Антонимы и синонимы в английском языке

Contents

 

Introduction

Chapter I. Lexico-Semantic Features of Antonyms in Modern English

1.1. The Concept of Polarity of Meaning

1.2 . Morphological Classification of Antonyms

1.2.1 Derivational Antonyms

1.3 Semantic Classification of Antonyms

1.3.1 Antonyms Proper

1.3.2 Complementaries

1.3.3 Converives

Chapter 2. Textual Presentation of Antonyms in Modern English

2.1 Textual Presentation of Antonyms in Modern English

2.1.1 Root Antonyms in language

2.1.2 Derivational antonyms in language

2.2 Differences of meaning of antonyms

2.3 Using antonyms pair in proverbs and sayings

Chapter 3. Synonym in English language

3.1 Kinds of synonyms and their specific features

3.2 Distributional features of the English synonyms

3.3 Changeability and substitution of meanings

3.4 Semantic and functional relationship in synonyms

3.5 Interchangeable character of words and their synonymy

3.6 Combinability of synonyms

3.7 Peculiar features of semantics and combinability of the English verbs on the examples of the synonyms “to amuse”, “to entertain”, “to grip”, “to interest”, “to thrill”

3.8 Conceptual synonymy

3.9 Synonymy and collocative meaning

3.10 Semantic peculiarities of synonyms

 

 

Сonclusion

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Introduction

The Synonyms and Antonyms form an integral part of the English Language.

The subject-matter of the Course Paper is to investigate lexico-semantic features of antonyms and synonyms in modern English.

The topicality of the problem under investigation results from the necessity to update basic assumption provided by different linguists in order to be able to establish the classification of antonyms and synonyms depending on their morphological and semantic classifications in Modern English.

The novelty of the problem arises from the necessity of a profound scientific investigation of antonyms and synonyms.

The main aim of the Course Paper is to summarize and systemize different approaches to the study of antonyms and synonyms in Modern English.

The aim of the course Paper presupposes the solutions of the following tasks:

· To expand and update the definition of the terms “antonym  and synonym”

· To reveal characteristic features of modern cognitive linguistics

· To establish the difference between different kinds of antonyms

· To have some skills of recognizing all categories of antonyms

According the tasks of the Course Paper its structure is arranged in the following way:

Introduction, the Main Part, Conclusion, Literature.

In the Introduction we provide the explanation of the theme choice, state the topicality of it, establish the main aim, and the practical tasks of the Paper.

In the main part we analyze the character features of modern the classification of antonyms and synonyms depending on their morphological and semantic classifications, differences between absolute (or root) antonyms, synonyms and derivational antonyms and synonyms, main characteristics of antonyms proper, complementaries and converives.

In conclusion we generalize the results achieved.

The practical significance of the work can be concluded in the following items:

a)The work could serve as a good source of learning English by young teachers at schools and colleges.

b)The lexicologists could find a lot of interesting information for themselves.

c)Those who would like to communicate with the English-speaking people through the Internet will be able to use the up-to-date words with the help of our qualification work.

Word-building processes involve not only qualitative but also quantitative changes. Thus, derivation and compounding represent addition, as affixes and free stems, respectively, are added to the underlying form. Shortening, on the other hand, may be represented as significant subtraction, in which part of the original word is taken away.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Part 1. Lexico-Semantic Features of Antonyms in Modern English

Thanks to the differences between our two hemispheres of our brains (emotional and rational), we react to different thing in a different way, but we do that more readily to the emotional than the rational. Similarity or polarity of meaning catches our attention and stick it with what we see and feel with our right brain too. That's why many different systems which describe semantic features of antonyms in modern English have been appeared. But the investigation problems of the concept of polarity of meaning is not the main task of this Course Paper, therefore this problem has been described briefly.

Stylistic features of words and problems of stylistic stratification in general were discussed in connection with different types of meaning. Synonyms and antonyms are usually felt to be correlative notions: firstly because the criterion of synonyms is semantic similarity which is in exact opposition to the criterion of antonyms - semantic polarity; secondly because synonyms and antonyms seem to overlap in a number of cases. When we speak of the words “daddy” and “parent”  as synonyms, we do so because of the similarity of their denotation meaning and polarity of their stylistic reference (ex. “daddy”  - colloquial, “parent” - bookish).

