JANA MOLHOVA

Outlines
of English
Lexicology
NAOUKA I IZKGUSTVO

JAMA
MOLHOVA

Outlines of

English
Lexicology

THIRD REVISED EDITION

N AO UK A I I Z K O US T VO SO F I A 1 9 7 6




.

-
,
: ,
, .

Preface
In this edition of my Lexicology the bulk of material of the
previous two editions has been retained. What is more, the basic
principles of analysis and interpretation have remained essentially the
same. A new chapter on the sign character of language, felt to be
necessary was interpolated in this book.
Due to restrictions of space and time only a few other changes
were possible. The following topics needed thorough revision: chapter
I. Polysemy, Affixation, Composition, Conversion. As for the
remaining parts naturally certain things were also changed with the
hope of clarifying the major assumptions in the book: the sign
character of language, the systematic character of language, the word
as basic lexical unit, the interrelation between dynamic and static in
language, sociological, psychological and historical factors
influencing, language, etc.
Here I should like to express my thanks to the publishing house
"Naouka i izkoustvo" for this third edition of my book. Next my
thanks go to my colleagues for their critical notes and last but not
least, to my students for their stimulating participation at the seminars
which made me reconsider some points tackled in this book.
Sofia, March 1975
Molhova

Jana

I. Lexicology. Its relations with other

branches of linguistics
Method
Lexicology is that branch of linguistics which is concerned with
the lexical units of a given language. By lexical units there are meant
words and their equivalents phraseological units. The same units
may be analysed from other points of view, namely, phonological,
grammatical (morphological and syntactical). Lexicology is interested
in the semantic structure of the words, its nature and the various
influences and changes to which it is subjected.
Semantics or semasiology is the science concerned with the
meaning as such. All phenomena connected with meaning are the
object of its interests. They include first of all language as a basic
means of communication in human society. Other varieties of human
communication as for instance the Morse code, various other codes
where the signs are not words but flags or different lights or any other
object for that matter. In navigation the position of flags is
meaningful. In other human activities coloured lights are used as is the
case with the street lights which perform a most important role in
regulating the traffic in the streets. In human communication very
often parts of the body are made use of to convey some message.
Even a new branch of science has emerged dealing with this problem
called kinetics. Body movements used to convey messages are closely
related with tradition and other sociopsychological factors. With some
nations, as for instance along the Mediterranean, much gesticulating
accompanies any kind of speech. In the northern areas of Europe this
is not considered to be proper behaviour, etc.
In everyday human intercourse a smile, a nod of the head, a
wink, a waving of the hand, etc. may be more meaningful than any
amount of words. Also various objects under certain circumstances
may serve as signs for all sorts of things. In this sense semantics or
semasiology covers a wide range of various phenomena which have
something to do with meaning. This range is far wider than language
proper.
The theory of information is closely connected with semantics
but as the term shows it is also related to some purely physical and
technological aspects of the process of conveying information.
Lexicography is related to lexicology since it deals with words
and phrases. But it is restricted to defining them in terms of meaning

and distribution and organizing them in a strictly alphabetical order

following all sorts of other well-established principles.

Etymology is the study of the origin of words and phraseological

units.
Thus, lexicography and etymology can be considered to be
branches of the more general science of lexicology while the latter is
part of the scope of semantics.
The problems of lexicology may be solved only when the vocabulary of a language (words and phraseological units) is regarded as a
system and not as a mere list of words and phrases no matter how wellarranged, nor as isolated examples illustrating linguistic facts.
Unfortunately, many of the problems of lexicology are not
solved yet despite the enormous amount of material available. To a
certain degree during the latter half of our century attention has been
paid basically to new trends in linguistics connected more with the
grammatical structure of language. In recent years however there is a
revival of interest towards the problems of lexis and lexicology. There
is an attempt at tackling the problems of lexicology from the point of
view of the systematic nature of language and its specific structure.
There are some efforts towards discussing these problems on the
grounds of an 'integrated theory' of language, Ietc. It must be said that
in lexicography plausible success has been achieved.
In the last twenty years or so some important changes have
taken place in linguistics. Linguists have become still more aware of
the structural character of language and have been working in the
direction of finding out what 'sui generis' is in the now already
classical statement of Ferdinand de Saussure that 'Language is a
system sui generis'.
The structural approach in the most general sense of the word
has a far-reaching effect that very often is not given its due. It has
brought about also some new methods of investigation more compatible with the structure of language. The application of certain
operations introduced by various linguistic schools reduced the
subjective and arbitrary element in the description and interpretation
of linguistic facts bringing us coser to the truth.II
What follows in this bookl is based on the following basic
principles:
Language is a system sui generis. It consists of several structural
levels: phonological, grammatical (morphological and syntactical)
and lexico-semantical. One may argue whether these are the only

I Jerrold J. Katz, Paul M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Description. MIT,

USA, Third Printing, May, 1967

II On different methods and linguistic schools see I. Arnold, The English Word,
Moscow, 1966, p. 3048

levels of language. There is ample evidence for yet another level

the stylistic one which is as complex as any of the above-mentioned. On the whole, while using the term level for lack of a better one
we are aware of the possibilities for a simplistic interpretation of it
which is far from the actual facts. We shall not go into the problems of
the levels but it is important at least to caution the reader against an
interpretation which may lead to one-dimensional picture of each level.
Each linguistic level has its own specific features and is comparatively
independent but at the same time is intimately related with the other
levels. This relation is also varied and complex. A unit from one
structural level may pass into another and become part of it. In language
these levels always appear together. It is only for the sake of
investigation that this vivisection is made. Phonological elements are
abstracted in order to analyse them better, grammatical features are
severed from the lexico-semantical level in order to clarify the
grammatical structure, lexico-semantical facts are torn away from the
grammatical form in order to find out something about their specific
features, etc. There are also many points in language where the
respective levels not only function together but intersect. This is the
case, for instance, with the categories of gender and number of the noun
in English.
There are no morphological markers of the noun to point out the
gender. However gender exists since some nouns are substituted by the
pronoun 'he', others by 'she' and still others by 'it'. This is obviously
conditioned by the meaning of sex in the noun. Since it is not expressed
on the morphological level then it should be part of the semantic
structure of the noun. Thus, all nouns on the level of class of words
have this category and it is reflected or expressed in their semantic
structure. There is a similar parallel with the category of number
especially with the so-called collective nouns. Their form does not point
to plurality but on the syntactical level they always require a verb in the
plural. These facts show that the element of plurality is somewhere in
the noun. If it is not in the grammatical form then it must be in its
semantic structure: The cattle are grazing.
Lexico-semantical and phonological levels intersect in many cases
but one clear case is the following: a voiced dental in final position
marks one kind of meaning while a voiceless dental another meaning
bad [bd] bat [bt], etc.

10

One of the basic principles of great importance for this work is the
distinction made between grammatical and lexical meaning: All three
levels in the language have the element meaning but in a specific way.
There is an assumption that one could speak of potential meaning of the
phoneme. As for the grammatical level it is so intimately related with
the lexico-semantical that there are difficulties to distinguish one kind
of meaning from another in certain cases. In this work we adhere to the
principle that every form has its content (in this case meaning) and
that every content (meaning) has its own form. A grammatical event
will be a unity of form and meaning. But so will be a lexical one. In
order to find out the difference between a grammatical and a lexical
item let us examine the following example:
table tables, cat cats, girl girls.
Table, cat, girl are the common form singular of the corresponding nouns, while tables, cats, girls are the common plural form of
the respective nouns. This description refers both to form and its
meaning. The form is one and the same for the three items and the
meaning accordingly. The zero ending is the grammatical form for the
Singular of the noun, common case, while the ending -s is the
grammatical marker with the meaning of plurality in English. Obviously the morphemes (zero and -s) have these meanings irrespective
of the lexical meanings of the items. So that a suggestion for a
working formula for a grammatical category might be as follows: a
specific form with a specific meaning independent of the lexical
meaning of the item.
Another important problem is whether linguistic facts) should be
approached on the diachronical or synchronical plane. This is one of
the crucial problems in contemporary linguistic methodology. Without
going into the matter it is pertinent to say that there is no synchrony
without diachrony and vice versa. In other words, synchrony and
diachrony are in dialectical relation. But this does not mean that one
can make an arbitrary choice between them. Like all problems
connected with method of analysis the method must be compatible
with the object under analysis. There is a constant give and take
between our knowledge about an object and the refinements of our
method of analysis. The more we know the better the method will be
to suit our purposes. So that depending on the specific problem one
has to approach it from the synchronical or diachronical plane. But it
is not advisable to mix up the two because in such cases the result will
be confusing. For instance there is a word, whilom in contemporary
English. From the point of synchrony (contemporary English) it is an
adverb and is an archaism. From the diachronical point it goes back to
the Dative plural form of the Old English noun hwile... Now both
descriptions are correct and they reflect actual facts. But if the two

11

planes are confused then the explanation will be something like this:
whilom is the Dative plural of hwile which in contemporary English
has given the word while, etc. But in contemporary English there is no
synchronical grammatical connection between whilom and while. In
this way it is obvious that introducing diachronical explanations for
synchronical facts does not help for their elucidation to say the least.
Another basic principle adhered to in this book is the sign
character of language which will be treated and explained further on.
This entailed the adoption of more sophisticated methods of analysis.

12

The latter proved to be very useful even more so when connected with
another basic principle, i.e. that the word is the basic linguistic unit.
The operations insertion, substitution and transformation helped very
much for the objectivity of the analysis.
Last but not least it must be stated that the word and its
equivalent, the phraseological unit are in the centre of interest in this
book. All problems of meaning, semantic range, shifting and changing
of meaning, the mechanism of the changes, the reasons for them, the
semantic relations between the components of a word, etc., are tackled
from the point and the structure of the contemporary English
language.

II. The meaning of the word

1. The sign character of language
For the first time Ferdinand de Saussure discussed the problem
of the sign character of language. I Later with the increase of interest in
the process of communication and in the mechanism of all phenomena
dealing with meaning the problem was investigated by logicians as
well as linguists. Marxist philosophy did not lag behind and in the
works of many scholars the problem of the linguistic sign was
examined.II Many linguists are also becoming aware of the crucial
position of this problem and cannot by-pass it. But, unwilling to go
into its intricacies, they usually make excuses that this is not basically
a linguistic but a philosophical question and so avoid altogether
discussing it or only mention it briefly.
As was already said in the previous chapter the science of
semantics or semasiology treats of the problem of the signs in general
and of the linguistic signs in particular. This does not exempt the
linguists of approaching the problem on their own ground.
Contemporary linguistics is becoming more and more conscious
of the very complex nature of language and of, the necessity to tackle
it in its complexity. While up till recently attention was primarily
directed towards the problems of phonological and grammatical
structure there is now again a swing back towards the problems of
meaning.
Without going into the history of the problem, since we are
restricted by the aims and the space of this book, we shall pass

I Ferdinand de Saussure, Cours de Linguistique Generale, Paris, 1955 p. 97 104

II G. Klaus, Moderne Logik, Berlin, 1964, . ,
., , 1962 .

13

directly on to the Marxist view of the character of the sign in general

and the linguistic sign in particular.

14

Let us imagine that a group of young people had decided to go to

the mountain of Vitosha for the week-end. Their friend Ron was not
table to go with them. He was going to join them the following day.
The friends told him that they were going to pitch their tent
somewhere near the place called "The White Birches". Around the
time when he was expected Mary was going to built a fire. By the
smoke Ron would detect the place of the tent.
This is a situation of communication. Mary will communicate to
where the tent is. Ron by means of the smoke. The graphic presentation of this situation is as follows:

Mary (messenger)
R Ron (receiver)
S
smoke (sign)
O
tent (object)

Contrary to various other

interpretations of the sign situation Marxist thought considers it
absolutely important to stress that it is basically of a social nature. This
means that no sign situation is possible without the presence of human
beings. What is more, a human being is the messenger (the producer)
of the sign and also a human being is the receiver (the interpreter) of
the sign. Next, the sign must always be material. Immaterial signs are
an absurdity. This stands to reason since every sign has to be perceived
otherwise there is no way of getting the message. The sign can be of
any material. Even various materials can be the sign of one and the
same message. If we take again the above-mentioned example. The
smoke is the sign for the tent. But these friends could make arrangements for a flag on a pole to be the sign of the tent, or for a specific
tune played on a tape recorder or a gramophone, etc. to point to the
place of the tent. So that in all these cases the smoke, the flag, the piece
of music can equally well be the sign for one and the same thing the
tent. This is due to another important fact there is no natural relation
between the sign (the material thing) and the object (the thing for
which the sign stands or to which it refers). The relation between the
sign and the object is arbitrary. This arbitrariness can be further
exemplified by the same above-mentioned story.
If another person passed by and saw the smoke naturally he
would assume that something was burning or that someone had built a

15

fire. But the smoke will not be able to carry any other information, i.e.
not the specific information it had for Ron.

16

The object (O) for which a sign stands need not be material. It
can be both material or immaterial since it is not necessarily perceived
by the receiver, nor by the messenger for that matter. Actually in most
cases it is not perceived and this is the reason for having the need of a
sign. The connection between the sign and the object is arbitrary and
its arbitrariness has to be known in advance both by the messenger
and the receiver. So in a way, to them this connection will become
fixed. If they do not know about it they will not be able to
communicate as was pointed out with the stranger passing by the
place where Mary had built the fire.
One more point has to be made about the sign itself. Generally
speaking signs as such do not exist. Any material thing can become a
sign in a sign situation. A sign cannot exist alone. It imperative for the
sign to belong to a system consisting at least of two elements in binary
opposition: sign no sign.
If we refer again to the above-mentioned story, the smoke can be
the sign of the tent on the assumption that it is opposed to no smoke.
That means that Ron had to link the fact of no smoke with the
meaning 'no tent' and smoke with 'tent'. If he did not do that he
would not be able to link the smoke with the tent. In other words the
smoke will not have this specific meaning but with be related only to
the fact that something is burning.
This is the picture of any sign situation. As far as language goes,
it is the basic sign system in human society. And because of this it has
all the characteristic features of any other sign situation.
The material of language are the sounds. The written letter are a
way of representing the sounds of language in writing. So the string of
sounds are the signs of language. The relation between the string of
sounds and the object of the extra-linguistic situation is arbitrary. But
this arbitrariness has to be known by the speakers of the language.
Otherwise they will not be able to communicate. This is the case with
unfamiliar languages. Not knowing a language from the point of view
of the sign situation means not knowing the relation between the
linguistic signs and the objects which they refer to in the extralinguistic world. The arbitrariness of the relation between the
linguistic sign and the object is proved by the fact of the existence of
different languages which have different strings of sounds for one and
the same object in the extra-linguistic situation: English ball, man,
hat, etc., Bulgarian , , , etc.
Another proof of the same is the fact of polysemy in language.
One and the same sign (word) refers to various objects, i.e. has
different meanings. Thus, hand: a) end of the arm beyond the wrist, b)
a person who does something, etc. Still another proof is the fact of
homonymy in language. One and the same material fact, the string of

17

sounds, refers to different objects in the extra-linguistic situation:

bear, bare, etc.

18

All the above-mentioned linguistic facts at the same time point to

the relations of the sign with other signs in the system. The answer to
the question as to how it is that one can discriminate between the
various meanings of a polysemantic word or how one account for the
various meanings of homonyms points to the close relation of one
linguistic sign with the other signs in a language. In linguistic terms it
is the distribution of a sign (word) that points to its relations with other
specific signs in the language. Thus, the sign (word) hand with the
meaning a) can enter only in combinations like: They walked, hand in
hand. While the meaning b) can be exemplified by: He is an old
Parliamentary hand. It is not possible for hand with the meaning a) to
enter in combinations illustrated by the second example, nor is it
possible for the meaning b) to be expressed in combinations
exemplified in the first example. The same applies for bear and bare.
Bear combines only with certain items in a way different from bare and
vice versa.
For the purposes of linguistic analysis the two features of the sign
of paramount importance are as follows: that the sign is arbitrarily
related with the object for which it stands, i.e. from the extra-linguistic
situation and that the sign is connected with the remaining signs of the
same system. This relation is not arbitrary. It is determined by the
characteristic features of the system itself.
All these problems are the concern of phonology, grammar and
lexicology. The latter will be discussed in the pages to follow.

2. Language and thought

Language is the basic means of communication in human society.
If we compare language with other means of communication lightsignals, flag-signals and other codes, we immediately see the
fundamental difference between them. On the one hand all codes are
based an language no matter whether we realize it or not. Language is
not based on any other code. All codes have signs which in themselves
do not communicate anything, at least not the thing they communicate
within the system of the code. So that signs become meaningful only
within the code. In order to understand a sign one has to be acquainted
with the code. Sometimes one and the same sign in different codes has
different meaning. The red light on the street means 'Stop!' while the
red light on the stage is a signal for the actor to walk out on the stage.
With lights, flags and other signals one can communicate only one
thing. This is conditioned by the fact that each member of the code has
a meaning only in the code itself and that the members of the latter are
limited. They cannot be used freely in various unlimited combinations.
On the other hand every sign only designates, marks. The

19

communication conveyed has to be interpreted immediately in terms of

language.

20

'Lire une formule mathematique c'est en realite la tradujre.'1

All code systems, except language, are static. Whether used
frequently or not, they remain the same. Nothing affects them.
Language is also a code having all characteristic features of it but it
is a special code. It is the basic means of communication in human
society. It differs from all other codes in that it is connected with human
thought. Without language, outside of language no human thought is
possible.
In modern linguistics the relation between language and thought is
practically indisputable. Just how language and thought are related,
however, is variously interpreted.
There is a widely spread theory that '... we need a predominant
theory which connects words with things through the ideas, which they
symbolize.'2 '... Les mots sont des symboles, c'est-a-dire des signes
indiquants, suggerants, rappelants des idee.'3 That words are symbols of
ideas is, with certain variations, the basic assumption of many linguists.
The dialectical materialist theory of cognition, i.e. the theory of
reflection, offers a basis for interpretation of the relation between
language and thought.
Op the higher level of logical thought man thinks by means of
notions, judgements and inferences. The outer world, the objects and
phenomena are reflected in his mind. This reflection is not as simple and
direct as the reflection in a mirror. By a complicated process of
abstraction the mind selects what is most essential in a given
phenomenon and forms a notion about it.
" () , ()
, , - , ,
, ,
, : (
, ) ,
( ). ,
(" )
."4

Logical thinking is characteristic of human beings and this is what

distinguishes them from animals. Logical thinking was developed in the
labour process and is closely linked with it.
Language developed simultaneously with the development of
human thought
In approaching the question of how language is connected with
thought we must bear in mind that by thought we mean the higher,
1
2

E. Buyssens, Les langages et les discours, Bruxells, 1943, p. 51

Ogden and Richards, The Meaning of Meaning, 6 th ed., London, 1945,.
p. 7

21

3
4

A. Carnoy, La science du mot. Louvain, 1927, p. 9

. . , . , 1947, . 308

22

logical level of human thought. At this stage thinking is inseparable

from language.
Let us take as an example ball. After seeing a ball for the first
time one gets sensorial impressions of it. In comparing it with other
objects which are well-known (roughly speaking) one starts to
differentiate its essentials. But in order to reach the stage of really
knowing the ball as such, one has to form a notion of it; his notion will
be moulded out of different sensorial impressions and with the decisive
help of language.
When one sees a ball, hears the word ball, engrams form in one's
mind, i.e. reflections of the object itself and of the sound complex b-l. Through highly complicated interrelations between the two the
notion of ball is formed, thus the individual comes to know the ball. So
that the complex of sounds of a word plays a decisive role in the
formation of the notion.
The notion is our knowledge of the object, phenomenon, etc.
Notions are not static. They change because the objective world
changes and our knowledge of it as well. Human practice shows that
human knowledge constantly deepens.
,
.
", ", ,
, , ."I
With different people the depth of the notion, the knowledge of a
thing differs but still the essence of the notion remains the same. For
instance a child knows what a table is, i.e. he has notion of it. A grownup man's notion of a table in its essence will be the same but he will
know more about it. He will know that the table is made of wood or
some other material, he will know something about its shape because
he has more knowledge in general than the child.
This is the case with an ordinary notion and the so-called
scientific one. Everybody knows what water is. To a chemist it means
much more than to a layman. His knowledge about it goes deeper than
the layman's. He knows its chemical properties. But again the layman's
notion of water and that of the chemist are in essence the same.
So it is that the notion is formed, moulded, with the active
participation of the complex of sounds. The complex of sounds must
have a meaning in order to become a word. Conversely, a word has a
meaning and a complex of sounds. Is the meaning of the word the
I . . , op. cit., p. 168 More details on this problem see O. C.
, no , , 1957, . III, .
36

23

complex of sounds itself, is it the notion which is moulded by the

complex of sounds or is it something else?

24

The meaning of the word cannot be the complex of sounds in itself.

From the linguistic or any other point this is not possible. I In a
language there are cases when one and the same complex of sounds
may have different meanings. This is the case with homonyms and
especially with perfect homonyms: ball 'a globular body' and ball
'a social assembly for the purpose of dancing', band 'a strip of
any material, flat and thin, used to bind together' and band 'an
organized company', bill 'the horny beak of certain birds' and bill
'a written document'.
There are even cases when one complex of sounds may belong
to a word and to a root. In all compound words the components are
roots and they are homonymous to the common forms of the
corresponding words: lady-bird, commonplace, common sense. The
roots lady-, bird-, common-, place-, sense-, are all homonyms to the
corresponding words.
If we assume that the meaning of the word is the complex of
sounds then it follows that there is a natural link between the latter and
the meaning. If this were so then how is it that there are so many
different languages with different complexes of sounds for the same
notion, i.e. having one and the same meaning? Bulgarian ,
English hand, French main.
Then is the meaning of the word the notion itself?
From the linguistic point of view it may be said that there are
cases when one notion is expressed by the fixed combination of
several words. Such is the case with the phraseological units: to start
the ball rolling, to make a clean breast of something, to know which
side one's bread is buttered on, etc.
There are cases when a word has a special meaning in a given
context, i.e. apart from the notion it usually expresses it may express
another one: apple, the apple of the eye.
Sometimes the whole content of the notion is not expressed in
the meaning of the word but only part of it. This becomes clear with
polysemy. Let us take as example the word step. The Shorter Oxford
Dictionary reads: '1) If you will walk a few steps this way Scott, 2)
Honour attend by the steps, 3) The next step was to assert the royal
supremacy, 4) In step, out of step, keep step with, 5) The military step
of 30 inches, of which there are 2112 to a mile, 6) To get one's step .
to be promoted to the next higher grade, 7) To take a step or steps
to perform a move of moves in a course of action, 8) Adile and I
sat down on the top step of the stairs to listen. Gh. Br.

