There are two processes of the semantic development of a word: radiation and concatenation. In cases of radiation the primary meaning stands in the centre and the secondary meanings proceed out of it like rays. Each secondary meaning can be traced to the primary meaning. E.g. in the word «face» the primary meaning denotes «the front part of the human head» Connected with the front position the meanings: the front part of a watch, the front part of a building, the front part of a playing card was formed. Connected with the word «face» and it itself the meanings: expression of the face, outward appearance is formed.
In cases of concatenation secondary meanings of a word develop like a chain. In such cases it is difficult to trace some meanings to the primary one. E.g. in the word «crust» the primary meaning «hard outer part of bread» developed a secondary meaning «hard part of anything /a pie, a cake/)), then the meaning harder layer over soft snow» was developed, then «a sullen gloomy person)), then «impudence)) were developed. Here the last meanings have nothing to do with the primary ones. In such cases homonyms appear in the language. It is called the split of polysemy.
In most cases in the semantic development of a word both ways of semantic development are combined.
HOMONYMS
Homonyms are words different in meaning but identical in sound or spelling, or both in sound and spelling.
Homonyms can appear in the language not only as the result of the split of polysemy, but also as the result of leveling of grammar inflexions, when different parts of speech become identical in their outer aspect, e.g. (care from «caru» and «care» from «carried). They can be also formed by means of conversion, e.g. (to slini) from «slim)). «(to waten) from (water) ». They can be formed with the help of the same suffix from the same stem, e.g. «reader))/ a person who reads and a book for reading/.
Homonyms can also appear in the language accidentally, when two words coincide in their development, e.g. two native words can coincide in their outer aspects: (to bean) from (beram)/to carry/ and «bear» from (bera) /an animal/. A native word and a borrowing can coincide in their outer aspects, e.g. «fair» from Latin (feria) and (fair) from native (fager) /blond/. Two borrowings can coincide e.g. «base» from the French «base) /Latin basis/ and «base» /low/ from the Latin «bas» /Italian «basso»/.
Homonyms can develop through shortening of different words, e.g. «cab» from «cabriolet», «cabbage), «cabin».
Walter Skeat classified homonyms according to their spelling and sound forms and he pointed out three groups: perfect homonyms that is words identical in sound and spelling, such as : «school» - «косяк рыбы» and «школа» homographs, that is words with the same spelling but pronounced differently, e.g. «bow» -/bau/ - «поклон)) and /bou/ - homophones that is words pronounced identically but spelled differently, e.g. «night» - «ночь» and «knight» - «рыцарь».
V.N. Comissarov in his dictionary of antonyms classified them into two groups: absolute or root antonyms /»Late» - «early»/ and derivational antonyms / «to please1 - «to displease»/. Absolute antonyms have different roots and derivational antonyms have the same roots but different affixes. In most cases negative prefixes form antonyms / un-, dis-, non-/. Sometimes they are formed by means of suffixes -ful and -less.
The number of antonyms with the suffixes full- and -less is not very large, and sometimes even if we have a word with one of these suffixes its antonym is formed not by substituting -full by less-, e.g. «successful» -» unsuccessful)), «selfless» - «selfish». The same is true about antonyms with negative prefixes, e.g. «to mam) is not an antonym of the word «to unman», «to disappoint» is not an antonym of the word «to appoint)).
The difference between derivational and root antonyms is not only in their structure, but in semantics as well. Derivational antonyms express contradictory notions; one of them excludes the other, e.g. «active»-«inactive». Absolute antonyms express contrary notions. If some notions can be arranged in a group of more than two members, the most distant members of the group will be absolute antonyms, e.g. «ugly» , «plain», «good-looking)), «pretty», «beautiful», the antonyms are «ugly» and «beautiful». Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures)M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp.21-24
Leonard Lipka in the book «Outline of English Lexicology)) describes different types of oppositeness, and subdivides them into three types:
a) complementary, e.g. male -female, married -single,
b) antonyms, e.g. good -bad,
c) converseness, e.g. to buy - to sell. Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures)M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp.34-42
In his classification he describes complimentarily in the following way: the denial of the one implies the assertion of the other, and vice versa. «John is not married)) implies that «John is single)). The type of oppositeness is based on yes/no decision. Incompatibility only concerns pairs of lexical units.
Antonym is the second class of oppositeness. It is distinguished from complimentarily by being based on different logical relationships. For pairs of antonyms like good/bad, big/small only the second one of the above mentioned relations of implication holds. The assertion containing one member implies the negation of the other, but not vice versa. «John is good» implies that «John is not bad)), but «.Ton is not good» does not imply that «John is bad». The negation of one term does not necessarily imply the assertion of the other.
An important linguistic difference from complementariness is that antonyms are always fully gradable, e.g. hot, warm, tepid, and cold. Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures)M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp. 51-53
Converseness is mirror-image relations or functions, e.g. husband/wife, pupil/teacher, precede /follow, above/below, before/after etc.
«John bought the car from Bill)) implies that «Bill sold the car to John)). Mirror-image sentences are in many ways similar to the relations between active and passive sentences. Also in the comparative form: »Y is smaller than X, and then X is larger than Y». L. Lipka also gives the type which he calls directional opposition up/down, consequence opposition learn/know, antipodal opposition North/South, East/West, (it is based on contrary motion, in opposite directions.) The pairs come/go, arrive/depart involve motion in different directions. In the case up/down we have movement from a point P. In the case come/go we have movement from or to the speaker.