In most cases the grammatical features of a word reveals itself in a context. There are, however, words which do not acquire grammatical meaning even in the context. We will speak of them when we analyze the relations between lexical and grammatical meanings in words. Our subject-matter is lexico-Semantic meaning of a word. It is possible to distinguish three essential types of lexical meaning of words:

· Nominative meaning determined by reality. The direct nominative meaning stand in one-to-one relationship with a word. For instance: “cat”, “table”, “sun”.

· Phraseologically bound meaning of words depending on the peculiarities of their usage in a given language, e.g. “to take care”, “to have a smoke”, “to catch cold”.

· Syntactically conditioned meanings of words are those which change with the change of the environment. For instance: “to look” - “to look for” - “to look after”. [18]

In the structure of lexical meaning of a word we distinguish two main components:

· Denotative;

· Connotative

Denotative meaning is the conceptual nuclear of the word meaning. Denotative meaning is bound up with its referent. Referent is an object or phenomenon in our world which the given word names. Denotative meaning may have one constant referent. (“moon”), but also it can have several referents (ex. “a hand” - firstly its referen tis a part of human arm; its second referent is the pointer on a clock; its third referent is a person (workman)).

Denotative meaning may have diffusive character, as in the case with the words: “good”, “bad”, “clever”,  “progressive”. The denotative meaning is sometimes called: logical meaning; referential meaning, cognitive meaning; conceptual meaning or simply speaking, the literal meaning of a word.

If the denotative meaning is the nuclear part of the lexical meaning of a word, then the connotative meaning is its shell. Simply speaking, the connotative meaning is what we call additional, non-literal meaning of a word. It contains various shades. For example, the denotative component of the lexical meaning of the word “awful”, is "very bad".

According to the subject-matter of the Course Paper, let us examine a question “the Concept of Polarity of Meaning”. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1 The Concept of Polarity of Meaning

The investigation problems of the concept of polarity of meaning is not the main task, therefore this problem has been described briefly. The term “polarity” exists in such fields of human knowledge as physics, mathematics, chemistry, psychology and etc. In linguistic this term can be found in semantic classification of the words.

The problem of the polarity of semantic meaning may be viewed in the Course Paper as a theoretical base to describe some classifications in various ways. The matter is that semantic classifications are generally based on the semantic similarity (or polarity) of words (or their component - morphemes).

Semantic similarity or polarity of words may be observed in the similarity of their denotational or connotational meaning. Similarity or polarity of the denotational component of lexical meaning is to be found in lexical groups of synonyms and antonyms. Similarity or polarity of the connotational components serves as the basis for stylistic stratification of vocabulary units.

Antonymic pairs are usually listed in a special dictionary called thesaurus. Yet there are other criteria according to which it is possible to reveal antonyms. The most important of them are: contextual criterion, the possibility of substitution, and identical lexical valency.

According to the contextual criterion two words are considered antonyms if they are regularly contrasted in actual speech. The use of antonyms in the same contexts has produced fixed antonymic constructions, such as: a higher degree of abstraction or more generalized character.

Unlike synonyms antonyms do not differ in style, or emotional coloring (they express, as a rule, emotional characteristics of the same intensity.

So, we can base on the definition antonyms as two or more words belonging to the same pat of speech, contradictory or contrary in meaning, and interchangeable at least at some contexts.

Group of antonyms is the type of semantic relation between lexical units having opposite meanings. Antonyms do not simply involve complete difference in meanings. It involves a sense opposition which can be applied to the same object or phenomenon.