I On this problem see , , 1965, . 106

116

25

The basic meaning of step is 'action of stepping'. All the

connotations of this word are connected one way or the other with it.
In fact they are connected with the notion, they express one or

26

another aspect of the 'act of stepping'. An important thing here to

remark is that alongside with the expression of one or another aspect of
the 'act of stepping' the connection with the act itself as a whole is
nevertheless pressent and vivid.
At the same time from the semantical point of view a word may
have a series of notions linked together in such a way that they form
another notion. This can be especially clearly illustrated by the
compound words: school bag, milkman, object-lesson, nice-looking;
ninepins. All these compounds have one meaning but when it comes to
notions the picture is different.
In a language there are cases when one and the same notion can
be expressed by several different words. That is how synonyms arise.
Thus: to ask, to request, to pray, to call, to cry, to shout.
On the other hand one word may express more than one notion; it
may express a judgement or inference. 'Would you like a cup of tea?',
'Yes, please.' 'Yes' stands for 'I should like a cup of tea'.
We should not eliminate the emotional and stylistic factors. From
the point of view of the notion the emotional factor is not important
although it is there. As far as the word is concerned the emotional and
stylistic factors are part of the meaning. Very often they play a
decisive role in the act of human communication.
From all this it is clear that we cannot identify the meaning of the
word with the notion. There is more to it than that. However, it is
obvious that in the centre of the meaning of a word stands the notion,
or rather the linguistic representation of it.
There are linguists who maintain that man can think without the
help of language and that the more abstract the thought the less need
of words. In 'Anti-Dring' Engels mocked such a point of view by
remarking that 'if it were as During says animal's would be the most
abstract thinkers since their thinking is never bothered by the
intervention of language.'
It is a fact that man can think without giving outer expression to
his thought. But that does not mean that the process of thinking is
being performed without the help of language. Special experiments
have shown that when a person thinks to himself without speakings
the brain sends special nervous messages in the apparatus of speech
and the latter performs articulatory motions which are not perceptible
to the eye. And what is more those articulatory motions are
differentiated like the sounds of speech.
Briefly, language is the direct reality of thought which makes
itself manifest in language. But language should not be identified with
thought. Mental processes follow their special development and
language its own, which is not that of thought. In some cases even
it seems that language development is at odds with logic.

27

3. Is the meaning of the word motivated

The English word tree refers to a certain extra-linguistic fact. The
French arbre, the Bulgarian have the same extralinguistic
referent. So that in different languages different complexes of sounds
are referred to one and the same extra-linguistic fact. The question
arises whether there is any intrinsic relation between the word and the
object for which it stands. What are the linguistic facts?
There are different languages in which different complexes of
sounds following different morphological and syntactical patterns have
the same extra-linguistic referent. On the other hand in one language
there are words standing for different extra-linguistic facts but having
one and the same string of sounds the homonyms: match match;
hair hare; pale pail, etc. There are cases when one and the same
word, i.e. one and the same string of sounds, has several extralinguistic referents polysemy: foot 'termination of leg beginning
at ankle; step, pace, tread; lower end of bed, grave, couch, part of
stocking; metrical unit with varying number of syllables one of which
is accented; lineal measure, etc.' Then there are different words, with
different strings of sound which more or less have the same extralinguistic referent the synonyms : to go out, to leave; to help, to
aid; to come, to arrive, etc.
All these linguistic facts show that there is no natural connection
between the word and its extra-linguistic referent, i. e. the thing for
which it stands.
This question brings us to the problem of the origin of language,
whether it was the imitation of sounds or something else that gave rise
to language, etc. We shall not discuss this problem here. However by
now practically all linguists agree that language is the basic means of
communication in human society and that it is a structure sui generis.
At the moment the latter contention is of importance. It means that
there is a number of items organized in a specific way. Each item is
meaningful only within the structure. It has its own position in it,
which is conditioned by the existence and the position of the other
items in the structure. So that there is an interrelation of opposition and
complementing of one item to another, of one item to all others and
vice versa. In this sense every item of a structure is motivated by the
characteristic features of the latter while at the same time every item
contributes to the nature of the structure.
If we accept that language is a structure sui generis then we have
to accept all the consequences. A basic one is that every item in a
structure has to submit to the requirements of the structure. In
linguistic terms that means that every linguistic unit is motivated:
phonologically, grammatically and semantically. This motivation is

28

based on the structural levels of language: phonological, grammatical

(morphological and syntactical) and semantical.

29

a) Phonological motivation. In every language there are words

whose complex of sounds is an imitation of sounds in nature. Such
words are called onomatopoeic. To crash, to click, to splutter, to fuss,
etc., are words whose complexes of sounds are an imitation of the
sounds produced by their extra-linguistic referents.
In the above cases it might be accepted that the meaning of the
words is motivated by the sounds only as far as they are similar to the
sounds produced by the. extra-linguistic item for which the words,
stand. On Onomatopoeia see p. 117.
Every language has its specific phonological structure. Every
sound in the structure has its distinctive features which are connected
with meaning. For instance, final consonants in contemporary English
are very clearly pronounced while in. Bulgarian they are weakened. In
English it is of paramount importance to make distinction between a
final [k] and a final [g]: to think and thing, brink to bring, back
bag, etc. This is not the case in Bulgarian. In a pair like and
the final sound is one and the same. The initial sounds are
differentiating.
The complex of sounds of a word is the signal for the meaning.
So that it is only too natural for people to assume that the, sounds of a
word are its meaning. It is easy to understand why and how the various
theories of sound symbolism have sprung up. In actual fact the
meaning is connected with the complex of sounds. And since the sound
system of one's mother tongue forever remains the most familiar it
seems the most natural. From here the belief that the words of one
language are more suited to express one or another meaning than those
of another language. Or that certain combinations of sounds are more
expressive than others in terms of their meaning.
It is true that in poetry euphony plays a certain role but the
problem of agreeable and disagreeable, pleasant and unpleasant is not a
linguistic problem. What is considered to be pleasant to the ear in a
linguistic unit in one language cannot be considered the same in
another since the combinations of sounds are different in different
languages.
Expressiveness of sounds, i.e. of linguistic sounds is not inherent
to the latter. It exists in our imagination since we associate the sound
complexes of certain words with a permanent meaning as if attached to
the sounds.
'Forlorn'! the very word is like a bell
To toll me back from thee to my sole self!'
(John Keats, 'Ode to the
Nightingale')

30

b) Grammatical motivation. Every linguistic item, including

the word, is part of the grammatical structure of a language. The grammatical structure reflects in its specific way interrelations and phenomena existing in extra-linguistic reality. Every language has itsown
grammatical structure so that an objective extra-linguistic fact in
different languages is expressed by different grammatical means.
For instance, the fact of possession in English is expressed by the
marker of the genitive case 's (s') or by the use of a prepositional phrase
introduced by of: the teacher's, of the teacher; the teachers', of the
teachers. A pertinent point here is that grammatical structure does not
affect the facts of life but linguistic units like the word. The same fact
of possession has an entirely different expression in Bulgarian which
shows that it is a question of the structure of the Bulgarian language
and not of the extra-linguistic fact as such.
The word has to be grammatically shaped in order to function in
the language, in order to convey meaning. So that ultimately grammar
motivates the meaning of the word.
c) Semantical motivation. Semantical motivation together with
the grammatical are the most active and powerful factors influencing
the formation of the word. This is ascertained by all cases of polysemy,
metaphor, metonymy, etc.
One speaks of the head of a pin and the motive for this lies in the
fact that the object looks like and has the same position as the 'head'.
A distaff is called 'a distaff' because 'a distaff is a staff bedizened
with flax ready to be spun off'. 'I dysyn a distaffe, I put the flaxe upon it
to spynne'. Palsgrave. Middle English distaf, dysestaf, Old English
distf. The Old English distaef stands for disestf, where stf = E.
staff, and dise, Low German diesse - 'the bunch or flax on a distaff.'1
Semantical motivation differs in different languages. This may be
explained by the fact that the different peoples fix their attention upon
different peculiarities or symptoms of the extra-linguistic facts. The
words for these peculiarities begin to stand for the whole object or
phenomenon as the case may be.
English desk, i.e. 'a sloping table' from the Latin discum, but
Bulgarian , i. e. 'the place for writting.' French bureau
originally meant 'a coarse woolen brown stuff with which desks were
covered'. Bulgarian stressing the fact that the flower is
yellow, English, buttercup, bringing to the fore the form of the flower
and the oily inside of the petals, Russian pointing to the bitter
taste of the flower. Bulgarian expressing the impression that
the object flies by itself without any help from outside, English
aeroplane, aircraft 'an object made to work in the air,' Bulgarian
is identical in semantic motivation to the English to
telephone but to give a ring points to an association with the ringing of

31

the telephone apparatus. English to embrace from the French embracer

'to fold someone in one's arms',
4

Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary, Oxford, 1927

32

Bulgarian 'to press someone to one's bosom', English

mustard from the French moutarde which took its name from one of its
ingredients must or vinegar, Bulgarian 'something bitter',
English tortoise from the French tortue 'crooked', Bulgarian
referring to the bony shell. The names of the days, of the
week offer an interesting illustration of the same linguistic facts:
English Sunday, Bulgarian , i.e. 'the day in which no work is
done', Monday (Old English monan dg) 'the day of the moon',
Bulgarian , i.e. 'after Sunday', English Tuesday 'the day
of Tiw' the god of war corresponding to the Roman Mars', Bulgarian
'the second day of the week', English Wednesday 'the
day of Woden', Bulgarian , i.e. 'the day in the middle of the
week', English Thursday 'the day of the god Thor', Bulgarian
'the fourth day of the week', English Friday 'the day
of the goddess Fria', Bulgarian i.e. 'the fifth day of the week',
English Saturday after the god Saturnus, Bulgarian , i. e.
'sabbath'.
The choice of a certain feature to represent the whole object
depends on many factors not the least of which is the national character
of a given nation. This national character is created in the course of
history under specific conditions of life.
On the other hand there are some words in which the feature
representing the whole object is the same in different languages:
English crook, Bulgarian ; English window, originally 'wind's
eye', the eye or the hole admitting air, Bulgarian , i.e.
'something through which sight can penetrate'; English grasshopper,
connected with hopping in the grass, Bulgarian connected
only with hopping; English mouth of a river, Bulgarian
connected with mouth, German Mundung connected with Mund,
French l'embouchure de riviere connected with 'la bouche'; English
right meaning 'the opposite of left', Russian with the same
meaning, etc.1

The word stands for an extra-linguistic fact which one person

wishes to communicate to another and which is comprehensible to the
speaker as well as to the hearer. Words having the same extra-linguistic
referent may have a different semantical motivation in different
languages but that will not have any effect on the understanding of the
meaning of the words provided that they are known both to the speaker
and the hearer. It is true that the motivation may arouse a variety of
additional associations but they will not have a decisive role for
understanding the meaning of the word. As a matter of fact the
meaning of every word is abstract and at every linguistic situation
becomes concrete. The act of concretization is performed by the
individual person. Since properly speaking everyindividual has his own
experience in life one might expect different concretizations, i.e.
difference in understanding. But this is not exactly the case. For every
normal person the basic meaning is always the same while some
additional associations are different. But the latter are of no importance
for the normal communication. The additional associations evoked by a
word are important in artistic works. They are called stylistic images.
In translation stylistic images have to be taken into consideration and
on the other hand the translator should be careful in choosing the
proper words. For instance in Bulgarian there is an expression
. In English its counterpart will be at the head of
the demonstration. The meaning is the same although the Bulgarian
expression calls forth associations connected with the forehead, while
in English it is connected with head. On the other hand in translating
one must choose the right word out of a group of synonyms.
Dear, expensive and costly are synonyms each with its nuance.
The first word is connected with love, the second is the ordinary word
used in everyday speech and the third has a poetic nuance. One cannot
say 'She is costly or expensive to me' meaning 'She is dear to me'. One
may say 'This is an expensive dress'. If in this example expensive is
substituted by costly the meaning will not be changed. The difference
will be only in the atmosphere. Expensive is a word used in similar
cases as in the example above in everyday speech, while costly is a bit
unusual and thus creates an impression of loftiness. Dear can also be
used in such cases but is becoming less frequent in daily usage.

34

Semantical motivation is very often lost to people using the

word. Sometimes the extra-linguistic fact which had been the basis for
forming the notion and motivated the word is no longer connected
directly with the notion and the meaning of the word. In such instances it is only the history of the word that can lead us to the
semantical motivation. For instance in English boots 'a hotel servant who cleans the patrons' boots, shoes', is a puzzle to the uninitiated
as to how this name came to express this particular meaning. Only in
consulting a dictionary can one find the answer to this question. It is
practically impossible to arrive at the motivation of the English tube
the name Londoners give to the underground railway, without
tracing the history of the development of the meaning. Similarly
obscure is test meaning 'written work in class'. This originated from
the Latin testa 'pumpkin". In French this word was used
pejoratively for the notion 'head'. This meaning was widely accepted
and lost its pejorative connotation. In English the word was adopted to
mean 'a receptacle'. Later the name of the receptacle was used for the
experiment in which such a receptacle was used. Still later not only
experiments but every kind of trial came to be called a test. So that
from the point of view of the meaning in English the basic feature
which motivated it is lost. The word plantis another interesting
example of how the meaning of a word may change leaving the
original feature which had motivated the word completely obscure. In
Latin planta means 'sole'. The decisive moment here was the digging
of the soil with a spade and helping the process by stepping on the
spade with the sole or using the same, movement after the seed was
planted. From this arose the word for the offspring and by conversion
the verb was formed. Mast 'a pole to hold the sails of a ship', in Old
English the word meant originally 'the stem of a tree, bough'.
With borrowings the problem of tracing the semantical motivation
becomes still more difficult. For instance English farm comes from
Latin firma. In Middle English the word meant 'the money paid to the
landlord for letting the land'. After that the word came to mean 'the
farm-land itself'. In contemporary English the word covers the farmland, the buildings and the live-stock as well.

4. The generalizing character of the word

An important clue to understanding the nature of the meaning of
the word was given by Lenin: 'Every word generalizes... Feelings show
reality; thought and the word the general...'I

I . . , , , 1947

The word mother, for instance, does not imply a concrete person.
It stands for the notion different from 'father', 'brother', 'sister', etc. This
word can equally be applied to 'my mother', 'your mother', 'somebody
else's mother', tc. Thanks to its generalizing character the word can be
used in different linguistic contexts expressing different extra-linguistic
situations. It expresses a general notion and at the same time implies
the specific. When mother is pronounced: everybody knowing the
language understands perfectly well what it means. Of course in
different individuals different associations are aroused by the word.
They are conditioned by the personal experience of every individual.
The important point is that every word, no matter how concrete,
generalizes. Even in the case of personal pronouns this is so. Is there
anything more concrete than I? And still there is only one word in a
language for this notion and not as many words as there are individuals.
Because of the generalizing nature of the meaning of the word I it can
be applied for every individual case.

36

5. Words expressing correct and incorrect notions

Another point in connection with the meaning of the word is
whether the notion expressed by it is correct or not. In other words
whether it is a correct reflection of reality and whether it generalizes
the most essential, the most important facts of reality in an adequate
way. Engels remarks that human ideas are not static, that they
constantly change, one turning into another, one merging into another,
without which process they would not reflect life. The analysis of
notions, their study, 'the art of operating with them' always demands a
study of the movement of the notions, of their connections, their
changes.
Those notions are considered correct that can be proven as such
by testing. This is usually so with sciences like mathematics, physics,
chemistry. Human practice is the only way through which a notion can
be proved correct or not. So that wrong notions are these which have
been proved to be so in human practice. Among these are: god, angel,
devil, fairy, paradise, hell, saint, charm, magic, alchemy, flogistone,
etc. The mere fact that there is a word for a given notion in a language
does not mean that this notion is a correct reflection of reality. For
thousands of years man lived with a false conception of the structure
of the universe, and it is only in modern times that he came to a true
knowledge of its. nature. This was possible because of advancement of
science and because of the improved mental abilities of man. How is it
that not only words of non-existent entities were coined but even
stories about them were told and pictures painted? The fact is that
reality is reflected in many complicated ways in the human mind. Let
us analyze the word angel as an example. In real life we observe individuals with bright complexions, children with innocence and purity
reflected in their eyes, birds soaring skywards on their wings. As the
human mind associated everything pure with the sky, man began to
think of it as the dwelling place of such perfect creatures angels. The
latter had all the accessories to be found in real life but not in that
particular combination. The specific combination of a human being
with wings was the result of human fancy. That is how such notions
and the words for them came to exist.

6. Catachresis

In every language there are some words which lack logic. This is
true of grand-son, grand-daughter and grand-child which were
formed after the model grand-father and grand-mother. The two latter
words are an odd combination of a root of French origin andanother of
English origin. Grand in French means 'big, great', in these cases 'the
eldest'. Logically it follows that grand-son must mean 'the great, the
eldest son'. However the meaning is just the opposite. The discrepancy
becomes even greater in great-grand-son, great-grand-daughter,
great-grand-child. These words are an example of word formation in
which the linguistic factors were stronger than the logical. The
linguistic factor here is the model of grand-father which played a
decisive role in the formation of the other words.
The phenomenon of compounding two roots whose meanings as
separate words are either contradictory or exclude any connection
between each other but nevertheless forming a compound is called
catachresis. In the term of endearment my old girl 'girl' conveys the
idea of young but still it is combined with 'old'. Also 'How are you, old
boy?' In the jargon of the slave-owners one comes across the phrase
black ivory as a reference to Negro slaves. In this instance the word
ivory is used more to stress the value than the colour itself. The basic
meaning of all these words has lost its clearness. It must be pointed out
too that conventionality here plays a very important role so that the
discrepancy is not felt.
In the sentence 'He took the. bigger half of the apple' the lack of
logic is evident. If it is a half it is supposed to be equal to the other half.
No question of bigger or smaller can exist. But here, the word half is
not used in the mathematical sense but only in the sense 'one of the
parts of an object'.
Words which are used frequently even in a figurative sense have
no need of the context to be understood. They are so clearly associated
with the context that the latter becomes superfluous. They become
fixed through conventionality. The meaning of such phrases as these is
clear without any context of explanations whatever: 'Half a loaf is
better than none', 'all or nothing', 'garden party', 'full-brother', 'halfsister', 'full-dress rehearsal', 'part-time worker', hanger-on', 'a largehearted person', 'a broad-minded person', etc.

7. Basic and marginal moments in the

meaning of the word
In the meaning of a word one can differentiate basic and marginal
moments. The basic moment is the meaning of the word which refers to
the extra-linguistic fact or to the notion of this fact. The notion is the

38

same for everyone who knows the language. Marginal moments are the
various additional associations different for different people. Marginal
elements in the meaning depend on some natural peculiarities of the
individual and still more on his experience in life. This individual
colouring usually is not of great importance as to the result of the act of
speech. The word village, for instance,

39

arouses in the minds of different individuals different coloured

associations connected with the general notion 'village'. One person
might think of his own native village, another of a particular village
seen from a train, still another of a picture of a village, etc. Yet another
person might have associations and images only very losely connected
with 'village'. In the main everybody, no matter what the individual
picture of 'village' he might have, will grasp and understand the basic
meaning of the word without confusing it with, shall we say, house or
mountain or cow or whatever else.
Language despite some deficiencies which are surmounted in
practice, is the basic means of intercourse in human society. It ensures
as the millennial history of humankind has proved, a considerable
grade of understanding which gives man the possibility to unite in
communities, to organize collective labour, to create daily material and
cultural wealth. All this would have been impossible if the marginal
meanings in the language, the basic means of communication among
people, were playing a leading role.

III. The word as the basic linguistic

unit
1. Language as a structure
Language as a structure consists of several levels: the phonological, the grammatical and the semantical. Each of them has its
own items and characteristic features. So that it is pertinent to speak of
a basic unit of each of those levels. And the basic unit of the
phonological level will be naturally different from the basic units of
the other levels and vice versa.
The basic unit of a structure has to bear its characteristic
features. What is the basic unit of language as a structure sui generis?
In order to find the answer to this question one should bear in
mind the most typical aspects of language which distinguish it from all
other similar phenomena.
It is universally accepted that language is the basic means of
communication in human society. What makes it basic is its intrinsic
relation to human thought. Those two contentions are interdependent.

40

In terms of communication every item that can convey a

message should be always ready at hand. That means that it has to be
complete in form and not in a dismantled state, as it were. On the other
hand every message means content. The content is that of human
thought. The categories of human thought are: notion, judg-ment and
inference. Their realizations in language are: word, sentence. In other
words, the word and the sentence are means of conveying a message.
Every message has meaning. From the point of view of the
structure of language two basic types of 'meaning' are distinguished:
lexical meaning and grammatical meaning. Both meanings belong to
two different levels of the structure of language. But none of them is to
be found in the process of communication functioning independently.
So that in looking for the basic linguistic unit we should be careful not
to confuse the overall characteristic features of language with the
characteristic features of its various levels (components).
If 'message' means 'meaning' then we have to find such a unit
which has 'meaning'. But every linguistic unit, no matter on what level,
has 'meaning': the phoneme, the morpheme, the sememe are not mere
noises or combinations of noises because they are 'meaningful'. But
then there is another requirement for a message-unit and it is its
completeness, i.e. readiness to be used any moment. The linguistic
units that convey any message as far as communication goes are: the
morpheme, the word, the sentence. Which is the unit that meets the
requirements stated above?

2. The morpheme
The morpheme has lexical meaning but it is rather hazy since the
unit is not grammatically complete. Thus work- as morpheme is to be
distinguished from play- on the basis of semantics. Otherwise no other
distinction could be made. The same morpheme can be found in the
words work sb. and work vb. where contrary to the previously rather
amorphous state of the meaning, the meaning of the morpheme workcould be described as substantival, in the former word and as verbal in
the latter. The grammatical incompleteness of the morpheme prevents it
to be able to fulfill the function of 'messenger'.
Every sentence as such conveys a message. And it is in the forms
of sentences that communication is carried out. But from the point of
view of its nature only the structure of a sentence is constant. Otherwise
its contents (the meaning of the sentence) changes depending on the
lexical meaning of its components. So that from the grammatical point
of view a sentence is complete but in actual fact it is constructed in the
process of communication since its components as lexical units are in
the majority of cases, or even as a rule, different.

41

3. The word
The unit that is semantically and grammatically complete and
ready to be used in communication without any changes is the word.
The next thing to find is what makes the word such a unit.
Every word has its phonetical, lexical and grammatical aspect.
a) Phonetical aspect. In the flow of speech one can distinguish
separate segments in terms of sounds whenever there is a stop.
The latter occurs when the speaker takes a breath. In normal
speech one does not take a breath before every word. It may
happen that a breath is taken in the middle of a word and the
pauses in the flow of speech do not necessarily mark separate
words. As far as intonation goes it affects the sentence rather
than the separate word. The separate word is affected by
intonation only in special cases in the sentence or when it
represents a one-member sentence.
Stress is likewise unreliable as a distinctive feature of the word.
On the one hand in the flow of speech there are words which bear no
stress at all. 'It is not right.' Not may bear no stress and will be
contracted to n't: 'It isn't right.' Is may bear no stress and then: 'It's not
right.'
On the other hand there are words with a double stress: falsification ['f:lsifi'kein], espionage ['espia'n:].
Besides there are no rules for specific sounds or combinations of
sounds universal for all languages to mark the beginning and the end
of word. Even within one language there are certain combinations
that may occur only at the beginning or only at the end, but in the
majority of cases they are not many.
From the point of the general acoustic effect of a word everybody
knows that in a language there exist different words with the same
complex of sounds the homonyms. The fact that bore 'that which
is bored', bore 'a tiresome or uncongenial person', and bore 'a
tide-wave of unusual height', have the same complex of sounds [b:]
does not mean that they are one word.
All these cases show that the phonemes in themselves could
hardly be a criterion for distinguishing the separate word.
b) Lexical aspect. From the lexical or rather the lexico-semantical aspect the word may express one or several notions.
These notions are in various relations among themselves.
c) There are words expressing one notion. They can be simple or
compound: table, chair, hair, door, student; forehead,
blackbird, runaway, fountain pen, etc. There are words
expressing several notions: school bag, milk-man, etc. With
compound words there is an additional difficulty which arises
from the fact that the meaning of the components may be

42

idiomatic. Thus: railway, goldfish, white-wash but lily-of-the

valley, first night, matter-of-fact, etc.

