Semantic relations

Contents

Introduction.......................................................................................................... 6

1. Theoretical basis of lexical semantics............................................................ 8

1.1 Historical development of lexical semantics............................................. 8

1.2 Semantic relations................................................................................... 14

1. 3 Semantic features in the Kazakh language............................................. 24

2.The analysis of semantic relations on Kazakh and English examples........... 28

2.1.The classification of noun semantic relation........................................... 28

2.2 The peculiarities of semantic relations in Kazakh and English verbs...... 46

Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 52

Glossary............................................................................................................. 54

List of references................................................................................................. 56

Introduction

The meaning of words can change over time because people will simply use them in different ways, but any change in meaning might represent an extensional change and an intentional change, or both.

An intentional definition, however, lists the attributes or characteristics of the concept — for example, listing the qualities that an object must have in order to qualify as a planet instead of an asteroid. For obvious reasons, this is often easier than an extensional definition because there is no need to list a long series of examples — a list of attributes is always shorter and quicker.

Words are not limited to one single meaning. Most words have multiple meanings, which are studied as semantic relations.

Semantic relations have been a subject of interest of various disciplines since ancient times. The 20th century structural semantics has fostered new perspectives on semantic relations as the basis for lexicon organization.

Semantic relations occur when we feel that lexemes are somehow related in meaning. If we randomly choose two lexemes, they are unlikely to have any meaningful relationship to each other. For example, there is nothing which obviously relates computer and honey, or insane and snow. But lexemes deep and shallow, or flower and rose will be perceived in a different way, because they are related in meaning. Better understanding and correct perception is the matter of the modern Linguistics thus underlining the topicality of our research.

The overall aim of this research is to analyze some of the lesser-known semantic relationships to understand better how they can be employed to create a design that accurately reflects the semantics of an application.

According to the aim set there are the following objectives:

· To study the theoretical basement of semantic relations;

· To consider the basic theories of connotation and denotation;

· To compare peculiarities of semantic relations in Kazakh and English.

The object of the research work is the aspects of word meaning semantic relations.

The subject of the work is the semantics of English and Kazakh languages.

The fields of science devoted to studies the meaning of words has been in existence for a very long time. Taking into consideration the fact that a language is a living thing and its vocabulary is enriched every day and the new language units may acquire newer shades of meaning – there is a necessity to investigate the language functioning at nowadays stage. So, the scientific novelty of this paper is in the research of the semantic relations with consideration of their connotative meanings in the English language and Kazakh language.

Theoretical significance can be found in considering the basic theoretical materials on semantic relations in the frame of one work, whereas the practical significance of our senior thesis is in the structured analyses of the peculiarities of semantic relations in the two languages; the materials of the research may find their application during Lexicology course, Grammar and Functional Stylistics as the work contains theory and practical application of that theory.

Theoretical and methodological basis is consideration and quotation of the most prominent scientists of linguistic as Plato, Panofsky E., Wilden A., Barthes R., Voloshinov V., Potebnya A., Orazov M and also Internet resources.

The structure of senior thesis: The research work consists of the Introduction, Theoretical chapter and Practical chapter, the Conclusion and the List of references and appendix.

Introduction is the part to enter the main points of the paper and open the theme of the research.

In the Theoretical part of the work we have considered the historical views on semantics and semantic relations.

The Practical part is the analyses of semantic relations in the two languages.

In the Conclusion we have drawn the general resumes on the paper.

The List of references is the sources that include works of well-known Russian, foreign scholars and some Internet resources.

1. Theoretical basis of lexical semantics

1.1 Historical development of lexical semantics

We start with the definitions of ‘sense’ and ‘meaning’. The sense of a word is its statable meaning ‘out of context’ – i.e. a meaning that can apply across many contexts in which the word is used [1.1]. So, in linguistics, meaning is the content carried by the words or signs exchanged by people when communicating through language. Meanings may take many forms, such as evoking a certain idea, or denoting a certain real-world entity.

As far as word ‘meaning’ is concerned, we understand that there is a distinction between ‘conceptual’ meaning (or ‘denotation’) and the ‘associative’ meaning (or ‘connotation’). Conceptual meaning covers those basic, essential components of meaning that are conveyed by the literal use of a word. However, different people might have different associations or connotations attached to a word, and these associations may differ from one person to the next. These types of associations belong to the ‘associative’ meaning of the word [1.2]

Another concept in lexical semantics is semantic field. A ‘semantic field’ is an area of meaning which can be delimited from others in a language. Semantic fields are composed of smaller groupings called ‘lexical sets’ or ‘sub-fields’ (2007). Another way of interpreting ‘semantic field’ is that the words in a field share a common ‘semantic component’ [1.3].The semantic field of a word is the set of distinct meanings expressed by the word. Componential analysis is derived from the latter interpretation of ‘semantic field’.

The first stage in the history of lexical semantics runs from roughly 1830 to 1930. Its dominant characteristic is the historical orientation of lexical semantic research; its main concern lies with changes of word meaning – the identification, classification, and explanation of semantic changes. Along these lines of research, a wealth of theoretical proposals and empirical descriptions was produced. Most of this has by now sunk into oblivion, however. [1, 3-47]

In practical terms, the older monographs will be absent from all but the oldest and the largest academic libraries, and where they are available, there is likely to be a language barrier: most of the relevant works are written in German or French, languages that are not accessible to all. As a result, some of the topics that were investigated thoroughly in the older tradition are later being reinvented rather than rediscovered; we will see proof of this in later chapters. An aspect of this lack of familiarity is also that the tradition is not known under a standard name. We could talk about ‘traditional diachronic semantics’, if we want to highlight the main thematic and methodological orientation, or about ‘pre-structuralist semantics’ if we want to focus on its chronological position in the history of the discipline, but we will opt for ‘historical-philological semantics’. [2, 57] First, if we think of philology in terms of comparative philology – the study of the genetic relationships between languages and the reconstruction of protolanguages – we will see presently that traditional diachronic semantics originated in the margin of the investigation into the historical links between languages. Second, if we think of philology as the study of the cultural and historical background that is indispensable for an adequate understanding of the crucial texts, literary and others, of a certain era, we will see that traditional diachronic semantics is similarly characterized by an interpretative conception of meaning – a conception that is concerned with discovering the meanings inherent in older language materials. But these things will become clear in the course of the chapter. To begin with, we must have a look at what came before historical-philological semantics. [3, 412]

The birth of lexical semantics

Lexical semantics as an academic discipline in its own right originated in the early nineteenth century, but that does not mean that matters of word meaning had not been discussed earlier. Three traditions are relevant: the tradition of speculative etymology, the teaching of rhetoric, and the compilation of dictionaries. Let us briefly see what each of the three traditions involves, and how they play a role in the birth of lexical semantics as an academic enterprise. [4, 57]

Speculative etymology

Speculative etymology reigned before the birth of comparative philology in the beginning of the nineteenth century, Plato’s dialogue Cratylus (which may be regarded as the oldest surviving essay in the philosophy of language). According to the naturalist theory defended by Cratylus, the names of things should be ‘right’ in a very fundamental sense: they express the natural essence of the thing named. [5, 309]

Assuming that words are essentialist descriptions of the things they name, but at the same time taking for granted that the superficial form of the word as its as come down to us may hide its original constitution, etymological analysis takes the form of looking for the hidden original meaning of words. Although this is rather inconclusive with regard to the issues it raises, this type of speculative etymology was fully accepted up to the birth of comparative philology.

Typically, the speculative etymologies has two specific characteristics: they are based on a comparison of meanings, taking a lot of license with the forms involved, and the entities they compare are words occurring within the same language. Without much restriction on the formal transformations that the words would have to undergo, they try to reduce a given name to other existing words. The criterion for success is whether the meaning of their construction fits that of the target word, not whether the link is formally plausible. [6, 15]

The etymological approach that fits into the comparative philological model that developed in the nineteenth century has exactly the opposite features. First, it is primarily based on a comparison of forms rather than a comparison of meanings, and second, it focuses on the comparison of related forms in different languages.

The rhetorical tradition

Rhetoric is the skill of using language to achieve a certain purpose, in particular, to persuade people—was a traditional part of the school curriculum from classical antiquity through the Middle Ages up to modern times. From a modern point of view, you could compare it to courses in essay writing and public speech (applied pragmatics, to put it more abstractly). Rhetoric was one of the seven subjects of the artes liberals – the liberal arts, which consisted of a set of three - the trivium, and a set of four - the quadrivium. [7, 87]

The trivium linked up with what we would now call ‘the arts’, the quadrivium with the sciences.

Subjects in the trivium were

· grammar,

· dialectics,

· and rhetoric;

and subjects in the quadrivium were:

· arithmetic,

· music,

· geometry,

· and astronomy.

Rhetoric itself was traditionally divided into five parts:

· invention (the discovery of ideas for speaking or writing),

· arrangement (the organization of the text),

· style (the formulation of the ideas),

· memorization, and

· delivery.

From the point of view of semantics, it is the stylistic component that is particularly important. The tradition of rhetoric (which inpractice takes the form of a long series of treatises and textbooks) developed a large number of concepts to identify specific figures of speech, or ‘rhetorical tropes’: ways of formulation that would embellish a text or attract the attention of the audience. Some of these figures of speech are formal in nature, like alliteration, the repetition of the same sound in the beginning of several successive words: think of Caesar’s veni, vidi, vici. Other involvesyntactical patterns, like asyndeton, i.e. the absence of conjunctions between coordinate phrases, clauses, or words (here as well, veni, vidi, vici provides an illustration).

But a number of tropes refer to lexical and semantic phenomena, like euphemism, the substitution of an in offensive or less offensive word for one that might be unpleasant. Metaphor and metonymy in particular are two fundamental semantic phenomena that will appear again and again in historical-philological semantics and that loomed large in the rhetorical tradition.

Lexicography

Where does lexical semantics find its materials? The emerging discipline is faced with a task to chart regular patterns of semantic behavior and comes equipped with an initial set of descriptive concepts (the rhetorical tropes), but what is its descriptive basis? Where do the examples come from?

One source of examples is philological research into older texts, specifically, classical and biblical philology. Because the interpretation of the Greek, Latin, and Hebrew texts is often not immediately obvious, classical scholars naturally came across many intriguing instances of polysemy and semantic change. [6, 18]

Another source of raw materials came from lexicography. While the earliest printed dictionaries were bilingual or multilingual dictionaries for translation, there gradually emerged an interest in dictionaries focusing on a single language. Such reference works would provide the lexical semantician of the nineteenth century with a wealth of examples of polysemous lexical items – items with numerous meanings whose internal relationship can be described in terms of metaphor, metonymy, and the like.

Types of semantic change

Classifications of semantic change are themain empirical output of historical-philological semantics, and an in-depth study of the historical-philological era would primarily take the form of a classification of such classifications.

To get a good grip on the variety of phenomena that may appear in classifications of semantic change, we will distinguish between four groups of factors. The basic distinction is that between semasiological and onomasiological mechanisms.

Semasiological mechanisms involve the creation of new readings within the range of application of an existing lexical item. [8, 200]

There are different approaches to the problem of word meaning in modern Semasiology: the referential, or denotational approach; functional, or contextual approach; and the new cognitive approach.

Analytical or referential definition of meaning:

The best known analytical model of meaning is the so-called «basic triangle»

So, if we hear a sound-form a certain idea arises in our mind and the idea brings out a certain referent that exists in the reality. But the sound-form and the referent are connected indirectly because there are no objects or phenomena in the reality that predict a certain sound- form. The strongest point in this approach is an attempt to link the notion of meaning with the process of naming the objects, processes or phenomena of concrete reality . The analytical definitions of meaning are usually criticized on the grounds that they cannot be applied to sentences.

Functional or contextual approach suggests that the meaning of a word is revealed by substituting different contexts. To get a better insight into the semantics of a word it is necessary to analyze as many contexts in which it is realized as possible. The question may arise - what amount of material is sufficient to make a reliable conclusion about the meaning of a word ? In practice a scholar is guided by intuition, besides, there are contexts which are so infrequent that they can hardly be registered. Nevertheless the functional approach to meaning is important because it emphasizes the fact that words are seldom if ever used in isolation and thus the meaning of a word is revealed only when it is realized in a context. But on the whole the functional approach may be described as a complimentary, additional to the referential one.