Antonyms (Greek “anti” - opposite, “onyma”  - name) are words belonging to the same part of speech, identical in style and having opposite denotative meanings. For example: “light”  - “dark”; “happiness” - “sorrow”; “up”  - “down”. Antonyms are usually believed to appear in pairs. Yet, this is not true in reality. For instance, the adjective “cold”  may be said to have “warm” for its second antonym, and the noun “sorrow” may be very well contrasted with “gaiety”. [18, p.28]

However, polysemantic word may have an antonym or several antonyms for each of its meanings. So, the adjective “dull”  has the antonym “interesting”, “amusing”, “entertaining”  and “active” for its meaning of “deficient in interest”, and “clever”, “bright”, “capable” for its meaning of “deficient in intellect” and “active” for its meaning of “deficient in activity”. Antonyms are not evenly distributed among the categories of parts of speech. Most antonyms are adjectives, which seems to be natural, because qualitative characteristics are easily compared and contrasted. For example: “high”- “low”,  “strong” - “weak”, “wide” - “narrow”,  “friendly” - “hostile”. Verbs take the second place, so far as antonym is concerned. For example: “to lose” - “to find”, “to live” - “to die”, “to open”  - “to close”. Nouns are not rich in antonyms. For example: “good”  - “evil”, “love” - “hatred“.

Antonymic adverbs can be subdivided into two groups:

a) adverbs derived from adjectives: “warmly”  - “coldly”, “loudly” - “softly”;

b) adverbs proper: “now” - “then”,  “ever” - “never”, “in” - “out”. 

This gives up rights to speak about morphological classification of antonyms.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.2 Morphological Classification of Antonyms

Antonyms have traditionally been defined as words of opposite meaning. This definition, however, is not sufficiently accurate as it only shifts the problem to the question of what words may be regarded as words of opposite meaning. Therefore the latest linguistic investigations emphasize, that antonyms are similar as words belonging to the same part of speech and the same semantic field, having the same grammatical meaning and functions, as well as similar collocations. [14]

According to their morphological structure antonyms may be classified into:

· root antonyms (having different roots): “to love” - “to hate”, “long” - “short”, “day” - “night”;

· derivational antonyms (having the same roots but different derivational affixes): “regular” - “irregular”, “fruitful” - “fruitless”. [18, 14, 26 ]

Absolute or Root Antonyms So, V.N. Comissarov in his dictionary of antonyms classified them into two groups: absolute or root antonyms and derivational antonyms.

Absolute antonyms have different roots and derivational antonyms have the same roots but different affixes. [60]

We can find in Collins Cobuild dictionary such definition: “The antonym of word is another word which means the opposite”. [78]

There is another term, which is quit interesting to our opinion: “Words that are antonymous are opposite in meaning.” 

Such, the pair of words should be called antonymous, but one of them, which is not always just one, has a name antonym. Kinds and examples of root antonyms are observed in the second part of the Course Paper. But in the theoretical part we want to refer to a very interesting source.

In dealing with antonymic oppositions it may be helpful to treat antonyms in terms of “marked” and “unmarked”  members. The unmarked member can be more widely used and very often can include the referents of the marked member but not vice versa. This proves that their meanings have some components in common. In the antonymic pair `old” - “young” the unmarked member is old. We've found an interesting example on one of studied sources:

“It is possible to ask: “How old is the girl?”, without implying that she is no longer young. [76] “Some authors, J.Lyons among them, suggest a different terminology. They distinguish antonyms proper and complementary antonyms. The chief characteristic feature of antonyms proper is that they are regularly gradable. Antonyms proper, therefore, represent contrary notions. Grading is based on the operation of comparison. One can compare the intensity of feeling as in love -- attachment -- liking -- indifference -- antipathy -- hate. Whenever a sentence contains an antonym or an antonymic pair, it implicitly or explicitly contains comparison.” 

Thus, discussing the group of root antonyms, we should to speak about complementary antonyms and contrary notions, a semantic classification of antonyms.

 

1.2.1 Derivational Antonyms 

 

Derivetional antonyms are more difficult to study. As we mentioned above, derivational antonyms have the same roots but different affixes.

