Seminar 6

1. How does context help in understanding the meaning of polysemantic words? Can it sometimes lead to
misunderstandings? Provide examples
One of the most important “drawbacks” of polysemantic words is that there is sometimes a chance of misunderstanding
when a word is used in a certain meaning but accepted by a listener or reader in another. It is only natural that such cases
provide stuff of which jokes are made, such as the ones that follow.

Customer. I would like a book, please.

Bookseller. Something light?
Customer. That doesn’t matter. I have my car with me.

In the conversation the customer is honestly misled by the polysemy of the adjective light taking it in the literal sense
whereas the bookseller uses the word in its figurative meaning “not serious”, “entertaining”.
Generally speaking , it is common knowledge that context is a powerful preventative against any misunderstanding of
meanings. For instance, the adjective dull, if used out of context, would mean different things to different people or nothing
at all. It is only in combination with other words that it reveals its actual meaning: a dull pupil, a dull play, a dull razor blade,
dull weather, etc. Sometimes, however, such a minimum context fails to reveal the meaning of the word, and it may be
correctly interpreted only through a second degree context, as in the following example: The man was large, but his wife
was even fatter. The word fatter here serves as a kind of indicator pointing that large describes a stout man and not a big
one.
Semantic structure of a word depends upon the word’s relationships with other words in typical contexts.

2. What are the main types of context, and how do they influence the meaning of words in communication?
Context is the minimal stretch of speech necessary to determine individual meanings of the word. A full understanding of
the semantic structure of any lexical item can be gained only from the study of a variety of contexts in which the word is
used, i.e. from the study of the intralinguistic relations of words in the flow of speech. That is why the main types of
linguistic contexts which serve to determine individual meanings of words are lexical, grammatical, the extra-linguistic or
context of situation, common contextual associations or thematic groups.

In lexical contexts the main importance are the groups of lexical items combined with the polysemantic word under
consideration. F: the verb to take in isolation has primarily the meaning “lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize” when
combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (e.g. to take the tram, the bus, train) it
acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb go. This can be also proved that when we want to
describe the individual meaning of a polysemantic word, we find it sufficient to use this word in combination with some
members of a certain lexical group. F: handsome + man, person; size, reward, sum. The meaning “good looking” and
“considerable, ample” are illustrated by the contexts. The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes
referred to as lexically (or phraseologically) bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only in
certain lexical contexts.
In grammatical contexts the grammatical structure serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic
word. F: one of the meanings of the verb make is “to force, to induce” is found only in the grammatical context possessing
the structure to make smb do smth or in other terms this word’s meaning is “to become”. “to turn out to be” is observed
in the contexts of a different structure. i.e. make followed by an adjective and a noun (to make a good wife, a good
teacher). A different syntactic function of the verb, e.g. that of the predicate (to make machines, tables) excludes the
possibility of the meaning “to become, turn out to be”. The lexical and grammatical contexts are also called linguistic or
verbal contexts.
In extra-linguistic contexts (context of situation) the meaning of the word is determined not by the linguistic factors but
by the actual speech situation in which this word is used.
In common contextual associations (the thematic groups) the meaning is based on the coocurrence of words in certain
repeatedly used contexts. Words in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the
framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking of things or events. Words making up a thematic group belong to
different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning. Contextual associations formed by the
speaker of a language are usually conditioned by the context of situation which necessitates the use of certain words. F:
journey-train-taxi-bags-ticket; shopping – it is usual to speak of the prices, of the goods we buy, sell.

Extra-linguistic and common contextual associations are also called extra-linguistic or non-verbal contexts.

3. What are the primary causes of the development of new meanings in language? Provide examples of historical or
linguistic factors.

Most scholars distinguish between the terms development of meaning (when a new meaning and the one on the basis of
which it is formed coexist in the semantic structure of the word, as in mill, carriage, etc.) and change of meaning (when the
old meaning is completely replaced by the new one, as in the noun meat which in Old English had the general meaning of
“food” but in Modern English is no longer used in that sense and has instead developed the meaning “flesh of animals used
as a food product”).
The first group of causes of development of new meanings is traditionally termed historical or extra-linguistic.
Different kinds of changes in a nation's social life, in its culture, knowledge, technology, arts lead to gaps appearing in the
vocabulary which beg to be filled. Newly created objects, new concepts and phenomena must be named. Languages are
powerfully affected by social, political, economic, cultural and technical change. The influence of those factors upon
linguistic phenomena is studied by sociolinguistics. It shows that social factors can influence even structural features of
linguistic units: terms of science, for instance, have a number of specific features as compared to words used in other
spheres of human activity.
We already know of two ways for providing new names for newly created concepts: making new words (word-building) and
borrowing foreign ones. One more way of filling such vocabulary gaps is by applying some old word to a new object or
notion.