43

On the other hand there are whole phrases and even sentences'
which express one notion: 'one cloud is enough to eclipse all the sun',
'the cat's pajamas', etc.
In a word, the lexico-semantical aspect alone cannot be a criterion
for distinguishing the word as a separate item.
c) Grammatical aspect. Every word is considered to be a word
only if it is grammatically formed. The complex of sounds and the
lexical meaning are in a latent, amorphous condition unless they are
organized by the grammatical rules and thus follow certain grammatical
patterns.
Let us consider the following example: look sb., look vb. looker
sb., looking vbl. sb. All these words have the root look-. The noun look
meaning 'the action or an act of looking' is formed from the root lookand the morphological markers of the English noun, i.e. the respective
paradigmatic endings. In English the pattern is the following:
SingularPlural
Common
zero
s
Genetive
's
s'
So that when we say that the word look is a noun we mean that it
follows the morphological pattern given above which on its own part
enables it to function in a specific way on the syntactical level.
The verb to look meaning 'to direct one's sight' is also formed from
the root look- and the morphological features typical of the English verb.
The verb to look has tenses, special forms for the active and passive,
finite and non-finite forms, etc. It differs from the noun look in
morphological pattern and from there also in syntactical function.
The noun looker is formed from the root look- and the suffix -er
which is lexico-grammatical in character. When added to roots, this
suffix forms agent nouns. That means that the moment a root is
combined with it the whole item acquires the character of a noun which
in terms of grammatical structure means that it follows the
morphological and syntactical patterns of the noun.
The verbal noun looking meaning 'look, expression or countenance,
appearance' is formed from the root look- and the suffix -ing. The latter
is also lexico-grammatical in character. It is a formative of abstract
nouns of action when combined with verbal roots (if one could describe
a root having a grammatical category).
The root look- might be considered as being verbal in character.
This is not exactly apparent in the root itself but could be traced in its
semantics mainly in the different words in which it appears. But this is
not at all important for the grammatical characteristics of the words in
which it appears. The above four words belong to different classes of
words (parts of speech) despite the fact that all

44

of them have the same root look-. So that in order for this root or any
other to become a word it has to acquire the characteristic features of a
noun, a verb etc., i.e. it has to follow the morphological and syntactical
patterns of those respective grammatical categories.
In English this problem becomes somewhat complicated because of
the disintegration of the paradigmatic system which leads to an
unification of forms.
There are two fundamental problems connected with the word as a
basic linguistic unit. They are formulated and worked out by Smirnitzki 1
the problem of separateness of the word ( ) and
the problem of identity (). In his two articles Smirnitzki gives
a key for a better understanding of the character of the word. It seems to
me that his point of view which is expressed with much clarity will be
far-reaching and will give a new impetus to the study of the word.
From the point of view of the first problem we may say that a word
must have meaning and must be grammatically shaped. The most
important factor determining it as a separate unit however is
grammatical completeness. Let us go back to our examples: look sb. and
look vb. are two separate words because they belong to two different
grammatical patterns.
When we speak of a word we usually have in mind the form in
which we find it in the dictionary: the nominative singular for nouns, the
infinitive for verbs, etc. This is not quite correct. These are only
forms of the corresponding parts of speech conventionally assumed as
basic. What is more, this arrangement is based on the structure of the
classical languages Greek and Latin and it can hardly be applicable to all
existing linguistic structures.
The word in itself is a small microsystem. Let us examine again
look sb. and look vb.
LOOK sb.
Singular
Plural
Common
look
looks
Genitive
look's
looks'
LOOK vb.
Simple Press. T. Simple Past T.
Pres. Perf. T.
Past Perf. T.
Future, etc
look looks
looked
have looked
had looked
shall look
will
look
Non-finite forms: to look inf., looking pres. part., looked past part.,
looking vbl. sb.

45

1
. . , 1) K o , .
, , 1952; 2) .
, , 1954

46

It is not possible to maintain that look sb. and look vb, are one
word because it is obvious that the noun follows one grammatical
pattern while the verb an entirely different one. So that when we say
look sb. this cannot mean only the common form singular but all the
other forms of the pattern of the noun. The same applies for the verb
look. It is not only the infinitive but all the existing forms. The only
thing in common between the two words is their common root and
some homonymous forms.
From the point of view of identity of the word the form look
the common form of the singular and looks the common form of the
plural, are 'two forms of one and the same word'. While look the
common form of the singular, and look the first, second person
singular, first, second, third person plural of the Simple Present Tease,
are two forms of two different words but they happen to be homonyms.
Speaking of grammatical forms we must point out that there are
no forms entirely void of meaning. The meaning of grammatical forms
is called grammatical. We understand by it the meaning of the form
which is independent of the lexical meaning of the item. Thus the
ending -s in the English nouns indicates plurality. The ending -s in a
verbal form marks the third person singular of the Simple Present
Tense, etc. These meanings of the s-forms are independent of the
lexical meaning of the items: table tables, chair chairs, girl
girls, etc. where the forms are plural and the -s is the marker of
plurality not of the lexical meaning of the word.
Grammatical completeness of the word is the most sound criterion; in distinguishing it as an independent unit. This becomes even
clearer with compound words and phrases. What makes formations like
bare-headed one word? Even if we assume that bare is adjectival in
character and head substantival, the marker -ed has moulded them
into an item which is adjectival in character since -ed itself is an
adjectival suffix. So that neither bare or head function in the compound
as independent units, as words. They are only roots forming a
compound adjective which in its turn is an independent unit, a word.
Maintaining that grammatical completeness is the most important
feature of the word as a unit does not mean that the meaning and the
complex of sounds are of no importance whatsoever. The grammatical
factor is pertinent when there is a complex of sounds and meaning.
There are cases when in spite of the knowledge of the grammatical patterns we cannot understand the meaning. Here is a short story
by the famous American humourist, James Thurber, illustrating some
misunderstandings which may occur despite the good knowledge of
grammar.

47

The secret life of James Thurber

... Two years ago my wife and I, looking for a house to buy,
called on a firm of real-estate agents in New Milford. One of the
members of the firm, scrabbing through a metal box containing many
keys, looked up to say, 'The key to Roxbury House isn't here.' His
partner replied: 'It's a common lock. A skeleton will let you in.' I was
suddenly once again five years old, with wide eyes and open mouth. I
pictured the Roxbury house as would have pictured it as a small boy, a
house of such dark and nameless horrors as it have never crossed the
mind of our little bat-biter.
It was of sentences like that, nonchalantly tossed off by real-estate
dealers, great-aunts, clergymen, and other such prosaic persons that the
enchanted private world of my early boyhood was made. In this world,
businessmen who phoned their wives to say that they were tied up at
the office sat roped to their swivel chairs, and probably gagged, unable
to move or to speak, except somehow, miraculously, to telephone;
hundreds of thousands of businessmen tied to their chairs in hundreds
of thousands of offices in every city of my fantastic cosmos. An
especially fine note about the binding of all the businessmen in all the
cities was that whoever did it always did it around five o'clock in the
afternoon.
Then there was the man who left town under a cloud. Sometimes
I saw him all wrapped in the cloud, and invisible, like a cat in a burlap
sack. At other times it floated about, the size of a sofa, three or four
feet above his head, following him wherever he went. One could think
about the man under the cloud before going to sleep; the image of him
wandering around from town to town was a sure soporific.
Not so the mental picture of a certain Mrs. Huston, who had been
terribly cut up when her daughter died on the operating table. I could
see the doctors too vividly, just before they sat upon Mrs. Huston with
their knives, and I could hear them. 'Now, Mrs. Huston, will we get up
on the table like a good girl, or will we have to be put there?' I could
usually fight off Mrs. Huston before I went to sleep, but she frequently
got into my dreams, and sometimes she still does.
I remember the grotesque creature that came to haunt my meditations when one evening my father said to my mother, 'What did
Mrs. Johnson say when you told her about Betty?' and my mother
replied, 'Oh, she was all ears'. There were many other wonderfull
figures in the secret, surrealist landscapes of my youth: the old lady
who was always up in the air; the husband who did not seem to be able
to put his foot down, the man who lost his head during a fire but was
still able to run out of the house yelling, the young lady who was in
reality a soiled dove. It was a world that,

48

of necessity, one had to keep to oneself and brood over in silence,

because it would fall to pieces at the touch of words. If you brought it
out into the light of actual day and put it to the test of questions, your
parents would try to laugh the miracles away, or they would take your
temperature and put you to bed. (Since I always ran a temperature
whenever it was taken, I was put to bed and left there with Mrs.
Huston.)
Such a world as the world of my childhood is alas, not yearproof. It is a ghost, to use Henley's words, gleams, flickers, vanishes
away. I think it must have been the time my little cousin Frances came
to visit us that it began surely and forever to dissolve. I came into the
house one rainy dusk and asked where Frances was. 'She is', said our
cook, 'up in the front room crying her heart out.' The fact that a person
could cry so hard that his heart would come out of his body, as
perfectly shaped and glossy as a red velvet pincushion, was news to
me. For some reason I had never heard the expression, so common in
American families, whose hopes and dreams run so often counter to
attainment. I went upstairs and opened the door of the front room.
Frances, who was three years older than I, jumped up off the bed and
ran past me, sobbing, and down the stairs.
My search for her heart took some fifteen minutes. I tore the bed
apart and kicked up the rugs and even looked in the bureau drawers. It
was no good. I looked out of the window at the rain and the darkening
sky. My cherished mental image of the man under the cloud began to
grow dim and fade away. I discovered that all alone in a room I could
face the thought of Mrs. Huston with cold equanimity. Downstairs in
the living room, Frances was still crying, I began to laugh.'
'J. Thurber', The Modern Library, New York, 1945.
Similar experiences are not uncommon with children because of
lack of experience. Later in life we learn that a word is not only a
grammatical unit but a lexical unit too. That a word is not one
dimensional. It usually has more than one meaning which becomes
apparent when it enters different combinations of words.
The following chapters are dedicated to these problems.

IV. Semantic and other relations of the

word
1. Plurality of meaning (polysemy)

49

Human thought and knowledge are in constant development. Our

knowledge becomes wider and deeper, our thought keener and more
penetrating. This holds good for humanity as a whole and forevery
individual as well. It has already been mentioned that language reflects
thought in its finest nuances. One would therefore expect new words to
crop up for every new notion. A superficial glance at the vocabulary of
any language will reveal a steady growth going on. The New Oxford
Dictionary has recorded nearly half a million words including about
50,000 obsolete ones while the Anglo-Saxon Dictionary has recorded
about 30,000 words. Using King Alfred's age (the 9th century of our
era) as a starting point, that means that in about 11 centuries the bulk of
the English vocabulary has increased by 420,000 words approximately.
Does that mean that over such a period of time human knowledge has
been enriched with as many new notions for which the corresponding
new words in English appeared? A closer examination of the
dictionary will provide the proper answer. It is impossible for any
language, no matter how rich, to have a separate word for every
separate notion. Even if it were, no human mind could absorb or retain
all the innumerable words. So that from the purely functional side of
language, let alone its specificness, that would be ineffectual. The fact
is that a new word is not always coined for every new notion. Very
often a new notion is expressed by an old word which acquires a new
meaning or a new shade of meaning. That is why most words have
more than one meaning.
Objects and phenomena are not one dimensional. They are a
unity of diverse components and are related to other phenomena and
objects by many different links. This complexity of reality is reflected
in our minds, it is moulded and expressed by means of language. It
was already pointed out that the word stands for an extra-linguistic
item as a whole. On the other hand in the centre of the meaning of the
word stands the linguistic reflection of the notion about this extralinguistic item. Every notion is a complex of the most typical
characteristic features of an item. It disregards the very specific
features. One may view one and the same item from various aspects
and would like to stress one or another of its diverse peculiarities or
links with other objects. Some specific features of a given extralinguistic fact may become thus important because they in their turn
can be traced in other facts, etc. So that these features will become the
most typical and give rise to another notion. If we take for example the
word 'head'. The first meaning given in the Advanced Learner's
Dictionary of Current English by A. S. Hornby, etc. is: 'That part of the
body above the neck'. Obviously these features formed the notion. But
the head as an extra-linguistic fact has other specific- features as for
instance: it is the seat of the brain where all mental processes take

50

place and also the seat of all centres which command every part of the
human body. Also as far as its position goes it is the topmost part of
the body, etc. On the basis of these latter features of the extra-linguistic
item head it is related or rather shares them with other extra-linguistic
facts which do not

51

have anything to do with it nor with the human body. The commanding
position of the head as to the other parts of the body is the same as the
commanding position in any other organism or enterprise. From here the
notion of commanding position becomes important. Instead of coining a
new word the old word for 'head' is used but now with an additional
meaning of 'commanding position' or as the above quoted dictionary
reads: 'the chief or most important position; the place of authority or
control; a chief or leader;'. The fact that the head is the topmost part of
the body relates it with other extra-linguistic facts which also are the
topmost part. Thus, the same dictionary reads: 'the top or highest part, as
at the head of the page'. This feature brings about the forming of a new
notion but instead of coining a new word for it the old word for 'head' is
used with an additional connotation, etc. In all the additional meanings
there is something of the basic meaning retained. If we take the same
word 'head' as an example its picture with all the additional meanings
will be something like the following: '1) that part of the body above the
neck They cut his head off... 2) that side of a coin on which the head
of a ruler (king, queen, etc.) appears Heads or tails?; 3) a head's
length The horse won by a head.; 4) the chief or most important
position at the head of a businness; a) a chief or leader the head of
a family; 5) a single person 50 dinners at 5/ = a head, a) an individual
animal 50 head of cattle; 6) the top or the highest part at the head
of the page, etc.'

As the picture shows, the various new connotations stick to the

basic one and form a cluster. What is more, each connotation can become
the center of another cluster as is exemplified by connotations 4(4a) and
5(5a). Or one can imagine the various meanings as branches of a tree
where the trunk represents the basic meaning and each new connotation -

branches from the trunk. Then each branch can shoot off smaller
branches, etc.

The various connotations of a polysemantic word have different

ability to combine with other words not from the grammatical point of
view but semantically. Grammatically the various meanings cannot and
do not change the grammatical characteristics of the word. An analysis
of the examples quoted from Hornby's dictionary will explain this
statement. When the word 'head' is used with its 5th connotation it
presupposes statistical information (in the widest sense of the word).
No such information is needed for the connotations of 4 though with 4a
one may have plurality the heads of these families... But in all these
cases the word 'head' remains a noun.
To put the question pragmatically it is the context (linguistic
and extra-linguistic) which gives the clue as to which connotation of a
given word functions at the moment.
Another relevant point to bear in mind is that a certain shade of
meaning, may be short lived. Other times the new meaning may
become the, most important and throw a shadow over the original one.
This development may reach a stage when the original one even
becomes completely obsolete, as is exemplified by the word pen. It is
of Latin origin (penna) meaning 'feather'. Since during certain historical
periods feathers were used for writing, the word 'pen' acquired the
connotation 'a feather for writing'. In contemporary English the word
pen exists but it has nothing to do with feather. In the additional
connotation 'feather for writing' obviously the more important part was
not feather but something for writing. So this is how the word pen
(originally feather) acquired the new meaning 'an instrument for
writing'. Since feathers are not used for writing anymore the word pen
lost its relation to feather.
This is the logistic and linguistic explanation of polysemy. But as
is well known the process of thinking is accompanied also by
psychological elements. They are what we call the associations. With
polysemy it is obvious that association plays a very important role.
Specific features of a given extra-linguistic fact are associated with
features of another or other extra-linguistic facts and thus they are
related.
The complexity of reality reflected in thought and language
makes the classification of the different types of polysemy a very
difficult task. The classification submitted here is an attempt to take
into consideration the inner aspects and relations of the word as a
'microcosmos', on the one hand and its relations with the outer world,
on the other.

a) 'Shifts in application are the main source of polysemy.'I Let us

take a few examples. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary gives the
following information on:

I Ullman, The Principles of Semantics, Glasgow, 1951, p. 119 . .

. , , 1956 . . 162

Green adj. 'Of the colour which in the spectrum is intermediate

between blue and yellow...' When applied to fruits or plants
oftenimplying some additional sense: '1. Unripe This apple is still
green. 2. Young and tender Don't hurt the green blade for you shall
have not corn. 3. Vigorous, flourishing. 4. Retaining the natural
moisture, not dried Green crop a crop used for food while in an
unripe state, as opposed to a grain crop, hay crop, etc.'
Cry vb. '1. To entreat, beg, beseech, implore in a loud and excited
voice. The drowning man cried for help. 2. To announce publicly.
The proclamation was cried throughout the country. 3. To shed
tears. The child was crying for his mother.'
In these two words the shifting of meaning expresses a given
aspect of the basic notion. This type of shift does not reflect external
connections. As Henry Bradley puts it, it is an expression of the various
'inclusive senses'. A green plant first is green in colour, then this may
be taken to indicate unripeness, or as a mark of being young and tender.
No matter which nuance of the meaning one needs and uses
respectively, the basic connotation of green as a colour is always
present. The same is true of cry.
An interesting example of this kind of shift is to be found in the
verb to wear. One wears a dress and from long use it wears out.
Obviously here the word wear is used in two opposite meanings. It is
only the context that makes clear which one is used. This is not the
only instance when a word has two meanings which are antonyms. The
odd thing here is that in practice ambiguity and misunderstanding
seldom arise. In 'I need socks that will wear' and 'I need socks that will
not wear' properly speaking the context does not help to clarify the
meaning of wear. It is on the assumption that nobody will want socks
which will wear soon, that one believes wear to be used in the first
sentence with the meaning 'endure continued use', while in the second
'damage, attenuate or alter, b rubbing or use'.
Specialization is another source of plurality of meaning. A word
acquires additional meanings when used as a technical term.
Action sb. '1. The process or condition of acting or doing. 2. A
thing done, a deed. 3. The thing represented as done in a drama; 4. The
way in which an instrument acts, also the mechanism by which this is
effected.' The same word as a technical term means: '1. The taking of
legal process to establish a claim or obtain remedy. 2. A legal process
or suit. 3. Active operation against the enemy, a fight 4. A devotional
exercise.'
Cock sb. 'The male of the common domestic fowl.' As a technical
term: '1. A spout with an appliance for controlling the flow of liquids
through it, a tap. 2. In fire-arms, a lever or spring hammer, part of the
mechanism for discharging the piece. 3. The pointer of balance. 4. A

bracket attached to the plate of a watch or clock to support the outer

end of the pivot of a wheel or pendulum, etc.'

Words denoting parts of the body are very frequently used as

technical terms: head, hand, finger, foot stand for various mechanical
parts.
The reverse tendency is also to be observed. A technical term,
due to one thing, or another may acquire various non-technical
meanings.
Compass sb., comes from the Latin cum passus and originally
meant 'an instrument for taking measurements and describing circles
consisting of two straight and equal legs connected at one end by a
moveable joint. Now usually in the plural.' Besides there are a few
other meanings of this word: '1. A circumference. 2. Space, area; range
of voice, roundabout way. 3. An instrument for determining the
magnetic meridian, or one's direction, etc.'
It should be noted that with all cases of specialization, no matter
whether the shifting is in one direction or in another, it overlaps the
limits of the word itself. The causes for this kind of shifting are not
confined only to possibilities afforded by the intrinsic complexity of
the word but they may lie in the multifarious connections with the
outer world. Nonetheless, here too the different shifts preserve the
basic connotation of the word.
c) Figurative expressions also give rise to plurality in meaning.
'He combed the streets for his old friends, Pilon and Danny and
Pablo could not find them. ('Tortilla Flat', J. Steinbeck)', 'The
porters shrieked ferocious things like "attonshion" as they
elbowed past, walking mountains of baggage.' (Sinclair Lewis,
'Dodsworth'), 'If you're going my way, he said, I can give you a
lift.' (J. Galsworthy, "The Man of Property'), 'Oh, it's all Greek,
I know, and I won't bother you any more with it.' (J. London,
'Martin Eden'), 'Since the ball at Roger's he had seen too
clearly how the land lay he could put two and two together
quicker than most men.' (J. Galsworthy 'The Man of Property'),
'... the lovely cared-for chestnut beast stepping delicately on
the hot macadam, like an expensive toy a millionaire buys for
his children.' (Gr. Greene, 'Brighton Rock').
These few examples show that even proper names and numerals
which are supposed to be void of emotional colouring may be used
figuratively, and so acquire another shade of meaning. No matter how
far the shift has gone still it can be felt that the basic connotation is
preserved, with the exception of the last example, perhaps, where the
fact that there is a grammatical shift as well, points to a practically
complete separation of the word and that it has become a homonym.
d) Borrowings. In English a word of foreign origin may
have a different meaning from what it had in the language
from which it was borrowed. In some instances the old

meaning may still influence the new one, especailly if the

peoples speaking the two languages continue to be in close
contact.

Intrigue vb. '1. To carry on a secret amour. 2. To carry

onunderhand plotting or scheming; to employ secret influence for the
accomplishment of designs; to make an intrigue.' Those are the meanings the word had in English. Due to recent French influence today this
word can be used as 'to incite the curiosity or interest of. The story
itself does not greatly intrigue us. (1905).'
Actual adj. '1. Existing in act or fact. 2. Existing or acting at the
time.' Under French influence it acquired the meaning 'concerned with,
the present'.
Impayable adj. '1. That cannot be paid.' In French the word is used
with the slightly affected meaning of priceless for absurdity'. The latter
was adopted in colloquial English and now the word has acquired a
secondary meaning 'beyond anything, impudence'.
e) Mechanism of shifting of the meaning. On analysing the
mechanism of the shifting of meaning one might say that there is one
basic process: radiation. Concatenation is actually radiation of a second,
third, etc. degree.
Radiation is a model in which the basic meaning is at the centre
and all other connotations are directly connected with it. Represented
graphically that will give a centre with rays fanning out of it. A good
example of radiation is afforded by the word foot with its many
meanings.
Foot sb. '1. a) The lowest part of the leg beyond the ankle-joint; b)
The end of a bed, grave, etc. towards which the feet are placed; c) The
part of the stocking, etc. which covers the foot. 2. Prosody A division
of a verse, consisting of a number of syllables one of which has the
principal stress. 3. A lineal measure originally based on the length of a
man's foot. 4. Analogous uses: a) The lower part, on which an object
rests, the base; b) Zool. Applied to various organs of locomotion or
attachment in invertebrate animals; c) Botany. The part of a petal by
which it is attached. 5. a) The lowest part or bottom, as of an eminence, a
well, a ladder, staircase, etc.; b) The beginning or end of a slope (of a
bridge). c) The lower end, bottom (of a page, a list, a table, etc.). A closer
examination of these meanings reveals the following picture: The basic
meaning is the first one. The next two are directly connected with it on
the basis of similarity of place, position. The term prosody is also
directly related to foot but only from another point of view, probably
through the idea of beating time with the foot. The 'lineal measure'
speaks for itself. The analogous uses: the connotation 'base' is founded
again on similarity of place, position. The zoological and botanical terms
are both directly connected with the basic meaning due to similarity of
the functions of the corresponding organs and their position. All the
meanings in group 5. are also directly connected with the original
meaning on the basis of similarity in position.

