Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical evolution of the language. Changes of lexical meaning are determined by diachronic semantic analyses of many commonly used English words. Thus the word silly (OE sælig) meant ‘happy’, the word glad (OE glæd) had the meaning of ‘bright, shining’, etc. Polysemy is the result of semantic change, when new LSVs emerge on the basis of already existing ones according to certain patterns of semantic derivation.
It is necessary to discriminate between the causes, the nature and the results of semantic change. Discussing the causes of semantic change we attempt to find out why the word changed its meaning. The factors accounting for semantic changes are of two kinds: a) extra-linguistic and b) linguistic causes. By extra-linguistic causes are meant changes in the life of a speech community, various spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Historical, economic, political, cultural, technological, etc. changes result in either appearance of new objects which require new names or the existing objects undergo changes to such an extent that it causes semantic changes. Although objects, concepts, institutions, etc. change in the course of time, in many cases the sound form of the word is retained. The word car from Latin carrus which meant ‘a four-wheeled wagon’ now denotes ‘a motor-car’ and ‘a railway carriage’. The meaning of the word ship (OE scip) also considerably changed from the primary ‘vessel with bowsprit and three, four or five square-rigged masts’ to modern ‘any sea-going vessel of considerable size’ and ‘spacecraft’.
Social factors play a very important part in semantic change, especially when the words become jargonisms and professionalisms, i.e. used by certain social or professional groups. Each group uses its own denominations, and in consequence words acquire new content, new LSVs emerge, developing the words’ polysemy. Such are the polysemantic lexemes ring and pipe. The lexeme ring developed such professionalisms as ‘circular enclosure of space for circus-riding’, ‘concentric circles of wood when the trunk is cut across’, ‘space for the showing of cattle, dogs, etc (at farming exhibitions, etc) and others; pipe ‘musical wind instrument’, geol. cylindrical vein of ore, ‘cask for wine, esp. as measure’ and others.
To linguistic causes of semantic change refer changes of meaning due to factors acting within the language system. They are as follows: a) ellipsis: in a phrase made up of two words one of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to another, e.g. the meaning of the word daily was habitually used in collocation with the word newspaper. Later the noun newspaper was omitted and the adjective daily acquired the meaning of the whole phrase ‘ daily newspaper’; b) discrimination of synonyms: when a new word is borrowed or coined in the language, it sometimes influences meanings of its synonyms, e.g. the Old English word hlaf which had the meaning of modern bread changed its meaning under the influence of the word bread,and now the OE hlaf is loaf which means ‘mass of bread cooked as a separate quantity’; the word fowl (OE fugol) had the meaning of modern bird but under the influence of its synonym bird [OE brid ‘young bird’] the word fowl developed a new LSV ‘domestic cock or hen’;c) linguistic analogy: it was found out, that if one of the members of a synonymic set acquires a new meaning, other members of this set change their meaning too, for instance, verbs synonymous with catch, e.g. grasp, get, etc. acquired another meaning - ‘to understand’ [Ginzburg 1979: 29].
Change of meaning presupposes using the existing name of a certain particular object for nominating another object. Such processes lately have got the name of secondary nomination. The processes of secondary nomination are also called transference of meaning, though it is more correct to speak of the transference of names and emerging of new meanings.
Changes in meaning become possible because there is a certain connection, association between the old meaning and the new or the two objects (referents) involved in the processes of nomination. Associations of meanings reflect our perception and understanding of things. There are two main types of association involved in semantic change: similarity of meanings and contiguity of meanings.
A very productive type of semantic change is metaphor which is based on similarity of meanings. Thisis a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some ways resembles the other. Similarity of meaning may be based on different aspects of objects: similarity of their forms - the nose of a kettle, the bridge of the nose, the lip of a crater, the eye of a potato;similarity of position in space - the leg of the table, the foot of the hill, the mouth of a river, etc.In many languages there are regular patterns which serve as basis for metaphoric transference. The above examples illustrate the most obvious pattern of transfer of terms for parts of the human body to external objects in nature. Another obvious pattern is the case when names of animals through metaphoric transference are used to give names to people whose behaviour resembles that of animals, e.g. cat – (fig.) an excitable woman, goose – simpleton, cow – awkward woman, cuckoo – crazy person, chicken – cowardetc.