Cognitive approach to semantics deals with the theory of prototype, framing (Fillmore) and others.

Onomasiological (or ‘lexicogenetic’) mechanisms, conversely, involve changes through which a concept, regardless of whether or not it has previously been lexicalized, comes to be expressed by a new or alternative lexical item. Semasiological innovations provide existing words with new meanings. Onomasiological innovations couple concepts to words in a way that is not yet part of the lexical inventory of the language. Within the set of semasiological mechanisms, a further distinction involves that between changes of denotational, referential meaning and changes of connotational meaning (specifically, of emotive meaning or emotional meaning).

The changes of denotational meaning are divided into analogical changes and non-analogical changes, according to whether the new meaning does or does not copy the semantics of another, related expression. There are four major groups [9, 183]:

1. The non-analogical changes of denotational meaning comprise the classical quartet of specialization, generalization, metonymy, and metaphor.

· Semantic specialization and generalization are types of lexical-semantic change by means of which a lexical item develops a new meaning that stands in a relationship of, respectively, subordination or super ordination to the older meaning. Specialization implies that the range of application of the new meaning is a subset of the range of the old meaning. In the case of generalization, the new range includes the old one. Terminologically, ‘restriction’ and ‘narrowing’ of meaning equal ‘specialization’; ‘expansion’, ‘extension’, ‘schematization’, and ‘broadening’ of meaning equal ‘generalization’.

Examples of specialization are corn – originally a cover term for all kinds of grain, now specialized to ‘wheat’ in England, to ‘oats’ in Scotland, and to ‘maize’ in the United States; and queen – originally ‘wife, woman’, now restricted to ‘king’s wife, or female sovereign’. Examples of generalization are moon – primarily the earth’s satellite, but extended to any planet’s satellite, and French arriver – etymologically means ‘to reach the river’s shore, to come to the bank’, but which now signifies ‘to reach a destination’ in general, as we have already noted). A comparison of the moon example and the corn example shows that the original meaning either may remain present or may disappear after the development of the new meaning.

· Metonymy is a semantic link between two readings of a lexical item that is based on a relationship of contiguity (смежность) between the referents of the expression in each of those readings. When, for instance, one drinks a whole bottle, it is not the bottle but merely its contents that are consumed: bottle can be used to refer to a certain type of receptacle, and to the (spatially contiguous) contents of that receptacle. The concept of contiguity mentioned in the definition of metonymy should not be understood in a narrow sense as referring to spatial proximity only, but broadly as a general term for various associations in the spatial, temporal, or causal domain. Metaphor, on the other hand, is commonly analyzed as being based on similarity rather than contiguity.

2. Non-denotational meaning changes may involve any type of non-referential meaning, but in actual practice, the non-denotational semantic developments that have been discussed most extensively in the literature involve emotive meanings. The major types of emotive meaning change that are usually distinguished are:

o pejorative change, i.e. a shift towards a (more) negative emotive meaning, and

o ameliorative change, i.e. a shift towards a (more) positive emotive meaning.

An example of pejoration is silly, which formerly meant ‘deserving sympathy, helpless or simple’, but which has come to mean ‘showing a lack of good judgment or common sense’. An example of amelioration is the history of the word knight, which originally meant ‘boy, servant’, and thus indicated a considerably more lowly social position than it does now.

Two further remarks need to be made. First, pejorative and ameliorative changes may or may not be accompanied by denotational changes. The shift that leads boor from ‘peasant, farmer’ to ‘unmannered man’ is simultaneously shift of denotational and of emotional value. The transition seems impossible, however, without a primary shift that changes the emotive overtones of boor without changing the denotation. Rather in the way in which the negative expression whore contrasts with the neutral expression prostitute (while basically expressing the same denotational content), boor was a derogatory denomination for peasants before the negative part of its semantic value was detached and generalized into ‘unmannered person’. Notice also, in this respect, that the pejorative or ameliorative change may or may not involve there tention of the original meaning. Boor has lost its original meaning, but its Dutch cognate boer has both the original reading ‘farmer’ and the pejorative reading ‘unmannered person’. [10, 148]

Second, we need to clarify the relationship between pejorative and ameliorative shifts on the one hand and euphemism and dysphemism on the other. Euphemism is the use of a positively (or less negatively) connoted word instead of a negatively connoted one with more or less the same denotational meaning. Thus, to pass away or to part with this life are euphemistic expressions for to die, just like public woman and prostitute for whore. Dysphemism is the use of a more negatively connoted, harsher, more offensive word, like callinga cemetery a boneyard. Now, note that euphemism presupposes a particular emotive value in the euphemistic expression, but does not as such change that value. Using prostitute as a euphemism for whore presupposes that the former word has fewer negative overtones than the latter, but it does not change those overtones: if it did, there would be no euphemistic effect. That is to say, whereas pejorative change is a diachronic semasiological process, devices such as euphemism and dysphemism primarily involve synchronic stylistic choices.

However, the repeated use of a euphemism can be the cause of a semasiological change. The euphemistic effect may, in fact, wear off ; the negative evaluation of the referent of the expression then gradually undermines the original euphemistic value of the expression. That is why some euphemisms are regularly replaced by others: cripple gave way to handicapped gave way to disabled gave way to physically challenged. [9, 190]

3. The group of analogical changes involves those semantic shifts in which one word copies the polysemy of another word. If the two expressions belong to different languages, semantic borrowing obtains, that is, the process by means of which a word Xin language A that translates the primary meaning of word Y in language B copies a secondary meaning of Y. (This process is also known as ‘semantic calque’.) For instance, the Greek word angelos originally just meant ‘messenger’, but developed the meaning ‘angel’ by copying the polysemy of the Hebrew word ml’k, which means ‘human messenger, envoy’ as well as ‘heavenly messenger, angel’.

4. Although classifications of lexical-semantic changes are primarily concerned with semasiological phenomena, they do not always succeed in clearly drawing the line with an onomasiological perspective. It should not be forgotten, in this respect, that the semasiological extension of the range of meanings of an existing word is itself one of themajor mechanisms of onomasiological change – one of the mechanisms, that is, through which a concept to be expressed gets linked to a lexical expression.

In this sense, the study of onomasiological changes is more comprehensive than the study of semasiological changes, since it encompasses the latter, while the reverse is obviously not the case. So let us have very brief look at the most important lexicogenetic mechanisms [11, 26]:

First, new words may be formed by word formation, that is, the regular application of morphological rules for derivation and composition.

Second, new words may be formed by the transformation of the sound shape of existing words, for instance through clipping (pro from professional) or blending (brunch as the merger of breakfast and lunch).

Third, new expressions may be borrowed from other languages.

Fourth, new words may be created out of the blue, for instance on the basis of onomatopoeia, or in brand names like Kodak.

And fifth, of course, new expressions may be semantic extensions of existing ones – but then we are back where we started.

We have given a very short excursus into the historical progression of semantics and semantic studies – studies of a word meaning. Now we want to come closer to connotation, connotative meaning.

1.2 Semantic relations

In linguistics, semantics is the subfield that is devoted to the study of meaning, as inherent at the levels of words, phrases, sentences, and even larger units of discourse (referred to as texts). The basic area of study is the meaning of signs, and the study of relations between different linguistic units – semantic relations.

Semantic relationships are the associations that there exist between the meanings of words (semantic relationships at word level), between the meanings of phrases, or between the meanings of sentences (semantic relationships at phrase or sentence level). Following is a description of such relationships. In the narrow sense semantic relations are relations between concepts or meanings. Relations between concepts, senses or meanings should not be confused with relations between the terms, words, expressions or signs that are used to express the concepts. It is, however, common to mix both of these kinds of relations under the heading "semantic relations” [.], where synonyms, homonyms etc. are considered under the label "semantic relations” in in a broader meaning of this term.

Chaffin and Herrmann provided a list of 31 semantic relationships that are broken into categories similar to the above. [Chaffin, R., and Herrmann, D.J. The nature of semantic relations: A comparison of two approaches. In: Evens, M., ed. Relational Models of the Lexicon: Representing Knowledge in Semantic Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 289-334.]

Winston presented a taxonomy of relationships dealing with objects and their components, and other concepts related to the part-whole or meronymic relationship, that we tried to represent in the following table 1.

Table 1.

Where "Inclusion” has a further subdivision in table 2:

Table 2.

And "Meronymic” is also subdivided as in table 3:

Table 3.

So the tables above present a taxonomy of the seven types of semantic relationships (inclusion, possession, attachment, attribution, antonym, synonym, and case). The taxonomy is based on the work of Winston and Chaffin, but we tried to expand it including the other classes of semantic relationships identified by Landis. An interesting feature of the taxonomy is that it places the well-known data abstractions within the context of a broader set of semantic relationships. In particular, inclusion as found in the database literature corresponds to class inclusion in the taxonomy; aggregation corresponds to component-object; and association to member-collection.

But there is even a broader division as s homonymy, synonymy, antonymy, polysemy, paronyms, hypernymy, hyponymy, meronymy, metonymy, holonymy, exocentricity / endocentricity, linguistic compounds. (Table 4)

Table 4.

A key concern of Table 4 is how meaning attaches to larger chunks of text, possibly as a result of the composition from smaller units of meaning. Traditionally, semantics has included the study of connotative senseand denotative reference, truth conditions, argument structure, thematic roles, discourse analysis, and the linkage of all of these to syntax

Homonymy

In linguistics, a homonym is, in the strict sense, one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings.[1] Thus homonyms are simultaneously homographs (words that share the same spelling, regardless of their pronunciation) and homophones (words that share the same pronunciation, regardless of their spelling). The state of being a homonym is called homonymy. Examples of homonyms are the pair stalk (part of a plant) and stalk (follow/harass a person) and the pair left (past tense of leave) and left (opposite of right). A distinction is sometimes made between "true" homonyms, which are unrelated in origin, such as skate (glide on ice) and skate (the fish), and polysemous homonyms, or polysemes, which have a shared origin, such as mouth (of a river) and mouth (of an animal).

Antonymy

Antonyms are 2 or more words of the same language belonging to the same part of speech and to the same semantic field identical in style and nearly identical in distribution associated and often used together so that their contradictory or contrary notions.

Semantic criteria:

1 Contradictories are mutually opposed and defying one another. To use one of the terms is to contradict the other and to use not before one of them is to make it equivalent to the other. Among contradictories there is a subgroup of words of the type: young — old; big — small etc. The difference between these and the antonymic pairs described above lies in the fact that is to say not young is not to say old. In fact such terms don’t represent absolute values.

2 Contraries proper are mutually opposed but they are gradable. Cold — hot with intermediate cool — warm. Both pairs are quite synonymous to each other.

3 Incompatibles. In other words as the relation of exclusion — not contradiction. To say morning is to say not afternoon, not night. John Lions suggest a different terminology. He distinguishes antonyms proper = contraries; complimentary antonyms = contradictories.

Morphological approach: rootabsolute antonyms: right — wrong; derivational antonyms characterized by the presence of negative prefixes: happy — unhappy.

The regular type of derivative antonyms contains negative prefixes: dis; il; im; in; ir; non; un. Unlike synonyms antonyms don’t differ either in style, emotional colouring or distribution. They are interchangeable at least in some contexts. As antonyms dont differ stylistically an antonymic substitution never results in the change of stylistic colouring. In dealing with antonymic opposition it may be helpful to treat antonyms in terms of marked and unmarked members. In the antonym pair old — young the unmarked member is old, because it is possible to ask how old is the girl without implying that she is no longer young. This unmarked member old is used more often than young. Not only words but set-expressions as well can be grouped into antonymic pairs. e.g.: by accident — on purpose. Antonyms form mostly pairs — not groups like synonyms. Polysemantic words may have antonyms in some of their meanings and have none in the others. Also in different meanings a word may have different antonyms.

Antonymy in general shares many features typical of synonymy. Like synonyms, perfect or complete antonyms are fairly rare.

It is usual to find the relations of antonymy restricted to certain contexts. Thus thick is only one of the antonyms of thin (a thin slice—a thick slice), another is fat (a thin man—a fat man).