L. Lipka also points out non-binary contrast or many-member lexical sets. Here he points out serially ordered sets, such as scales / hot, warm, tepid, cool, cold/ ; color words / black, grey, white/ ; ranks /marshal, general, colonel, major, captain etc./ There are gradable examination marks / excellent, good, average, fair, poor/. In such sets of words we can have outer and inner pairs of antonyms. He also points out cycles, such as units of time /spring, summer, autumn, winter/ . In this case there are no «outermost)) members.
Not every word in a language can have antonyms. This type of opposition can be met in qualitative adjectives and their derivatives, e.g. beautiful- ugly, to beautify - to uglify, beauty - ugliness. It can be also met in words denoting feelings and states, e.g. respect - scorn, to respect - to scorn, respectful - scornful, to live - to die, alive - dead, life - death. It can be also met among words denoting direction in space and time, e.g. here - there, up - down, now - never, before - after, day - night, early - late etc.
If a word is polysemantic it can have several antonyms, e.g. the word «bright» has the antonyms «dim», «sad».
CONCLUSION
1.3. Having analyzed the problem of shortening of words in Modern English we could do the following conclusions:
a) The problem of shortened words in Modern English is very actual nowadays.
b) There are several kinds of shortening: shortening proper, blending, abbreviations.
c) A number of famous linguists dealt with the problem of shortening of words in Modern English. In particular, Profs. Ullmann and Broal emphasized the social reasons for shortening, L. Lipka pointed out non-binary contrast or many-member lexical sets and gave the type which he called directional opposition, V.N. Comissarov and Walter Skeat proved the link of homonymy influence with the appearing of shortened words, etc.
d) The problem of shortening is still waits for its detail investigation.
2.3. Having said about the perspectives of the work we hope that this work will find its worthy way of applying at schools, lyceums and colleges of high education by both teachers and students of English. We also express our hopes to take this work its worthy place among the lexicological works dedicated to the types of shortening.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Ginzburg R.S. et al. A Course in Modern English Lexicology. M., 1979 pp.72-82
2.Buranov, Muminov Readings on Modern English Lexicology T. O'qituvchi 1985 pp. 34-47
3. Arnold I.V. The English Word M. High School 1986 pp. 143-149
4. O. Jespersen. Linguistics. London, 1983, pp. 395-412
5. Jespersen ,Otto. Growth and Structure of the English Language. Oxford, 1982 pp.246-249
5. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English. Oxford 1964., pp.147, 167, 171-172
6.V.D. Arakin English Russian Dictionary M.Russky Yazyk 1978 pp. 23-24, 117-119, 133-134
7.Abayev V.I. Homonyms T. O'qituvchi 1981 pp. 4-5, 8, 26-29
8.Smirnitsky A.I. Homonyms in English M.1977 pp.57-59,89-90
9. Dubenets E.M. Modern English Lexicology (Course of Lectures) M., Moscow State Teacher Training University Publishers 2004 pp.17-31
10. Akhmanova O.S. Lexicology: Theory and Method. M. 1972 pp. 59-66
12. Burchfield R.W. The English Language. Lnd. ,1985 pp45-47
13. Canon G. Historical Changes and English Wordformation: New Vocabulary items. N.Y., 1986. p.284
14. Howard Ph. New words for Old. Lnd., 1980. p.311
15. Halliday M.A.K. Language as Social Semiotics. Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. Lnd., 1979.p.53,112
16. Potter S. Modern Linguistics. Lnd., 1957 pp.37-54
17. Schlauch, Margaret. The English Language in Modern Times. Warszava, 1965. p.342
18. Sheard, John. The Words we Use. N.Y..,1954.p.3
19. Maurer D.W. , High F.C. New Words - Where do they come from and where do they go. American Speech., 1982.p.171
20. Aпресян Ю.Д.Лексическая семантика. Омонимические средства языка. М.1974. стр.46
21. Беляева Т.М., Потапова И.А. Английский язык за пределами Англии. Л. Изд-во ЛГУ 1971Стр. 150-151
22. Арнольд И.В. Лексикология современного английского языка.М. Высшая школа 1959. стр.212-224
23. . Виноградов В. В. Лексикология и лексикография. Избранные труды. М. 1977 стр 119-122
24. Bloomsbury Dictionary of New Words. M. 1996 стр.276-278
25. Hornby The Advanced Learner's Dictionary of Current English. Lnd. 1974 стр.92-93, 111
26 . Longman Lexicon of Contemporary English. Longman. 1981pp.23-25
27. Трофимова З.C. Dictionary of New Words and New Meanings. Изд. 'Павлин' ,1993. стрю48
28. World Book Encyclopedia NY Vol 8 1993 p.321
29 Internet: http://www.wikipedia.com/English/articles/homonymy.htm
30. Internet: http://www mpsttu.ru/works/english philology/ Э. М. Дубенец. Курс лекций и планы семинарских занятий по лексикологии английского языка.htm
31. Internet:http://www.freeessays.com/english/M.Bowes Quantiitive and Qualitive homonymy.htm
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
