Hyponyms.

Hyponymic relations are the relations of inclusion. The term hyponymy introduced by John Lyons is not traditional, it’s of recent creation. Although, the term hyponymy may be comparatively new, the notion of hyponymy is traditional enough. It is one of the constitutive principles in the organization of the vocabulary. The “upper” general term is the super ordinate or hyperonym, the lower term specific is hyponym. We also speak of co-hyponyms or equonemes, e.g. “plant” is a super ordinate or a hyperonym in relation to “flower”, “corn”, “tree”, which are hyponyms or co-hyponyms while “flower” is a hyperonym to “tulip”, “rose”, “lily” – which are co-hyponyms.

A nimal (hyperonym)

Cat Dog Sheep Cow (hyponyms)

The formula: “Every dog is an animal but not every animal is a dog” represents the essence of hyponymy. The relations between co-hyponyms may be described as the relations of exclusion. This may be illustrated with the help of the formula in the set of the co-hyponyms referring to the hyperonym animal “a dog is not a cat, a cat is not a sheep…”

The members of the set of co-hyponyms may be described as incompletables (несовместимые члены ряда). Semantic-paradigmatic relations of words within the vocabulary prove its systematic character.

Q-26: Synonyms

Synonyms are usually defined as words similar in m-ng, that express the same idea but it’s wrong to say that syn-ms are identical in m-ng since the range of the idea they express may be very wide. Eng is very rich in syn-ms. There are about 8000 syn-mic groups in Eng.

A group of syn-ms is called a syn-mic set, e.g. famous, celebrated, renowned, illustrious may make a synonymic set.

A polysemantic word may enter as many syn-mic groups as it has lexical semantic variants, e.g. the word “fresh” goes into 5 syn-mic sets: Fresh – original – novel – striking – up-to-date; another – different – new; invigorating – pure; inexperienced – green- raw; impertinent – rude. Each syn-mic set has a word, which expresses the most general idea and holds a commanding position over other words – it is called the syn-mic dominant. E.g. in the series to leave – to depart – to quit – to retire – to clear out the word “to leave” is general and neutral and can stand for each of the other 4 terms being the syn-mic dominant of this group. So, the syn-mic dominant is the most general word belonging to the general stock of words stylistically neutral, of greater frequency and of widest colloqability.

Syn-ms are grouped according to their similarity in their m-ng and are contrasted within a group on a principle of dissimilation, e.g. weak, feeble, powerless.

In traditional ling-cs syn-ms are defined on basis of the notional criterion; according to it syn-ms are words of the same category of parts of speech conveying the same notion but differing either in components of m-ng or in stylistic characteristics-Vinogradov. The definition of syn-ms based on the semantic criterion is: “Lexical syn-ms are different words of the same part of speech which have some common denotational components in their semantic structure but differ either in some denotational components and/or in some connotational components and thus usually have different lexical colloqability.”-Cherkasskaya. In modern research of syn-ms, the criterion of interchangeability is sometimes applied. According to this, syn-ms are defined as words, which are interchangeable at least in some context without any considerable alteration in denotational m-ng. The application of this criterion is limited due to the differences in the semantic components of m-ngs of syn-ms leading to the differences in their colloqability. all the definitions of syn0ms are open to criticism and further perfection.

S-ms have 3 main functions:

1. The F of substitution in order to avoid repetition and monotony;

2. The F of précising in m-ng in order to reach a greater accuracy and avoid vagueness;

3. The expressive stylistic F, e.g. clean (free from dirt) – neat (clean and tidy) – trim (in good order, neat and spruce) – spruce (neat, trim and smart).

Types:

According to the classification of syn-ms developed by Vinogradov, there are 3 types:

1. Idiographic syn-ms. He describes idiographic syn-ms as words conveying the same notion but differing in m-ng. Idiographic syn-ms refer to the same general concept but they differ sometimes in the denotational m-ng, e.g. a look (a conscious and direct in devour to see) – a glance (a look, which is quick and sudden) – a glimpse (a look implying only momentary sights). These syn-ms differ in quickness of the action and the time of duration;

2. Stylistic syn-ms are words of the same denotational m-ng used in diff-nt speech styles. They have the same denotational components but differ in stylistic components of their semantic structure, e.g. farter (neutral) – /sire (poetical) – parent (bookish) – Dad (coloq.);

3. Absolute syn-ms in Eng are words of exactly the same m-ng, words identical in meanings, e.g. fricatives and spirants; fatherland and motherland. Absolute syn-ms are very rare. it would seem unlikely “that 2 words with exactly the same m-ng would both survive in a lang-ge”.

Q-27: Euphemism

Euphemism is a Greek word (EU means “well” and PHEMOS means “speaking” thus “Euph-m” means speaking well).

A Eup-m is a substitution of a harsh, obscene or unpleasant word by a less offensive word, e.g. queer is a eup-m for mad; intoxicated is a euph-m for drunk; in one’s birthday suit = naked.

Euph-ms are divided into 2 main groups according to the character of words they substitute:

1. Religious and superstitious taboos are words & set phrases which are avoided in speech for religious reasons or cause of superstition, e.g. God – goodness, gracious, gosh; Devil –, Dickens, Nicolas, old Nick; to die – to pass away, to go to one’s last home, to go to the way of all flash, to join the majority, to kick the bucket;

2. Social and moral taboos are words and idioms which are avoided in speech as not acceptable in the polite conversation, e.g. trousers – unmentionables; toilet – powder-room, , restroom, lady’s room, public comfort station, WC (Windsor Castle), public conveniences; pregnant – in an interesting/delicate condition; in a family way, with the baby coming; drunk – intoxicated, tipsy, under the influence, mellow, fresh, high, merry, flustered, overcome, full, to be drunk as a lord/owl, boiled, fried, tanked, tight, stiff, pickled.

Q-28.Syntagmatic relations of words. Lexical Valency & Collacability.

The relations existing between words as separate lexical units within the vocabulary as a system are called paradigmatic or the relations on the vertical axis. They define the meaning through its interrelation with other members of the subgroup it belongs to within the vocabulary system.

There are various types of semantic paradigmatic relations in English:

-Synonimic

-Antonymic

-Hyponimic & the others

In the flow of speech the word combines with other words forming a kind of chain. These linear relations of words in connected speech are called syntagmatic relations or the relations on the horizontal level.

Syntactical relations define the meaning of a word when it’s used in combination with other words in speech. Words put together in speech make functional units called phrases or word-group or word combinations or collocations.

Word-group – the largest, two-facet functional lexical units (assuming that the word is the basic lexical unit), comprising more than 1 word on the syntagmatic level of Analysis.

The immediate connections of the word lie within the simple word-group consisting of 2 notional words. The relations between these words depend on their semantic structure which in its turn determines their combining power or collocability.

Thus, the word-group may represent that minimal stretch of speech of the speech context that determines the individual, actual meaning of the word in speech.