The definition of antonyms as words characterized by semantic polarity or opposite meaning is open to criticism on the points discussed already in connection with synonymy. It is also evident that the term opposite meaning is rather vague and allows of essentially different interpretation.

If we compare the meaning of the words kind — ‘gentle, friendly, showing love, sympathy or thought for others’ and cruel — ‘taking pleasure in giving pain to others, without mercy’, we see that they denote concepts that are felt as completely opposed to each other. Comparing the adjective kind and unkind we do not find any polarity of meaning as here semantic opposition is confined to simple negation. Unkind may be interpreted as not kind which does not necessarily mean cruel, just as not beautiful does not necessarily mean ugly.

It is more or less universally recognised that among the cases that are traditionally described as antonyms there are at least the following four groups.1

1. Contradictories which represent the type of semantic relations that exist between pairs like dead and alive, single and married, perfect and imperfect, etc.

To use one of the terms is to contradict the other and to use not before one of them is to make it semantically equivalent to the other, cf. not dead=alive, not single=married.

Among contradictories we find a subgroup of words of the type young — old, big — small, and so on. The difference between these and the antonymic pairs described above lies in the fact that to say not young is not necessarily to say old. In fact terms like young and old, big and small or few and many do not represent absolute values. To use one of the terms is to imply comparison with some norm: young means ‘relatively young’. We can say She is young but she is older than her sister. To be older does not mean ‘to be old’.

It is also usual for one member of each pair to always function as the unmarked or generic term for the common quality involved in both members: age, size, etc.

This generalized denotational meaning comes to the fore in certain contexts. When we ask How old is the baby? we do not imply that the baby is old. The question How big is it? may be answered by It is very big or It is very small.

It is of interest to note that quality nouns such as length, breadth, width, thickness, etc. also are generic, i.e. they cover the entire measurement range while the corresponding antonymous nouns shortness, narrowness, thinness apply only to one of the extremes.

2. Contraries differ from contradictories mainly because contradictories admit of no possibility between them. One is either single or married, either dead or alive, etc. whereas contraries admit such possibilities. This may be observed in cold — hot, and cool and warm which seem to be intermediate members. Thus we may regard as antonyms not only cold and hot but also cold and warm.

Contraries may be opposed to each other by the absence or presence of one of the components of meaning like sex or age. This can be illustrated by such pairs as man — woman, man — boy.

3. Incompatibles. Semantic relations of incompatibility exist among the antonyms with the common component of meaning and may be described as the reverse of hyponymy, i.e. as the relations of exclusion but not of contradiction. To say morning is to say not afternoon, not evening, not night. The negation of one member of this set however does not imply semantic equivalence with the other but excludes the possibility of the other words of this set. A relation of incompatibility may be observed between colour terms since the choice of red, e.g., entails the exclusion of black, blue, yellow and so on. Naturally not all colour terms are incompatible. Semantic relations between scarlet and red are those of hyponymy.

We know that polysemy may be analyzed through synonymy. For example, different meaning of the polysemantic word handsome can be singled out by means of synonymic substitution a handsome man—a beautiful man; but a handsome reward—a generous reward. In some cases polysemy may be also analyzed through antonymy (e.g. a handsome man—an ugly man, a handsome reward—an insufficient reward, etc.). This is naturally not to say that the number of meanings of a polysemantic word is equal to the number of its antonyms. Not all words or all meanings have antonyms (e.g. table, book, etc. have no antonyms). In some cases, however, antonymy and synonymy serve to differentiate the meanings as in the word handsome discussed above. Interchangeability in certain contexts analyzed in connection with synonyms is typical of antonyms as well. In a context where one member of the antonymous pair can be used, it is, as a rule, interchangeable with the other member. For instance, if we take the words dry and wet to be antonymous, they must be interchangeable in the same context (e.g. a wet shirt—a dry shirt). This is not to imply that the same antonyms are interchangeable in all contexts. It was pointed out above that antonyms that belong to the group of contraries are found in various antonymic pairs. Thus, for instance there are many antonyms of dry — damp, wet, moist, etc.

The interchangeability of each of them with dry is confined to certain contexts. In contrast to dry air we select damp air and in contrast to dry lips—we would probably use moist lips.

It is therefore suggested that the term "antonyms" should be used as a general term to describe words different in sound-form and characterized by different types of semantic contrast of denotational meaning and interchangeability at least in some contexts.

Synonymy

Synonyms are words with the same or similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy. The word comes from Ancient Greek syn (σύν) ("with") and onoma (ὄνομα) ("name"). An example of synonyms are the words begin and commence.

Belonging to a semiotic system linguistic science has paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, i.e. semantic relations in the language and in the text. A paradigm is a group of elements having a common component but different in a certain part.

Paradigmatic relations include synonymy, antonymy, homonymy, hyponymy and inconsistency. Syntagmatic relations show how the system functions.

Syntagmatic relations are relations between sciences as a result of their combination. They exist only within larger linguistic units: word-combination sentences; texts.

Syntagmatic relations deal with semantic redundancy, semantic-grammatical agreement, valency etc. Synonyms are words different in their sound form but similar in their denotational meanings and interchangeable at least at some context. Additional characteristics of style, emotional colouring and valency peculiar to one of the elements in the synonymic groups may be absent in one or all the others. e.g.: look, seem, appear = to be in ones view or judgment. But there is some difference. Seem suggests a personal opinion based on evidence, but look and appear lack it. Similarity of denotational meaning of all members of the synonymic set is combined with a certain difference in the meaning of each member. Though in some cases there occurs semantic neutralization. It is absence of semantic opposition in some lexical contexts. Synonymic dominant is the most general term potentially containing the specific features rendered by all the other members of the synonymic group. One and the same word may belong in its various meanings to several synonymic groups. Synonyms may differ in emotional colouring which may be present in one element of the group and absent in all some of the others. e.g.: lonely — emotional; alone — not. In a great number of cases the semantic difference between 2 or more synonyms is supported by the difference in valency. The difference in distribution may be syntactical, morphological and lexical. e.g.: to begin, to commence — they differ stylistically but they are also different distributionally. Begin becomes a semi-auxiliary when used with an infinitive, commence does not. Contextual synonyms are similar in meaning only under some specific distributional conditions. Bare, stand — semantically they are different but they become identical in a negative meaning.

Total synonymy, i.e. synonymy where a synonymic group can replace each other in any given context without the slightest alteration in denotation or emotional meaning and connotation. Total synonymy occurs very rare. The major type is technical terms. e.g.: inflexion = functional affix.

The peculiar feature of English synonyms is the contrast between simple native words stylistically neutral, literary words borrowed from French and learned words of Greco-Latin origin. e.g.: ask — question — interrogate. Words with the same denotational component but of different origin undergo a process of specialization of meaning or become obsolete archaic in the so-called a competition of synonyms. This process is called synonymic differentiation and is regarded by some linguists as an inherent law of language development.

Polysemy

Monosemantic words are words which have only 1 meaning. They are comparatively few in number, mostly — scientific terms. The bulk of English words are polysemantic — they possess more than 1 meaning. The actual number ranges from 5 to 11. The commoner the word is the more meaning it has. The problem of polysemy is mainly the problem interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings of the same word. If polysemy is viewed diachronically it is understood as the growth and development or change in the semantic structure of the word.

Polysemy is diachronic terms implies that a word may retain its previous meanings and at the same time acquire 1 or several new ones. The main source of polysemy is a change in the semantic structure of the word, result as a rule in new meanings being added to the existing meanings in the semantic structure of the word. Some of the old meanings may become obsolete or disappear. But the bulk of English words tend to increase in number of meanings.

Synchronically polysemy is understood as the co-existence of various meanings of the same word at a certain historical period of time.

The concepts of central or basic meaning and marginal or minor meanings may be interpreted in terms of their relative frequency and speech. It means that the meaning with the highest frequency value is synchronically its basic meaning. There is an approach of formallogical relations among the meanings. According to this approach there are 2 types of possible relations: radial and chain relation.

Radial relation implies that any 2 meanings have a common part. The common part is called an invariant common meaning. Chain relation is where the 1st and the 3rd components have nothing in common but they are connected only through the 2nd. Both types of relations are possible simultaneously — it is called the semantic network of meanings.

Homonymy

Homonyms are 2 or more words identical in sound and spelling but different in meaning, distribution and in some cases origin. e.g.: well — adv., n.

Traditionally in dictionaries lexico-semantic variants are grouped in one entry and numbered. Homonyms are put in different entries. In speech as a rule only one of all the possible values is determined by the context so that no ambiguity may normally arise. Combinations when 2 or more meanings are possible are either deliberate puns or result from careless. e.g.: I life worth living It depends upon the liver. Homonymy is universal. It exists in many languages but in English it is particularly frequent group among monosyllabic words. From the view point of the morphological structure homonyms are mostly 1-morpheme words.

Classification. 1 Homonyms proper are words identical in pronunciation and spelling. e.g.: ball. The important point is that homonyms are distinct words — not different meanings within 1 word. homonyms proper are further subdivided into: partial homonymy know, know, knew: no, nose, new; patterned homonymy the invariant lexical meaning present in homonyms that have developed from 1 common source and belong to various parts of speech: e.g.: eye n., v.

2 Homophones are words of the same sound but of different spelling and meaning: e.g.: air, hair.

3 Homographs are words different in sounds and meaning but accidentally identical in meaning: e.g.: row [#u] — ряд; [au] — ссора.

Homonyms may be also classified by the type of meaning into:

1 Lexical homonyms differ in lexical meaning only: e.g.: seal — морскойкотик, печать.

2 Lexico-grammatical homonyms differ in both: grammatical and lexical meaning: e.g.: seal — морскойкотик, запечатать.

3 Grammatical homonymy is the homonymy of different word-forms of one and the same words. In the paradigms of the majority of verbs the form of the past tense is homonymous with the form of Participle II. And also in the paradigm of nouns we may find homonymous forms of the possessive case singular and the common case plural: e.g.: Its my brothers house. — I have 2 brothers. Split of polysemy is one of the sources of the homonyms.

Polysemantic words develop meanings which in the course of time may deviate very far from the central one, when the intermediate links fall out some of these new meanings lose all connections with the rest of the structure and start their separate existence. Another cause by which homonymy may be brought about is through convergent sound homonymy. When 2 or 3 words of different origin coincide in sound.

Hyponymy

Linguistic science belongs to a semiotic system. Any semiotic system has paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations. Paradigmatic relations bind the sciences in the structure of the language.

Paradigm is a group of elements, having a common component but different in a certain part. Paradigmatic relations include synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy and incompatibility.

Syntagmatic relations show how the linguistic system functions and in particular how lexical meanings are united in groups. Syntagmatic relations exist only into larger units. For the whole meaning of groups which is composed of the meanings of single words and sometimes has little references to the individual meanings or idioms. Syntagmatic relations deal with semantic redundancy; semantic and grammatical agreement; valency etc.

Hyponymy is the semantic relationship of inclusion. The hyponymic relationship may be viewed as the hierarchical relationship between the meaning of the general and individual terms.

The general term is sometimes called the classifier or hypernym. It serves to describe the lexico-semantic group, individual terms or hyponyms contain the meaning of the general term in addition to their individual meanings which distinguish them from each other. e.g.: to move hypernym = walk, run, crawl hyponyms. The principle is widely spread in botany, geology etc. hyponymicrelations may be viewed as objectively reflecting the structure of vocabulary and is considered one of the most important principles for the description of meaning.

2 most important features: hyponymy is transitive; hyponymy is asymmetrical.

A hyponym inherits all the features of the more generic concepts and adds at least 1 feature that distinguishes it from its hypernym and from any other hyponym of that group.

The hyponym transfers some its characteristics to the hyponyms — transitivity.

The hyponymic relation is asymmetric because 1 hypernym can have many hyponyms and not visa versa. Also in speech a hypernym may be used instead of its hyponym and never visa versa. e.g.: He owed a canary but the bird didnt sing. canary may be placed at the beginning of the sentence. The bird — an anaphoric noun; a canary — its antecedent. There exist different hierarchical relations within different parts of speech. Within nouns there is meronymy. These are the part and whole relations.