A subtype of metaphoric transferences is the so-called synesthesia. Synesthetic transferences are based on similarities of the physical and emotional perception of two objects. Adjectives denoting physical properties (temperature, light, size, taste, etc.) come to denote emotional or intellectual properties: a sharp smell, a warm feeling, a cold reception, a sharp pain, soft music, a bright idea, etc.Within verbs synesthetic transferences are observed in lexemes denoting physical qualities which come to denote emotions and intellectual activity: to grate ‘ have an irritating effect’, to rasp on one’s nerves ‘to annoy’, to crack a code ‘to decipher a code’, to smash a theory ‘to disprove a theory’.
The above examples in no way exhaust all the multitude of metaphoric transferences, which result in appearance of many new LSVs in polysemantic lexemes. The role of metaphor is extremely important in the processes of cognition and nomination. In their book “Metaphors We Live By” [Lakoff, Johnson 1980] the authors contend that metaphor is not only a language phenomenon but also a daily conceptual reality when we are thinking about one sphere in the terms of another one. Based on similarity of objects, metaphor is closely linked with man’s cognitive activity, as it presupposes cognition through comparing objects.
Metonymy or contiguity of meanings 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. There are various patterns of metonymy based on spatial, temporal relations, relations of cause and result.
There are distinguished certain patterns of metonymic transferences. Thus, to examples of metonymy based on spatial relations belongs the pattern when people or objects placed in the proximity of some other object, on or within the object get the name of that object. In the sentence Keep the table amused, the word table denotes people sitting around the table. In the example The hall applauded people got the name hall according to their location inside the hall at the moment. This pattern of spatial relations can be described as the relations between ‘the container and the thing contained’.
In the semantic structure of the lexeme school we find the following LSVs: school - 1) institution for educating children; 2) process of being educated in a school: Is he old enough for school?; 3) time when teaching is given, lessons: School begins at 9 a.m.; 4) all the pupils in a school: The whole school was present at the football match. LSVs 2 and 3 express metonymic transferences based on temporal relations, LSV4 – those based on spatial relations.
To regular patterns of metonymic transferences also refer instrumental relations: the lexeme tongue ‘the organ of speech’ developed the meaning ‘language’: e.g. ‘mother tongue ’, because tongue is an instrument which produces speech; the relations between the material and the thing made of this material: silver, bronze, e.g. ‘table silver: spoons, forks, teapots, dishes’; ‘ the quality – the subject of this quality ’: beauty - 1) combination of qualities that give pleasure to the senses; 2) person, thing, feature that is beautiful: Isn’t she a beauty!; talent - 1) special, aptitude, faculty, gift; 2) persons of talent; ‘ action – the agent of the action ’: support as a noun: 1) supporting or being supported; 2) sb. or sth. that supports; and some other patterns.
A variety of metonymy is synechdoche, that is the transference of meaning from part to whole, e.g. the case when the nouns denoting the parts of human body come to denote human beings, as the word hand meaning‘a workman’ (Hands wanted) and ‘a sailor’ (All hands on deck!), the word head meaning cattle(a hundred head of cattle) and others.
The diachronic approach to the word meaning makes it possible to point out the results of semantic change. Results of semantic change can be observed in the changes of the denotational meaning of the word and also its connotational component.
Changes in the denotational meaning may result in either restriction or extension of meaning. Restriction or narrowing of meaning istransference of meaning from a wider, more general meaning to a narrower one: the modern verb to starve ‘suffer or die of hunger’ in Old English meant ‘to die’, disease ‘illness’ previously had the meaning ‘discomfort of any kind’, Restriction of meaning can be also illustrated by the example deer (Old English deor) which previously denoted ‘any animal’ and now it denotes ‘(kind of) graceful, quick-running animal, the male of which has horns’. This is also the case with the word fowl which in Old English denoted ‘any bird’ but in Modern English denotes ‘a domestic hen or rooster’. The word meat, which is today limited to ‘flesh food’ originally meant food in general, as is indicated in the archaic phrase meat and drink ‘food and drink’.
If the word with the new meaning comes to be used in the specialized vocabulary, it is usual to speak of specialization of meaning. For instance we can observe restriction and specialization in 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’.
Changes in the denotational meaning may also result in the application of the word to a wider variety of referents. This is 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 ‘any result aimed at’. The word to help previously meant ‘to treat, to cure’, it has undergone extension of meaning, at present it means ‘do sth. for the benefit of’. 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. “Numerous examples of this process have occurred in the religious field, where office, doctrine, novice and many other terms have taken on a more general, secular range of meanings” (Crystal, p.138). Here also belong such examples as the word camp previously belonging to military terms which at present denotes ‘place where people live in tents or huts for a time’.