When the first textile factories appeared in England, the old word mill was applied to these early industrial enterprises. In
this way, mill (a Latin borrowing of the first century В. С.) added a new meaning to its former meaning “a building in which
corn is ground into flour”. The new meaning was “textile factory”.
A similar case is the word carriage which had (and still has) the meaning “a vehicle drawn by horses”, but, with the first
appearance of railways in England, it received a new meaning, that of “a railway car”.
The history of English nouns describing different parts of a theatre may also serve as a good illustration of how well-
established words can be used to denote newly-created objects and phenomena. The words stalls, box, pit, circle had
existed for a long time before the first theatres appeared in England. With their appearance, the gaps in the vocabulary
were easily filled by these widely used words which, as a result, developed new meanings. It is of some interest to note
that the Ukrainian language found a different way of filling the same gap: in Ukrainian, all the parts of the theatre are
named by borrowed words: партер, ложа, амфітеатр, бельєтаж.

Linguistically speaking, the development of new meanings, and also a complete change of meaning, may be caused
through the influence of other words, mostly of synonyms.
steorfan Old Eng. ― to perish ↔ to die Scandinavian borrowing
to starve → to die (or suffer) from hunger.
deor Old Eng. ― any beast ↔ animal borrowed word
deer → a certain kind of beast (UA. олень).
The noun knave (О. Е. knafa) suffered an even more striking change of meaning as a result of collision with its synonym
boy. Now it has a pronounced negative evaluative connotation and means “swindler, scoundrel”.

4. What is the difference between broadening and narrowing of word meanings? Give examples of each process.
Broadening and narrowing are two common types of semantic change, which refer to how the meaning of words can
evolve over time.
Broadening (Generalization)
Broadening occurs when a word’s meaning becomes more inclusive or general than it was previously. This means that the
word comes to refer to a wider range of things or contexts than before.
"Holiday": Originally, this word meant a religious festival or a "holy day." Over time, its meaning broadened to refer to any
day of celebration or time off, not necessarily tied to religious observance.
"Bird": In Old English, "bird" specifically referred to young birds or chicks. Its meaning broadened to include all types of
birds.
Narrowing (Specialization)
Narrowing happens when a word’s meaning becomes more specific or restricted than it was previously. In this case, a word
that once had a broader meaning starts to refer to fewer things or a more specialized concept.
"Meat": In Old English, "meat" referred to food in general. Over time, its meaning narrowed to specifically refer to animal
flesh.
"Girl": In Middle English, "girl" referred to any young person, regardless of gender. Over time, the meaning narrowed to
refer only to female children.

5. Explain the concept of transference of meaning. What are the two types of transference, and how do they contribute
to the change in word meanings?
Transference of meaning refers to the process by which a word acquires a new meaning based on some form of
association with its original meaning. This change often occurs because of a connection, either literal or metaphorical,
between the word's original use and its new use. It’s a significant driver of semantic change in language.
There are two main types of transference of meaning:
1. Metaphorical Transference (This happens when a word takes on a new meaning because of a metaphorical relationship
between its original meaning and the new concept it refers to. The change is often based on a perceived similarity or
shared characteristic between the two ideas.)
"Foot": The word originally refers to the part of the body, but through metaphorical transference, it now also refers to the
"foot" of a mountain (the bottom part of a mountain), based on a similarity in positioning.
"Bright": Originally meaning emitting light, it now also refers to someone who is intelligent or clever, based on the
metaphorical idea of mental clarity resembling brightness.

2. Metonymic Transference (In metonymy, a word’s meaning changes based on a close, often physical or conceptual
association with its original meaning. This is different from metaphor, which is based on similarity; metonymy involves a
shift from one concept to another that is directly related or connected.)
"Crown": Originally referring to a physical object worn by royalty, it now also refers to the institution or authority of
monarchy (e.g., "The crown made the decision"), based on the association between the physical crown and the power it
represents.
"Pen" and "Sword": The phrase "The pen is mightier than the sword" uses metonymy. "Pen" stands for writing or intellect,
and "sword" represents physical force or warfare, based on their close associations with those concepts.

Contribution to Change in Word Meanings

Metaphorical Transference introduces new figurative meanings, often adding depth and richness to language by enabling
words to express more abstract or symbolic concepts.
Metonymic Transference shifts meanings based on relationships of contiguity, allowing words to expand their scope by
referring to associated objects, roles, or ideas.

Together, these processes make language more flexible and adaptable, enabling words to shift their meanings in response
to new cultural, technological, or societal contexts.