Ball sb. '1. A globular body. 2. Any planetary body, especially the
earth. 3. A globular body to play with. 4. A missile projected

from an engine of war. 5. Pyrotechny and Mil. A globular case filled

with combustible. 6. A small globe of wool, etc. used in voting by
'ballot'. 7. Ball of the eye originally the pupil, now the eye itself
within the socket. 8. A round mass of any substance. 9. A kind of small
cushion used by printers inking the type. ,10. Any rounded protuberance of the body ; especially of the thumb and great toe.'
This word is an interesting example of how one single aspect of,
the object, its shape, gives rise to so many different nuances and
meanings. All of them are connected with the basic meaning without
having any relation whatever among themselves.

The basic meaning and the 9 additional

connotations of ball

Concatenation is the other variant of

shifting. The term is of Latin origin and means 'union by linking
together', union in series or chain. And that is exactly what the model
looks like. Let us take as an example the word:
Heart sb. Its first meaning is 'the bodily organ'. Graphically we
may put it in the centre. A figurative meaning protrudes from it: 'The
seat of feeling, understanding and thought'. Out of the latter several
nuances crop up: '1. Mind in the widest sense. 2. The seat of one's
inmost thoughts and secret feelings. 3. Intent. 4. The seat of emotion
generally. 5. The seat of love. 6. The seat of courage. 7. The moral
sense, conscience'. All these meanings are radially linked to the
meaning 'seat of feelings'. On its own part the ray 'seat of feelings'
becomes the centre of two other rays: 'the soul and the spirit'. The ray
'intent' has the shades: 'will, purpose, inclination, desire'. Linked to the
basic meaning due to similarity in position is 'something having a
central position' 'A good apple rotten at the heart' (Shakespeare). Or
another ray: 'the vital part or principle' ('The Heart of the Matter', Gr.
Greene); 'Something of the shape of a heart' 'The Queen of Hearts'
the name of a card.
The graphic picture of the meanings of the word 'heart' is
example of radiation and concatenation.
With concatenation also there is a great possibility for a shade of
meaning to lose all connections with the basic notion of the world and
thus grow into a separate word. Often there are border-line cases when

it is difficult to decide whether it is a nuance of meaning of a word or

already the formation of a new word (homonymy).
41

Plurality of meaning is very often made use of in artistic works

in poetry as well as in prose. Many puns are based on plurality of
meaning. This aspect of the problem belongs to stylistics so that here
I shall give only a few examples as an illustration: 'Little Ann
James, are you really James? James No, my proper name's John.
Little Ann Oh! And is Charles's an improper name too?' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Foundations').
Plurality of meaning may sometimes lead to ambiguity and
misunderstanding. As has been already pointed out the context helps
in many ways to clarify the meaning of a word but still there are
cases when even that is not of much help. When one makes the
remark 'Funny.' and gives no further explanation, the American joke
is quite to the point: 'Do you mean funny "haha" or funny "peculiar"?'
However such cases are not very frequent and besides there is always
the possibility for further explanation.

2. Homonymy
a) Character. Homonyms are words different in meaning but
identical in form. Homonymy is in a way the opposite of polysemy.
With polysemy a single word has several connotations while with
homonymy different words coincide in form. Polysemy is inherent in
language which, as the basic means of communication, must express
all nuances of thought, while thought, in its own turn, is a reflection
of reality. Since it is impossible to have a separate word for every
motion, language resorts to plurality of meaning, as was already pointed out. Plurality of meaning (polysemy) is in conformity with the
natural and specific development of language. ' ... Certain relations
among lexico-semantical variants in the system of a language reiterate, they are typical and regular. In contemporary English such
relations are in particular: relations of metaphorical nature as in deep
(deep river) and deep (deep learning, deep sorrow, deep sleep),
relations of metonymycal character as between the meanings container and contained (pot, kettle, big kettle, boiling kettle), relations
between a more special meaning and a more general meaning as man
(person), man (male person), man (one); engine
(machine) and engine (steam-engine). On the contrary, the relations of meaning between homonyms are of solitary, isolated, exceptional character.'1
***

64

It is of paramount importance to bear in mind that homonymy

is the result of coincidence. Due to various grammatical, phonological and semantic developments which unquestionably take place in
conformity with linguistic rules the forms of words change. And at a
given period some words become identical in form. So that, properly
speaking, homonymy has to be approached on the synchronical
plane. A diachronical investigation will produce evidence only as
regards the causes.
b) Complete homonymy. Let us analyze the following homonyms: calf 'the young of any bovine animal', calf 'the fleshy
hinder part of the shank of leg'; club 'a heavy staff for use as a
weapon, thin at one end for the hand and thicker at the other', club
'an association or persons meeting periodically'; flight 'the action or
manner of flying or moving through the air with or as with wings',
flight 'the action of fleeing or running away from or as from
danger'; herd 'to go in a herd', herd 'to tend (to sheep or cattle)';
gloss 'a word inserted between the lines or in the margin as an
explanatory rendering of a word in the text', gloss 'superficial
lustre'; box 'to furnish or fit with a box" box 'to beat, to thrash';
fine 'to punish by a fine', fine 'to make or become fine'; finery
'smartness, gaudy decoration', finery 'a hearth where cast-iron is
made malleable or in which steel is made from pig-iron'. I In these pairs
it is not only the forms given in the dictionary that are homonymous
but all the remaining grammatical forms of these words as well.
Hence: calf 'the young of the cow', calves calf 'part of the
leg', calves and the genitive forms could be calf's calf's except that
the of-genitive is to be preferred with the second word.
The same holds good for verbs box 'strike with the hand or
fist' box 'put into a box', boxes boxes, boxed boxed p.t., boxed
boxed pp., etc. So that each form of one word has its corresponding
homonym in the other word which is a homonym belonging to the
same grammatical form. This type of homonymy might be called
complete since there is perfect coinciding of form both phonetical and
grammatical. It is possible only with words belonging to one and the
same grammatical category.
c) Partial homonymy is more frequently to be met with. Several
cases according to variance in relationship may be distinguished.
1) Words, or rather some forms of given words, may coincide in
phonetical and grammatical features: lie (I) 'to be in a prostrate or
recumbent position', lie (II) 'to tell a lie'. The Present Tense of both
verbs goes as follows: lie lie, lie lie, lies lies. Each form of the

I Meanings quoted from the Shorter Oxford Dictionary as is the case with all
meanings quoted in this work

65

Simple Present Tense of the first verb has its corresponding homonym
in the Simple Present Tense of the second.

66

But that is not the case with the remaining forms: the Simple Past Tense
of lie (I) is lay while that of lie (II) is lied, the Past Participle of lie (I) is
lain while that of lie (II) is lied.
In this case we also have to deal with words belonging to one and
the same grammatical category. The homonymy is partial because it is
restricted to several grammatical forms only and is not carried through
the whole paradigm. On the other hand, as far as the homonyms go they
are identical in phonetical as well as grammatical form.
2) Partial homonymy may occur with words belonging to one
grammatical category when only the phonetical form is
identical, not the grammatical. Lay the Past Tense of lie (I) has
its homonym in lay the Present Tense of the verb meaning
'to cause to lie'. The two words are verbs but they are
homonymous only as far as their phonetical form is concerned.
Grammatically they differ since the first is the form for the
Past Tense while the other is a present form. The so-called
differentiated plurals of nouns can also be classified here: arms
'armament', is a homonym to the plural of arm 'part of
the human body'; colours 'banner', is a homonym to the
plural of colour; lights 'understanding', is a homonym to the
plural of light; spirits 'alcohol, mood' is a homonym to the
plural of spirit, etc.
3) Words belonging to different grammatical categories may
become partial homonyms. Provided conj., is a homonym to
the forms of the Simple Past Tense and the Past Participle of
the verb to provide provided. The preposition considering is
a homonym to considering the Present Participle of the verb
to consider.
Between adjectives and the corresponding flat adverbs there is this
same type of partial homonymy. We might even put them into separate
subgroups, since both adjective and adverb are unchangeable
grammatical categories, i.e. they have one form in English. Thus there
is no point in discussing paradigms here. The only variation in form is
provided by the degrees of comparison which are exactly the same with
the adjectives as with the adverbs: deep adj. deep adv.; cheap adj.
cheap adv., loud adj. loud adv., right adj. right adv., deeper,
deepest, adj. deeper, deepest, adv., etc.

67

Another interesting case of partial homonymy is due to conversion. This type of word formation is very productive in contemporary
English with every evidence of becoming practically the most
productive. The point of interest here concerning homonymy is that
these words belong to different grammatical categories so that the
homonymy is partial. A few examples will be enough for our purposes
here. The question of conversion is treated in more detail on p. 148
157 of this work. 'I'll just go and nose about a bit.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Man of Property'), 'It's very kind of you, sir.' 'You mustn't sir me... (Gr.
Greene, 'The Heart of the Matter'), 'The house of thought was closed, its
windows boarded up, and he was its shadowy caretaker ...' (J. London,
'Martin Eden'), ... when I bethought me how deep might be the romance
in the lives of some of those who elbowed me daily in the busy streets
of the town in which I resided ...' (E. Gaskell, 'Mary Barton'), 'James,
his fixed grey-blue eye corkscrewing round some secret anxious image,
began again to bite his finger.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Man of Property').
To nose vb. is homonymous with nose sb. and noses vb., 3rd p. s.
Pres. T. is homonymous with noses sb.pl. The remaining forms of the
verb have no corresponding homonyms in the paradigm of the
substantive. The same with sir vb. and sir sb., board vb. board sb.,
elbow vb. elbow sb., corkscrew vb. corkscrew sb.; etc.
There is partial homonymy between words like: since adj. and
since conj. by prep. and by adv., but conj., but prep., but adv. and a
good many other prepositions, adverbs and conjunctions. Many like
since adj. and since conj. have the same etymological origin but already
in Middle English these split into two distinct words belonging to two
different parts of speech.
d) Formal classification. In Modern English there is a thorough
discrepancy between spelling and pronunciation on the synchronical
plane. This may be the basis for a more formal classification of
homonyms.
1) Homophones are homonyms which coincide in sound but
differ in spelling and meaning:
know [nou] no [nou]; knew [nju:] new [nju:]; blue [blu:]
blew [blu:]; son [sn] sun [sn]; read [red] red [red]; knight [nait]
night [nait]; right [rait] write [rait]; rode [roud] road [roud];
ring [ri] wring [ri]; missed [mist] mist [mist]; site [sait]
sight [sait]; tail [teil] tale [teil]; pete [pi:t] [pi:t]; hair [h]
hare [h]; pair [p] pear [p]; pale [peil] - pail [peil], etc.
2) Homographs are homonyms coinciding in spelling while
differing in sound and meaning:
Bow [bou] 'a weapon for shooting arrows', bow [bau] 'an
inclination of the body or head in salutation'.

68

Lead [led] 'the heaviest of the base metals', lead [l:d] - 'to
conduct'; row [rou] 'a number of persons or things arranged in a
line', row [rau] 'a noisy dispute or quarrel'; tear [ti] 'a drop of the
limpid fluid secreted by the lachrymal gland appearing in or flowing
from the eye', tear [te] 'to pull assunder by force', etc.
3) Perfect homonyms are those identical both in spelling
and sound, differing, of course, in meaning:

69

Grave [greiv] 'a place of burial', grave [greiv] 'serious,

important'; lap [lp] 'one of the skirts of a coat', lap [lp] 'to take
up liquid with the tongue', long [lo] 'great in measurement from
end to end', long [lo] 'to have a yearning, desire'; miss [mis] 'to
fail to hit', miss [mis] 'a young unmarried wo-man'; pole [poul] 'a
stake', pole [poul] 'each of the extremities of the axis'; rose [rouz]
'the flower', rose [rouz] Past Tense of the verb to rise; sink [sik]
'a pool or pit formed in the ground for the reception of waste water',
sink [sik] 'to become submerged in water'; shoot [u:t] 'a young
branch which shoots from the main stock of a tree, plant, etc.', shoot
[u:t] 'to go swiftly and suddenly', etc.
e) Sources of homonymy. Homonymy is the result of various
processes which take place in a language. Since it refers to coincidence
of form it is obvious that the shorter the words the greater the chances
for such coincidence. English provides a favourable basis for
homonymy as it abounds in monosyllables.
A synchronical analysis will ascertain the bare fact but it is
diachronical investigation that will reveal the processes which result in
the fact of homonomy.
1) Homonymy refers to the form of the word, i.e. spelling,
pronunciation and grammatical structure. Changes in these spheres
therefore will account for homonymic results. Limitation of space and
aim here do not permit of a detailed and exhaustive account of the
phonetical and grammatical changes in English which resulted in
homonymy. It is sufficient to say that many and different
developments in both spheres have affected the forms of words and
have led to homonymy. A few examples will be enough to serve as an
illustration. They are taken haphazardly:
Right write. Old English right became in Middle English rht
which with the great vowel shift was shaped into Modern English
right [rait]. Spelling in English is conservative and it has retained the
gh, a French spelling device. Old English wrtan after the weakening
and loss of the final syllable -an, which at the same time happened to
be a characteristic feature of the infinitive as a grammatical category,
after the loss of w in initial position before an r in Middle English and
with the diphthongization of the to ai in Modern English resulted in
to write.
Wind sb. wind vb. Old English wind sb. remained the same
throughout up to the Modern English period. The Old English verb
windan through the weakening of the final syllable -an and its loss by
the end of the Middle English period reached the Modern English
period in the form of wind.
May sb. may vb. The Old French mai borrowed in English
underwent by the end of the Middle English period and the beginning

70

of the Modern English period the development of the diphthongs ai=ei

and thus Modern English may [mei] with the spelling ay remained.
The 1st pers. sing. Present Tense of the Old English Preterite-Present
verb mugan was mg. The Old English short developed into the
Modern English short a. Due to the diphthong formed in Middle
English and with the falling together of aiei the word acquired the
form may in Modern English, pronounced [mei] and preserved the old
spelling.

71

Buy vb. by prep. In late Old English the in the verb bycgan
was delabialized to i in the Northern dialects. In Middle English a
diphthong was formed due to a glide between the i and the following
palatal g resulting in a long . At the same time the ending -an was
weakened and finall dropped out. With the great vowel shift the long
was dipthongized to ai. That is how it came to Modern English to buy
[bai]. The Old English bi due to lengthening became b. With the great
vowel shift the long was diphthongized to ai hence Modern
English by [bai] the being a spelling device for an i in final position.
Meat sb. meet vb. Old English mete was lengthened to Middle
English mte. With the great vowel shift it became Modern English
meat [mi:t], spelt with ea for the Middle English . Old English metan
through the weakening of the final syllable of an and its loss
became Middle English mt which after the great vowel shift acquired
the form of meet [mi:t] spelt with ee for the Middle English .
See vb. sea sb. The final -n in Old English son was dropped
and the form in Middle English became s. With the great vowel shift
that gave Modern English see [si:], spelt with ee for Middle English .
Old English s underwent a normal development into Middle English
s which after the great vowel shift gave Modern English sea [si:],
spelt with ea for Middle English .
2) Borrowings also contribute to homonymy. The borrowed word
may preserve its spelling and pronunciation as it had been in its native
milieu or it may undergo some changes, phonetical as well as
grammatical, according to the rules of the language from which it was
borrowed. In both cases homonymy may chance to occur. The problem
of borrowings is discussed in this book under 'Basic Word Stock' and
'Vocabulary'.
French beau borrowed in English preserved its spelling and
slightly changed its pronunciation to [bou] and now has the meaning of
'a dandy'. It is a homonym to the English bow [bou].
French pen was borrowed in English and preserved its spelling,
pronunciation and meaning 'an instrument for writing'. It is a
homonym to the word of native origin pen 'small enclosure for
cows, sheep, poultry, etc. or for other purposes'.
French quai was borrowed in English. It is probably due to
changes of during the great vowel shift that the pronunciation of this
word was reshaped to [ki:]. So now in English quai [ki:] 'a wharf', is
a homonym to key [ki:].
French rein 'rein or a bridle', was preserved in English in
spelling, pronunciation and meaning. It is a homonym to rain [rein].
Greek , Latin scena, French scene was borrowed in English
from the French. With the great vowel shift the long became an so

72

that now scene [si:n] is a homonym to seen [si: n] - the Past Participle
of the verb to see, etc.

73

3) Semantic reasons play an important but indirect role in homonymy. It has already been said that a word may acquire many
connotations. By metonymy a proper name may become a common
one. For instance Job 'the name of an ancient patriarch, whose story
forms a book of the Old Testament', by metonymy has become a
synonym to 'a type of destination, of patience'. Job's comforter is 'one
who under the guise of comforting, aggravates distress.' 'Job's news is
'news of disaster'. Job's post is 'a messenger who brings such news'.
Job's tears 'a species of grass having round shining seeds
resembling tears'. In all the examples given Job's is a homonym to the
genitive of Job, the personal name. In these cases Job has acquired a
meaning and grammatical status different from the Biblical name. So
we may consider it as a case of homonymy and not of polysemy or
there is another alternative. It may be considered as a border-line case
of a word which in form is still very closely connected with its parent
word but is on the way to independence due to its acquiring a new
meaning and shifting over to another grammatical category a
common noun.
In some cases it is quite difficult to distinguish homonymy from
polysemy. In solving the problem one must take into consideration
phonetical, grammatical and semantical points. However the touchstone here remains to be social practice since many theoretical problems connected with it are not sufficiently investigated. The final
decision as to whether a case of polysemy or of homonymy is operating has to. be taken on an absolutely synchronical plane. This is so
because homonymy is a purely synchronical phenomenon.
From the point of view of contemporary English flower and flour
are homonyms. Both words come from the Old French flour. The basic
meaning of the word is 'the blossom of a plant'. In French the word was
used specifically as 'fleur de farine' 'the flower of the finest part of
the meal'. This usage was adopted in English too After that the form
flour was used with the latter sense. In order to avoid misunderstanding
the form for the meaning 'the finest part of the meal' was spelt flour
while the other meaning 'the blossom of the plant' was spelt flower. The
different meanings combined with the different spellings resulted, in
considering them as two distinctly separate words. Bank 'a raised
shelf or ridge of ground' (the bank of a river) is a homonym to bank
'an establishment for the custody of money received from or on behalf
of its customers'. If we trace back their origin we shall come to this first
word.' (The meaning "shelf, bench" was extended in Italian to that of
"counter, money-changer's table", whence "money-shop, bank", and
thus passed into other countries', says the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary. In contemporary English the two words are, kept, distinctly
apart.

74

Air 'manner, outward appearance, look', is a homonym to air

'melody'. As the Shorter Oxford Dictionary puts it, both mea-nigs
are adopted from the French. The second is an extension of the first
through the meaning 'musical mode'. Only the history of these two
words may prove that there were these two meanings to the word air.
4) Contraction (p. 141146) is also a cause for homonymy.
Digs a contracted form of diggings, colloquial for 'rooms' is a
homonym to digs 3 rd pers. sing. Present Tense of the verb to dig.
Flu(e), short for influenza, is homonymous to flew, Past Tense of
the verb to fly.
5) Dialectisms, jargonisms and children's speech are sources of
homonyms. Especially the cockney pronunciation of a and the
diphthong ai as [ai] enriches the possibilities for homonyms.
Paper in cockney sounds ['paip] thus becoming a homophone
to piper ['paip]. Day is pronounced [dai] so it becomes a
homophone to die [dai]. May sounds like [mai] and is a
homophone to my [mai].
Lag sb. 'the last or hindmost person', and lag sb. dialectal
for 'a long, narrow marshy meadow'.
Mead sb. 'an alcoholic liquor made by a fermenting mixture
of honey and water', and mead sb. dialectal or poetic for 'meadow'.
Mail sb. 'the post', and mail sb. dialectal for 'payment, tax'
(s. black-mail).
Boss sb. 'a business manager', and boss sb. 'a seat of
straw'.
Fag sb. slang 'a cigarette' and fag sb. 'that causes weariness'.
Mag sb. slang 'a half penny', and Mag a girl's name.
Mummy a child's word for 'mother', and mummy sb. 'an
embalmed body'.
Mum pet name for 'mother' and to mum 'refusal to speak'.
6) Popular etymology (p. 9295) also gives rise to homonymy.
Sparrow grass which was invogue up to the, 18th century was
a typical distortion of asparagus and a homonym of sparrow
and grass. The English have falsely associated the French
cotelette with the English to cut thus transforming the word
into cutlet, the first part becoming a homonym to cut. The
distorted French quelque chose in English acquired the form
kickshaw sb. - 'a fancy dish", the first part thus becoming a
homonym to kick vb.
7) Within the paradigm of a word several forms may coincide
thus becoming something like homonyms. This is very often
the case in English because of the unification of the case
endings of the noun and the personal endings of the verb.

75

Hence love - 1st and 2nd pers. sing. and pl. Simple Present
Tense is homonymous to the infinitive to love: loved
Simple Past Tense is a homo-

76

nym to loved Past Participle; girls unified form of the noun in

the plural is a homophone to girl's genit. sing.
Properly speaking we cannot very well call this type of
coincidence in form or sound homonymy since with the latter
difference in meaning is absolutely necessary. But in contemporary
English there appear homonyms within the forms of one and the same
word. Their grammatical meaning only is different while they have
the same form and belong to the same lexeme.
f) Ways of avoiding misunderstanding. There is always the
possibility of misunderstanding due to homonymy. However
language offers a way out.
1) If a verb and its corresponding noun are homonyms they
may be distinguished by the stress, the verb taking the accent
on the root syllable, and the noun on the first; syllable.
This distinction goes far back to the Primitive Germanic
period and is still preserved in English. To protest vb.
[pr'test] - protest sb. ['proutest]; to progress [pr'gres] progress sb. ['prougres]; to project vb. [pr'ekt] project
sb. ['prekt], etc.
2) Difference in spelling is frequently referred to as a means of
modification. Sun from Old English sune, son from Old
English sunu. With the darkening and dropping of the final
syllables and the unification and practical loss of the case
endings these two words became homonyms in Middle
English. The common spelling device for the short u in the
neighbourhood of m, n, v,w to be written with an o was
adopted for the Word son and preserved in Modern English in
order to distinguish it from its homonym.
3) Substitution is another means by which language avoids
ambiguity. Several homonyms of one and the same word may
become a real obstacle to correct understanding. This is
obviated by substituting for the homonym its corresponding
synonym. Jespersen gives the following instance: 'When
Hilary M. had a new doll her mother said to her, "And is that
your son?" Hilary was puzzled and looking out of the
window at the sun, said: "No, that's my sun." I Thus in many
English dialects lad, or boy is used instead of son. Mean adj.
'inferior', mean adj. 'intermediate' may often be
mistaken one for the other. The second word is preserved
only as a technical term and in the compounds meantime,
meanwhile. Otherwise it is supplanted by its synonyms
intermediate, average.