To semantic change based on extension also refers desemantization [Гак 1977: 32 - 34], that is weakening of the lexical meaning of the word and its grammaticalization. Many verbs of motion lost their meaning ‘manner of moving’ in such examples as to run a risk, to fall into disuse, to fly into a temper, to come to a conclusion. In word combinations like to keep alive, to grow angry, etc. the first components keep, grow have undergone desemantization.
Changes in the denotational component of meaning can be accompanied by changes in the connotational component of meaning which include: a) pejorative development or the acquisition by the word of some derogatory emotive charge, e.g. the word silly originally denoted ‘happy, blessed’ and then gradually it acquireda derogatory meaning ‘foolish, weak-minded’; Modern English villain ‘wicked man’ in Middle English neutrally described a serf; b) ameliorative development or the improvement of the connotational component of meaning, e.g. minister which in one of its meanings originally denoted ‘a servant, an attendant’, but now - ‘a civil servant of higher rank, a person administering a department of state’; angel initially having the meaning ‘a messenger’ developed positive connotational semes ‘lovely, innocent, kind, thoughtful’.
Sure enough, not every word changed its meaning in the course of history of the language. But the diachronic analysis of various types of semantic changes proves that the lexical meaning is one of the most dynamic, changeable elements of the language system, its flexibility is conditioned by the necessity to adequately reflect the constantly changing world.
Synonymy
Lexical units may be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and semantic contrasts. Such lexemes are either synonyms or antonyms. Synonyms (Greek ‘same’ + ‘name’) are traditionally defined as words similar or equivalent (identical) in meanings. This definition is open to criticism and requires clarification. Synonymy, as D.N. Shmelyov puts it, begins with total identity of word meanings of lexemes relating to one and the same object, and passes through various gradations of semantic affinity to expressing differences in lexical meanings, so that it is difficult to decide whether the words similar in meanings are synonyms or not.
Investigating the problems of synonymy Yu.D.Apresyan considers that the objective difficulties in analysing synonyms stem from the fact that the existing criteria are not sufficient to distinguish synonyms [Апресян 1957: 85].
Linguists point out two main criteria of synonymy: 1) equivalence or similarity of meaning (e.g. pleasure, delight, joy, enjoyment, merriment, hilarity, mirth); 2) interchangeability in a number of contexts, e.g. I’m thankful (grateful) to you. It is a hard (difficult) problem.
However, these criteria are not reliable enough for distinguishing synonyms. First of all it is not clear what degree of similarity is sufficient to determine synonymy. Secondly, one should distinguish both identity and similarity of referents and meanings. One and the same referent might be identified by words which are not synonyms (e.g. оne and the same person can be named mother, wife, daughter, doctor, etc).
It should be noted concerning the criterion of interchangeability that there is little number of lexemes interchangeable in all the contexts. Words broad and wide are very close in meaning, but they cannot substitute each other in a number of contexts, e.g. in the contexts broad daylight, broad accent the substitution of broad by wide is impossible.It is difficult to say how many interchangeable contexts are enough to speak of synonymy.
L.M. Vasilyev writes that synonyms are identified according to their lexical meaning and all their denotational grammatical meanings excluding syntactical meanings; synonyms might differ in other components of their content: conceptual, expressive, stylistic [Васильев 1967].
D.N.Shmelyov gives the following definition of synonyms: “Synonyms may be defined as words belonging to the same part of speech, their meanings have identical components, and differing components of their meanings steadily neutralize in certain positions, i.e. synonyms are words which differ only in such components which are insignificant in certain contexts of their usage” [Шмелев 1977: 196].
N.Webster’ definition is close to the previous one: “in the narrowest sense a synonym may be defined as a word that affirms exactly the meaning of a word with which it is synonymous... Words are considered to be synonyms if in one or more of their senses they are interchangeable without significant alteration of denotation but not necessarily without shifts in peripheral aspects of meaning (as connotations and implications)” [Webster, 1973].
It is erroneous to speak of synonymy of words or lexemes as such, as this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. Each meaning (LSV) of a polysemantic word has its own synonymic set, for example, LSV1 of the word party is synonymous with words gathering, social, fun: ‘Are you coming to our party?’; LSV 2 is synonymous with group, company, crowd: ‘A party of tourists saw the sights of London’; LSV 3 is synonymous with block, faction, body, organization: You don’t have to join a political party to vote in an election.
