Анализ структуры лексического значения глаголов с общей семой "кричать" (to cry)

Contents

Introduction
1. Structure of lexical meaning……………………………………………………..6
1.1 Problems of word definition in English language (denotation, connotation, etc)
1.2 English lexicon
1.3 Synonyms in English language (types and history)
1.4. Analysis of lexical meaning of the verbs with common seme “to cry”.
1.5. Resume
2.Lessons and exercises……………………………………………….………....23
2.1 Verbs with common seme “to cry” on the English lessons
2.2 Exercises with verbs which have common seme “to cry”
Conclusion
Literature
Vocabularies

Анализ структуры лексического значения глаголов с общей семой "кричать" (to cry)

This meaning is inherent not only in the verbs denoting processes, but also in those denoting states, forms of existence, evaluations, etc.About morphological features of the verb it have to be noted that the verb possesses the following grammatical categories: tense, aspect, voice, mood, person, number, finitude and phase. The common categories for finite and non-finite forms are voice, aspect, phase and finitude. The grammatical categories of the English verb find their expression in synthetical and analytical forms. The formative elements expressing these categories are grammatical affixes, inner inflexion and function words. Some categories have only synthetical forms (person, number), others - only analytical (voice). There are also categories expressed by both synthetical and analytical forms (mood, tense, aspect).Also we have to say some about syntactic features. The most universal syntactic feature of verbs is their ability to be modified by adverbs. The second important syntactic criterion is the ability of the verb to perform the syntactic function of the predicate. However, this criterion is not absolute because only finite forms can perform this function while non-finite forms can be used in any function but predicate. And finally, any verb in the form of the infinitive can be combined with a modal verb.Lexical-morphological classification is based on the implicit grammatical meanings of the verb. According to the implicit grammatical meaning of transitivity/intransitivity verbs fall into transitive and intransitive. According to the implicit grammatical meaning of stativeness/non-stativeness verbs fall into stative and dynamic. According to the implicit grammatical meaning of terminativeness/non-terminativeness verbs fall into terminative and durative. This classification is closely connected with the categories of Aspect and Phase. As the English lexicon is a system so it includes different systematic relations between words such as – synonymy, antinomy and so on. According to our theme we will consider the synonymy in next part. 1.3 Synonyms in English language (types and history)Lexical units may also be classified by the criterion of semantic similarity and semantic contrasts. The terms generally used to denote these two types of semantic relatedness are synonymy and antonymy (Ginzburg 1979, 55).Synonymy is often understood as semantic equivalence. Semantic equivalence however can exist between words and word-groups, word-groups and sentences, sentences and sentences. For example, John is taller than Bill is semantically equivalent to Bill is shorter than John. John sold the book to Bill and Bill bought the book from John may be considered semantically equivalent.As can be seen from the above these sentences are paraphrases and denote the same event. Semantic equivalence may be observed on the level of word-groups, Thus we may say that to win a victory is synonymous with to gain a victory, etc.Here we proceed from the assumption that the terms synonymy and synonyms should be confined to semantic relation between words only. Similar relations between word-groups and sentences are described as semantic equivalence (Ginzburg 1979, 56). Synonyms may be found in different parts of speech and both among notional and function words. For example, though and albeit, on and upon, since and as are synonymous because these phonemically different words are similar in their denotational meaning.Synonyms are traditionally described as words different in sound-form but identical or similar in meaning. This definition has been severely criticised on many points. Firstly, it seems impossible to speak of identical or similar meaning of words as such as this part of the definition cannot be applied to polysemantic words. It is inconceivable that polysemantic words could be synonymous in all their meanings. The verb look, e.g., is usually treated as a synonym of see, watch, observe, etc., but in another of its meanings it is not synonymous with this group of words but rather with the verbs seem, appear (cf. to look at smb and to look pale). The number of synonymic sets of a polysemantic word tends as a rule to be equal to the number of individual meanings the word possesses.In the discussion of polysemy and context we have seen that one of the ways of discriminating between different meanings of a word is the interpretation of these meanings in terms of their synonyms, e.g. the two meanings of the adjective handsome are synonymously interpreted as handsome — ‘beautiful’ (usually about men) and handsome — ‘considerable, ample’ (about sums, sizes, etc.) (Ginzburg 1979, 58).Secondly, it seems impossible to speak of identity or similarity of lexical meaning as a whоle as it is only the denotational component that may be described as identical or similar. If we analyse words that are usually considered synonymous, e.g. to die, to pass away; to begin, to commence, 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. The words, e.g. to die, to walk, to smile, etc., may be considered identical as to their stylistic reference or emotive charge, but as there is no similarity of denotational meaning they are never