Negative prefixes for antonyms are “un-“,  “dis-“, “non-“, but sometimes they are formed by means of suffixes “-ful” and “-less”. The number of antonyms with the suffixes -ful and -less is not very large, e.g. "successful" -"unsuccessful", "selfless" - "selfish". The same is true about antonyms with negative prefixes, e.g. "to man" 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. Group of 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".

Leonard Lipka in the book “Outline of English Lexicology”  defines types of oppositeness, which we study in the next chapter of this Course Paper. Thus, we should to study now some characteristics of Semantic Classification of Antonyms.

 

 

1.3 Semantic Classification of Antonyms

Leonard Lipka is one of the linguists, who 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.

He does that 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. This concerns pairs of lexical units.

Antonyms are the second class of oppositeness. It is distinguished from complimentarity 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 “John is not good”  does not imply that “John is bad”. The negation of one term does not necessarily implies the assertion of the other.

Converseness is mirror-image relations or functions, e.g. “husband” - “wife”, “pupil” - “teacher”,  “precede” - “follow”, “above” - “below”,  “before” - “after” etc. [80]

L. Lipka also describes the type which is called as:

· directional opposition, ex. “up” - “down”;

 

· consiquence opposition, ex. “learn” - “know”;

· antipodal opposition, ex. “North” - “South”, “East” - “West”, ( it is based on contrary motion, in opposite directions.)

· oppositions, which involve motion in different directions, ex. “come” - “go”, “arrive” -“depart”.[80]

L. Lipka also points out non-binary contrast or many-member lexical sets. Here he points out serially ordered sets, such as:

· scales, ex. “hot”- “warm”, “cool” - “cold” ;

· colour words, ex. “black”, “grey”, “white” ;

· ranks, ex. “marshal”, “general”, “colonel”, “major”, “captain” etc.;

· gradable examination marks, ex. “excellent”, “good”, “average”, “fair”, “poor”;

· units of time, ex. “spring”, “summer”, “autumn”, “winter” . [80]

Thus, let's investigate the complementary, proper antonyms, and converseness differences in details.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.3.1 Antonyms Proper

Some authors, J.Lyons among them, suggest a different terminology. They distinguish antonyms proper and complementary antonyms. The chief characteristic feature of antonyms proper is that they are regularly gradable. This kind of antonyms proper represents contrary notions. They say, that grading is based on the operation of comparison. The group of words, which name intensity of feeling, ex. “love -- attachment -- liking -- indifference -- antipathy -- hate”, can be compared. [27]

Whenever a sentence contains an antonym or an antonymic pair, it contains comparison. J. Lyons discusses an interesting example of antonyms also dealing with elephants: A small elephant is a large animal. The size-norm for elephants is not the same as that for all animals in general: the elephant which is small in comparison with other elephants may be big in comparison with animals as a class.

This example may also serve to show the difference and parallelism between antonyms proper and complementarity (expressing contradictory notions). The semantic polarity in antonyms proper is relative, the opposition is gradual, it may embrace several elements characterized by different degrees of the same property. The comparison they imply is clear from the context. “Large” and “little”  denote polar degrees of the same notion. The same referent which may be “small” as an elephant is a comparatively “big”  animal, but it cannot be “male” as an elephant and “female”  as an animal: a male elephant is a male animal.

Having noted the difference between complementary antonyms and antonyms proper, we must also take into consideration that they have much in common so that in a wider sense both groups are taken as antonyms.

 

1.3.2 Complementaries

J.Lyons among also describes complementaries. Like other antonyms they are regularly contrasted in speech (ex. “male”-  “female”), and the elements of a complementary pair have similar distribution. According to him, the assertion of a sentence containing an antonymous or complementary term implies the denial of a corresponding sentence containing the other antonym or complementary:

“The poem is good > The poem is not bad (good : : bad -- antonyms proper)” This is prose > This is not poetry (prose : : poetry -- complementaries)

As to the difference in negation it is optional with antonyms proper: by saying that the poem is not good the speaker does not always mean that it is positively bad. Though more often we are inclined to take into consideration only the opposite ends of the scale and by saying that something is not bad we even, using litotes, say it is good. So complementaries are a subset of antonyms taken in a wider sense.