A meronym is a part and a holonym is the whole. e.g.: finger is a meronym to a hand; hand is a holonym to a finger. Within verbs the relations are of more complicated characters. The different relations can be cast in terms of lexical entailment or strict implication. e.g. snore lexically entails — sleep.

Another approach to the classification of vocabulary items into lexico-semantic groups is the study of hyponymic relations between words. By hyponymy is meant a semantic relationship of inclusion. Thus, e.g., vehicle includes car, bus, taxi and so on; oak implies tree; horse entails animal; table entails furniture. Thus the hyponymic relationship may be viewed as the hierarchical relationship between the meaning of the general and the individual terms.

The general term (vehicle, tree, animal, etc.) is sometimes referred to as the classifier and serves to describe the lexico-semantic groups, e.g. Lexico-semantic groups (LSG) of vehicles, movement, emotions, etc.

The individual terms can be said to contain (or entail) the meaning of the general term in addition to their individual meanings which distinguish them from each other (cf. the classifier move and the members of the group walk, run, saunter, etc.).

It is of importance to note that in such hierarchical structures certain words may be both classifiers and members of the groups. This may be illustrated by the hyponymic structure represented below.

Another way to describe hyponymy is in terms of genus and differentia.

The more specific term is called the hyponym of the more general, and the more general is called the hyperonym or the classifier.

It is noteworthy that the principle of such hierarchical classification is widely used by scientists in various fields of research: botany, geology, etc. Hyponymic classification may be viewed as objectively reflecting the structure of vocabulary and is considered by many linguists as one of the most important principles for the description of meaning.

A general problem with this principle of classification (just as with lexico-semantic group criterion) is that there often exist overlapping classifications. For example, persons may be divided into adults (man, woman, husband, etc.) and children (boy, girl, lad, etc.) but also into national groups (American, Russian, Chinese, etc.), professional groups (teacher, butcher, baker, etc.), social and economic groups, and so on.

Another problem of great importance for linguists is the dependence of the hierarchical structures of lexical units not only on the structure of the corresponding group of referents in real world but also on the structure of vocabulary in this or that language.

This can be easily observed when we compare analogous groups in different languages. Thus, e.g., in English we may speak of the lexico-semantic group of meals which includes: breakfast, lunch, dinner, supper, snack, etc. The word meal is the classifier whereas in Russian we have no word for meals in general and consequently no classifier though we have several words for different kinds of meals.

1. 3 Semantic features in the Kazakh language

The structure of any language model for speech-recognition system includes a dictionary. In the system of Kazakh language there exists the dictionary of initial forms on which basis the dictionary of word forms of the Kazakh language is built. The creation of the dictionary of word forms is based on the use of the semantic language model of the Kazakh language.

The process of Kazakh words generation is based on the detailed analysis of a word initial form for the purpose of its morphological features segregation and its semantic features reading from the knowledge base. Further the word formation and inflection trajectory is defined, the process of Kazakh words generation on the basis of the semantic neural network takes place and the word form and its morphological information is entered into the dictionary of word forms.

The morphological features are segregated by the following principle. First the initial form of a word is supplemented with suffixes according to semantic features. The last letter of the word’s initial form stem is defined and related to one of the following categories (Figure 2). According to these features the addition of this or that ending is realized.

Figure 2

The obvious complexity of Natural Language Processing (NLP) is caused by the difficulty of its formalization. the complexity lies in the impossibility of words inflection for some part of speech by a specified trajectory without preliminary processing of the dictionary of initial forms as there exists a dependence of word inflection from the meaning of the word , i.e. from its semantic content [2].

The semantic features of the words’ initial forms are presented by such categories as a part of speech, animateness and inanimateness for nouns, formation of comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives, for verbs – combination in complex forms with such auxiliary verbs as "otyr”, "tur”, "jatyr”, "ju’r” and others. The knowledge base on which basis the inflection is realized has in total more than 30 semantic features.

The maximum number of word forms is generated from the noun initial form, the adjective and the verb initial form[3].

The semantic features of the initial forms for an adjective are presented by the possibility of forming an adjective comparative and/or superlative degree from it.

Figure 4. Adjective Inflection Trajectories

The semantic features of the initial forms for nouns are presented by the animateness and inanimateness of the nouns. Depending on this feature the noun inflection trajectory is defined.

The order of affixes (endings) is strictly determined for the Kazakh language. First the root is supplemented with suffixes, then plurality affixes, possessive affixes, case endings; conjugation forms (See Figure 5).

Figure 5

The semantic features of the initial forms for verbs are presented by their use with auxiliary verbs "otyr”, "tur”, "ju’r”, "jatyr” for forming the complex form of the properly-present tense of the verb. The use of the main verb with this or that auxiliary verb depends on the main verb’s meaning. The complex forms of the properly-present tense of the verb further change by persons and numbers. It should be noted that the verbs infect by persons and numbers, and also the word formation of new types of verbs takes place.

For formalization of the rules for suffixes and endings addition it is suggested to use the semantic neural network generating the words of the Kazakh language.Each symbol in the semantic neural network corresponds to a separate neuron. Since similar symbolical sequences of different words are kept as one fragment of a linear tree the grammatical dictionary presented in the form of a semantic neural network will have a smaller volume than in the case when each word form is kept in the form of a separate entry [4].

The dictionary of all word forms can be presented in the form of a neuron model.

The initial form of a word from which all its word forms are formed by means of declension, conjugation, etc. will be named as lemma. Let the lemma be a group of neurons or one neural subautomat in the layer of meaning extraction. Let the total number of substates of a dictionary entry is equal to the number of word forms of the given entry. Let each substate of such subautomat represents one excited neuron. At that, in case of simultaneous excitation of two different neurons of one subautomat we shall say that the subautomat has two different substates at the same time. Each dictionary entry has a main neuron corresponding to the lemma. The lemma’s main neuron is excited whenever a word belonging to the lemma is recognized. A separate neuron corresponds to each word form. It always excites in case if a word form is recognized.

In the layer of meaning extraction there exist neurons not belonging to separate lemmas. These neurons correspond to the features of word forms common for many dictionary items such as gender, case, number, time ... They get excited at excitation of word forms possessing corresponding features. Let us consider that the states of these neurons corresponding to the features of word forms also belong to the lemma’s subautomats with which these neurons form connections. Then several lemmas can simultaneously be in one and the same state. The problem of classification or definition of a dictionary entry and a word form by a specified symbolical sequence reduces to passing the excitation wave through the layer of meaning extraction and exciting corresponding subautomat for corresponding dictionary entry. The problem of inflection reduces to changing such subautomat’s state from the initial state corresponding to the word form from which the inflection starts to the finite state corresponding to the word form into which the initial word form should be transformed [5].

For solution of the problems of inflection/word formation the synchronized linear tree is used. In this case it will act as a switching chain commuting the excitation and converting the subautomat from one state to another. The switching of the subautomat’s states will take place with issue of special commands to the synchronized linear tree input. These commands will be recognized by the synchronized linear tree and transformed to the gradient value at the output of neurons-effectors corresponding to them. This will cause excitation or deceleration of neurons corresponding to the lemma’s states.

The given model can be used both in problems of inflection and problems of morphological analysis, and also for sentence analysis. On the basis of the described model the word forms and words generator works.

The following results were obtained due to formation of morphological rules and generation of Kazakh words:

− creation of words initial forms database with the volume of 45,000 words with marking-out of parts of speech and other features necessary for the generation of the dictionary of word forms; obtainment of the formal model of inflection and word formation in the Kazakh language taking into account the semantics based on the semantic neural network;

− automatic generation of Kazakh word forms database with the volume of more than 2,800,000 dictionary entries with complete morphological information;

− development of algorithms and programs of morphological analysis of natural language texts taking into account the semantics based on the semantic neural network and cellular automats.

Automatic word formation and inflection can be used in the systems of automatic speech generation or recognition, as well as in rather traditional area of Kazakh language study, in orthographic correctors, translators, morphological analysis, as one of integral components of the given process is the training of reading skills, i.e. the reading of a written text.

The formed dictionaries can be issued as orthographic dictionaries. The obtained formalizations, methods and algorithms can be used in NLP systems (orthographic correctors, translators, training systems), Kazakh speech recognition and synthesis systems, as well as in semantic search systems

2. The analysis of semantic relations on Kazakh and English examples

2.1. The classification of noun semantic relation

Having analyzed 200 examples of Kazakh and English verbs and nouns, appointed randomly, we have distributed our findings according to classification we have created. In the classification we have included the set of the more popular semantic relations.

Homonym

The word "homonym” comes from the conjunction of the Greek prefix homo-(ὁµο-), meaning "same”, and suffix -ṓnymos (-ώνυµος), meaning "name”.

In linguistics, a homonym is one of a group of words that share the same spelling and the same pronunciation but have different meanings, usually as a result of the two words having different origins. The state of being a homonym is called homonymy.

Examples of homonyms are stalk (which as a noun can mean part of a plant, and as a verb to follow/harass a person), bear (animal) and bear (carry), left (opposite of right) and left (past tense of leave). Some sources also consider the following trio of words to be homonyms, but others designate them as "only” homophones: to, too and two(actually, to, to, too, too and two, being "for the purpose of” as in "to make it easier”, the opposite of "from”, also, excessively, and "2”, respectively). Some sources state that homonym meanings must be unrelated in origin (rather than just different). Thus right(correct) and right(opposed to left) would be polysemous (see below) and not homonyms.

Homographs are words that share the same spelling regardless of how they are pronounced. Homographs may be pronounced the same, in which case they are also homophones – for example, bark (the sound of a dog) and bark (the skin of a tree). Alternatively they may be pronounced differently, in which case they are also heteronyms – for example, row (argument) and row (propel with oars).

Homophones are words that share the same pronunciation regardless of how they are spelled. Homophones may be spelled the same (in which case they are also homographs) or spelled differently (in which case they are heterographs). Homographic examples include tire (to become weary) and tire (on the wheel of a car). Heterographic examples include to, too, two, and there, their, they’re.

Polysemes are words with the same spelling and distinct but related meanings. The distinction between polysemy and homonymy is often subtle and subjective, and not all sources consider polysemous words to be homonyms. Words such as "mouth”, meaning either the orifice on one's face, or the opening of a cave or river, are polysemous and may or may not be considered homonyms.

Homonyms usually have different entries in dictionaries, often indicated by superscripted little numbers; e.g., lie¹, lie². In isolated spoken sentences, homophonic homonyms can also give rise to lexical ambiguity. For example, in the following sentences it is almost impossible to know the in-tended meanings of bank and bear. Notice the following sentences.

John went to the [bᴂnk] (the financial institution or the ground by the river?)

Mary can’t [bɛər] (have or tolerate?) children.

Омонимдер (гр. homos — біркелкі, onyma — есім) — шығуы жағынан да, мағына жағынан да басқа-басқа, айтылуы және жазылуы бірдей сөздер.

Омоним сөздерді көп мағыналы сөздерден ажырату қажет. Өйткені бұлардың үйлестігінен гөрі айырмашылыктары көбірек. Қазақ тілінде ат деген түрде біріне-бірі байланысы жоқ, екі-үш түрлі сөз бар.

1. Ат — жұмыс көлігі;

2. Ат — есім, атау;

3. Ат — етістік (бұйрық рай).

Бұлар — жеке-жеке үш сөз. Бұл сөздердің арасында өзара мағыналық ешбір байланыс жоқ, тек айтылулары ғана бірдей. Осы сөздердің әрқайсысы өз алдына көп мағыналы сөз. Мысалы, ат: біріншіден, жалпы көлік; екіншіден, жылқының үйірге түспейтін еркегі; т. б. мағыналары бар. Мұнда тек дыбыстық үндестік қана емес, мағыналық байланыс бар. Ал, алғашқы келтірілген ат деген үш сөзде дыбыстық бірлестік қана бар мағыналық байланыс жоқ.

Қас деген төрт сөз бар:

1. қас — адамның қабағындағы қас;

2. қас — дұшпан, жау;

3. қас — бірдеменің жаны, маңы (үйдің қасы);

4. қас — ердің қасы

Бұлар да — бір-бірімен байланыссыз жеке-жеке cөздер.