I. Jespersen, Language, London, 1950, p. 120

77

4)

The most natural way to avoid ambiguity is by adding something as when we say 'the sole of her foot' because 'her sole'
might be taken to mean 'her soul', 'the right-hand corner'
instead of the 'right corner'.I
g) Use. Homonymy is made use of in literature for achieving
artistic effect. Puns are based on it. During the Renaissance it was

I Ibid, p. 286
.

78

a favourite stylistic device. 'Now art thou sociable, now art thou
Romeo; now art thou art, by art as well by nature.' (Shakespeare,
'Romeo and Juliet'), 'Now Tulliver! Which will you rather decline,
roast beef or the Latin for it.' (G. Eliot, 'The Mill on the Floss').

3. Synonymy
a)

Characteristics. Usually synonyms are considered to

be words with the same meaning. After closer
inspection one finds that this is not exactly so. And
how could it be? Nothing will justify the existence of
two words side by side having exactly the same
meaning in one language. In exceedingly rare cases
there may exist two terms for one and the same notion
which is always quite awkward.
Synonyms are words which have different shades of one and the
same basic meaning. With polysemy it is one word that has many
connotations. Here it is the other way about. A meaning may have
various nuances: objects or phenomena may be approached from
different angles. Different words used to express a given notion
stressing at the same time specific features or one feature of that same
notion belong to one synonymic group. So that in a way deeper and
more detailed knowledge of things will eventually give rise to more
synonyms. Of course that does not mean that a language in its
primitive stage having separate words for 'white cow' and 'black cow',
for instance, is more advanced than another language which has a word
for the notion 'cow' but no special words for 'white cow' and 'black
cow'.' It is a fact that languages at an early stage of development often
do not have words for the general concept. This reflects a sort of
mental incapacity for abstract thinking at an early stage. So that the
difference between synonyms of a language at an early stage of
development and a more advanced stage lies in the fact that in the
former there are 110 synonymic dominants while one finds them later.
(A 'synonymic dominant' is the word standing for the basic general
concept.)
In the history of a language there are periods abounding in synonyms for certain notions which fall out of use at a later period. Thus
in Anglo-Saxon literature there are about 30 synonyms for the notion
of 'warrior' and almost the same number of words for the notion 'sea'.
The majority of these are completely obsolete in Modern English. This
indicates only that these notions are not of such interest, or of the same
degree of interest to contemporary English speaking nations as they
obviously were once.

79

b)

Different aspects. Synonyms may express different

shades or aspects of the same idea. Journey, travel,
voyage. Journey... 'signifies the course that is taken in
the space of a day, or in general any comparatively
short passage from one place to another...'

80

voyage any course or passage to a distance but is now confined to

passages by sea. We take a journey in different countries in England;
we take a voyage to the Indies and travel over the continent. Journeys
are taken for domestic business; travels are made for amusement or
information; voyages are made by captains or merchants for purposes
of commerce.'I
Tidy, neat, trim. These words contain the same general idea of a
combination of orderliness and cleanness, but they differ in the degree
and kind of orderliness indicated. 'Tidy emphasizes the idea of
reasonable, and hence seemly order a tidy room is a room in which
everything is picked up and put in its proper place. Neat emphasizes
the idea of cleanness added to order. Trim adds to the notion of
cleanness and order a suggestion of something more positively
pleasing. A trim attire is one in which neatness and tidiness are made
positively striking by effective arrangement and emphasis.'II
Occasion, opportunity 'Occasion is that which determines our
conduct and leaves us no choice; it amounts to a degree of necessity;
opportunity is that which incites to action; it tempts us to embrace the
moment for taking the step. We do things, therefore as the occasion
requires, or as the opportunity offers.'2
Stir, move. 'Stir is here a specific, move a generic term: we may
move in any manner, but to stir is to move so as to disturb the rest and
composure either of the body or mind; the term stir is therefore mostly
employed in cases where any motion, however small, is a disturbance:
a soldier must not stir from the post which he has to defend.'III
If we compare synonymy with polysemy we shall see that in both
cases there is a central notion and all the others are variants of it. With
polysemy as was pointed out, the various connotations are clustered
around the central one and are all within the same word. With
synonymy the various connotations are represented as separate notions
and belong to different words. Synonymy just like polysemy is
inherent to language.
c) Sources of synonymy. References to the emotions are a
productive source of synonymy. This is especially true of phrases: 'to
turn a deaf ear to' and 'not care a straw' express indifference. 'In high
feather', 'walking on air', 'with one's head in the clouds', 'gay as a lark',
'happy as a king' or 'happy as the day is long', 'playful as a kitten', 'jolly
as sandboy', 'merry as a grig', 'full of beans' are all synonyms to
'rejoicing'. Such words as: 'lion', 'a star', 'a sun', 'the honour', 'an

IG. Crabb, Crabb's English Synonyms, New York, 1917.

IIG. Crabb, op, cit.
IIIG. Crabb, op. cit.

81

ornament' as synonyms of 'celebrity' also carry emotional colouring in

a given context.

82

Everyday speech, jargon and slang produce a favourable climate

for the growth of synonyms. Thus: 'crony, chum, pal, buddy'are all
synonyms of 'friend', 'Vapour, gas, brag' are synonyms of 'boast'.
'Parasite, gate-crasher, toad-eater, toady, spaniel, boot-licker,'
lickspittle, flunkey,' sponger, tuft-hunter, timeserver, reptile, cur, Uriah
Heep' are synonyms of 'sycophant'.
Affected speech also gives rise to synonyms. 'These meticulous
calculations of votes which have not yet been given rather disgust us...,'
Meticulous is synonymous to exact. 'Most of the British and American
proposals have been too vague and sentimental on the one hand and too
elaborate and meticulous on the other.' Meticulous in this example is a
synonym of 'detailed'.
Archaisms and borrowings contribute to the richness of some
groups of synonyms: French cowardice, English fear; French reverie,
English day-dream; French joyous, English merry; French employee.
English clerk; French essay, English to try; French instruct, English to
teach, etc.
Raiment is a synonym of dress, damsel a young lady, troublous
adj. agitated, disturbed; to trow vb. to think, believe; to delve vb.
to dig, etc. All these archaisms are used now in artistic works,
mostly poetry.
d) Classification. Synonyms may be roughly classified under
four types:
1)
Absolute synonyms are words indentical in
meaning, without any difference whatever. They
can be used indiscriminately one for the other in
any context without causing the slightest change
of meaning. It is very rarely to be met with.
Usually this is the case with some scientific
terms: 'voiced stops' 'mediae'; 'voiceless stops'
'tenues'; 'lesser subject' 'anticipatory "it"';
'semantics' 'lexicology', are only a few terms
standing for the same extra-linguistic referents.
This state of affairs is not to be encouraged, least
of all with scientific terms. Several words for one
and the same notion always endanger proper
understanding. In scientific language even more
than in everyday speech each term should have a
fixed meaning as vagueness should be avoided as
much as possible. However, there is always a
tendency for language to differentiate in casses of
duplicity.
'Truce means a cessation of hostilities on both sides accompanied
by a pledge to refrain from attack until further notice. Armistice means

83

a suspension of arms by mutual agreement. In ordinary usage there is

really no difference between armistice and truce. Truce indicates
perhaps an armistice of some duration.'.I

I G. Crabb, op, cit.

84

2)

Phraseological
synonyms
are
words
synonymous only in phrases. That is, a word has
to have several connotations which become clear
from the context, from the phrase, usually a more
or less conventional phrase. In all those phrases
the word may be replaced by a synonym. Field is
a good example of this instance. '... in the sense
space proper to something it is synonymousto:
area A debate covering a wide area; branch
unsurpassed in his own branch. Expenses
beyond my compass. In every department of
human activity, Belonging to the domain of
philosophy. This is not in my line. Talking
besides the point. It is not in our province to
inquire. Constantly straying from the question.
Outside the range of practical politics. Operating
within a narrow radius. In the whole realm of
medecine. In the region of metaphysics. Whatever the scale of effort required. Find scope for
one's powers. Useful in his own powers. Useful
in his own sphere. Wanders from the subject. Has
chosen an ill defined theme'I
3) Stylistic synonyms are not connected with the
meaning of a separate word so much as with the
meaning and the general effect of the whole
context. Emotional colouring plays an important
role in these: to be angry to see red, to lose
one's temper; to make one's blood boil, to lash
into a fury, to drive one mad, to put one's monkey
up, etc. are synonyms to to cause or raise anger. '
4) Relative synonyms are words standing for the
same notion but varying in the shade of meaning:
they may differ in degree, emotional colouring
and range of usage. Key, clue, hint 'A clue is less
certain than a key; and a hint is less certain than a
clue. If a detective has found the key to a mystery,
he is certain that he has succeeded in his case; if
he has found the clue, he is hopeful but not
certain. If he has a hint to work upon, he may
have a definite clue but he has no reason for great
optimism as yet.'II

IFowler, op, tit.

IIG. Crabb, op. cit.

85

Crime, vice. 'A crime is a social offence; a vice is a personal

offence... Crime consists in a violation of human laws; vice is a
violation of moral laws...'I
Trench, channel, ditch. 'Trench is a deeper and wider passage cut
in the ground and thoroughly excavated; it now refers particularly to the
fortification developed underground by both sides in the European war.
A ditch, is a small trench into which water is drained and carried off. A
channel serves the same purpose as a ditch, but usually refers to a
natural passageway made by the action of a stream or is figuratively
extended to refer to something resembling such a natural passage, as
when we speak of channels of trade, channels of intercourse, etc...'II
Story, tale. 'The story is either an actual fact or something feigned;
the tale is always feigned.'III
e) Synonyms as stylistic means. Properly speaking the question
of synonyms belongs to stylistics. We have discussed them here only as
far as meaning and shifting of meaning goes.

IG. Crabb, op. cit.

IIG. Crabb, op. cit.
IIIG. Carbb, op. cit.

86

As a stylistic means synonyms are widely employed in every

kind of literature. However, excessive use of synonyms becomes a
bore and is ridiculed by many eminent writers, Dickens amongs them.
Here is an exceprt from 'The Truth about George' by P. H. Wodehouse
which needs no comment.
... George and Susan were fond of synonyms. Naturally with this
hobby in Common, the young people saw a great deal of one another
for George was always calling on Susan to ask her if she knew the
synonym for this or that word. The consequence was that one evening
just after she had helped him with a difficult synonym the boy
suddenly realized that she was all the world to him, or as he put it to
himself from force of habit, precious, beloved, darling, much-loved,
highly estimated, or valued...
'Hm,' said the specialist. 'You wish to woo, court and become
bethroted, engaged and affianced to this girl, but you find yourself
unable, incapable and incompetent. Every time you attempt it your
vocal cords fail, fall short, are insufficient and wanting.' George
nodded...
A fair girl was leaning over the desk on which he kept his
Dictionary of English Synonyms.
'Why, Mr. Mulliner!' she exclaimed. 'What has been happening?
Your clothes are torn, rent, ragged, tattered and your hair is all
dishevelled, untrimmed, hanging loose or negligently!'
George smiled, a wan smile.
'You are right,' he said, 'and what is more, I'm suffering from
extreme fatigue, weariness, 'lassitude, exhaustion and prostration.'
The girl gazed at him, a divine pity in her soft eyes.
'I am sorry,' she murmured, 'so very sorry, grieved, distressed
upset and mortified.'
'Miss Blake, Susan, Susie,' he took her other hand in his, 'I love
you. Will you be my wife, married woman, spouse, help-mate or better
half?'
'Oh, George,' said Susan, 'Yes, yes, ay, aye. Decidedly, unquestionably and past, all dispute...'

4. Antonyms
a) Characteristics. Antonyms are words opposed in meaning.
Only words belonging to one and the same grammatical category can
be antonyms. One might well say that words having a connotation of
quality or quantity are likely to have antonyms. That is why as a rule in
the first place adjectives may be opposed to. one another: dark
bright, deep shallow, hot cool, big small, much little,
smooth rough, good bad, etc.

87

As far as there is a nuance expressing quality in the meaning of a

noun it may have an antonym: angel as 'symbol of a lovelyinnocent
being' is opposed to devil 'a wicked or cruel person'. Peace 'a
state of calmness' war 'a state of open hostility', friend 'one
joined to another in intimacy', enemy 'a hostile person', mountain
and plain may be taken as antonyms only as far as the latter denotes 'a
level surface' in contrast to 'natural elevation of earth's surface'; day
'time while sun is above horizon' night 'time when the sun does not
shine, everything is dark'. Adverbs may have antonyms as long as the
connotation of quality, quantity or degree is present: in out, up
down, near far, high low, here there. Verbs as a whole afford
fewer possibilities for antonyms, owing to the character of the notions
for which they stand. Still there are antonyms which express two
opposite actions or conditions which might be addressed to one and the
same object. Indirectly we have again the idea of quality (condition) of
a given referent: to sit to stand, to open to shut, to come to go,
to run to walk, to gain to lose, etc.
Since a word may have several connotations it may have several
antonyms respectively. Deep means 'profound', 'cunning', 'penetrating',
'strong', 'sonorous', 'vivid'. A deep hole shallow hole; deep
knowledge (profound) superficial knowledge; to be deep (cunning)
to be blunt (dull), to have deep insight (penetrating) dim sight; a
deep feeling (strong) lukewarm; a deep sound (sonorous) shrill;
a deep colour (bright, vivid) pale, faded. Through its different
connotations deep is an antonym of shallow, superficial, blunt, dim,
lukewarm, shrill, pale, faded, etc.
It should be noted that there is no relation among the various
antonyms of a given word. Thus shallow is not connected with superficial nor with any other antonyms of deep. The antonyms of one
word are not synonymous among themselves. If we mark provisory the
meaning of a word with (+) all its antonyms will be marked (). This
latter mark is the only feature common to all antonyms. From the
grammatical point of view they all belong to one and the same
grammatical category, of course.
b) Antonyms as a stylistic means. Many writers use antonyms
as a stylistic means. Often intensity of feeling is achieved by piling up
antonyms. For instance, 'Romeo and Juliet' abounds in antonyms. In
this play one might say that this stylistic device is part and parcel of
the idea expressed in it. In its essence 'Romeo and Juliet' is a play in
which the new Renaissance spirit fights the old stale concepts of feudal
life. Only a few instances, chosen at random will show this:
'These happy masks that kiss fair ladies' brows
Being black put us in mind they hide the fair...'

88

'... My only love springs from my own hate!...'

'... God's bread.' It makes me mad; day and night, late, early,
At home, abroad,, alone in company,

89

Walking or sleeping, still my care hath been

To have her match'd...'
('Romeo and Juliet', W. Shakespeare)
And here is a whole poem by Shakespeare based entirely on the
contrasting effect of antonyms:
'Crabbed age and youth cannot live together;
Youth is full of pleasance, age is full of care ;
Youth like summer mom, age like winter weather;
Youth like summer brave, age like winter bare;
Youth is full of sport, age's breath is short;
Youth is nimble, age is lame;
Youth is hot and bold, age is weak and cold;
Youth is wild, and age is tame.
Age, I do abhor thee; youth, I do adore thee;
O, my love, my love is young!
Age, I do defy thee: O, sweet shepherd, hie thee
For me thinks thou stayst too long.'

V. Causes for the change of the

meaning of words
Everything in reality is reflected in language. Language being a
specific system with a specific structure reflects reality in a specific way.
Thus the fact of plurality, for instance, can be reflected both in the
grammatical structure and in the semantical structure.
Depending on the existing morphological, syntactical and
semantical models of the language a linguistic item may express plurality
both semantically and grammatically: such is the case with the substantivized forms of the numerals: two twos, three threes etc.; plurality
may be expressed only grammatically: as is the case with the nouns in
English: student students, table tables, etc.; plurality may be a
component of the semantics of a linguistic item as is the case with some
collective nouns in English: cattle, fish, police, board; people, etc.
The meanings of the words in a language form the semantical
level. Like the other levels (the phonological and the grammatical) this
one also undergoes changes. Because of its specific nature it is the only
level directly affected by extra-linguistic factors. History, social
structure and human psychology cause changes in the meaning of the
word. In some cases, though quite rare, only one of these factors is the
cause for the change. But in the majority of cases the change is the
result of an intricate interplay of several different

90

factors and that is why it is very difficult to determine the main cause.
There are even cases where no apparent cause" is discernible. It is
easier to trace the way. a meaning changes than to explain why that
change takes place.

1. Linguistic causes
The meaning of a word is apt to change due to linguistic causes.
By linguistic causes here one is to understand those of phonological,
grammatical and semantical character.
a) In Middle English, .due to the fact that certain words
were borrowed at different periods of the language when
different phonetic rules operated one and the same form
was moulded in a different way. The result on the
synchronical level was doublet forms, i.e. two different
words; arc arch, to attack to attach, dike ditch,
shirt skirt, etc. Due to the nature of certain
phonological developments of a spontaneous character
and the influence of neighbouring sounds again doublet
forms were the result: parson person, etc. Unstable
spelling in Middle English also gave rise to doublets later
developing, into different words : flower flour, etc.
Each form of those doublets was attached as it were to one
of the meanings of the mother word so that meaning and
form blended. That made it easier to get away from the
mother word and start an independent existence.
b) With various cases of substantivization the change of the
meaning is due to grammatical reasons. An extreme
example of this is the case of substantivization of
interjections. The fact that items like ah and oh become
substantives presupposes a change in their semantics. The
idea of 'substantive' becomes part of the latter and makes
it possible for the items to function as substantives.
Similar is the case with substantivization of adjectives especially
with the so-called semi-substantivization. The poor, the rich, the
wounded, etc. are accompanied by the article which signals only
substantives. On the other hand the article is connected with this part
of the semantics of the nouns which is related to 'substantivity'. This
fact shows that 'substantivity', has become part' of the semantics of
those items and that is why it is possible for them to be accompanied
by the article.

91

c)

Due to the loss of the personal endings of the verb in

English the latter must always be accompanied by its
subject. Even in an impersonal construction there should
be a word standing for the subject. Obviously in such
cases its function is purely formal since it does not express
the doer of the action. The personal pronoun 3rd person
singular for the, neuter it performs this function: it is
raining, it is cold; it hurts, etc. In all these examples it is
notused with its own meaning. On the contrary, to a
certain extent it loses its meaning. So there is a change of
the meaning of it towards desemantization.
d) Do also offers an interesting example of changing of meaning.
After the 16th century do was used in literary works for the sake of
meter as is sometimes the case to this very day. Obviously in such
cases it is almost void of meaning: 'Nothing but sad thoughts in her
breast do dwell.', 'I do rage in vain.', 'I never did swear so.' IDue to the
tendency to use the negative before the verb do this came to be used as
a formative for the negative of the verbal forms in which there was no
auxiliary verb. In those cases it lost its original meaning and acquired a
purely formal (grammatical) function: 'I don't know.', 'Don't come late.'
In such instances as 'Do you know her?', 'Yes, I do.' there are two
kinds of change of meaning. It is a rule in English grammar that
general questions arc formed by putting the auxiliary verb in initial
position, the other parts of the sentence are arranged in the regular
word order and the whole is organized by a special intonational
pattern. When the verbal form lacks an auxiliary do comes very handy.
So that in questions as in the negative form of the verbs the function of
do is formal (grammatical) and it is void of lexical meaning. In the
answer to the above mentioned type of questions the change in the
meaning of do is almost in the opposite direction. It becomes so very
abstract that it may replace any notion, no matter how complex, and
even several notions as in the example given above where do actually
stands for 'know her'.
Similar to this is the use of do in tag questions. In the latter,
besides performing purely grammatical functions, i.e. forming the
interrogative and the negative forms of the verb, do stands for the
whole meaning of the disjunctive question: 'You play chess, don't
you?'
e) Yes and no also like do can carry the meaning of a whole
phrase. 'Caesar... Is this mourning for me?'... 'Cleopatra No.'
'Caesar... It is for your brother'. 'Cleopatra No.'II 'Do you like it?'

I Beaumont and Fletcher, The Maid's. Tragedy

II B. Shaw, Caesar and Cleopatra
1

92

'...'Yes,' she said not quickly enough to please him.' III The first no
actually means 'This mourning is not for you,' the second 'It is not
for my brother.' The yes in the second example means 'I like it'. Yes and
no which are so very abstract as to mean only affirmation and negation
actually acquire a very concrete meaning in the affirmative or the
negative in every specific, case.

III A. J. Cronin, The Citadel

93

f) In some cases of word formation the, meaning is changed also

due to grammatical reasons. Provided and providing as conjunctions
are separate words which on the synchronical level do nothave
anything in common with the corresponding verbal forms except that
they are perfect homonyms with them. Diachronically the two
conjuctions were derived from the corresponding Past and Present
Participles of the verb to provide. With the change of their grammatical status there was a change in their meaning.
2. Historical causes
Very often the change in the meaning of a word may be conditioned by historical causes. The latter must be taken in the widest
sense. In the course of the development of mankind constantly new
notions crop up and hence the need, for naming those notions. There
are two ways for satisfying this need: a new word is coined or an old
word, no matter whether native or borrowed, acquires a new meaning.
The second method is more frequent.
In ancient times people used to write with a feather. The name of
that instrument in Latin is penna 'feather'. Through French the word
entered the English language in the form of pen. Feathers are no longer
used as writing instruments and though our pens are used for the same
purpose as the ancient ones, "they are made of different materials, have
a special construction, form, colour. Since in reality our pens are
something different from the feather, the referent of the word pen is
different from the referent of the old word. The common feature
between the two referents is that both items were used for writing. This
fact is the only reason why out of all words in the language the word
pen was picked out to stand for the new object.
Knight in Old English meant 'a boy'. During feudal times it
acquired the meaning of 'person, usually of noble birth who had served
as page and squire, raised to military rank by king or qualified person'.
Those persons formed the social group of the knights. With the change
of the social system this group went out of existence. The word still
lives in English as a title but in current speech with a change in the
meaning 'a pesron noble in mind and heart'.
No one, except for those acquainted with the etymology of lady
dreams of connecting it with the meaning it had about more than 1000
years ago 'loaf-kneader'. In fact the contemporary meaning of the
word has gone so far adrift that it has become almost the opposite of
the original one. A contemporary lady is not necessarily the lady of the
house who is responsible for providing the household with victuals,
nor is a lady the person who makes the bread. The entire contents of

94

the meaning of the old word has changed, preserving only the notion
'female'.