felt as synonymous words.Thirdly, it does not seem possible to speak of identity of meaning as a criterion of synonymity since identity of meaning is very rare even among monosemantic words. In fact, cases of complete synonymy are very few and are, as a rule, confined to technical nomenclatures where we can find monosemantic terms completely identical in meaning as, for example, spirant and fricative in phonetics. Words in synonymic sets are in general differentiated because of some element of opposition in each member of the set. The word handsome, e.g., is distinguished from its synonym beautiful mainly because the former implies the beauty of a male person or broadly speaking only of human beings, whereas beautiful is opposed to it as having no such restrictions in its meaning.Thus it seems necessary to modify the traditional definition and to formulate it as follows: synonyms are words different in sound-form but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings. Synonymous relationship is observed only between similar denotational meanings of phonemically different words.So differentiation of synonyms may be observed in different semantic components — denotational or connotational (Ginzburg 1979).It should be noted, however, that the difference in denotational meaning cannot exceed certain limits, and is always combined with some common denotational component. The verbs look, seem, appear, e.g., are viewed as members of one synonymic set as all three of them possess a common denotational semantic component “to be in one’s view, or judgement, but not necessarily in fact” and come into comparison in this meaning (cf. he seems (looks), (appears), tired). A more detailed analysis shows that there is a certain difference in the meaning of each verb: seem suggests a personal opinion based on evidence (e.g. nothing seems right when one is out of sorts); look implies that opinion is based on a visual impression (e.g. the city looks its worst in March), appear sometimes suggests a distorted impression (e.g. the setting sun made the spires appear ablaze). Thus similarity of denotational meaning of all members of the synonymic series is combined with a certain difference in the meaning of each member.It follows that relationship of synonymity implies certain differences in the denotational meaning of synonyms. In this connection a few words should be said about the traditional classification of vocabulary units into ideographic and stylistic synonyms. This classification proceeds from the assumption that synonyms may differ either in the denotational meaning (ideographic synonyms) оr the connotational meaning, or to be more exact stylistic reference. This assumption cannot be accepted as synonymous words always differ in the denotational component (Ginzburg, 1979, p. 58). Thus buy and purchase are similar in meaning but differ in their stylistic reference and therefore are not completely interchangeable. That department of an institution which is concerned with acquisition of materials is normally the Purchasing Department rather than the Buying Department. A wife however would rarely ask her husband to purchase a pound of butter. It follows that practically no words are substitutable for one another in all contexts. This fact may be explained as follows: firstly, words synonymous in some lexical contexts may display no synonymity in others. As one of the English scholars aptly remarks, the comparison of the sentences the rainfall in April was abnormal and the rainfall in April was exceptional may give us grounds for assuming that exceptional and abnormal are synonymous. The same adjectives in a different context are by no means synonymous, as we may see by comparing my son is exceptional and my son is abnormal (R. Quirk, 1962, p.129)Secondly, it is evident that interchangeability alone cannot serve as a criterion of synonymity. We may safely assume that synonyms are words interchangeable in some contexts. But the reverse is certainly not true as semantically different words of the same part of speech are, as a rule, interchangeable in quite a number of contexts. For example, in the sentence I saw a little girl playing in the garden the adjective little may be formally replaced by a number of semantically different adjectives, e.g. pretty, tall, English, etc.Thus a more acceptable definition of synonyms seems to be the following: synonyms are words different in their sound-form, but similar in their denotational meaning or meanings and interchangeable at least in some contexts.The English word-stock is extremely rich in synonyms which can be largely accounted for by abundant borrowing (Ginzburg, 1979, p. 58). Quite a number of words in synonymic sets are usually of Latin or French origin. For instance, out of thirteen words making up the set see, behold, descry, espy, view, survey, contemplate, observe, notice, remark, note, discern, perceive only see and behold can be traced back to Old English (OE. seon and behealdan), all others are either French or Latin borrowings.Thus a characteristic pattern of English synonymic sets is the pattern including the native and the borrowed words. Among the best investigated are the so-called double-scale patterns: native versus Latin (e.g. bodily — corporal, brotherly — fraternal); native versus Greek or French (e.g. answer — reply, fiddle — violin). In most cases the synonyms differ in their stylistic reference, too. The native word is usually colloquial (e.g. bodily, brotherly), whereas the borrowed word may as a rule be described as bookish or highly literary (e.g. corporal, fraternal) (Ginzburg, 1979, p. 59).Side by side with this pattern there exists in English a subsidiary one based on a triple-scale of synonyms; native — French, and Latin or Greek (e.g. begin (start) — commence (Fr.) — initiate (L.); rise — mount (Fr.) — ascend (L.).