Кейде сөздердің ауызша айтылуында бірнеше сөздердің айтылу, естілу ұқсастығы болады. Мысалы: осы жер деген сөздерді айтқанымызда, ош шер болып айтылады, сол сияқты,тұзшы мен тұщы және асшы мен ащы сияқты сөздер де кездейсоқ деп саналады.

Омонимдердің семантикалық айырмашылықтары контексттен көрінеді.

Омонимдердің бірнеше жасалу жолы бар:^[1]

· 1) көп мағыналы сөздердің семантикалық жақтан дамуы негізінде; Мысалы, жал а) жануарлардың желкесіндегі қыл; ә) ұзыннан созылып жатқан белес, қырқа;

· 2) сөздердің дыбыстық өзгерістерге ұшырауы арқылы; Мысалы, ер сөзінің бастапқы дыбысталуы егер болса, тілдің дамуы барысында ерге айналған.

· 3) сөзге омонимдес қосымшалар (-ма, -ме, -ба, -бе, -па, -пе) мен -ыс, -іс, -с; -ық, -ік, -к жұрнақтары) жалғануы арқылы туынды Омоним пайда болған. Мысалы, баспа а) газет, журнал, кітап басып шығаратын мекеме; ә) тамақ ауруы; қорық а) мал жайылатын жер; ә) үрейлену, зәресі ұшу;

· 4) басқа тілден енген сөздердің төл сөздермен бірдей дыбысталуы негізінде жасалады. Мысалы, Қыдыр (хызыр) – араб сөзі, қазақ тіліндегі ел қыдыру мағынасындағы етістікпен сәйкес. Омонимдер мағынасы мен жасалу жолдарына қарай лексикалық, лексика-грамматикалық және аралас болып үшке бөлінеді.^[2][3]

Synonym

Synonyms are different words with identical or very similar meanings. Words that are synonyms are said to be synonymous, and the state of being a synonym is called synonymy.

Or: Synonymy is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more) words that have the same (or nearly the same) meaning and belong to the same part of speech, but are spelled differently. In other words, we can say that synonymy is the semantic equivalence between lexical items. The (pairs of) words that have this kind of semantic relationship are called synonyms, or are said to be synonymous.

E.g.,

­ big – large

­ hide – conceal

­ small – little

­ couch – sofa

­ to begin – to start

­ kind – courteous

­ beginning – start

­ to cease – to stop

­ fast – quickly - rapidly

The word comes from Ancient Greek syn (σύν) ("with”) and noma(ὄνοµα) ("name”).

The words car and automobile are synonyms. Similarly, if we talk about a longtime or an extended time, long and extended become synonyms. In the figurative sense, two words are often said to be synonymous if they have the same connotation: Synonyms can be any part of speech (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs or prepositions), as long as both members of the pair are the same part of speech. More examples of English synonyms are:

· baby and infant (noun)

· petty crime and misdemeanor (noun)

· student and pupil (noun)

· freedom and liberty (noun)

· cop and police officer (noun)

· movie and film (noun)

Note that the synonyms are defined with respect to certain senses of words; for instance, pupil as the "aperture in the iris of the eye” is not synonymous with student. Similarly, expired as "having lost validity” (as in grocery goods) doesn’t necessarily mean death.

In English many synonyms evolved from a mixture of Norman French and English words, often with some words associated with the Saxon countryside ("folk”, "freedom”) and synonyms with the Norman nobility ("people”, "liberty”).

Some lexicographers claim that no synonyms have exactly the same meaning (in all contexts or social levels of language) because etymology, orthography, phonic qualities, ambiguous meanings, usage, etc. make them unique. Different words that are similar in meaning usually differ for a reason: feline is more formal than cat; long and extended are only synonyms in one usage and not in. Synonyms are also a source of euphemisms.

There are three characteristics of words that almost never coincide: frequency, distribution and connotation.

Pairs of words that are synonymous are believed to share all (or almost all) their semantic features or properties. However, no two words have exactly the same meaning in all the contexts in which they can occur. For example, the verbs employ and use are synonymous in the expression: We used/employed effective strategies to solve the problem; how-ever, only use can be used in the following sentence: We used a jimmy bar to open the door. If we used employ, the sentence would sound awkward – We employed a jimmy bar to open the door.

In short, we can say that there are no absolute synonyms, i.e., pairs of words that have the same meaning (or share the same semantic features) in all the situational and syntactic contexts in which they can appear.

Синоним (гр. 'synonymos' — мағыналас, мәндес) — тұлғалары әр түрлі, мағынасы жақын сөздер. Тілдердің дамып жетілуі, оның сөз байлығынан, оралымдағы синонимдерінің молдығынан көрінеді. Синоним ретінде жұмсалатын мәндес сөздер тобы синонимдік қатар немесе синонимдік ұя деп аталады. Синонимдік қатар құрамындағы мағыналық тұрғыдан ұйыстырып тұрған сөзді тірек сөз не доминант дейміз.

· Синонимдік қатарға енген сөздердің мағыналық тұрғыдан айырмасы болады. Мысалы, құлшыну — белсену, соғыс — ұрыс, жабу — кілттеу сөздерінің мағыналық салмағы әр түрлі.

· Синоним сөздерді үш түрлі белгілері арқылы тануға болады:

1. мағыналық реңк (бала — перзент, ұстаз — мұғалім);

2. стильдік реңк (еліру — желпілдеу, ақсақал — қария);

3. сөз қолданысындағы реңктер (өмір — ғұмыр, биік тау — бойшаң адам).

Синонимдер мынадай жағдайларда қолданылады:

1. мәтінде бір рет пайдаланылған сөзді қайталамау үшін;

2. бір ұғымды түрлі белгілермен жан-жақты сипаттау мақсатында;

3. мағыналас екі сөз қатар келсе, алдыңғысы соңғысын анықтап, мағынасын күшейтеді. Мұндай сөз қолданысын плеоназм дейді. Мысалы, заңғар биік тау, құр бекер жүру;

4. Синонимдер фразеологизмдерде кездеседі. Мысалы, Бармақ шайнап, сан соғып, құсамен өткен өмір ғой — бұл да бір.

5. Сөздің орнына оның жеке түсінігін перифраза тәсілімен сипаттау арқылы; Мысалы, Астана деудің орнына Қазақстанның астанасы;

6. Мағынасы жағымсыз сөздерді эвфемистік тәсілмен жұмсартып, жеңілдетіп айту. Мысалы, өлді — о дүниелік болды, қартаю — жасы ұлғаю, т.б.

Opposite

In lexical semantics, opposites are words that lie in an inherently incompatible binary relationship as in the opposite pairs male – female, long – short, up – down, and precede – follow. The notion of incompatibility here refers to the fact that one word in an opposite pair entails that it is not the other pair member. For example, something that is long entails that it is not short. It is referred to as a ‘binary’ relationship because there are two members in a set of opposites. The relationship between opposites is known as opposition.

Antonyms

Antonyms, from the Greek anti("opposite”) and onoma ("name”) are word pairs that are opposite in meaning, such as hot and cold, fat and skinny, and up and down. And antonyms is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more) words that have opposite meanings. Words may have different antonyms, depending on the meaning. Both long and tall are antonyms of short. Gradable opposites are two ends of the spectrum (slow and fast) but can have variations in between.

Antonymous pairs of words usually belong to the same grammatical category (i.e., both elements are nouns, or both are adjectives, or both are verbs, and so on). They are said to share almost all their semantic features except one. The semantic feature that they do not share is present in one member of the pair and absent in the other [2.3]

Though the word antonym was only coined by philologists in the 19th century, such relationships are a fundamental part of a language ,in contrast to synonyms, which are a result of history and drawing of fine distinctions, or homonyms, which are mostly etymological accidents or coincidences.

Languages often have ways of creating antonyms as an easy extension of lexicon. An example is the English prefixes in-and un-. Unreal is the antonym of real and indocile is of docile.

Some planned languages abundantly use such devices to reduce vocabulary multiplication. Esperanto has mal– (compare bona –"good” and malbona –"bad”), Damin has kuri – (tjitjuu "small”, kuritjitjuu "large”) and Newspeak has un– (as in ungood, "bad”).

There are three major types of antonyms:

v Complementary or contradictory antonyms. They are pairs of words in which one member has a certain semantic property that the other member does not have. Therefore, in the context in which one member is true, the other member cannot be true. E.g.:

Male/female,

Married/unmarried,

Complete/incomplete,

Alive/dead,

Present/absent,

Awake/asleep.

It is said that these pairs of antonyms exhibit an either/or kind of contrast in which there is no middle ground.

v Relational antonyms. They are pairs of words in which the presence of a certain semantic property in one member implies the presence of another semantic property in the other member. In other words, the existence of one of the terms implies the existence of the other term. For example:

Over/under,

Buy/sell,

Doctor/patient,

Teacher/pupil,

Stop/go,

Employer /employee,

Taller/shorter,

Cheaper/more expensive.

v Gradable or scalar antonyms. They are pairs of words that are contrasted with respect to their degree of possession of a certain semantic property. Each term represents or stands for an end-point(or extreme) on a scale (e.g., of temperature, size, height, beauty, etc.); between those end-points there are other intermediate points (i.e., there is some middle ground). E.g.

Hot /cold,

Big/small,

Tall/short,

Good/bad,

Strong/weak,

Beautiful/ugly,

Happy/sad,

Fast/slow.

Antonyms may be

(a) morphologically unrelated(i.e., one of the elements of the pair does not derive from the other), e.g., good/bad, high/low; or

(b) morphologically related(i.e., one of the members of a pair of antonyms is derived from the other member by the addition of a negative word or an affix), e.g., good/not good, friendly/unfriendly, likely/unlikely.

Morphologically related antonyms can be formed in the following ways:

b – 1By using the word not; e.g., alive/not alive, happy/not happy, beautiful/not beautiful.

b – 2 By adding negative prefixes such as un-, im-, in- il-, ir-, non-, mis-, dis-, a-. E.g. happy/unhappy, do/undo, lock/unlock, entity/nonentity, conformist /nonconformist, tolerant/intolerant, decent/indecent, please/displease, like /dislike, behave/mishave, hear/mishear, moral/amoral, political/apolitical, legal/illegal, logical/illogical, probable/improbable, relevant/irrelevant.

b – 3By adding negative suffixes such as –less. E.g. careful/ careless, joyful/ joyless.

Antonyms (greek. `antі` is a span, `уnyna` - to call) are words, that a value is crossly used on each other. On lexicology the phenomenon (kun - tun), concept (bak - sor, zhaksylyk - zhamandyk), quality (zhana – eski ), action( kiru - shygu) etc. makes antonymous even number senses of words on importance. Not is antonymous even number words, that expresses the name of thing. And also an antonym expresses and sameness through sense cross words integrity sense. Antonym compares exact, exact sense word finding out thoroughly through a method, serves stylistically. Especially, in proverb-saying is often used. For example, "Koz – korkak, kol - batyl" "Otirik – kanbak, shyn - salmak". There are many antonyms in Kazakh language: aty shykkan – aty oshti, zhurek zhutkan – su zhurek, sory kainady – kozi ashyldy.

Paronym

A paronym or paronyme in linguistics may refer to two different things:

1. A word that is related to another word and derives from the same root, e.g. a cognate word;

2. Words which are almost homonyms but have slight differences in spelling or pronunciation and have different meanings.

Some paronyms are truly synonymous, but only under the rarest of conditions. They often lead to confusion. Examples of paronyms are:

o alternately and alternatively

o collision and collusion

o conjuncture and conjecture

o excise and exercise

o prolepsis and proslepsis

o continuous and contiguous

o farther (or farthest)and further (or furthest)

o affect and effect

o upmost and utmost

o deprecate and depreciate

Polysemy

Polysemy (from the Greek polisimeía{πολυσηµεία} –"multiple meaning”) is the capacity for a sign (e.g. a word, phrase, etc.) or signs to have multiple meanings (sememes), i.e. a large semantic field.

Polysemes

A polyseme is a word or phrase with multiple, related meanings. A word is judged to be polysemous if it has two senses of the word whose meanings are related. English has many words which are polysemous. For example the verb "to get” can mean "take” (I’ll get the drinks), "become” (she got scared), ‘have” (I’ve got three dollars), "understand” (I get it) etc.