The same is true of the word lord. In Old English it meant 'loafkeeper' which in a way was an expression of the social orderof that
historical period. It is indeed quite long ago since the word ceased to
mean what it did originally. This was conditioned by the changes
which took place in society.
'The way the. Romans kept account of the time from morning till
night has been obsolete for many centuries. However the sixth hour
still exists under the form of siesta (sexta), the ninth has provided the
English language with the name noon (Latin )...'I
There are numerous examples of this type in English. Things
change, conditions of life change, notions change, views change, but
the words remain. Properly speaking it is not that these word remain
but the old forms with a new meaning keep on existing. L. P. Smith
gives detailed information on the change of the meaning of romantic,
create, originally and geniusII which reveals the powerful influence of
the historical factor over the change in the meaning of the words.

3. The social factor

The social factor also plays an important role in changes of word
meaning. This factor works in two ways: 1) specialization creating
terms, and 2) slang and cant. The question of changing of the meaning
of the word due to specialization is treated on p 38. Here we would
like to note that in professional jargon it is not only the mere need for
a word expressing a specific notion that is the cause for the change of
the meaning. This need is fully satisfied in cases like: game
'children's play' and game 'sports', dog 'an animal' and dog 'a
type of nippers', crane 'the bird' and crane 'an instrument for
lifting heavy burdens'. In the following three examples of military
jargon the words are used with a special connotation and have an
emotional colouring: ('James Close in, Tommy.) 'J. Galsworthy,
'The Foundations'), 'Inspector This is just clearing the ground, sir.'
(J. Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'), 'Windsor-'Well, General, what's the first
move?' (J. Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'). The shifting of the meaning may
be based on metonymy or specialization but the result is a word or a
phraseological unit with the qualities of a term more or less.
However there is another type of change of the meaning of the
word also conditioned by the social factor but bearing an additional,
emotive motivation. The basic reason for that lies in the attempt of a
given social group to create a special language unintelligible to those

IM. Breal, Essai de semantique, Paris, 1921

IIL. P. Smith, Words and Idioms, London, 1933, p. 66

96

outside that social group. This is the case with class jargons,
professional lingo, cant, slang.
The creative spirit of man is in full swing when giving extra-

ordinary meanings to ordinary words. Jargons and especially slang

reveal a subtle sense of humour, keen observation, human courage
and optimism. Thus in military jargon an egg is 'a bomb', a coffeegrinder is a 'machine gun', a collar 'a cell in a military prison', a
crump 'a demolition bomb'. 'A hand grenade one of those
potato mashers...' (E. Hemingway, 'A Farewell to Arms').
The natural aversion towards notions connected with death,
especially with violent death, has given rise to many euphemisms as:
'You were lucky not to swing, mate'. (J. Galsworthy, 'Escape'), where
swing in the prisoner's jargon means 'hang'.
There is a touch of bitter mockery in the word comforter used
for the newspapers with which tramps sleeping in the streets cover
themselves.
Slang is a source for enriching standard language. This is
especially obvious in American English where words like: cuckoo
'stupid', cop 'policeman', crook 'a swindler', and some phraseological units are not felt , to be slangy any more. M. Twain gives an
example of this tendency in 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's
Court':
'... This is Wednesday. Is there a matinee?'
'A which, please you, sir?'
'Matinee. Do they keep open afternoons ?'
'Who?'
'The hermits, of course.'
'Keep open?'
'Yes, keep open. Isn't that plain enough? Do they knock off at
noon ?'
'Knock off'
'Knock off? Yes, knock off... In plain terms do they shut up
shop? Draw the game, bank the fires...'
Cant stands on a different level. It is the speech of the underworld. Here the desire to make the word as unintelligible as possible
to the outsider is the unique demand. That is why all kinds of
distortions of words occur. Even grammar is distorted. A characteristic feature of this type of speech is its international character.
During the Middle Ages when banditism was a kind of profession
there were whole societies speaking cant. They even had their own
tutors who taught the lingo to the novices. Today cant is spoken in the
underworld. Here is an example of cant from J. B. Priestley's 'Let the
People Sing':
'... Bin working' a fly pitch in the Sat' day gaff,' said Mickey
Barnet.' 'Eard you was 'ere, Mr. 'Assocks, sb me an' Knocker come
along.'

98

'Thanks Mickey, an' I', getting along fine. What are you doing
round here, Knocker ?'

'Working' the spread again, Mr. 'Assock,' replied Knocker, in a

deep croaking voice.' Charlie joined the run-out boys from Brum, so I
did a bit o' gazin' 'worked the muzzel in the Smoke an 'down at
Brighton then tried the spread again. But I'm terrible as a crocus'.
'I keep tellin' Knocker it's a shice,' said Mickey earnestly. 'It's not
a bad tober but what's 'is bunce? Tell 'im, Knocker'.
Knocker brought out some money and examined it. 'Not much
bottle. A nicker, ha'f a bar, a caser an' a hole. 'Aven't made a flin in one
day since Bank 'Oliday...'
This piece of conversation is, as Priestley says, 'Fairground slang,
Romany, Yiddish, rhyming slang and I suppose some of it must be old
thieve's slang...'
From the point of view of standard English it is unintelligible as,
a foreign language. The author has found it necassary to interpret it as
follows:
'Well, Knocker said he was here selling herbs quack doctor
stuff. He told me his old partner Charlie had left him to join the run out
boys from Brum that is the gang from Birmingham running a fake
auction... Then Knocker told me he'd been hawking lucky charms in
London the Smoke and Brighton but had now gone back to
selling herbs again, the spread, because they spread them out.
Mickey told him it was no good and said this wasn't a bad market here,
but what had Knocker made ?'
'Then Knocker took his money out', cried Hope.
'Yes. He'd thirty six bob. And he said he hadn't made a liver in
one day since Bank Holiday...'
There are no hard and. fast boundaries between slang and cant.
Especially in modern society where in some countries the under world
has merged with the outside world. It is to be pitied that along with
crime and murder the underworld has a linguistic fascination over the
young people in those contries.

4. The psychological factor

The psychological factor is by no means to be overlooked when
discussing the problem of change of meaning. The speaker may give
an additional something or even change the meaning of a word by
endowing it with an emotional colouring suiting the state of mind or
the mood he is in at the moment of speaking. In such cases it is the
context or the intonation that suggests the shifting of the meaning: 'Jill
That's because we are as mother would say, and they're not yet. But
why not let them be?' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game').

100

The psychological factor helps the meaning to be either elevated

or degraded. Properly speaking the meaning as a linguistic category

cannot be either elevated or degraded. It can only be related to and thus

express an extra-linguistic item which possesses one or another value.
Judging by the moral standards of a given society the speaker expresses
his own attitude using a given word by charging it with a connotation
of values which are not proper to it. If we are using the terms elevation
and degradation we are doing so with the explicit remark that by nature
they are categories of value which here stand for an extra-linguistic
phenomenon reflected in the semantics of the word.
a) Elevation of meaning is said to take place when a word is
used to stand for higher values than it usually expresses if at all. Since
it is a question of values it is actually a question of quality. So that
mainly adjectives which have the grammatical category expressing
quality are affected by this phenomenon and occasionally nouns. The
'elevated' meaning, although secondary, may gradually gain the upper
hand and at a given historical period may become basic.
Keen. Old English cne 'skilful, experienced'. Now used with
the meaning 'quick, penetrating': mind, keen person.
Sharps. Old English scearp 'able to cut'. Today it can be used
in 'a sharp boy' meaning 'a boy with high mental abilities'.
Right the antonym of 'left' in time acquired the meaning of 'the
opposite of false'.
Nice offers a very interesting example of elevation. The word is
of Latin origin nescium, acc. of nescius meaning 'a person who does
not know, an ignorant person'. It appeared in Old French in the form
nice and developed a meaning 'simple, lazy'. During the Middle English
period it was borrowed in English with the same meaning. Later on it
acquired the nuance 'fastidious, delicate'. This nuance in the course of
time became the prevailing meaning of this word in English. Today due
to extremely frequent usage and at times out of place, there is a strong
tendency for this word to lose all meaning, i.e. to become
desemantized.
'But now, really, do you think "Udolpho" the nicest book in the
world ?'
'The nicest; by which I suppose you mean the neatest. That must
depend upon the binding.'
'Henry,' said Miss Tilney, 'yon are very impertinent. Miss
Morland, he is treating you axactly as he does his sister. He is for ever
finding fault with me for some incorrectness of language and now he is
taking the same liberty with you. The word 'nicest', as you used it, did
not suit him; and you had better change it as soon as you can, or we
shall be overtowered with Johnson and Blair all the rest of the way'.
'I am sure', cried Catherine, 'I did not mean to say anything wrong;
but it is a nice book, and why should not I call it so?'

102-

'Very true', said Henry, 'and this is a very nice day; and we are
taking a very nice walk; and you are two very nice young ladies. Oh!
it is a very nice word, indeed'. It does for everything. Originally
perhaps, it was applied only to express neatness, propriety, delicacy or
refinement. People were nice in dress, in their sentiments, or their
choice. But now every commendation on every subject is comprised
into that one word.' (Jane Austen, 'Northanger Abbey').
Fame has undergone an interesting development ip this respect
too. In Latin it had the meaning of 'rumour'. Through French, as is to
be expected, it entered the English language. In Modern English,
probably through the stage of 'good fame' it acquired its contemporary
meaning.
Queen. Old English cwn 'a woman'. As early as Old English
through 'the first woman in the realm' it acquired its contemporary
meaning.
Words expressing endearment are another instance of elevation.
In such cases the elevated meaning is temporal. 'Colonel I
remember what I was like at her age, a poor affectionate little rat and
now look at me.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Joy'); 'Jones If you think I want
to leave the little beggars you're bloomin well mistaken.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Silver Box').
When these words are used as appelatives they are slanderous
but here they are used as affectionate terms. This is due to the
psychological disposition of restraining one's feelings, not giving
them rein, and at the same time expressing them by using words
which do not evoke tender associations.
b) Degradation of meaning is the opposite phenomenon to
elevation. It occurs when a word is used to express a base moral value
not inherent in its original meaning.
Names of animals have no emotional colouring. When applied
to human beings they acquire a derogatory connotation. 'She is a
viper'. 'You base cur, swine'. In these cases the derogatory connotation
is temporal, restricted only to the given context. Out of such context
all such words remain non-emotional as ever and there be no question
of value.
Chauvinism gives vent to antagonistic feelings among eoples.
These find a linguistic expression in the use of names of different
nations with a degraded meaning, i.e. as symbols of some base moral
qualities. 'I am afraid Mr. Jones maintained a kind of dutch defence,
and treacherously delivered up the garrison without duly weighing his
allegiance to the fair Sofia'. '(H. Fielding, 'Tom Jones') Dutch comfort,
dutch courage, dutch feast, dutch nightingale, dutch treat, double

103-

dutch.I are some of the notorious expressions in which dutch is used

in an uncomplimentary way.

I . , - , , 1956. S.

Ullmann, Precide Semantipue Francise, Berue 1952.

104-

Proper names sometimes acquire an abusive connotation: Jim

Crow and abusive name for a Negro in the USA, an expression of
American racialism, Jack Horner 'conceited person', 'Bly What's
the young man like? He's a long feller'. 'Faith Johnny? (With a
shrug and a little smile), Johnny'. 'Bly Well, that gives a very
good idea of him.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Windows'.) So that Johnny is
understood as being an undesirable type of character. With proper
names the abusive connotation gradually permeates the whole name
and takes on such a meaning as far as a proper name can have a
meaning. Actually such lose the characteristic features of proper names
and become common.
Words expressing a positive value from frequent usage may
acquire just the reverse meaning. Simple when applied to mind means
'a mind incapable of combinative speculation'. Common becomes a
synonym to 'mean, base' 'a common person'. Silly. Old English slig
meaning 'timely'. In Middle English the word began to mean 'happy,
blessed, innocent'. In Modern English this word means 'foolish, stupid'.
It is difficult to say why the meaning of this word has undergone such
a development: whether it is due to frequent usage as is the case with
nice or whether it is something else. It is of interest to note that in
Russian there is a similar development of the word . At a
certain period it acquired the meaning of 'mad' and then 'silly, stupid'. It
is not improbable that the English word suffered the same shifting.
A word with a positive value may be used to express just the
opposite for the sake of contrast. 'Wheeler Yon mean when he's
drunk, the beauty' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Silver Box'), 'Wheeler That
precious husband of yours was round for you after you'd gone
yesterday, Mrs. Jones'. (J. Galsworthy, 'The Silver Box'), 'Press We
don't know. We never know whether we come before the event, or it
comes before us.' 'Lord W. That's very deep, very deep'. (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Foundation'). Only in a given context it becomes
clear that those words actually become antonyms to themselves.
There are cases when derivatives acquire a negative connotation
from the point of view of value: 'He works hard. He hardly works'. The
flat adverb in the first example has a positive connotation. But in
hardly, an adverb of quality-quantity of the same root, the meaning has
'deteriorated'. Mood means 'disposition' but moody 'bad disposition':
'Ann Unless it was a fit of black depression. He was very moody.'
(J. Galsworthy, 'The Show'). Art 'human skill', as opposed to
'nature': artful 'cunning, deceitful'. Child, childish 'improper for a
grown-up person'.
Several words with the initial meaning of 'woman' have acquired
a pejorative connotation. Wench. Old English wencla 'a child of

105-

either sex', later on only 'a female child'. In contemporary English it

has the meaning of 'a woman or a girl of bad reputation'.

106-

In some cases of degradation the original meaning of the word is

entirely ousted by the pejorative. Courtesan the feminine form the
French courtisan 'courtier'. In Modern English the word means only
'prostitute'. Imp formerly meant 'an offspring', now 'a demon'.
Knave. Old English cnafa 'a boy'. Then in succession it acquired the
meaning 'a boy servant', 'a sly fellow', 'a rogue'. In Modern English it is
used only with the latter meaning.
c) Taboo and euphemism are linguistic phenomena which are
influenced, or rather, created by social and psychological factors.
'Taboo is a Polynesian term denoting sacred and mystically
intouchable. If a word is struck by a taboo ban, it must be replaced by a
harmless alternative, a so-called noa term.'I In different communities
taboo words differ in character as well as in quantity. The more
backward the people the more words are taboo.
Superstition lies at the bottom of taboo. Other types of taboo are
later developments.
There is enough evidence showing that names of animals were
taboo with many peoples. Especially during the hunting season the
taboo was very strictly to be observed, names of different kinds of deer
and other game were not to be pronounced. That was obviously the
result of a superstitious belief that if one pronounced the name of the
animal it would get angry and cause mischief, or if it was a deer or
other game it would run away.
The Indo-Europen word for bear is to be found in the Greek
arctos, Latin ursus. However this root is lost in the Balto-Slavic and
Germanic groups of languages. In the Slavonic languages the name of
this animal goes back to an Old Slavonic word medvedi meaning
'honey-eater'. In the Germanic languages: English bear, German Br,
Dutch beer, Swedish bjrn, where all those words can be traced back to
a Germanic form beron meaning 'brown'.
'The extensive series of euphemistic alternatives for the bloodthirsty weasel, the object of superstitions dread and corresponding
taboo bans, is a stock example in comparative semantics: French
belette 'little beauty', Italian donnola 'little dame', Portuguese
donola 'little lady', Spanish comadreja 'gossip', Rumanian
nevasta 'bride', Bavarian Schntierlein, Swedish lilla snalla
'pretty little girl', Danish kjnne 'beautiful', Hungarian menyet
'nice little girl'.II
The word snake was taboo with many peoples. Thus in the
Germanic languages: English snake, Danish snog, Swedish snok, derive

I S. Ullmann, Words and Their Use. New York, 1951, p. 75.

IIS. Ullmann, Precis de Semantique Franais, Berne, 1952.
1

107-

from the Germanic verb snak-an 'to creep'. The Bulgarian zmija is
connected with zemlja 'earth'.

108-

'Thus the old name elen (Old Slavonic jeleni, etc.) very oftenis
replaced by the epithet 'horny': Latin cervus. Old Islandic hiortr, Old
English heorot...'1
A very old taboo is attached to the name of god. G. Bonfante in
his interresting paper on tabooI regards the traditional accompaniment
of the names of the Greek gods by numerous epithets as an expression
of taboo. He considers that these epithets of praise were used in order
to veil or belittle the fact of pronouncing the name. Further on, he says,
these forms of expression became a literary fashion. This hypothesis is
quite acceptable. It is well-known that the Jewish and Christian
religions forbid the pronouncing of the name of god in vain.
Puritanism in England had a marked influence on the English
language in this respect. The two words unquestionably and absolutely
taboo were and to a certain extent still are, god and devil and all
expressions connected with them. Every kind of swearing was
incompatible with the Puritan spirit. The latter was so strong and
militant that it objected even to the substitutes of oaths and swearing.
Puritanism in England had such strong, deep roots that even today
oaths are not as outspoken as in some other languages.
Parts of the body were also tabooed. The hand was almost
believed to be a being separate from the body and omnipotent as well.
Witness the act of blessing in the icons and the use of the hand as an
amulet with many peoples. 'If we examine the names for 'hand' in the
different Indo-European languages we shall see that only two of them
will pass muster: the Latin manus and the Vedic hasta which according
to the theory of Bartoli represent the most ancient roots. In Celtic the
word for 'hand' was replaced by that of 'palm', Latin' palma, Greek
palame... In other languages the new words for 'hand' are derived, in
every obvious way from roots meaning 'to get', 'to catch', 'to grasp', 'to
take', similar to Madagaskar, where the old tabooed word for 'hand' is
ousted by another, meaning 'taker'.II The English hand, German
Hand, Gothic handus are probably derived from the Gothic hinthan
'to catch'. In the Balto-Slavic group the Bulgarian , Russian
, seem to be connected with the Lithuanian renki, rinkti 'to gather'. The explanation for this difference might well be the taboo on the
word hand.

IG. Bonfante, Etudes sur le tabou dans les langues indoeurop eenes. Melanges de
linguistique offerts a Ch. Bally, Geneve, 1939.

IIG. Bonfante, op, cit.

109-

It is worth noting that in most cases the substitute replacing a

tabooed word is not felt as such now. This is especially the case with
names of animals, parts of the body, family relations, but not with the
name of god, the devil and such others. Only an exhaustive research
may prove that a word is a substitute for a taboo. This is a very
difficult task, sometimes due to lack of realiable material.
Words expressing disagreable notions also become taboo. The
criterion for what is disagreable and what is not, of course, varies in
the different periods and with different peoples. Still there is always a
standard norm in this respect which every member of society must
observe. There are some concepts like 'death' and 'disease' which have
been disagreable throughout the whole run of the existence of man, in
all periods and to all peoples. During the Middle Ages there were
several disastrous waves of plague epidemic in Europe. Whole towns
were wiped out as their inhabitants were annihilated by the plague.
One can imagine the terror-stricken people who were helpless before
the ravages of the disease. And so it is altogether clear why the word
for 'plague' itself evoked horror and became taboo. It is interesting to
remark that the expression, used as a substitute in English for 'plague'
was the the black death. 'Death' which in itself was not a pleasant word
to pronounce or hear was preferable to the word 'plague'. In English
there are numerous expressions for 'death' and 'to die'. These vary from
the Latin exitus, through pass away, to breath one's last, to join the
angels and finally slang expressions such as to kick the bucket, to step
off the big plank, etc.
Moral principles are also a factor for tabooing certain words
connected with sex or physiology. O. Jespersen remarks that 'in
midnineteenth century American and especially Boston ladies were so
prudish that they would speak of the limbs of the piano or of their own
benders instead of 'legs' or say waist instead of 'body'. Trousers was
also not void of a comical element: inexpressibles, inexplicables,
indescribables, ineffables, unmentionables, unwhisperables, mymustn't mention 'em, sit-upons, sine qua nons, etc.I
I knew a young lady who insisted in saying 'stomach' when
meaning 'belly' because she considered the latter not quite polite. In
English also one would say 'I have a stomach ache' when actually
meaning 'a belly ache'.
S. Ullmann points out that 'only a few years ago, a group of six
men in an American orchestra were described as a quintet because
sextet might have produced undesirable associations.'II

I . Jespersen, Growth and Structure of the English Language, Leipzig 1935, p. 226
IIS. Ullmann, Precis de Semantique Franais, Berne, 1952
1

110-

Even a side look on taboo is enough to see that the first type of
taboo based on superstition was in full swing at the earlier stages of
development of human societies. Nowadays it has almost passed into
oblivion. The other two types are still living and willlive until human
society exists. Because there will always be moral codes which will
mark certain things as proper or improper. The latter will always be
tabooed.
Language has two means of replacing a tabooed word, i.e. by
modifying it or by substituting it with a harmless word or expression.
Modification is resorte;d to by changing one or several sounds in
the tabooed word. This is frequently the case with god, lord and the
various oaths connected with them. There are many modifications of
God gad, gog, gom, gosse, gough, golly; Lord lam, lawks, losh.
Practically in all oaths with goodness the latter is a substitute of God:
for goodness sake, goodness gracious, I hope to goodness. There are a
number of oaths in which the word God is dropped and only the s of
the genitive is preserved: 'sblood 'for God's blood', -'snails 'God's
nails', slight 'God's light', 'zounds 'by God's wounds'. Sometimes
only the initial letters are pronouncod as in: 'Will you please shut your
gee dee mouth ?' (W. Faulkner, 'The Town') where gee dee stands for
'God damned'.
The only modifications used for the word devil are deuce,
dickens.
As has already been said to the puritan sense of propriety even the
substitutes damn and damned were objectionable. So that very often in
written speech they are modified to d--- and d---d.
Substitution. An age-old way of procuring a substitute for a
tabooed word is to use an adjective or a verbal derivative expressing a
quality of the object whose name is under ban. This is the case with
names of animals and parts of the body in the Indo-European
languages.
Another device for avoiding a banned word is to borrow one from
another dialect or another language. A foreign word can hardly bring
home the whole complexity of the meaning with its various shades and
associations evoked by it. So that a foreign word is always an
acceptable substitute, 'Thus the Germanic borrowing gaush replaced
the French 'senestre'1. Perspiration and maniac are substitutes for
'sweat' and 'madman'.
When damn, damned became taboo they were substituted by
darned, dashed, danged, words beginning with the same sound as the
banned word. There are still other substitutes, a kind of synonyms like:
somethinged, hanged. Another group of substitutes consisted of
antonyms like blessed. But on the analogy of the tabooed word they
also were infected and on their own part became taboo. Instead words

111-

beginning with bl- came into use: bloody, blooming but they too could
not satisfy the demands of the prudes and were put down as improper
because they had acquired the moral values of the tabooed word.

112-

The figurative substitute of a tabooed word is called EUPHEMISM.