Secondly, if we take into account that lexical meaning falls into denotational and connotational components, it follows that we cannot speak of similarity or equivalence of these two components of meanings. It is only the denotational component may be described as identical or similar. If we analyse words that are considered synonyms, e.g. to leave (neutral) and to desert (formal or poetic) or insane (formal) and loony (informal), 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. Taking into account the above-mentioned considerations the compilers of the book “A Course in Modern English Lexicology” R.S.Ginzburg and others formulate the definition of synonyms as follows: “synonyms are words different in sound form but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts [p.58].”
Differentiation of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components - denotational and connotational. Linguists (W.E.Collinson, D.Crystal, Yu.D.Apresyan) point out differences in the denotational component, e.g. one word has a more general meaning than another: to refuse, to reject; differences in the connotational component, e.g. one word is more emotional than another: youth and youngster are both synonyms but youths are less pleasant than youngsters, or one word is more intense than another, e.g. to repudiate vs. to reject, one word contains evaluative connotation: stringy, niggard (negative – ‘mean, spending, using or giving unwillingly; miserly’) while the other is neutral: economical, thrifty. Differences in connotational meaning also include stylistic differences: one word is formal, e.g. parent while another is neutral father or informal dad; there may be a dialect difference: butcher and flesher (Scots)Synonyms differ in collocation: rancid and rotten are synonyms, but the former is used only of butter or bacon while the latter collocates with a great number of nouns, and frequency of occurrence: turn down is more frequently used than refuse.
It should be noted that the difference in denotational meaning cannot exceed certain limits. There must be a certain common or integral component of denotational meaning in a synonymic set. Componential analysis of word meaning enables linguists to distinguish integral and differential components of synonymous words. Differential components show what synonyms differ in, if compared with one another. For instance, synonyms: to leave, to abandon, to desert, to forsake have an integral component ‘to go away’. The verb to abandon is marked by a differential component ‘not intending to return’, to desert (informal or poetic) means ‘leaving without help or support, especially in a wrong or cruel way’, to forsake presupposes ‘irrevocable breaking away from some place, people, habits, etc., severing all emotional and intellectual contacts’. There is a great variety of differential components. They denote various properties, qualities of nominated objects; they express positive and negative evaluation.
Academician V.V.Vinogradov worked out the follow classification of synonyms which is based on differences between synonyms:
1) ideographic synonyms which differ to some extent in the denotational meaning and collocation, e.g. both to understand and to realize refer to the same notion but the former reflects a more concrete situation: to understand sb’s words but to realize one’s error. Ideographic synonyms belong to one and the same, usually neutral stylistic layer.
2) stylistic synonyms - words similar or identical in meaning but referring to different stylistic layers, e.g. to expire (formal) - to die (neutral) - to kick the bucket (informal, slang).
3) absolute (complete)synonyms are identical in meaning and interchangeable in all the contexts. T.I.Arbekova gives the following examples of perfect synonyms: car - automobile, jail - gaol - prison, to begin - to start, to finish - to end [Арбекова 1977: 22]. There is much controversy on the issue of existence of absolute synonyms. The above and other examples seem to be complete synonyms only at a first superficial glance. A more profound analysis proves that such examples differ in certain connotations and collocability. It is assumed that close to absolute synonyms are terms, e.g. fricative and spirants as terms denoting one and the same type of consonants in phonology. However this understanding is also open to criticism [Arnold 1973].
This classification was subject to alterations and additions. Thus, V.A.Zvegintsev considers that there are no non-stylistic synonyms, but there are synonyms stylistically homogeneous (ideographic) and stylistically heterogeneous (stylistic). According to this point of view ideographic synonyms are pairs like excellent - splendid and stunning - topping (colloq. splendid, ravishing) because they are stylistically homogeneous: the first pair are stylistically neutral synonyms, while the second pair are stylistically coloured; if the above words are put together into one synonymic set, they will be stylistic synonyms.
V.A.Zvegintsev considers that the synonymic set face – countenance – mug – puss – smacker (cf. Rus. лицо – лик – морда – рыло – харя) contains stylistic synonyms while the synonyms in the set mug – puss – smacker (cf. Rus. морда – рыло – харя) are ideographic, because the first set contains stylistically heterogeneous lexemes while the second one includes stylistically homogeneous lexemes [Звегинцев 1968]; it follows that one and the same lexeme can be a stylistic synonym in one set of lexemes (face – mug) and ideographic in another set (mug – puss).