The difference between homonyms and polysemes is subtle. Lexicographers define polysemes within a single dictionary lemma, numbering different meanings, while homonyms are treated in separate lemmata. Semantic shift can separate a polysemous word into separate homonyms. For example, check as in "bank check” (or Cheque), checkin chess, and check meaning "verification” are considered homonyms, while they originated as a single word derived from chess in the 14th century.

Examples:

№	Word	Meanings
1	Mole	1. a small burrowing mammal	2. consequently, there are several different entities called moles (see the Mole disambiguation page). Although these refer to different things, their names derive from 1:e.g. A Mole burrows for information hoping to go undetected.
2	Bank	1. a financial institution	2. the building where a financial institution offers services	3. a synonym for ‘rely upon’ (e.g. "I’m your friend, you can bank on me”). It is different, but related, as it derives from the theme of security initiated by 1
	However: a river bank is a homonym to 1 and 2, as they do not share etymologies. It is a completely different meaning. River bed, though, is polysemous with the beds on which people sleep.
3	Book	1. a bound collection of pages	2. a text reproduced and distributed (thus, someone who has read the same text on a computer has read the same book as someone who had the actual paper volume)
4	Milk	The verb milk(e.g. "he’s milking it for all he can get”) derives from the process of obtaining milk.
5	Wood	1. a piece of a tree	2. a geographical area with many trees

Hyponymy

In linguistics, a hyponym is a word or phrase whose semantic range is included within that of another word.

Or:

Hyponymy or inclusion is the semantic relationship that exists between two (or more) words in such a way that the meaning of one word includes (or contains) the meaning of other words(s). We say that the term whose meaning is included in the meaning of the other term(s) is the general term; linguists usually refer to it as a superordinate orhypernym.

Examples:

Superordinate:	vehicle				animal			move
	bus	car	lorry	van	cats	birds	fish	walk	run	swim	fly
Hyponyms
	co-hyponyms				co-hyponyms			co-hyponyms

For example, scarlet, vermilion, carmine, and crimson are all hyponyms of red(their hypernym), which is, in turn, a hyponym of colour.

According to Fromkin and Rodman, hyponyms are a set of related words whose meanings are specific instances of a more general word (so, for example, red, white, blue, etc., are hyponyms of colour).

Hyponymy is thus the relationship between a general term such as polygon and specific instances of it, such as triangle.

The term Hyperonym denotes a word, usually somewhat vague and broad in meaning, which other more specific words fall under or are fairly encompassed by.

For example, vehicle denotes all the things that are separately denoted by the words train, chariot, dogsled, airplane, and automobile and is therefore a hypernym of each of those words. Conversely, the words train, chariot etc. are hyponyms of vehicle.

Hyperonym is the semantic relation in which one word is the hypernym of another. Hypernymy, the relation in which words stand when their extensions stand in the relation of class to subclass (ex.: the word `it` in Kazakh language is dog, dog is language unit poodle, dog, sheep dog, spaniel, borzay, etc. is language units its called hyperonym), should not be confused with holonymy, which is the relation in which words stand when the things that they denote stand in the relation of whole to part. A similar warning applies to hyponymy and meronymy.

Meronymy

Meronymy(from the Greek words meros – part and onoma – name) denotes a constituent part of, or a member of something. A meronym means part of a whole. That is,

Xis a meronym of YifXs are parts of Y(s), or

Xis a meronym of YifXs are members of Y(s).

For example, ‘finger’ is a meronym of ‘hand’ because a finger is part of a hand. Similarly ‘wheel’ is a meronym of ‘automobile’.

Meronymy is the opposite of holonymy.

Holonymy

Holonymy (in Greek holon– whole and onoma – name) is a semantic relation. Holonymy defines the relationship between a term denoting the whole and a term denoting a part of, or a member of, the whole. That is,

‘X’ is a holonym of ‘Y’ if Ys are parts of Xs, or

‘X’ is a holonym of ‘Y’ if Ys are members of Xs.

For example, "tree’ is a holonym of ‘bark’, of ‘trunk’ and of ‘limb.’

Holonymy is the opposite of meronymy.

Metonymy

Metonymy(from the Greek meta-, "after”, "beyond”, nym, name) is a figure of speech in which a thing or concept is not called by its own name, but by the name of something intimately associated with that thing or concept.

Metonymy may be instructively contrasted with metaphor. Both figures involve the substitution of one term for another. In metaphor, this substitution is based on similarity, while in metonymy, the substitution is based on contiguity.

Metaphor example: That man is a pig(using pig instead of unhygienic person. An unhygienic person is like a pig, but there is no contiguity between the two).

Metonymy example: The White House supports the bill (using White House instead of President. The President is not like the White House, but there is contiguity between them).

Metonymy is attested in cognitive processes underlying language (e.g. the infant’s association of the nipple with milk). Objects that appear strongly in a single context emerge as cognitive labels for the whole concept, thus fueling linguistic labels such as "sweat” to refer to hard work that might produce it.

The word metonymy is derived from the Greek µετωνυµία (metōnymia) "a change of name”, from µετά-(meta-) "beyond/changed” and -ωνυµία (-onymia), a suffix used to name figures of speech, from ὄνοµα (onoma), "name” (OED)).

Examples of metonymies:

	Word	Original use	Metonymicuse
1	damages	destructive effects	money paid in compensation
2	dish	an item of coockery	a course (in dining)
3	jigsaw	cutting tool	jigsaw puzzle
4	microwave	electromagnetic wave of wavelength 1 mm to 1 m	microwave oven
5	word	a unit of language	a promise (to give/keep/break one's word); a conversation (to have a word with)
6	sweat	perspiration	hard work
7	tongue	oral muscle	a language or dialect
8	the press	printing press	the news media
9	city hall	a city's chief administrative building	city government or government in general (Common usage in axiom, "You can't fight city hall”)
10	bench	The location in a courtroom where a judge sits when presiding over court	All the judges of a court or jurisdiction; or members of a judiciary.
11	The White House	Official residence of the President of the United States	the President and staff
12	Hollywood	District of Los Angeles, California, historically the primary center of film-making and entertaining industries	the American film industry
13	Wall Street	street in New York City	the United States financial markets, of which Wall Street is the largest center
14	Silicon Valley	geographic region of the San Francisco Bay Area	all the high-tech companies located in the area
15	The Crown	The monarch	Usually used in court as the federal or provincial government as in "The crown Versus …”
16	The Crown	A monarch’s headwear	the British monarchy
17	P45	A tax form issued when an employee leaves employment	termination of employment
18	UB40	A former form enabling a person to claim unemployment benefit (now Jobseeker's Allowance)	An unemployed person

Compound

In linguistics, a compound is a lexeme (less precisely, a word) that consists of more than one stem. Compounding or composition is the word-formation that creates compound lexemes (the other word-formation process being derivation). Compounding or Word-compounding refers to the faculty and device of language to form new words by combining or putting together old words.

In other words, compound, compounding or word-compounding occurs when a person attaches two or more words together to make them work as one word. The meanings of the words interrelate in such a way that a new meaning comes out which is very different from the meanings of the words in isolation.

For example, a person that frequently expresses or believes that nothing s/he does has a good result or will have a successful outcome may be called a never-go-well person. We combine the words never, go and well to form and adjectival compound.

Subclasses

A common semantic classification of compounds yields four types:

endocentric

exocentric

copulative

appositional

Exocentric

In linguistics, exocentric refers to phrases and compound words which are not the same part of speech as their constituents.

For example, in the sentence "I am in the doghouse”, the phrase "in the doghouse” is an exocentric phrase, since it functions as an adjective (similar to the "tired” in "I am tired”), not as a preposition or noun, which is what its constituents "in” and "house” are. The word "shortcoming” is also exocentric, since itis a noun, but its two constituents are an adjective and a verb.

Exocentric compounds do not have a head, and their meaning often cannot be transparently guessed from its constituent parts. For example, the English compound white-collar is neither a kind of collar nor a white thing. In an exocentric compound, the word class is determined lexically, disregarding the class of the constituents. For example, a must-have is not a verb but a noun. The meaning of this type of compound can be glossed as "(one) whose B is A”, where B is the second element of the compound and A the first. An exocentric compound is one whose nature is expressed by neither of the words: thus a white-collar person is neither white nor a collar (the collar’s colour is a metaphor for socioeconomic status). Other English examples include barefoot and Blackbeard.

Endocentric

In linguistics, an endocentric construction is a grammatical construction that fulfills the same linguistic function as one of its constituents. An endocentric construction consists of an obligatory head and one or more optional, dependent words, whose presence serves to narrow the meaning of the head. For example, the phrase ‘lion house’ is an endocentric construction. In this case, ‘house’ is the head, because it carries the bulk of the semantic content and determines the grammatical category to which the whole constituent will be assigned. Likewise, ‘lion’ here is the dependent, specifying what sort of house is being referred to in the whole construction. In more formal terms, the distribution of an endocentric construction is functionally equivalent, or approaching equivalence, to one of its member constituents, which serves as the centre, or head, of the whole. An endocentric construction is also known as a headed construction, where the head is contained "inside” the construction.

An endocentric compound consists of a head, i.e. the categorical part that contains the basic meaning of the whole compound, and modifiers, which restrict this meaning. For example, the English compound doghouse, where house is the head and dogis the modifier, is understood as a house intended for a dog. Endocentric compounds tend to be of the same part of speech (word class) as their head, as in the case of doghouse.

Copulative compounds are compounds which have two semantic heads.

Appositional compounds refer to lexemes that have two (contrary) attributes which classify the compound.

Type	Description	Examples
endocentric	A+B denotes a special kind of B	darkroom, Smalltalk
Exocentric	A+B denotes a special kind of an unexpressed semantic head	skinhead, paleface (head: ‘person’)
copulative	A+B denotes ‘the sum’ of what A and B denote	bittersweet, sleepwalk
Appositional	A and B provide different descriptions for the same referent	actor-director, maidservant

Semantic Relationships at Phrase or Sentence Level

At phrase or sentence level, we will study only paraphrase. Other relationships, such as entailment and contradiction, will not be dealt with in this course.

Paraphrase

Paraphrase is the expression of the meaning of a word, phrase or sentence using other words, phrases or sentences which have (almost) the same meaning. Paraphrase involves a relation of semantic equivalence between syntactically different phrases or sentences []. E.g.:

John wrote a letter to Mary. A dog bit John.

John wrote Mary a letter. John was bitten by a dog.

Like synonymy, paraphrase is never perfect; there are always differences in emphasis or focus. There are two kinds of paraphrase:

1. Lexical paraphrase. It is the use of a semantically equivalent term in place of an-other in a given context. This is also known as synonymy. E.g.:

John is happy. = John is cheerful.

To rejuvenate = to make someone or something appear or feel younger.

2. Structural paraphrase. It is the use of a phrase or sentence in place of another phrase or sentence semantically equivalent to it, although they have different syntactic structure. E.g.:

John showed the pictures to me. John showed me the pictures.

Ambiguity

Ambiguity is the property of having two or more distinct meanings or interpretations []. A word or sentence is ambiguous if it can be interpreted in more than one way. Ambiguity can be caused by factors such as homonymy, polysemy, lack of sufficient context, etc. In this class, we will consider four types of ambiguity, namely:

Ø 1. Morphological ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that some words exhibit when their internal structure can be analyzed and interpreted in more than one way. E.g., the word unlockable is morphologically ambiguous Notice its possible constituent structure (and meanings).

Ø 2. Structural (or grammatical) ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that some phrases and sentences exhibit when their (constituent) syntactic structure can be interpreted in more than one way. E.g., the sentence We need more intelligent leaders is structurally ambiguous. Notice its possible constituent structures (and meanings):

1. ‘We need leaders that are more intelligent.’

2. ‘We need more leaders that are intelligent.’

Other examples of structurally ambiguous sentences are:

Visiting strangers can be dangerous.

Moving sidewalks can be useful.

Ø 3. Lexical ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that some sentences exhibit when they contain words that can be interpreted in more than one way (those words are either homonymous or polysemous words).

E.g.

a. We can fish.

Canи(homonymy):

1) to be able to; to have the ability to do something

2) to preserve food, fruit, liquid, etc. by putting them

3) in a sealed can (i.e., a metal container)

b. The cranes are here.

