CC BY
20
DOI: 10.18454/RULB.6.32 Таджибова Р.Р.
Дагестанский государственный университет К ВОПРОСУ О СЕМАНТИЧЕСКОЙ И СЛОВООБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЙ ДЕРИВАЦИИ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ
АНГЛИЙСКОМ И РУССКОМ ЯЗЫКАХ
Аннотация
В статье рассматривается проблема семантической деривации в английском и русском языках на материале заимствованной лексики. Прослеживаются процессы, сопутствующие процессу семантической деривации, а также - поднимаются вопросы спорных случаев отнесения производных слов к тому или иному виду деривации, порой схожих с так называемыми «ложными друзьями переводчика». Понятие «семантическая деривация» возникло относительно недавно, но интерес к тому, как развивается значение слов, существует уже в течение достаточно длительного времени. Ряд исследователей, разграничивая внеязыковые и языковые причины семантической деривации, представляют изменения, вызванные языковыми причинами, в виде классификаций, опирающиеся на выделение в слове его знаковой и смысловой стороны. Многие ученые полагают, что одним из распространенных видов семантической деривации является метафора. Антропоцентричность метафоры признается большинством лингвистов. в метафоре стали видеть ключ к пониманию основ мышления и процессов создания не только национально-специфического видения мира, но и его универсального образа [Арутюнова 2003: 39]. Отметим, что современные исследования по метафоре направлены на установление общих закономерностей процесса формирования переносных значений, которые проявляются в лексико-семантической системе языка.
Ключевые слова: семантическая деривация, метафора, заимствования, вторичная номинация значения слова.
Tadzhibova R.R.
Daghestan State University
ON THE PROBLEM OF SEMANTIC AND WORD-FORMING DERIVATIONS IN MODERN ENGLISH AND RUSSIAN
Abstract
The article considers the problem of semantic derivation in modern English and Russian on the bases of borrowed words. There also are examined the processes following the process of semantic derivation, as well as the questions of disputable cases of derivation are raised, i.e. the problem of so called "false derivation". The term "semantic derivation" has appeared relatively late, but the interest to the process of formation of the meaning of the word had existed long ago. A number of linguists try to distinguish between lingual and extralingual reasons of semantic derivation, and represent all the changes as a result of derivation by different classifications, taking into account the meaning and the form of the word. Many linguists believe that metaphor is one of the most wide-spread types of semantic derivation. Anthropocentricity of the metaphor is recognized by many linguists. Metaphor began to be treated as the key to understanding of bases and processes of forming not only national specific vision of the world, but also its universal image. It should be noted that modern research in theory of metaphor are aimed at setting some general laws of formation of figurative meanings, displayed in a lexical and semantic system of the language.
Keywords: semantic derivation, metaphor, borrowings, secondary nomination of a word's meaning.
Почта авторов / Author Email: [email protected]
As we know, many linguists believe that metaphor is one of the most wide-spread types of semantic derivation. Anthropocentricity of the metaphor is recognized by many linguists. So, J. Lakoff and M. Johnson, for example, in their popular work about metaphor, state that the processes of a man's thinking are mostly metaphoric, i.e. conceptual system of a man is structured and determined with the help of metaphor [Lakoff, Johnson 1980: 90]. Others suppose that metaphor is "a component of a man's conscience" ^liya 1999: 89].
N.D. Arutyunova, in her turn, claims that metaphor began to be treated as the key to understanding of bases and processes of forming not only national specific vision of the world, but also its universal image [Аrutyunovа 2003: 39]. We should also note that modern research of metaphor are aimed at setting some general laws of development of the process of formation of figurative meanings, which can be seen in a lexical and semantic system of the language.
The term "semantic derivation" has appeared relatively late, but the interest to the process of formation of the meaning of the word had existed long ago.
What can be called realization of semantic derivation? Here we face the problem of identity as we consider the meaning only of one and the same word. While dealing with a word in one language of a certain synchronic level, we don't face much difficulty for analyses. Much more difficult it becomes while dealing with diachronic identity within the same language. Here we can see some certain problems, but if a word remained (physically) its identity brings no difficulty. Much more difficulties one can have while analyzing two meanings of the same word in relative languages.
Let's consider, for example, a case of polysemy, i.e. the evident semantic relationship between two meanings of a word in a certain language, say, semantic derivation: 'a woman' ^ 'a wife', represented in French by lexeme femme, in German by Frau, etc.
Or, for instance, «a diachronic shift», i.e. the change of the meaning, for example, the same semantic derivation which we see in a Russian word Izhenal "wife".
In fact, it would be more exact to speak of not a semantic transformation, but of loss of meaning as in, for example, modern Russian lexeme "wife" lost its meaning of "woman". However, as we know, an old meaning never is lost completely, it may appear,
say, in word-forming (cf. womanish, women-loving, women-hating, woman-like — all these words correlate with the meaning of 'a woman", but not "a wife". So, we can state that there is no an exact border between synchronic and diachronic derivation.
Sometimes we can face such a phenomenon: one word has two certain meanings in case of relative languages (so called "false friends of an interpreter"), for example:
'to hope' ^ 'to wait' based on French verb espérer 'to hope' and Spanish verb esperar 'to wait';
Or, for example, another pair of meanings: 'to hear' ^ 'to understand borrowed from French verb entendre 'to hear' and Spanish verb entender 'to understand'.