According to the authors of “A Course in Modern English Lexicology” R.S. Ginzburg and others, V.V.Vinogradov’s classification cannot be accepted “as synonymous words always differ in the denotational component irrespective of the identity or difference of stylistic reference” [Ginzburg 1979:56-57 ]. For instance, though the verbs see (neutral) and behold (formal, poetic) are usually treated as stylistic synonyms, there could be also observed a marked difference in their denotational meanings. The verb behold suggests only ‘looking at that which is seen’. The verb see is much wider in meaning.
Difference of the connotational semantic component is invariably accompanied by some difference of the denotational meaning of synonyms. Hence, it would be more consistent to subdivide synonymous words into purely ideographic (denotational) and ideographic-stylistic synonyms.
Synonyms are also subdivided into traditional or language synonyms and contextual or speech synonyms. Some words which are not traditionally considered synonyms acquire similarity of meanings in certain contexts due to metaphoric or metonymic transferences. In the sentence ‘She was a chatterer, a magpie ’ the italicized words are not traditional synonyms but the word magpie in this context becomes a synonym to the word chatterer through a metaphoric transference: a magpie-(fig) person who chatters very much. Also in the sentence It was so easy, so simple, so foolproof words easy, simple are traditional language synonyms but foolproof (tech. ‘so simple that it does not require special technical skills or knowledge’) is their contextualsynonym.
There is a special type of synonyms - euphemisms (Greek ‘sound well’). They come into being for reasons of etiquette with the purpose of substitution of vulgar, unpleasant, coarse words by words with milder, more polite connotations. For instance, among synonyms drunk, merry, jolly, intoxicated the last three wordsare euphemisms as they are less offensive than the first one. Euphemisms in various languages are used to denote such notions as death, madness, some physiological processes, diseases, crimes, etc.
Examples of euphemistic synonyms to the verb die are: breathe one’s last, be no more, be gathered to one’s fathers, deep six, give up the ghost, get one’s ticket punched, go belly up, go down the tube, go home in a box, go the way of all flesh, go to one’s last account, go to one’s resting place, go to one’s long home, go north, go west, go to the wall, head for the hearse, head for the last roundup, join the (silent) majority, kick off, kick the bucket, meet one’s maker, meet Mr. Jordan, pay the debt of nature, pass beyond the veil, quit the scene, shuffle off this mortal coil, take the ferry, take the last count, turn up one’s toes; euphemisticsynonyms to the word mad: insane, mentally unstable, unbalanced, unhinged, not (quite) right, not all there, off one’s mind (head, hinges, nut, rocker, track, trolley), wrong(off) in the upper storey, having bats in one’s belfry, cracked, cracked-up crackpot, crazy as a bedbug, cuckoo, cutting out paper dolls, nobody home, lights on but nobody home, nutty, just plain nuts, nutty as a fruitcake, out of one’s mind (brain, skull, gourd, tree), loony, head (mental) case, mental defective, gone ape, minus (missing) some buttons, one sandwich short of picnic, belt doesn’t go through all the loops, section 8, etc;euphemisms synonymous to lavatory: powder room, washroom, restroom, retiring room, (public) comfort station, ladies’ (room), gentlemen’s (room), water-closet, w.c., public conveniences, etc.;, euphemistic synonyms to pregnant: in an interesting condition, in a delicate condition, in the family way, with a baby coming, (big) with child. Looking through the above list of examples one can’t fail to notice that euphemisms include items belonging to formal, neutral, informal registers, even some jocular examples.
Оne of the sources of euphemisms are religious taboos, i.e. as it is forbidden to pronounce God’s name, the word God was substituted by a phonetically similar one goodness: for goodness sake! Goodness gracious! Goodness knows! To religious euphemisms also belong: Jove! Good Lord! By Gum! Тhere is also a taboo concerning the usage of the word devil instead of which deuce, fiend, hellion, the Dickens, Old Nick (Bendy, Blazes, Clootie, Dad, Harry, Horny, Ned, Poker, Scratch, Gentleman, Gooseberry) are used.