Crane (polysemy):

1)a large machine or device with a long arm which is used to lift and move heavy weights at construction sites.

2) a large bird with long legs and a long neck

c. Look at the spring.

Spring(homonymy):

1)season of the year

2)a coiled piece of metal

3) a source of water

d. John met his wife near a bank.

Bank (homonymy)

1) financial institution

2) sloping ground near a river

Ø 4. Metaphorical ambiguity. It is the ambiguity that some metaphorical or idiomatic sentences exhibit because they may be interpreted in their literal meaning or in their nonliteral meaning.

E.g., the following sentences are metaphorically ambiguous:

a. Dr. Jones is a butcher.

- Jones is the name of a physician who also slaughters animals and/or sells meats.

- Dr. Jones is a harmful, possibly murderous doctor, who likes to operate on people un-necessarily.

b. John is a snake in the grass.

- John is the name of a snake that is in the grass.

- John is a deceitful person who pretends to be a friend.

c. This car is a lemon.

- This car is a miniature car carved out of or shaped like a lemon.

- This a newly purchased car that often breaks down and needs constant repairs.

It is interesting to note that, in each case above, the second interpretation is more common or likely than the first one.

Disambiguation

Disambiguation is the process by which the ambiguity of a word or sentence is eliminated. Generally, ambiguities are resolved by using the word or sentence in sufficient and appropriate contexts (whether linguistic and/or social), and by means of the use of emphatic pronunciation and intonation.

Collocations

Collocations are combinations of two or more words that often occur together in speech and writing. Among the possible combinations are verbs + nouns, adjectives + nouns, adverbs + adjectives, prepositional phrases, noun phrases (i.e., prepositions + noun phrases), similes (i.e., comparisons of some things to others) and so on. Some idiomatic expressions are considered collocations, too. The order of the constituent elements of collocations is somewhat fixed. Also, the constituent words cannot be replaced by other words.

The following are some examples of English collocations:

Adj. + noun phrase	a resounding victory	a crying shame	common cold
	an itemized account	widespread use of drugs	strong tea
	powerful car
Noun phrases	man and wife	salt and pepper	fish and chips
	husband and wife	salt and vinegar	curry and rice
	bangers and mash	franks and beans	a herd of cattle
	a school of whales	a pack of dogs	a book of matches
Adv. + adj.	amazingly calm	relatively small	perfectly reasonably
	entirely free	terribly sorry	stark mad
	awfully sorry	stark mad	alive and kicking
Verb + verb	rain or shine
Verb + adv.	speak clearly	walk steadily	to be met with great acclaim
Prep. phrase	with a pronounced French accent	by hook or crook	for a start
Similes	as fit as a fiddle	as poor as a church mouse	as heavy as lead
	as light a feather	as deep as the ocean	as blind as a bat
	as blind as a bat	as steady as time	as blue as the sky
	as strong as a horse	as tight as a drum	as white as a lily

2.2 The peculiarities of semantic relations in Kazakh and English verbs

The research of verbs of physical ability in English, which form separate lexico-semantic group and have its individual semantic features, demand discrete detailed study. The verb selection was accomplished from the explanatory dictionary "New Webster’s Dictionary and Thesaurus of the English Language” , and those verbs were chosen, which have in its content structure the seme "physical ability”.

In the result of the research of the lexico-semantic group of verbs, the semantic pecularities were established, the main of which was the multiaspect of physical ability manifestation.

The lexico-semantic group of verbs of physical ability is a semantic set, which may be qualified as a microsystem with complicated structural organization. The seme "physical ability” is a central seme of the field, from which a lot of microfields with variant meanings come out [ 1; 51].

We can divide the verbs of physical ability at least in two groups:

- those, which are inherent to people, animals ( e.g. to run, to jump, to dance, to move, to turn, to swarm, to snuggle);

- and those, which are inherent to inanimate nature ( e.g. to impose, to ring, to boil, to zoom, etc.)

On this level we can observe some pecularity which lies in impossibility to make a distinct distribution between verbs: there is a certain group of verbs, which one may refer as to the first group as well as to the second. The action may be performed by inanimate and by animate objects: to slup, to freeze, to bath.

The investigation shows, that there are more verbs of such "mixed type” as compared "pure” ones.

Thus, we can explain the peculiarity of verbs of physical ability, which is reflected in the intersection and correlation of semantic microfields [1;11]. Most elements of lexico-semantic group of verbs of physical ability have in their structure individual and additional semes. For such verbs a connection of semantic element "slowly” and "quickly” with "physical ability” is typical: e.g. to dash, to crawl, to drag, to blunder.

So, the distribition of verbs according to different groups and microfields was made on the principle of hierarchy of the sementic features, beginning with more abstract and common to more concrete.

The element of lexico-semantic group of verbs of physical ability of the English language demonstrate the intersection with lexical units of such fields as visual ability, physical dimensions, means of conveyance, etc.

English verbs are divided into two groups on the basis of their mor­phological peculiarities, i.e. on the basis of the forms of the Participle II and past tenses

The most numerous group within this division is that of regular verbs: regular verbs form their main forms by means of adding a dental ending to their stems. The ending has three phonetic variants that depend on the final sound of a verb stem:

/d/ At after a voiced consonant or a vowel (e.g. saved, followed)

/t/ after a dental consonant (e.g. looked, stopped)

/Id/ after a dental consonant (e.g. loaded, spotted).

In writing the ending is delivered by the only form -ed. The ending -ed is a productive pattern, so verbs borrowed or coined in the Middle English pe­riod or later belong to the group of regular verbs almost without exceptions.

The second group is formed by irregular verbs. It may be further di­vided into smaller subclasses. The first subclass contains the verbs that dis­play ablaut, i.e. root vowel interchange, in their past forms (swim - swam -swum, sing - sang - sung, shrink - shrank - shrunk).

A separate group of irregular verbs is formed by verbs that remain un­changed throughout the paradigm: to put, to let, to hit, to cost, to cut.

In a so-called "mixed” subgroup of irregular verbs, the vowel inter­change is combined with the dental suffix: to keep - kept - kept, to weep -wept - wept, to sweep — swept — swept.

The fourth subgroup is formed by the only verb to be that is character­ized by suppletive forms in past tenses: to be - was/were - been.

Irregular verbs are formed with unproductive patterns. However, their forms are quite settled. Though some irregular verbs have acquired paral­lel regular forms, these forms may hardly be called grammatical doublets, since, as a rule, regular and irregular forms of a verb differ semantically (to speed - sped - sped, to speed - speeded - speeded; to learn - learnt -learnt, to learn— learned — learned).

Verbs may be classified on the ground of their combinatorial characteris­tics. In Modern English, however, the notions transitivity and intransitivity have lost their relevance, since traditionally transitive verbs are defined as those followed by an object in the accusative case. As the English noun paradigm does not have the accusative case, the notion of transitivity has acquired a different meaning. Modern grammar interprets intransitive verbs as verbs followed by a prepositional object, whereas transitive verbs are followed by non-prepositional objects. However, this characteristic cannot be interpreted as important property of a part of speech, since adjectives are also capable of having non-prepositional objects (cf. to be worth the effort).Consequently, in modern English the notions "transitivity” and "intransitivity” have turned into combinatorial features of the verb. Some linguists be­lieve that this feature should be interpreted not so much as a combinatorial feature but as a lexico-semantic characteristic of the verb. In doing this, the scholars interpret the dichotomy "transitivity – intransitivity” as a lexical rather than grammatical notion.

Besides the groups mentioned above, verbs may also be divided into terminative and non-terminative. Terminative verbs contain in their mean­ing some indication of a completed action. Moreover, the state that will oc­cur after the action is completed is quite predictable. For example, the result that follows the completion of the action denoted by to catch, is that some­thing will be caught, there is no other result. Analogous are the verbs to fall, to die, to find, to arrive, to destroy, to overthrow, to bend, to subdue, etc.

Non-terminative verbs are those expressing an action as an endless proc­ess whose next stage is unpredictable. For example, to sit can be terminated by any other state, or to be, to exist, to know, to believe.

There are, however, verbs of dual nature. In different contexts they may denote either a terminative action or a non-terminative one. Here the inter­pretation depends mainly on the tense and the aspect of the verb.

Another semantic classification in modern linguistics is based on the ability of a verb to have a certain number of dependent sentence parts (sub­jects, objects). Clearly, the number of possible "places” depends on seman­tic characteristics of a verb. Thus, the verbs to rain, to snow are one-place predicates, since only one position (that of a subject) is possible in the sentences It rains, It snowed; to be is a two-place predicate, since it may have only two related elements (Jack isan actor); the verbs to give, to of­fer, to present describe actions of giving and presuppose three participants (James gave a book to Lesley), i.e. these verbs are three-place predicates. One may notice that the "valency” of a verb correlates with syntactic and morphological characteristics, in that one-place predicates are the nucleus of impersonal sentences, two-place predicates are intransitive, and three-place predicates belong to transitive ones.

This classification is grounded not only on the number of participants required for an action but also on the semantic relations that exist between a certain verb and a required participant. These relations are called "roles”, or semantic ("deep”) cases, discussed above.

The semantic approach to classification of verbs, based on participants to an action and their roles, makes it possible to distinguish so-called verbs-conversives. Conversives are defined as verbs describing the same situation from different angles. For example, the verbs to sell and to buy denote an action of "getting/giving something for money” involving both a buyer and a seller. The situation is the same for both but the role distribution is differ­ent. The verb to sell requires a seller as an agent, whereas the verb to buy correlates with a buyer as an agent.

Conversives enable speakers to construct sentences with different func­tional perspectives. In other words, conversives enable the speaker to posi­tion first either an agent or a recipient taking into account which of them represents the theme and the theme of a sentence.

Semantic approach to verb classification also permits to distinguish one more specific group that used to escape notice. John Austin, an American philosopher, paid attention to a number of verbs that in certain syntactic conditions are quite peculiar: instead of conveying some information on an action, they are equal to actions, i.e. by naming an action, they are the action themselves (e.g. I promise, I swear, I name this ship the Queen Elizabeth, I bequeath my watch to my son, I declare you husband and wife).

There are certain so-called ‘felicitous conditions’ necessary for the per­formative verbs to perform actions. The verbs should be used in the present form of the first person singular by an authority, empowered to perform the action (for example, only a priest (or, on some special occasions, a captain of a ship, or an ambassador) has the right to marry a couple, otherwise the marriage is not legitimate).

Many modern Western linguists divide verbs into stative and active. The main peculiarity of active verbs is their use in the progressive tense: they are speaking, she is painting. Stative verbs, such as to know, to under­stand, to see, cannot be used in the progressive tense.

While investigating the structure of given semantic field following steps of analysis were carried out: manually searching appropriate verbs in a corpus, definition and context analysis of verbs obtained, Specifying common semantic component and a list of semantic distinguishers for each verb, building of hierarchical structure (hypernym/hyponim) for given semantic field.

First task in the process of structuring any semantic field is to determine which units it includes. For that purpose it is necessary (in our case) to extract appropriate words from texts along with their contexts (we regard sentence to be a context unit). Works of literature written in XX century constitute a corpus used.

The core of the field contains verbs of basic (pure) emotions, e.g. korkyu (to fear, to be afraid), kuany (to joy). We expected that it would be possible to extract these words from a text relying merely on their high frequency (comparing to other fitting verbs). But it appeared that a lot of evidently peripheral verbs (denoting ways of expression of a person’s emotional state in his/her behavior) occur not less frequent than, for example, core verb korkyu (kulu (to laugh), zhylau(to cry)). As a matter of fact, peripheral verbs surprisingly constitute 40-50% of the whole body of citations extracted. Probably this can be explained by the fact that the corpuses were not large enough or by peculiarities of chosen literature.

At the second step verbs were bound by hierarchical relations (after their semantic components were distinguished). As for peripheral verbs, among them we have distinguished five groups and for each of them a tree or several trees are build. These trees were then connected to corresponding core verbs (since peripheral verbs, as it was stated before, denoting expressions of emotions are at the same time simpler part of a complex state which is expressed by a core verb). As for core verbs, ten of them were distinguished which have sezu (to feel) as their hypernym. We consider this verb to be a top of this semantic field. These ten verbs are top-1 level roots of their own trees to which peripheral verbs are then added.