To repeat, an euphemism is a linguistic phenomenon but the causes for
its birth are not of a linguistic character. Ultimately it is the result of
the unwillingness of the people 'to call a spade a spade'. It is a
linguistic veil on everything sacred, dangerous, unpleasant or indecent.
English abounds in euphemisms. For the 'devil' there are numerous
expressions: old Harry, scratch, the old adversary, the old gentleman,
the old one to mention only a few. 'Hell' is another word for which a
number of euphemisms are substituted: the other place, the hot place,
a very uncomfortable place. To cross the stygian ferry is one of the
many euphemisms for 'to die': To leave somebody in the field is an
euphemism meaning 'to be defeated', 'to lose the field', 'to lose the
battle'. To grease somebody's fist (hand) is somehow more acceptable
than 'to bribe'. There are many euphemisms that blunt the edges of the
notions by dressing them in words void of undesirable associations.
For instance there are all sorts of euphemistic expressions for 'toilet'. A
typical one is 'I am going to see my aunt'. Very probably this was an
invention of the Victorian prigs with whom aunts (old ones preferably)
were in special favour as a symbol of purity, nicety, bordering on
squeamishness. So that the word 'aunt' evoked only decent and
decorous associations.
Another point to note here is that euphemistic phrases are shorter
lived than single words.
Euphemism is a problem which might be more properly treated
from the point of view of stylistics and with better success. But more
exhaustive treatment here will be outside our sphere.
d) Hyperbole. Affectation often leads to exaggeration and this is
inevitably reflected in language. Thus one is apt to use words and
expressions whose meaning is far short of the degree of emotional
value proper to given extra-linguistic circumstances. 'Fullarton
Most awfully jolly dress, Mrs. Dedmond.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Fugitive'), 'Matt. I wonder if you'd mind awfully speaking
pianissimo.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Escape'), 'Jack Why did I take the
beastly thing?... Don't I tell you I haven't got a beastly penny?' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Silver Box') 'I was terrifically hungry. '(E. Hemingway, 'A Farewell to Arms'), 'Jack I should never have done it at
all if I hadn't been so jolly hard up... Too jolly bad!' (J. Galsworthy,
'The Silver Box'), 'Even then, in November dozens of cars flashed past
us with a high, ominous whine, their tires roaring rubberly on the
concrete.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Wood Duck'), 'Journalist Would you
be frightfully kind, sir, and give my paper your view of the coal
situation here?' (J. Galsworthy, 'Exiled'), 'That speaks volumes, 'She is
the world to me', 'Heaps of time', etc. In the examples given above one
may note that the adverbs: awfully, beastly, terrifically, frightfully

113-

express violence. That is why they are used, as if to show that the limit
has been reached. At

114-

the same time since the exaggeration is frequently overdone, especially when such words come to be used indiscriminately, they tend to
lose their strength and even become desemantized. This is clearly the
case with jolly which has completely lost its meaning.
Characteristic of such hyperbolic words and expressions is their
short life. They are quickly accepted and almost as quickly dropped
into oblivion, to be replaced by other words equally short lived. This
is due to the fact that with frequent usage their force is quickly lost
and they no longer serve their purpose.

VI. How words change their meaning

The question of meaning is one of the crucial problems in lexicology. It can be tackled from various points. This chapter will treat
of various processes in motion when a word changes its meaning.
It might be of importance to stress that no matter what the
motives for the change of meaning ultimately are, complicated processes occur in the human mind. These questions belong to psychology and logic and we shall leave them to authorities in these fields.
Here we shall touch upon them only as far as they are part of the
clockwork of language.
The description and classification of the types of changes of
meaning have been a major problem in lexicology. Scholars representing different linguistic schools have made various attempts in this
respect with not entirely satisfactory results.
There is no point in discussing the history of the problem here.
As a point of information suffice it to mention that the well-known
French linguist Meillet approached the problem from the point of
view of the causes for the change of meaning.
Gustav Stern, a Swedish linguist, tackled the problem from a
purely psychological basis in his interesting work 'Meaning and
Change of Meaning', Goteborg, 1932.
M. Break, A. Darmsteter, etc.. felt safer following the old classification.
An attempt at reconciling the sociological and the psychological
approach was made by S. Ullmann in his works.
The change of meaning affects the volume of the meaning.
Because of this three possibilities are open: 1) extension or widening,
2) narrowing and 3) the changed meaning and the original one are on
such different levels that they cannot be compared any more.
Since it is a question of change obviously the problem has to be
approached on a diachronical basis.

115-

1. Widening of meaning
When a semiantic area of a word becomes wider we may consider
that widening of meaning has taken place. By semantic area is to be
understood the quantity of connotations reflecting extra-linguistic items
and situations. Widening of the semantic area may be of two different
types. Polysemy is one of them. It is treated on p. 32 42 of this work.
But there is another kind of widening which is connected with the
volume of the concept reflected in the meaning of a word.
A word stands for an extra-linguistic entity as a whole. Several
extra-linguistic entities may have features in common. Through a
complex mental process this fact is reflected in language. The word
standing for one of the entities begins to stand for the others too but not
as separate ones. It actually reflects the common features of them all. In
this way it does not cover the limited area one entity only but the area of
the others too.
A distinction has to be made between polysemy and widening of the
meaning. While with polysemy there is a basic meaning reflecting an
extra-linguistic fact and all the other meanings are connected with the
basic one with widening it is different. The basic meaning is changed in
terms of volume. To put it more figuratively: polysemy could be likened
to a cluster of grapes where every berry is separate but nevertheless
attached to the stem while widening of meaning is like an apple that
grows and becomes bigger and bigger.
With polysemy the different meanings coexist, while with
widening this is not the case. The old range of meaning gives way to the
new one. And it stands to reason since it is a question of change of
volume of one and the same fact, in this case of meaning.

116-

An English speaking person might be rather surprised to find that

rival is etymologically connected with 'river'. In ancient Rome 'rivalis'
were neighbours who made use of the water of the same river. 'Rivalis'
had the meaning 'belonging to one river' from the Latin 'rivus'. The
word later became a law term and after that acquired the meaning of
'one who is in pursuit of the same object as another; one who strives to
equal or outdo another in any respect; one who, or that which disputes
distinction or renown with some other person or thing'. In comparing
the initial meaning with the contemporary one reveals the process of the
change. The original extra-linguistic fact reflected in the notion and
expressed by the word was limited to 'two neighbours using one river'.
After the notion of competition was introduced the latter became the
feature common to many other entities. On the basis of this feature the
meaning of the word was remoulded, becoming more abstract
andcovering an area wider than 'two neighbours using one river'. So that
in 'rivals in love', 'rivals in sports', 'rivals on the stage' 'rivals at work'
the word 'rival' does not have a basic meaning with different shades of it
present in these examples but the basic meaning refers to more items as
compared to the basic meaning which rival had previously.
Space comes from the Greek 'stadion', 'spadion' the grounds
where races with chariots took place. The word was borrowed in Latin
with the meaning 'a place for athletic exercises'. Through French both
forms of the word entered the English language. Stadium preserved
more or less the meaning which the word had in Latin, while the Dorian
'spadion' acquired the meaning: '1) a period or interval of time' and 2)
linear distance'. Properly speaking it can be used to indicate any limited
or unlimited period of time and... space (to use the same word for lack of
a better one).
Place Greek plateia a broad way and a court-yard, French
place court-yard and after that 'square', English place with the basic
meaning 'a particular part of space'.
Arrive, L. arribare, adripare 'to bring or come to shore or into
port; to land.' Today it does not necessarily imply coming to shore or
port. Any kind of coming to any place may be called to arrive.
Mate 'a companion'. In Gothic matjan 'to eat', mats food'.
In OHG gi-mjzo 'a meat-companion, messmate'. In Modern English
it has the meaning of companion irrespective of food.
Night-cap is a late Middle English formation. Originally it meant:
'a covering for the head worn especially in bed'. Then probably through
metaphorical use it acquired the meaning of ('an alcoholic drink taken
immediately before going to bed, to induce sleep.' In contemporary
English it means 'any kind of drink taken before going to bed.'
Town old English tun meant 'a fence, an enclosure.' Later on 'the
enclosed land surrounding or belonging to a single dwelling; a small

117-

group of dwellings or buildings; a village or a hamlet with little or local

organization.' Now commonly designating 'an assemblage of buildings,
public and private, larger than a village, and having more complete and
independent local government.'
In figurative expressions there is also widening of meaning: bad
egg, bad hat, queer fish (bird), sad dog, to be a cuckoo, to cry for the
moon, 'More My view, my faith in this matter may be wrong but I
am surely right to keep the flag of my faith flying.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Mob'), 'Bill I'm always in hot water with the Governor, as it is.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Eldest Son'). It is not of importance here how the
meaning was widened, whether due to metonymy, metaphor or
something else but the result itself, i.e. the widening of the semantic
range of the word or oo the phrase, as the case may be.

118-

Idioms proper are another instance of the same phenomenon:

'Fullarton - It suits you down to the ground that dress.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Fugitive'), 'Keith I admit that I don't like a fellow's
leavin' a girl in the lurch.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Eldest Son'), 'Mayor
Come! That caution of mine was quite parliamentary. I'ad to save face,
you know.' (J. Galsworthy, 'A Family Man'), 'Bill If you think I care
two straws about the morality of the thing...' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Eldest Son'), 'Jones Tight as an owl'e was.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Silver Box'), 'Fellow Convict ... You'll only get pneumonium in this
stinkin' wet, and they'll have you into ihe bargain, sure as eggs...' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Escape').
Nobody using the word splendid would dream of connecting it
with 'spleen'. No matter how improbable this may sound, the linguistic
facts lead to their having a common source the Greek splen)
'liver'. In ancient Greece it was believed that the liver produced the
bile. Thus when a person had the jaundice he was said to be 'splenitus'.
In Latin a verb splendeo was coined, meaning 'to have the morbid
colour of a person with liver complaint or rather with bile trouble'.
Probably 'splendidus' giving 'splendid' began to be used for the pale
colour of the sky, similar to the paleness of an ill person. Then the next
step was easy to take. The sky is not pale but 'bright', especially in
Italy. From there the widening of the meaning quickly set in and all
figurative uses of 'splendid' are connected with it. Spleen as the Shorter
Oxford Dictionary puts it is: 'Excessive dejection or depression of
spirits, gloominess and irritability; moroseness; melancholia.'
Obviously this meaning is in accord with the belief that the fluid
produced by the spleen (the bile) in excessive quantities affects one's
normal disposition.
Widening of meaning may be carried to an extent where the word
becomes so abstract that it loses its meaning. Then desemantization
takes place.
Words used hyperbolically reach this final stage of widening of
meaning. (See p. 71).
Sometimes a speaker will use words and phrases like: well, I say,
you know, look here or any other odd word out of its ordinary place.
These are not used in their proper meaning, nor in their secondary one.
Actually they have no meaning at all in such patterns and are used
simply to cover a gap in the flow of speech while the speaker collects
and arranges his thoughts. Here also it may be pointed out that
widening of meaning has taken place and has been carried to the point
of complete desemantization.
Similarly the habit of swearing without any emotional motivation
whatsoever causes such imprecations to lose their specific colouring
and their meaning as well.

119-

A careful analysis of widening of meaning will lead to the conclusion that in all cases there is a marked tendency for the
basicmeaning to shift from the specific to the general, from the
concrete to the abstract. It should be added that in the different cases
the degree of the shift, the degree of generality and abstractness, varies.

2. Narrowing of meaning
Narrowing of meaning is intrinsic to speech. Every word is more
or less an abstraction. The meaning of a word is not a mere reflection,
as in a mirror, of objects and phenomena in reality. In the process of
thinking various aspects of reality are picked out, sorted, analysed,
abstracted. Thus in our minds an idea (concept) of these entities is
formed. Roughly speaking every individual object or phenomenon may
fit into the concept of it, contributing at the same time to the deepening
of our experience and knowledge of things. That means that a word
stands for a given notion. When the word is used in each specific case,
its meaning will refer to a specific object or phenomenon under
specific circumstances and in this way its meaning will be narrowed to
this.
Under narrowing of meaning here will be discussed cases which
are not limited to individual usage only but such that have attained
social recognition, i.e. the narrowed meaning is fixed in the semantics
of the word.
It is common for people living near a town or a city to use these
words as proper names rather than the respective ones. Possibly this
might explain why in 'down town' the noun used is without an article. It
might well be that 'town' is used almost as a proper noun in this case.
Similarly with rivers, seas and mountains which are close by. When a
Bulgarian says 'I'm going to the seaside this summer,' he means to the
Black Sea coast To a Londoner 'the River', 'the Abbey', 'the tube', 'the
City' naturally stand for the Thames, Westminster Abbey, the
underground railway, the business centre of London respectively.
When abstract nouns become concrete their meaning is narrowed.
'He is an authority' on physics.' 'She is goodness herself. 'He is his
mother's hope!
There are instances when the narrowed meaning has ousted the
other meanings entirely. A diachronical investigation of some words
reveals this. Old English feoh meant 'property, cattle'. The Modern
English meaning of the word fee is 'a payment in money'. Vegetable
from Latin vegetabilis 'full of life, animating' is restricted to only
certain edible plants in Modern English. Old English mte 'food',
Modern English meat 'a special kind of food'. Mayor from Latin

120-

maior 'greater'. Modern English mayor means 'head of municiple

corporation of city or borough'.

121-

If a word becomes limited in use to a restricted number of

expressions its meaning will be affected by the limited type of context
with which it comes to be associated. The word room is an interesting
example of this. Originally it meant 'space': 'Roome for Antony, most
noble Antony.' (Shakespeare). From frequent use in combinations like:
'sleeping room', 'smoking room', the word began to acquire one of its
present day meanings 'chamber'. The original meaning is preserved in
phrases like: 'Is there any room for...?' 'There is (not, no) room for...'
'Make room for...' 'The place is roomy.'
Success comes from the Latin past participle successus of the verb
succedere 'to follow after'. The participle meant 'result'. Naturally
there might be a 'good result' and a 'bad result', respectively 'good
success' and 'bad success'. In contemporary English when one uses the
word success usually one means only 'good success'. From here: 'I had
no success' means only 'good success' and 'I wish you success' means
'good success'. One would hardly say 'I had bad success.'
Certain combinations of an attribute plus a noun become so
closely connected through frequent use that the meaning of the attribute
is, as it were, absorbed by the noun and there is no further need of the
qualifier.
Undertaker in late Middle English meant 'one who undertakes a
task or enterprise'. This meaning is practically obsolete now in standard
speech at least. Through its frequent use in the phrase 'funeral
undertaker' 'one who makes a business of carrying out the
arrangements for funerals', the meaning of undertaker has narrowed
down to that special kind of business.
A few other examples of this type are: the Latin corpus 'body',
through French was borrowed into English in the form of corps. Later
owing to the combination dead corps the meaning of the word was
narrowed only to the notion of 'dead corpse' and the spelling was
altered by adding a mute to the form corpse so as to differentiate it
from corps 'a body of men assigned to a special service'.
In some cases shortening may result in narrowing of the meaning.
Newspaper has a shortened form paper which is gaining ground in
standard speech. From the point of view of its basic meaning 'a
substance composed of fibres interlaced into a compact web, made
from linen and cotton rags, straw, wood, certain grasses etc., which are
macerated into a pulp, dried and pressed; it is used for writing, printing
or drawing on, for wrapping things in, for covering the interior of walls
etc.,' paper is restricted to one single specific case of application when
used in the sense of 'newspaper'.
When a word is used in connection with a special activity its
meaning is narrowed. Operation comes from the Latin operationem
'action, performance'. Now the basic meaning of this word

122-

is modified into 'working, exertion of force, etc.' Used by a scientist

the word means 'a scientific demonstration, experiment, an operation'.
In surgery it means 'an act or series of acts performed upon an organic
body with the hand alone or by means of an instrument, to remedy
deformity, or injury, cure or prevent disease, or relieve pain'. As a
military and naval term it has the meaning of' a series of warlike or
strategic acts', in mathematics the action of 'subjecting a number or
quality to any process whereby its value of form is affected'.
Act sb. 'a thing done'. It has a narrowed meaning in 'a thing
transacted in council, etc. hence a decree'. As a law term it means 'a
record of transaction or decrees'. In the Universities 'a thesis publicly
maintained by the candidate for a degree'.
Cell originally meant 'a small room'. Now it has the following
meanings which, compared to the original, are all narrowed owing to
specialization: 'one of a number of small apartments as in a monastery,
a prison, occupied by a single person'; 'a compartment of a
honeycomb', etc., in architecture 'the space between the ribs of a
vaulted roof'; electricity 'a vessel containing one pair of plates
immersed in fluid or a voltic apparatus containing one pair of metallic
elements'; biology 'the ultimate element in organic structure, etc.'
Another common type of narrowing of meaning is evinced when
the name of the material of which an article is made is used for the
article itself: glass 'a cup'; copper, nickel, silver 'small coins'; fox
'for the fur'.
A natural device in the narrowing of the meaning of the word is to
accompany it by a qualifier. This might be called a lexicosyntactical
device. Here we are not concerned with the simple phrase of an
attribute and antecedent, but with such constructions which are on their
way to become set expressions or which have already become such.
These phraseological units are equivalent to nouns. Black art is
equivalent to 'magic', 'necromancy'. The meaning of 'art' is not only
restricted by 'black' but the combination with the latter results as if in a
new word. To a contemporary English speaker neither 'black' nor 'art'
in this combination have their original meaning and they are not
actually considered as being two separate words.
First night does not have the meaning of a night that is first in a
series to be followed by 'second night, third night', etc. The first night
of a performance is called 'first night'. The latter is no longer a free
combination of words but a fixed one. Besides this fixed combination
has acquired an additional connotation first (night) performance of,
plays' which is not expressed though clearly implied and everybody
familiar with the word knows it. So that again 'first night' may be
considered as one word with a restricted meaning as compared with the
meaning of the free combination 'first night'.

123-

This also holds good for such combinations as Indian corn,

common sense. It is worth noting that in all these specialization takes
place simultaneously with the narrowing of the meaning. So that on the
one hand the semantic range is limited and on the other, it is restricted
to one special case which conditions the slight remoulding of the
meaning itself.
The reverse can be observed in other combinations of adjective +
noun. By omitting the noun the adjective is substantivized and stands
for the two notions at the same time. Bearing in mind that the presence
of the adjective in such cases narrows the meaning of the noun, the
resulting substantivized adjective will have a narrow meaning too. A
point to make here is that the adjective is not to be felt as such any
more.
Private 'rank and fille soldier' is derived from 'private soldier'.
The adjective 'private' originally restricted the meaning of 'soldier' and
the effect of the free combination was the meaning 'a special kind of
soldier'. When the noun 'soldier' was dropped the adjective 'private'
stood for the whole notion 'private soldier'. It became a substantive with
the meaning of the combination. From the point of view of the meaning
'soldier', 'private' has a narrow meaning.
General 'an officer holding definite military rank, i.e. the rank
next below that of a field-marchal'. It comes from the phrase 'general
officer' which used to mean 'an officer of any superior rank'. By
dropping the word 'officer', 'general' began to stand not merely for the
meaning of the free combination 'general officer' but the meaning was
specialized at the same time. Now 'general' is a noun with a very
narrow semantic range.
Editorial 'a newspaper article written by, or by the direction of,
the editor'. It is derived from 'editorial article'. With the dropping of the
noun the adjective 'editorial' was substantivized and now it stands for
exactly the same semantic range as was covered by the free
combination 'editorial article' without any modification in the meaning
whatever.
Capital entered English through French. The contemporary meaning in commerce is 'the trading stock of a company, corporation or
individual on which profits or dividends are calculated'. This meaning
of the substantive was probably derived from the meaning of the
adjective 'capital' 'of or pertaining to the original funds of a trader,
company or corporation'. The adjective was used with such a meaning
in the combination 'capital stock or fund'. By dropping the words 'stock'
and 'fund' the adjective 'capital' was substantivized and began to stand
for the whole meaning of the free combination of words 'capital stock
or fund'. This word has undergone further narrowing in meaning when
used as a term in political economy 'accumulated wealth employed

124-

reproductively'. But this latter narrowing is not of the type under

discussion.

125-

The existence of synonyms plays an important role in the narrowed meaning of some words. There is no justification for two words
in a language to have exactly the same meaning, i.e. to cover exactly
the same range of meaning. Due to the constant struggle of synonyms
in a language it is inevitable for one of them either to be ousted or
restricted in meaning. This happens with synonyms of native as well
as of foreign origin.
In Old English there existed the words foda and mte both with
the meaning of 'something to eat'. There was no difference in the
semantic range of these two words. Little by little, after some struggle
meat gave way to food. In Modern English food has preserved its
original meaning, with a wide semantic range, while meat has come to
be restricted to a small semantic range 'the flesh of animals used
for food'.
There are many cases showing that borrowings have restricted
the meaning of native words, i.e. their meaning has been narrowed.
The Old English word feond meant 'enemy'. With the adoption of
the French word enemy, fiend was restricted only to 'God's enemy', i.e.
the devil.
Old English dysig giving Modern English dizzy was used to
mean 'foolish'. During the Middle English period the Old French fol
was borrowed and soon it took possession of the area of meaning
covered by 'dizzy' till then. So that only a specific kind of folly
'disposed to fall, stagger or spin around' was left to 'dizzy'. Thus
'dizzy' became a. synonym for 'giddy' covering only part of the latter's
semantic range.
Old English stol, giving Modern English stool had the basic
meaning of 'any kind of seat for one person'. The Old French chaiese
was borrowed in English in the form chair. It replaced the Old English
word and today stool means 'a wooden seat without arms or back'. If
we compare the old meaning with the new it is obvious that the latter
is much restricted.
The Old English dor Modern English deer, used to mean 'an
animal'. The Old French beste giving in Engiish beast restricted the
meaning of the Old English word. Now deer is 'the general name of a
family of ruminant quadrupeds, distinguiphed by the possession of
deciduous branching horns or antlers and by the presence of spots on
the young: the genera and the species being distinguished as reindeer,
moose-deer, red-deer and fallow-deer'. Deer has preserved something
of the old meaning only as a hunting term.
Scandinavian sky has restricted Old English heovon Modern
English heaven to the sole meaning of 'the habitation of God'.

126-

Both narrowing and widening of meaning are very often to be

traced in the history of one and the same word. Periods of widening
succeed periods of narrowing and vice versa.

127-

In Modern English pipe means a musical wind instrument.

This is a very old meaning of the word. It began to be used not only
for a musical instrument but for any 'cylindrical tube or stick for other
purposes'. With this meaning obviously the semantic range was
widened. Later on with the meaning of a 'tobacco pipe', its semantic
range was narrowed again. It should be remarked that all these
secondary meanings of the word 'pipe' exist concurrently with the
basic one. So that here as a whole is a case of polysemy.
Virtue comes from the Latin virtutem the acc. of virtus meaning
'manly excellence'. In English the word widened in meaning to
'superiority or excellence' in a more general sense. Later the word
came to be used in the sense of 'chastity', 'sexual purity', especially in
respect to young ladies. In a way the original meaning was restored to
'virtue' with the difference that it now refers not to 'manly, excellence
but to 'womanly'. Compared to the second meaning this third one is
narrower.
In analysing the different types of narrowings of meaning two
characteristic features come to the fore:
1) There is a basic tendency for the abstract to become concrete.
2) There is also a tendency for the generic to stand for the
specific.
3) It has been mentioned several times that roughly speaking in a
word; one differentiates between the meaning and the string of
sounds forming the name. In the act of the shifting of meaning
of a word both take part. That does not mean that we can
separate the name, i.e. the specific combination of sounds that
form the name, from the meaning itself; nor could anything of
the kind happen the other way about. What is worth pointing
here is that in some cases it is the form (the name) that plays
the important rule and in others the meaning.
4) Whatever shiftings of meaning we consider it becomes cleat
that always there is some sort of connection between the old
and the new meaning of a word. This connection is due to the
similarity between the two concepts which is in turn a
reflection of the similarity between the corresponding two
entities in reality. It may also be due to contiguity, to use S.
Ullmann's term, between the two concepts again reflecting the
contiguity between the two entities in real life. On the other
hand similarity between the sound complexes, i.e. names may
occur, or contiguity, i.e. the two words may appear side by
side in a context and this plays a decisive role in the shifting of
the meaning of the word.

