguistic literature, as suffixes may be divided into several groups according to different principles:

1) The first principle of classification that, one might say, suggests itself is the part of speech formed. Within the scope of the part-of-speech classification suffixes naturally fall into several groups such as:

a) noun-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in nouns, e.g. -er, -dom, -ness, -ation, etc. (teacher, Londoner, freedom, brightness, justification, etc.);

b) adjective-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adjectives, e.g. -able, -less, -ful, -ic, -ous, etc. (agreeable, careless, doubtful, poetic, courageous, etc.);

c) verb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in verbs, e.g. -en, -fy, -ise (-ize) (darken, satisfy, harmonise, etc.);

d) adverb-suffixes, i.e. those forming or occurring in adverbs, e.g. -ly, -ward (quickly, eastward, etc.).

2) Suffixes may also be classified into various groups according to the lexico-grammatical character of the base the affix is usually added to. Proceeding from this principle one may divide suffixes into:

a) deverbal suffixes (those added to the verbal base), e.g. -er, -ing, -ment, -able, etc. (speaker, reading, agreement, suitable, etc.);

b) denominal suffixes (those added to the noun base), e.g. -less, -ish, -ful, -ist, -some, etc. (handless, childish, mouthful, violinist, troublesome, etc.);

c) de-adjectival suffixes (those affixed to the adjective base), e.g. -en, -ly, -ish, -ness, etc. (blacken, slowly, reddish, brightness, etc.).

3) A classification of suffixes may also be based on the criterion of sense expressed by a set of suffixes. Proceeding from this principle suffixes are classified into various groups within the bounds of a certain part of speech. For instance, noun-suffixes fall into those denoting:

a) the agent of an action, e.g. -er, -ant (baker, dancer, defendant, etc.);

b) appurtenance, e.g. -an, -ian, - ese, etc. (Arabian, Elizabethan, Russian, Chinese, Japanese, etc.);

c) collectivity, e.g. -age, -dom, -ery (-ry), etc. (freightage, officialdom, peasantry, etc.);

d) diminutiveness, e.g. -ie, -let, -ling, etc. (birdie, girlie, cloudlet, squireling, wolfling, etc.).

4) Still another classification of suffixes may be worked out if one examines them from the angle of stylistic reference. Just like prefixes, suffixes are also characterised by quite a definite stylistic reference falling into two basic classes:

a) those characterised by neutral stylistic reference such as -able, -er, -ing, etc.;

b) those having a certain stylistic value such as -oid, -i/form, -aceous, -tron, etc.

Suffixes with neutral stylistic reference may occur in words of different lexico-stylistic layers e.g. agreeable, cf. steerable (steerable spaceship); dancer, cf. transmitter, squealer; ¹ meeting, cf. monitoring (the monitoring of digestive processes in the body), etc. As for suffixes of the second class they are restricted in use to quite definite lexico-stylistic layers of words, in particular to terms, e.g. rhomboid, asteroid, cruciform, cyclotron, synchrophasotron, etc.

5) Suffixes are also classified as to the degree of their productivity.

Phraseological units

Phraseological units are habitually defined as non-motivated word-groups that cannot be freely made up in speech but are reproduced as ready-made units. Thus, for example, the constituent red in the free word-group red flower may, if necessary, be substituted for by any other adjective denoting colour (blue, white, etc.), without essentially changing the denotational meaning of the word-group under discussion (a flower of a certain colour). In the phraseological unit red tape (bureaucratic “methods) no such substitution is possible, as a change of the adjective would involve a complete change in the meaning of the whole group. A blue (black, white, etc.) tape would mean ‘a tape of a certain colour’. It follows that the phraseological unit red tape is semantically non-motivated, i.e. its meaning cannot be deduced from the meaning of its components and that it exists as a ready-made linguistic unit which does not allow of any variability of its lexical components.

Phraseological units in Modern English are also approached from the contextual point of view. Proceeding from the assumption that individual meanings of polysemantic words can be observed in certain contexts and may be viewed as dependent on those contexts, it is argued that phraseological units are to be defined through specific types of context. Free word-groups make up variable contexts whereas the essential feature of phraseological units is a non-variable or fixed context.‘ Non-variability is understood as the stability of the word-group.

The two criteria of phraseological units — specialised meaning of the components and non-variability of context — display unilateral dependence. Specialised meaning presupposes complete stability of the lexical components, as specialised meaning of the member-words or idiomatic meaning of the whole word-group is never observed outside fixed contexts.

Phraseological units may be subdivided into phrasemes and idioms according to whether or not one of the components of the whole word-group possesses specialised meaning.

Phrasemes are, as a rule, two-member word-groups in which one of the members has specialised meaning dependent on the second component as, e.g., in small hours; the second component (hours) serves as the only clue to this particular meaning of the first component as it is found only in the given context (small hours). The word that serves as the clue to the specialised meaning of one of the components is habitually used in its central meaning (cf., for example, small hours, and three hours, pleasant hours, etc.).

Idioms are distinguished from phrasemes by the idiomaticity of the whole word-group (e.g. red tape — ‘bureaucratic methods’) and the impossibility of attaching meaning to the members of the group taken in isolation. Idioms are semantically and grammatically inseparable units. They may comprise unusual combinations of words which when understood in their literal meaning are normally unallocable as, e.g. mare’s nest (a mare — ‘a female horse’, a mare’s nest — ‘a hoax, a discovery which proves false or worthless’). Unusualness of collocability, or logical incompatibility of member-words is indicative of the idiomaticity of the phrase.

Idioms made up of words normally brought together are homonymous with corresponding variable word-groups, e.g. to let the cat out of the bag — ‘to divulge a secret’, and the clue to the idiomatic meaning is to be found in a wider context outside the phrase itself.

 

Free wordgroups

Attempts have been made to approach the problem of phraseology in different ways. Up till now, however, there is a certain divergence of opinion as to the essential feature of phraseological units as distinguished from other word-groups and the nature of phrases that can be properly termed phraseological units.

The complexity of the problem may be largely accounted for by the fact that the border-line between free or variable word-groups and phraseological units is not clearly defined. The so-called free word-groups are only relatively free as collocability of their member-words is fundamentally delimited by their lexical and grammatical valency which makes at least some of them very close to set-phrases. Phraseological units are comparatively stable and semantically inseparable. Between the extremes of complete motivation and variability of member-words on the one hand and lack of motivation combined with complete stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure on the other hand there are innumerable border-line ca’ses.

• However, the existing terms,¹ e.g. set-phrases, idioms, word-equivalents, reflect to a certain extent the main debatable issues of phraseology which centre on the divergent views concerning the nature and essential features of phraseological units as distinguished from the so-called free word-groups. The term set-phrase implies that the basic criterion of differentiation is stability of the lexical components and grammatical structure of word-groups. The term idioms generally implies that the essential feature of the linguistic units under consideration is idiomaticity or lack cf motivation. This term habitually used by English and American linguists is very often treated as synonymous with the term phraseological unit universally accepted in our country.² The term word-equivalent stresses not only the semantic but also the functional inseparability of certain word-groups and their aptness to function in speech as single words.

Thus differences in terminology reflect certain differences in the main criteria used to distinguish between free word-groups and a specific type of linguistic units generally known as phraseology. These criteria and the ensuing classification are briefly discussed below.

Sources of homonyms.

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 a 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. еаzе have become identical in pronunciation (MnE. I [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. ON. ras and Fr. race are homonymous in Modern English (cf. race₁ [ reis] — ‘running’ and race₂ [ reis] — ‘a distinct ethnical stock’).