The main problem faced was to specify distinguishers. It is inevitable because of peculiarities of the field itself (emotional features cannot be identified absolutely precisely). But nevertheless we can state that main semes which differentiate meaning are

· intensity, e.g. shattanu (to rejoice),

· non-continuity, e.g. abyrzhu(to get confused),

· beginning of a process, e.g. kule bastau (to burst out laughing).

This problem is associated with that of overlapping of different kinds of relations. Another important problem is "free” verbs which could not be appropriately placed into any tree. We can get over that by enlarging the corpus. This is going to be done in the nearest future.

Conclusion

Comparative linguistics is one of the rapidly developing areas of modern linguistics. The increased interest of scientists to the problems of the comparative study of languages ​​is due to the fact that in a period of spiritual revival of ethnic and national identity developed a growth approach to research in the field of linguistics, language when it is considered primarily as a form of spirituality of the nation, and the word - as a phenomenon created by mankind for thousands of years of its existence, as an intellectual and spiritual quintessence imperative that define the cultural level of the nation. In the study of language in a cultural aspect is understood and revealed that uniqueness and those profound differences that exist between the compared languages. In this regard, of particular interest is a study of two different in their genetic roots of languages ​​- English and Kazakh.

The differences between the languages, due to the difference of cultures, especially brightly detected at the level of vocabulary, because it is most closely related to the extra-linguistic reality.

In the lexical structure of any language are the words that serve as symbols of the culture-specific phenomena. The uniqueness of designated national determines the specific character denoting: these words describe the specific denotative meaning, which is the basis of the semantics of the word, causes of lexical markedness cultural background and the possible connotations of the word.

E.M. Vereshchagin and V.G. Kostomarov note that the word reflects the subject material and spiritual culture, which is absent in the other (match) language, "can not be translated ... stable equivalent, so it is called unquivalent" [1, 42 ]. Plan content unequivalent the words "can not be compared with any foreign-language lexical concepts" [1, 42].

About vocabulary of any language can speak only in respect of the language to any other language, where there is no such lexical correspondences. That. that in one (source) language is un equivalent in relation to another (mapped) language can exist in some third language. For example, the Russian word loaf kutia, godson, easter against the Kazakh language, but not in relation to Ukrainian.

Nationally-specific features of vocabulary can be manifested not only in the presence of uneqivalent units, but in the absence of words in the language and meaning, expressed in another language, the so-called gaps, "white spots" in the language of the semantic map [3, 4-5: 2, pp. 244-245].

The emergence of gaps may be due to several reasons. In some cases, the emergence of gaps due to differences in the respective cultures. So, gaps with respect to the Kazakh language will be English word Thanksgiving, Easter and so on. In other cases, the presence of gaps in a given language is not due the lack of appropriate referents, and the fact that for a given language, the culture is the difference is insignificant. Eg .. in the Kazakh language, compared with English there are more single-word label each of the daughters in relation to other children of the same parents: apa, apke 'big sister'; sinli 'younger sister against her elder sister'; karyndas 'younger sister against his elder brother' . In Russian, all of these words corresponds to the word sister. For the Kazakh language in this case are relevant, first, the differentiation by age (older sister, a younger sister), secondly, the gender of the person of reference.

Each linguistic and cultural community, thus, to a certain extent in its own divides and classifies the world. On the same phenomenon of reality one nation could be the overall concept, not divided apart and be labeled general semantics, while other people, characterized by a narrow concept of varieties of this phenomenon, its parts, perceived as separate phenomena and designated individual lexical items.

On the other hand, people perceive the same thing differently, calling it does not subject itself and its perception of it.

Ethnic and cultural differences are manifested in the fact that the multi-lingual words that match the denotatum can vary their emotional, evaluative shades, ie connotation. Cf. differences in the associations connected with the image of the sun - kun in Russian and Kazakh languages. In the language consciousness and Russian and Kazakh sun causes an idea of ​​heat, light. And if the Russian people of the sun - the basis, the center of anything of value, tall, beautiful, vital, that is the source of life (cf. the sun of truth, the sun of my life), to the Kazakh people Kun - life itself (cf. kun bark 'live there' coon korsetpeu 'does not give plaguing' senin kunin amplitude, literally 'your sun rose', ie, 'you're lucky'). Russian sun, unlike the Kazakh kun gets in speaking more widely accepted as referring to a dear, beloved. Hence, the characteristic of the Russian diminutive tokens education sunshine. Wed: Sweetheart! - With great tenderness said Olesya [4, 191]. Such forms of Kazakh kun does not form.

The study connotational word semantics in terms of cross-language is interesting and complex: when comparing the various semantic mate, evaluation, psychological, cultural, aesthetic factors, specifically interpreted in the word of the national language. Such research is essential for understanding not only the nature of the national language, but the most important features of his world media - the people.

Lexicological comparative study of two genetically unrelated languages ​​- English and Kazakh - there's nothing like the study of vocabulary of one language into another language mirror of culture. This study enriches and deepens the knowledge of each language and insights into the spiritual world of people, artists and speakers.

Glossary

Lexicology (comes from Greek) is a branch of linguistics which studies words and their usage. Lexicology studies the meaning of a word, its structure, combinability, its formation. It investigates different types of word groups. It also studies the vocabulary of this or that society.

Borrowed word is a word taken from another language and modified in phonemic shape, spelling, paradigm or meaning according to the standards of English.

Word building (word formation) is a process of building new words out of the material available in the language according to the structural and semantic rules and laws of this language.

Semaseology - a branch of lexicology which studies meaning and the semantic structure of a word.

Grammatical meaning is a meaning which comes to the fore in the words with different lexical meaning, and brings them into one row: apples, tables, books, birds - grammatical meaning of plurality; was, went, ate, did, slept, knew – grammatical meaning of past tense .

Lexical meaning – is a meaning which combines different grammatical forms of a word into one paradigm: to be, was, were, been, is, are; apple, apples, apple’s.

Denotational meaning - logic conceptual meaning which correlates with its referent.

Connotational meaning - an additional meaning, subordinate meaning which includes

1) emotive-evaluational meaning, expressive colouring, 2) stylistic status of the word

Polysemy - a complex of all meanings which a word can have as a result of its development.

Polysemantic word - a word which has several meanings.

Antroponymes - proper names of people: Ann, Mary, John Smith, the Browns.

Toponymes - proper names of places, e.g. countries, cities, towns, rivers, seas etc: England, New York, Boston, the Volga, the Atlantic ocean, the Elbrus.

Homonymy – coincidence of sound forms for different meanings of words. Homonyms proper - words identical in pronunciation and spelling: case (Situation, bag) and seal (print, animal)

Homophones - words of the same sound form, but with different spelling and meaning: Night (opposite to day) – knight (medieval warrior); Hair (part of the scull) – hare (animal with long ears)

Homographs - words different in sound forms and in meaning but identical in spelling: bow [bou] лук – bow [bau] кланяться, кивать; wind [waind] – wind [wind]; lead [li:d] – lead [led]

Homoforms coincide only in one form and do not in all others: Allowed (v) – aloud (adj); Billed – build.

Paronyms - words very identical in sound form and spelling but having some differences in them and different meaning: Loose – lose; decent (respectable, suitable) – descent (downward motion); quite – quiet.

Synonymy - one of paradigmatic relations among words which lies in the identity of denotational meaning.

Synonyms are traditionally referred to as words different in sound-form, but identical in meaning: carry, drag, pull; huge, tremendous.

Antonymy - one of paradigmatic relations among words which lies in the polarity of meaning: kind – cruel.

Antonyms are words, characterized by semantic polarity or opposite meaning.

Complementary antonyms - words which present two-member semantic opposition, members of which complement each other in meaning; if one quality is negated, the other inevitably comes to the fore: live - dead, male – female.

Lexico-grammatical group (LSG) – a group of words which have lexical and grammatical meaning in common, a common paradigm. These groups are subsets of parts of speech. E.g. English nouns are subdivided approximately to the following LSG: personals, animals, groups of people, groups of animals, abstract nouns, material nouns, objects, proper names of people and places.

Table, chair, wardrobe, cupboard, sofa, stool, armchair – pieces of furniture

Cat, dog, cow, sheep , pig, horse, donkey – domestic animals

Go, come, run, speed, rush, move, ride – verbs of motion

Ideographic groups – groups of words in which only lexical meaning is taken into account, grammatical meaning is neglected. They are independent of classification into parts of speech; are grouped according to their signification; belong to the system of logical notions. Such groups may comprise different parts of speech: light (n), brightness (n), bright (adj), shine (v), shining (part) and other words connected with the notion of light.

Contextual associative group - words joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence or text and having interlinks within the text: A new director was introduced to us. Mr. Brown as tall and slim. A new boss said about his plans. The speaker was short. There exist regular contextual ties: dog – bark; see – eye; blind – see. As a result there may appear different groups: Tree – leaves – green – fruit – shadow; voyage – ship – port - sightseeing – sea – swimming – sunbathing – tan.

Semantic field - "Fields are linguistic realities existing between single words and the total vocabulary. They are parts of the whole and resemble words in that they combine into some higher unit; and the vocabulary in that they resolve themselves into smaller units” [Ulman]. The meaning of time may be expressed by all linguistic units: morphemes – pre-revolutionary, post-war, post-Soviet; words – now, then, today, yesterday, soon, late; phraseological units – this year, this month, up till now, after that; sentences (grammatically) – tense and aspect

List of references

1.Benson, Ph., Hong Kong words: Variation and context, World Englishes, Publisher Blackwell Publishers Ltd, Volume 19 2000/11/1, Pages 373-380

2.Yule, G., The Study of Language, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2006, p 100.

3.Victoria Fromkin, Robert Rodman An introduction to language Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1998, 566 pages (p. 198).]

4. Jackson, H. and E. Z. Amvela, Words, Meaning and Vocabulary, Continuum New York, 2007, p. 107

5. Richards, JackC.,by John Platt, Heidi Platt Dictionary of Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, Addison Wesley Publishing Company, 448 p

6. Cipollone Nick, H Keiser, Steven Language Files: with Instructor’s Manual: Materials for an Introduction to Language and Linguistics, Ohio State University Press; 7th Revised edition ,1998, 510p

7. Zapata B., A. A. (2000). A handbook of general and applied linguistics.Trabajo de As-censo sin publicar. Mérida: Escuela de IdiomasModernos, Universidad de Los Andes

8.Green, R.; Bean, C. A. &Myaeng, S. H. (Eds.). (2002). The semantics of relationships. An interdisciplinary perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers

9. Оразов, Мейрбек. Семантика казахского глагола. (Опыт семантической классификации) : диссертация ... доктора филологических наук : 10.02.06 Алма-Ата, 1983 417 c. : 71 85-10/15

10. Arutyunova N. D. Diskurs // Lingvisticheskii entsiklopedicheskii slovar'. M., 1990.

11. Vardul' I. F. Osnovy opisatel'noi lingvistiki (sintaksis i suprasintaksis). M.: Nauka; Glavnaya redaktsiya vostochnoi literatury, 1977.

12. Nikolaeva T. N. O funktsional'nykh kategoriyakh lineinoi grammatiki // Sintaksis teksta. M.: Nauka, 1979.

13.Nurgozhina Sh. I. Verbal'nyi interakt: teoreticheskie osnovy, funktsionirovanie struktura: diss. … d-ra filol. nauk. Almaty, 1999.

14. Stepanov Yu. S. Metody i printsipy sovremennoi lingvistiki. M.: Editorium URSS, 2003.

15. "Қазақстан”: Ұлттық энцклопедия/Бас редактор Ә. Нысанбаев – Алматы "Қазақ энциклопедиясы” Бас редакциясы, 1998 ISBN 5-89800-123-9

16. Қазіргі қазақ тілі, Қазақ ССР Ғылым Академиясы, Алматы, 1954

17.Орысша-қазакша түсіндірме сөздік: Ғылымтану. Жалпы редакциясын басқарған э.ғ.д., профессор Е. Арын- Павлодар: ҒӨФ «ЭКО», 2006. ISBN 9965-808-78-3

 

Скачать курсовую работу: semantic-relations.docx