The so-called political correctness “p.c.” has become the source of euphemisms in recent years in the U.S.A. and Canada. It is considered politically incorrect to use the word poor instead of which socially underprivileged is used. One should not use words Negroes or blacks but Afro-Americans or Afro-Canadians, not Red Indians but native Americans. Instead of invalids one should say special needs people, pensioners turned into senior citizens, etc.
Synonyms constitute synonymic sets, which include a certain number of synonymous lexemes with a dominant word. A synonymic dominant is a word which represents the integral (invariant) meaning, i.e. the component of meaning common to all the lexemes of a particular synonymic set. Such words are usually stylistically neutral; they have high frequency of occurrence and mostly belong to native English words. The presentation of a synonymic set usually starts with a synonymic dominant: hate, loathe, detest, despise, abominate, abhor. While defining the word’s meaning we usually compare it with the synonymic dominant and only then with other synonyms, e.g. detest – hate strongly (ALD).
The English language is very rich in synonyms. It can be partially explained by intensive borrowing of words from many languages: French, Latin, Greek and others. For instance in the synonymic set with the dominant hate only two lexemes hate and loathe are native English words, others are borrowings from Latin and French. Due to borrowings from these languages there appeared certain synonymic patterns. For instance, a double-scale pattern, where one of the synonyms is a native English word, and another is a Latin borrowing: motherly-maternal, fatherly - paternal, brotherly - fraternal, heavenly - celestial, world -universe, etc.; a triple-scale pattern, where one word is native English, the second one is a French borrowing and the third is borrowed from Latin or Greek: begin - commence - initiate, end - finish - conclude, ask - question - interrogate, etc. In such patterns the first word is stylistically neutral and has a high frequency of usage while others are more formal.
8. Antonymy
The traditional definition of antonyms as lexemes opposite in meaning sounds straightforward and needs clarification. To antonyms belong such pairs of lexemes as love / hate, early /late, unknown / known, etc. The word ‘opposite’ presupposes quite a variety of semantic contrasts: polarity, exclusion, negation of one concept by another, etc. Cf.: kind/cruel where the opposition expresses contradictory notions and kind/unkind where the opposition expresses negation, i.e. unkind means the same as not kind. Hence, antonyms are lexemes characterized by various kinds of contrasts in their denotational meaning. Antonymy refers to very important semantic relations which form a simple type of structure – contrastive multitude [Харитончик 1992: 105].
Different kinds of contrast make it possible to present a semantic classification of antonyms and point out the following types of antonyms:
1. Contradictory antonyms. Here belong such opposites as single/married, first/last, dead/alive, true / false, perfect / imperfect,etc. To use one lexeme of the pair is to contradict the other: to be alive is not to be dead; to be single is not to be married; to use not before one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other. The affirmation of one lexeme of the pair implies the negation of the other. When we state that John is single we imply that John is not married. D.Crystal calls such antonyms complementary [Crystal 1995:165]. The items complement each other in their meanings.
2. Contraries, which are also called gradable antonyms [Crystal 1995:165]. These are opposites, such as large/small, happy/sad, wet/dry, cold/hot, young/old, etc. These are items (adjectives) capable of comparison; they do not refer to absolute qualities. We can say that something is very wet or quite dry, or wetter or drier than something else. It is as if there is a scale of wetness/dryness, with wet at one end and dry at the other. Such antonyms presuppose a certain starting point or norm in regard to which a certain degree of quality is ascertained. Adjectives like big/small, old/young, allow different interpretation depending on what object is meant. Compare for instance a small elephant and a big mouse. Each object has its norm of size: the smallest elephant is bigger than the biggest mouse. The negation of a certain quality in case of contraries does not imply the opposite quality: ‘our town is not big ’ does not mean ‘our town is small ’.
Contraries unlike contradictories admit possibilities between them. This is observed in pairs like cold/hot where extreme opposite qualities are expressed. Intermediate members make up pairs cold/warm, hot/cool, warm/cool. Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or presence of one of the components of meaning like sex or age: man / woman, man / boy, boy / girl.
3. Incompatibles. Semantic relations of incompatibility exist among antonyms with the common component of meaning and may be described as relation of exclusion but not of contradiction. A set оf words with the common component ‘part of the day’: morning, evening, day, night, afternoon may constitute antonymous pairs based on exclusion: morning/evening, day/night, morning/night, etc. To say morning is to say not afternoon, not evening, not night. The negation of this set does not imply semantic equivalence with the other but excludes the possibility of the other words of this set. Relations of incompatibility are also observed between colour terms. Thus black/white exclude red, green, blue, etc.