In Russian there exists a specific problem of so called church Slavic etymologic doublets like a head (a leader) — a head (part of a body), part (a country) — part (some edge), which we sometimes tend to consider the same word. Then, we should ask, what can't be called semantic derivation?
As the relations of semantic derivation are set within one word (or between the words based on the same source), they cannot be called cases of semantic derivation, as they originate from different sources, thus these are cases of homonymy.
In Russian we have such cases when some prefixes seem to be formed as semantic derivatives, but of course, are not such. For example, some cases of polysemy, exactly, polysemy of prefixes' formations like in zalechit' (to heal the wound) and zalechit' (to do harm by treatment) [Zaliznyak 1995]).
However, even among those levels, which we surely include into semantic derivation, we can differentiate nuclear and peripheral zones.
As it is known, apart from semantic derivation the development of the English language during all its history was done by the two ways: first of all, due to word-forming means taking place in the language, and, secondly, due to borrowings from other languages. However, not all the borrowings come into English in a "pure" state. We mean the borrowings with semantic and word-forming derivation. In case of semantic derivation the borrowed stem of the word develops one or more new meanings, depending on the extra-linguistic environment it appears in. in case of word-forming
derivation root morphemes and affixes join each other due to some special linguistic models.
For example, let's consider a case of semantic derivation of a lexeme poison based on a borrowed stem, which has such meanings in English as: l.a. 'a drink made with a special purpose, a medicine' (1377); 2.a 'a substance intruding an organism by any way, crushing living functions and doing great harm to one's health; used in little portions with the aim of quick influencing living functions of an organism' (1387); 2.5. (coll) 'alcohol drink' (1805) [OED 2004: 1057].
As we see, the last meaning was developed much later, than the first two meanings. As both of the lexical-semantic variants - poison 'medicine' and poison 'poison' - appeared in the English language almost simultaneously (see their first fixation in the language), we can learn which of them is prior only by turning to the donor-language — French — in which this word has the following meanings: 1.'a drink'(~XI c); 1.1. 'a substance which ruins the vitally important functions of an organism if gets into it' (1130); 1.2 'a drink with addition of some certain substances" (~1130); 1.3. 'a fluid food product, a drink, not toxic in small portions, but influencing the organism and its functions badly for the long time ' (~1695); 1.4. 'a drink of a very low quality' (1665); 1.5 'a chemical catalyst' (1962) [GLFF 2000: 4417].
Thus, in spite of the fact that the meaning of "poison" is fixed in English much later, this very meaning becomes the main meaning and on its bases there was developed the next meaning "a medicine", and much time later, in American English there appeared the meaning of "alcohol drink" as a result of the metaphor based on the comparison of its influencing the living being [OED 2004: 1057]. While speaking of the borrowings with word-forming derivation, let's consider the lexeme bouse, bowse (1). At first the
verb bouse, bowse was borrowed in English from old Holland with the meaning 'to drink, to drink very much, usu. for a toast for friendship or for pleasure, or just to drink alcohol' (1300) [OED 2004: 1027]. Later on from a borrowed verb there was formed by conversion a noun bouse, bowse (1) with the meaning (coll) 'a drink, liqueur; first dating has a meaning "a bowl for drinking" (1300) [OED 2004: 1027].
In 1786 for the first time was fixed the second meaning of this word "drunkard, or a state of being drunk" (1786) [OED 2004: 1027]. Here we can see that the development of the second meaning is made by metonymic transformation by the model "an object" => "action by this object". On the example of the lexeme bouse we can observe a number of word-forming derivations: 1. Borrowing a verb into the English language; 2. Formation of a noun form a verb by means of conversion (word-forming derivation); 3. Development of the second meaning of a noun by means of metonymic transformation (semantic derivation).
As one more example of a word-forming derivation we can consider the word reboil with the meaning 'a wine, fermented for the second time' (1460) [OED 2004: 223]. The lexeme was formed by means of conversion from the verb to reboil with the meanings 1. 'to ferment for the second time (about wine)', 2. 'to boil again' [OED 2004: 223], and this word in its turn, was borrowed from old French rebouillir. It is remarkable that this word was earlier borrowed into French from Latin (rebulli-re Lat 'to boil'. During assimilation a French suffix was lost. A new noun with the meaning 'a wine, fermented for the second time' appeared only in English.
In spite of the fact that borrowings appear in the language due to some extra-linguistic factors, assimilation of the word, following later, as well as a "life" of the word, i.e. its frequent use, mostly depend on internal lingual factors.
References
1. Arutyunova, N.D. (2003). The word in a lexical and semantic system of the language. M., Nauka.
2. Grand Larousse de la language française en 7 vol. (2000). Paris: Libraire Larousse.
3. Lakoff, G., Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago- London: U.C.P.
4. Teliya, V.N. (1999). Connotative aspect of the semantics of nominative lexemes. M., Progress.
5. The Oxford English Dictionary: in 12 vol./ed J.A.H. Murray at al. (2004). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
6. Zaliznyak, A. (1995). Semantic derivation in synchronic and diachronic research. M., Progress.