4. Conversives orconverse termsare antonyms denoting one and the same referent viewed from different points of view.This type of oppositeness, where one item presupposes the other, is called converseness. Here belong verbs buy/sell, g ive/receive, cause/suffer, win/lose; nouns: teacher/student, doctor/patient, husband/wife, parent/child. These antonyms are mutually dependent on each other. There cannot be a wife without a husband. We cannot buy something without something being sold. Close to conversives are antonyms denoting reverse actions: tie / untie, wind / unwind.
5. Vectorial are antonyms such as over/under, inside/outside, North/South, East/West which denote oppositeness of directions referring to spatial relations, actions. Here belong verbs like come/leave, arrive/depart and also those denoting relations of cause and effect: learn / know, know / forget.
It is obvious that not every lexeme has an antonym. A vast majority of lexemes in the language have no opposites at all. It does not make sense to ask ‘What is the opposite of rainbow? Or of chemistry? Or of sandwich?’ Most antonyms are adjectives which is only natural because qualitative characteristics are easily compared: old – new, strong – weak, easy – difficult, high – low, etc.Verbs take the second place, then come nouns and adverbs.
The other point to note is that we ought to differentiate between oppositeness of concepts and meanings. For instance, big and large are very similar in meaning, as are little and small, but the antonym of little is big, and of large is small. Large is not the antonym of little, even though they are conceptually opposed [Crystal 1995:165].
Antonyms are also differentiated as to their structure. The majority of antonyms are the so-called absolute antonyms which have different stems: love/hate, early/late, clever/stupid, etc. Others formed by addingderivational affixes to the stem are derivational (affixal) antonyms. The affixes in them serve to deny the quality stated in the stem: kind/unkind, moral/amoral, useful/useless.
One should bear in mind that in case of polysemantic antonyms as well as synonyms we cannot speak of antonymy of a lexeme as a whole, as different LSVs havedifferent antonyms: thin 1/thick, (a thin/thick slice of bread), thin 2/fat (a thin/fat man).
Homonymy
Words identical in their sound form and/or graphic form (spelling) but different in meaning are traditionally called homonyms, (Gk. homos ‘similar’ and onoma ‘name’). Cf.: bank 1 ‘land along each side of a river or canal’ and bank 2 ‘establishment for keeping money and valuables’, write ‘make letters or other symbols on a surface’ and right ‘just, morally good’. Homonymy exists in many languages but Mоdern English is exceptionally rich in homonyms. It is presumed that languages where short words prevail have more homonyms than those with longer words. O.Jespersen calculated that there are approximately four times as many monosyllabic as polysyllabic homonyms. It might be inferred that the abundance of homonyms in Modern English is accounted for by the monosyllabic structure of English words.
The similarity of form in majority of cases is occasional. Homonyms may hinder understanding the sense of the utterance. It is the lexical context that discloses meanings of homonymous words. In the following example several homonyms are used: I could not bear the sight of the poor bear in the bare forest near the construction site ‘Я не мог вынести вида бедного медведя в оголенном лесу возле строительной площадки’ (the еxample is borrowed from [Харитончик, p.72]). Homоnyms are: bear 1 ‘endure, tolerate’, bear 2 ‘large, heavy animal with thick fur’, bare ‘without clothing, covering, protection, decoration’, sight 1 ‘sth. seen’, site 2 ‘place where a building is or going to be’. However, the cоntеxt does not always help determine the word meaning. Тhe example light blue summer dress can be translated either as ‘легкое голубое летнее платье’ or ‘светло-голубое летнее платье’ because of homonyms light 1 ‘not heavy’ and light 2 ‘opposite of darkness’.
Homonyms are often used in jokes and puns which are based on play on words. In the example: “ Mine is a long and a sad tale! ” said the Mouse, turning to Alice, and sighing. “It is a long tail, certainly,” said Alice, looking down with wonder at the Mouse’s tail; but why do you call it sad? ”(L.Carrol. Alice in Wonderland) the play on words is based on homonymous nouns: tale ‘story’ and tail ‘movable part of an animal at the rear of its body’. Also: “ What do you do with the fruit? - “We eat what we can, and what we can’t we can ”, the pun is based on homonymous verbs can 1 ‘be able to’ and can 2 ‘preserve food by putting in a tin-plated airtight container’.