128-

3. Metaphor
The metaphor is a figurative expression: 'They had lost faith, the
Church had become a broken reed.' (A. Saxton, 'The Great Midland'),
'A base, ungenerous wretch who under the mask of friendship has
undone me.' (O. Goldsmith, 'The Vicar of Wakefield'), 'If the defendant
be a man of straw who is to pay the costs, sir?' (Ch. Dickers, 'Pickwick
Papers'), 'Whatever happens, 'Michael' thought, I've got to keep my
mouth shut or I shall be dropping a brick.' (J. Galsworthy, The White
Monkey'), 'a ray of hope', 'to be on the razoredge', 'The queen of the
Adriatic' (Venice), 'sly puss', etc. In all these examples there are two
referents: the Church a broken reed, under the mask friendship,
man of straw, dropping a brick, a ray hope, to be razoredge, queen of the Adriatic. On closer examination it will be seen
that there is a third one, which is not mentioned but nevertheless
present in the minds of both speaker and hearer. Obviously this is a
complicated process in which several notions are involved, reflecting
the respective entities in reality. Let us take the first example and
analyse it. 'The Church had become as unrealiable as a broken reed'.
Here there are three referents: the church, broken reed and unreliable.
The latter is the cause for the linking of the other two. The church is
unreliable and a broken reed is unreliable. On the basis of the common
feature unreliable, the Church and the broken reed are related. It is important to note that both ideas 'the Church is unreliable' and 'the broken
reed is unreliable' reflect actual facts in real life. So that the metaphor
is a fanciful idea based on actual facts but creating something that does
not fully correspond to reality. The metaphor is based on a common
feature of two entities. The common feature is never mentioned, the
hearer must come to it by himself. Possibly it is this peculiarity that
makes the metaphor so exciting. The greater the difference between
the two referents the more difficult it is to find the common feature.
Besides, in almost all cases the common feature is practically the only
thing in common between the two referents. 'The Church' is in no way
identical with the 'broken reed'. The metaphor does not identify but
somehow the two notions are brought together.
The metaphor strikes the hearer with its being odd. The odder,
the better, since '...the metaphor aims at providing an expression for
the speaker's feelings, and at impressing the hearer in a definite way.'1
However ' ... the essential point is that we experience the actual
meaning of the metaphorical expression, and of the context in which it
is placed, and simultaneously also something of the pri-

129-

1
G. Stern. Meaning and Change of Meaning, Goteborg 1932, p. 306mary
meaning of the phrase or word. The fusion of the latter elements with
the actual meaning and the actual context constitutes the metaphor.'I
The classification of the metaphors in English submitted here is
basically that of G. Stern in 'Meaning and Change of Meaning'. The
advantages of this classification are that it is founded on the
distinction of the parts of speech and takes into consideration some
psychological points of view besides. A serious flaw in this work,
however, is its entirely psychological approach and the exclusion of
metaphorical phrases. The latter can be also classified following a
similar scheme taking as an index the word whose meaning is at the
centre of the expression and which constitutes the vertex of the
metaphor.
The metaphor is an intentional transfer. Its motivation is tainted
with emotiveness varying in degree in the different cases. The transfer
is founded on some similarity between the primary referent and the
actual referent. The actual referent is the one to which the word is
actually applied when transferred.
It is worth mentioning that it is mostly nouns that are subjected
to metaphor, less so verbs and still less adjectives. This is because the
metaphor, as was already said, is based on one common feature of two
referents. Thus there is need of one entity having more than one
feature. The features of the two referents must be different enough to
mark them as distinctly separate and different. At the same time the
referents must be blended on the basis of the feature they have in
common. This shows that the nouns offer practically infinite
possibilities. The adjectives, as words expressing a single quality may
be used only in one direction figuratively, of course, from the
concrete to the abstract.
G. Stern differentiates between metaphors based on similarity
and other relations. The latter are actually what is commonly known
as cases of metonymy. We differentiate between metaphor and metonymy so that in this respect our classification differs from that of G.
Stern.

Nouns
1. The name of an object stands for another object.
a) Names of plants, especially flowers are based on the common
appearance of the two referents: snow-drop (the flower looks like a
drop of snow, if one can imagine such a thing), crowfoot (looks like
the foot of a crow), larkspur ('a plant with a spurshaped calyx'),
foxglove (the flower does not look like the glove of a fox for the mere
reason that in real life the latter does not possess such a thing but the

130-

creative spirit of the people has taken care of providing it with one);
egg plant (the vegetable having the shape of an egg).

131-

b)
c)

d)
e)
f)
g)
h)

132-

Names of parts of an animal's body are often used with humorous intent for parts of the human body: beak, bill, etc. for
'nose', fin, paw for 'hand', etc.
Names of objects are used for parts of the human body also
with a humorous or derisive connotation: onion, bean, chump,
etc. for 'head', trap for 'mouth', paunch, crop, craw, maw,
gizzard, breadbasket, etc. for 'stomach' or 'belly'.
The name of a concrete entity may stand for an abstract one:
'The apple of one's eye', 'The apple of discord', 'A lump in the
throat', etc.
The name of a concrete entity may stand for another concrete
one: 'This place is hell, 'Her talk was a proper lecture', etc.
The name of an abstract entity may stand for another abstract
one: 'Knowledge is light', 'A ray of hope', 'A shade of doubt',
'A flash of wit', 'Ebullitions of anger', etc.
The name of an abstract entity may stand for a concrete one:
'To be the pride of somebody', 'To be the glory of the country'.
The name of an object stands for the person: a lamp post is a
name given to a tall, lean person; wall flower is somebody
attending a party who does not take part in the dancing but
leans against the wall or sits with chair against the wall; a stick
is a stupid person; a poker is a stiff person, etc.
2.
Names of animals stand for persons. Such cases are
usually full of derisive connotations. In this group it is
difficult to draw a line between similarity in appearance or
in quality or activity. We think that there is a fusion of
these indexes here or that each case must be analysed
separately if one would like to make this differentiation:
frog is a depracatory name given to the French by the
English. It obviously arose from the fact that the French
eat frogs; a lion is one who is brave and fearless as the
lion is supposed to be; a viper is a person wicked and
malicious, ready to bite and poison the life of others as
does a viper; an ass is a stupid person, after the name of
the corresponding animal which is not remarkable for its
thinking abilities.
4) Proper names of people used as common names: 'She
is a Venus' means that she is as beautiful as the
goddess Venus, supposedly the pink of female beauty;
'He is a Goliath' from the name of the biblical
character whose strength was legendary; a Don
Quixote is a naive idealist who does not take into
consideration the pros and the cons of a given
situation; 'A Don Juan', 'A Penelope', 'A Croesus', 'A

Judas', 'A Pecksniff, are also familiar names in this

category.
5) Names of nations as common nouns. In this group
practically all such names used in English are based
on similarity of a quality or activity. Hun, a Tartar are
synonyms for barbarian; a

133-

Spartan is a person who endures difficulties and privation of all sorts;

a Turk is used to describe a ferocious, wild or unmanageable person.
6) Names of places used as common nouns: Babel is applied to any
scene of confusion, or noisy assembly and refers to the biblical story
of the city of Babel where all languages existing on earth were
supposed to be heard; Mecca is used to mean any place one aspires to
visit or the birthplace of a political or any other kind of movement;
'Copenhagen is the Venus of the North', where Venus is used with the
connotation of 'the queen of the Adriatic'.
Verbs
To set one' heart on, to hang around, to fly into a rage, to burst
into laughter, to break a promise.
Synaesthetic mtaphor. 'Synaesthesia is an association that
connects elements from different sensory spheres, the point of
similarity being constituted by their effect on the perceiving subject.'1
Such a metaphor affects mainly adjectives and only occasionally
nouns.
Synaesthesia is a favourite figure especially used in poetry. The
following quotation of Shakespeare's 'Twelfth Night' is famous for its
many poetic images in a condensed form. Synaesthesia here plays an
important role:
'If music be the food of love, play on;
Give me excess of it that, surfeiting,
The appetite may sicken, and so die.
The strain against it had a dying fall.
Oh it came o'er my ear like the sweet sound,
That breathes upon a bank of violets,
Stealing and giving odour.'
And here is another example from the 'Merchant of Venice':
'Here will we sit, and let the sounds of music
Creep in our ears: soft stillness and the night
Become the touches of sweet harmony.
With sweetest touches pierce your mistress' ear,
And draw her home with music...'
Some adjectives used metaphorically in phrase-cliches close to
synaesthesia: warm reception, burning question, an easy mind, a high
mind, an honest penny, a strong point, a weak point, a thin excuse,
running water, small talk, etc.
As mentioned, the more extraordinary the metaphor, the
stronger its effect on the hearer. After frequent use the effect of any
1

134-

G. Stern, op. cit., p. 328

135-

metaphor fades away no matter how extraordinary. Little by little it

loses its emotional colouring and it ceases to be felt as a stylistic figure.
The metaphor does not evoke numerous associations any more and the
mind does not weave them into one bright pattern. Words or
expressions used metaphorically cease to be metaphors and acquire the
qualities of an ordinary word. There are many words in all languages
and in English too whose origin was the metaphor but which have long
ceased to have any connection whatsoever with metaphoric
associations. The degree of fading varies with the different words. If
the metaphorical element is lost then the word is considered to be a
dead metaphor. Otherwise it is a living metaphor.
Daisy is a dead metaphor. In fact only a linguist can connect it
with metaphor at all knowing from the history of this word that
originally it was 'dayes ye', i.e. 'the day's eye'. The blending of the two
components is so complete that there is not the slightest suggestion of
its original form. This fact contributed to the fading away of the
metaphor.
Horse-play may be considered as a dead metaphor. It means
rough play'. It is clear how the metaphor came to be created. But from
the point of view of contemporary English this association is not a
living one. The same is true of the name of the plant horse raddish.
In many of these cases only a diachronical investigation reveals
the metaphorical origin of the word.
Vain adj. meaning 'devoid of sense of wisdom: foolish, thoughtless' comes from the Latin vanus meaning 'empty'. 'Devoid of sense'
had a common feature with the adjective meaning 'void' and from there
the metaphorical use of the adjective which gradually lost its
figurativeness and today is a simple word with no emotional connotation.
Grave adj. meaning 'highly serious, important', comes from the
Latin gravis 'heavy'. The metaphorical connection is clear but it is
completely lost in the modern meaning of the adjective in English.
This is the explanation M. Breal gives for the development of the
meaning of the word simple. A simple character is compared with a
dress without a 'plis' (simplex)1. So that simple meant 'sine plex'
(without a plis). Then the adjective began to be used metaphorically for
anything that was without ornaments be it in the material or moral
sense.
Hooligan means 'a ruffian'. It comes from the name of an Irish
family in Southwark, London, conspicuous for ruffianism. Here the
word came to be used for every kind of rough manners. It has com-

136-

1 M. Breal, Essai de Semantique, Paris, 1917pletely lost its metaphorical

character and all associations with its original meaning. So that it might
be considered as a dead metaphor.
Magazine comes from the Arabic makhasia 'a warehouse'. In
French it was borrowed and reshaped into magazine with the same
meaning. Then it developed the meaning of a 'shop'. In the 16th century
the word entered the English language and was used with the meaning
of 'treasury', 'intellectual wealth'. In 1731 appeared the first number of
the 'Gentleman's Magazine' described in the introduction as a 'monthly
collection to treasure up as in magazine the most remarkable pieces on
the subjects above mentioned'. This was imitated in the names of later
publications and the word magazine lost all its metaphorical sense and
became a regular name for 'periodical'.I
The metaphorical figure of speech regarded from the point of
view of shift of meaning often leads to polysemy. This often happens
with some dead metaphors.
Bridge has the following meanings: '1) a structure erected to
afford passage across a waterway; 2) the narrow raised platform
whence the captain of a steamer gives directions; 3) the upper bony part
of the nose; 4) a thin upright piece of wood supporting the strings in a
violin; 5) in dentistry a frame for holding false teeth which is clamped
to adjoining teeth on either side'. The three last meanings are the result
of metaphorical use. But today this is no longer felt. These last must be
considered dead metaphors.
Metaphoric use gives rise to new formations. It is the motive for
forming by conversion such verbs as to fish 'to seek by indirect
means', 'to draw out of pocket'; to worm 'to convey oneself,
progress, make one's way with craving motions'; to rat 'to desert
one's party in difficulties as a rat deserts a doomed house or ship'; to
dog 'follow closely, pursue, track'; to hound 'to set a person at, to
urge on'. This type of word formation is gaining ground in
contemporary English, especially in American English where the drive
for figurative expressions is going on with amazing speed.

4. Metonymy

IA. Koonin, Lexicology, Moscow, 1941

137-

Metonymy is based on contiguity of two entities. This is not the

same relationship as with the metaphor whose motive was similarity.
Metonymy excludes any similarity between the two entities. The
relation with metonymy between the two entities is external and not
inherent. The associations thus are not part of the comple-xiues of the
two entities, they are connected neither in outer appearance, i.e. form,
nor is there any inherent connection of any kind between their
meanings.
'Metonomy has no need of. creative inspiration which is the basis
of the metaphor; the former respects the cosmos, the constant order of
natural phenomena, while the most vague analogy, the most subjective
similarity is enough for the metaphor to link the most incompatible
notions.'1 With the metaphor there is a gap purposely left by the
speaker which has to be filled in by the hearer through long and often
laborious mental activity. With metonymy the gap is of entirely
different character. It exists in reality. No mental strain is needed and
one has only to let metonymy carry one over the gap to be safely
landed on the other side. The prevailing idea in metonymy is closeness
in the broadest sense. With the metaphor there is a tendency to use the
concrete for the abstract more or less, while with metonymy it is rather
the other way round.
From the purely linguistic point of view with metonymy we have
one word beginning to stand for another entity.
A classical type of metonymy is the synecdoche. There are two
types of shift here:
a) Naming an entity after the name of some of its parts : bluestocking 'a woman having or affecting literary tastes and
learning', probably named after the blue-stocking they used to
wear in the late 18th and the beginning of the 19th centuries;
buttons 'a liveried page'. The buttons on the livery are felt to
be the most distinctive part and they begin to stand for the
whole entity. Brass hat a name given to high-ranking
officers because of the brass helmets they wear. 'The Jackmans
talk of his having bought' the Centry to put up more chimneys'.
(J. Galsworthy, The Skin Game'). Chimneys here is used in the
sense of 'buildings, works'.
b) The name of the whole stands for the part: 'The house was
dissolved', where house means 'the members of Parliament and
their work'. We also have church, meaning 'the congregation'
and school meaning 'the children'.
Metonymy gives the name of one entity to another because of
contiguity. Since the latter may be of diverse character there are
different types of metonymy:
a) The name of the animal for its fur: fox, chincilla, mink, etc.

138-

b)

The name of the material for the object: glass '1)

something made of glass; a) a drinking vessel made of
glass', b) (sand) glass for measuring time, c) (weather)
glass barometer, d) a glazed frame or case for
protecting plants, e) an optical instrument used as an aid
to sight'; tin 'a vessel of tin in which meat, fish,fruit etc.
is hermetically sealed for preservation'; iron 'an implement of iron used when heated to smooth out linen etc.';
skin 'a vessel made of hide of a small animal, such as
sheep or goat, and used for holding liquids etc.; nickel
(US colloq.) 'a five cent piece (containing one part of
nickel to three of copper)'; silver 'a silver coin or
articles made of silver'; copper 'a copper coin or bronze
coin', etc.
c) The name of the container for the thing contained: dish 'the food
served on or in a dish'; cup 'a cup of some contents', 'The kettle is
boiling', i.e. the water or whatever there is in the kettle is boiling.
d) The name of the place for its inhabitants: Moscow is sometimes identified with the government of the USSR, similarly London,
Paris, Washington and other capitals. Downing Street 10 is the
residence of the Prime Minister of Great Britain, hence it stands for the
notion of the British government. Wall Street is a street in New York
where the banks and the principle financial houses are situated. From
there it became identical with USA financial power. The Kremlin is the
governmental seat of the USSR and it is identified with the latter. The
White House is the residence of the President of the USA and is
identified with him. The Pentagon is the building of the General
Headquarters of the American military forces and has become the
synonym of top military circles in that country. The pit is that part of
the auditorium of a theatre which is on the floor of the house, hence the
people occupying it. The stalls 'each of the chair-like seats arranged
in rows in front of the pit in a theatre', hence the people occupying
them. The chair meaning 'the president', the bench conveys the
meaning 'judge'; the bar 'the barristers'; the pulpit 'the priest'; the
board 'the members of a leading body'.
d) The name of the organ for the capability: to have a
good ear for means 'to have the ability of
discriminating sounds and recognizing musical
intervals'. Eye besides meaning 'the organ of sight'
means also 'the ability of seeing', to have an eye
for. 'To put an old head on young shoulders' means 'to
make somebody wiser than his years'.
e) The name of the thing contained for the container:
sardine 'a small fish of the herring family'. It is

139-

preserved in oil and has given its name to the can in

which fish is preserved.
f)
The name of the instrument for the person who use
it: pen 'a writer, an author'; gun 'an artillery
man', etc.
g) The name of the author for his work: a Shakespeare; a
Byron, a Hogarth respectively mean their work.
As a subclass here we may add cases of metonymy where the
name of the inventor stands for the invention: Watt 'a unit of
activity or power used chiefly with reference to electricity named after
its discover'. Ampere 'the unit of electrical current, named

140-

after the French physicist Ampere'. Davy 'the miner's safety lamp
invented by Sir Humphry Davy (1817)'. Winchester 'the name of
Oliver Winchester, an American manufacturer, used as the designation
of a breech-loading rifle having a tabular magazine under the barrel'.
Pullman 'a railway carriage constructed and arranged as a saloon,
named after its designer George Pullman'.
Another subclass here is that of the name of a person for an article
somehow connected with the latter: cardigan 'a knitted woolen overwaistcoat, with or without sleeves, named after the Earl Cardigan who
fought in the Crimean war'. Sandwich named after John Montague,
4th Earl of Sandwich (17181792) who once spent twenty four hours
without other food than beef sandwiches. Boycott 'to combine in
refusing to hold relations of any kind with (a neighbour), on account of
political or other differences, so as either to punish him, or coerce him
into abandoning his position'. The word was first used to describe the
action instituted by the Irish Land League towards captain Boycott in
1880. In these examples it is obvious that the relations between the
persons and the objects are of varying type but all are within the
boundary of contiguity.
i) Habitual expression for the person who used it: 'Nyrop states
that in Paris slang an Englishman is called un goddam or un goddem;
the form un godon is already found in the 15th century in Normandy;
similarly in Spanish un godon. All these forms are from the oath
goddam. A parlez-vous for a Frenchman is quoted by Ned from 1815.'1
j) The name of the place where the article was first produced for
the article :
Names of countries: china 'porcelain'; 'There were blue ones,
black ones, white, grey, yellow, brown, big, little, Dorkings Minorcas,
Cochin-chinas, Bantams, Wyandottes... '(G. Wodehouse, 'Love among
the Chickens'). All these names are breeds of fowls. Morocco 'leather
made originally in Morocco from goatskins'.
Names of cities: 'He has a small rose in his buttonhole and carries
a homburg, which one suspects will look too small on his head. (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game'). Homburg 'name of a town in Prussia
where such a hat was first worn.' Astrakhan 'the skin of a still-born or
a very young lamb from Astrakhan in Russia, the wool of which
resembles fur'. Berlin 'an old-fashioned four-wheel covered carriage,
with a seat behind covered with a hood'. Havana 'a cigar made at
Havana or in Cuba'. Bordeaux 'the wine of Bordeaux, claret'. Tokay
'a rich sweet wine of aromatic flavour, made near Tokay in
Hungary'...
Names of islands: Madeira 'a white wine produced in the Island
of Matieira', Canary 'a canary bird'.

141-

G. Stern, op. cit.

142-

Names of mountains: Cheviot 'a cloth made from the wool of a

special breed of sheep thriving on tha Cheviot hills in Scot- land'.
k) The name of the symbol for the symbolized: 'Freehold No 1
all that very desirable corn and stock-rearing and parklike residential
land known as the Centry, Deepwater, unique property an A1
chance to an A1 audience.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game').
1) The brand for the article: 'Its' valuable advice, the Boy said
grinning down at the polished desk, the box of Players, a crystal
paperweight.' (Gr. Greene, 'Brighton Rock'). Players is a brand of
cigarettes. Camel, Lucky Strike are also brands of cigarettes but they
are used instead of the word cigarette. Automobiles and trucks are also
called by their trade mark: Tatra, Buick, Dodge, Volga, etc.
With wines the date of their bottling, by metonymy, stands for
the wine o the bottle: 'Jack - Is this the '63', Dad ?' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Silver Box').
m) The date of the event for the event: 'the 9th of September
marks the date of the Socialist Revolution in this country'. The date is
used for all the events that took place at that time.
n) The hour for the train: 'I am going by the 6.30,' i.e. by the train
which leaves at 6.30.
These groups represent the main cases of metonymy. As life is so
complicated and varied it is quite difficult to have every possible
relation classified.
Metonymy, like metaphor, is also a means of word formation in
contemporary English. There are words which originate from
metonymy but the idea of figurativeness has completely faded out.
One might call these dead metonyms on the anology of the dead
metaphors.
Mint and money are actually dead metonyms. 'Both come from
the Latin moneta (which had both meanings), from Juno Moneta,
whose temple was the Roman mint. The surname Moneta is from the
verb monere 'to warn' or 'advise' and has nothing to do with
coining. The Anglo-Saxons borrowed moneta as mynet (whence mint)
and in French the Latin word became moneie (modern monnaie),
whence our money'I
Metonymy is one of the mechanisms which gives rise to polysemy; board 'food served at the table, daily meals provided
according to stipulation; the supply of daily provisions; entertainment.
Often joined with bed or lodging.' These meanings have sprung up by
metonymy from the meaning: 'a table used for meals'. From the
meaning 'a table at which a council is held' sprang up the meaning 'the

I Greenough and Kittredge, Words and Their Ways, London. 1920.

143-

persons who meet at a council table, as Board of Control, Board of

Trade, etc.'

144-

5. Folk etymology
The phenomenon of distorting a foreign or native word with a
strange combination of sounds in such a way that it acquires the
sounding of some familiar word is called folk or popular etymology.
Here similarity in sound plays a most important role. Probably it should
be stressed that it is not the separate sounds that are important but the
general acoustic effect of the complex of pounds. The complex of
sounds of a given word is always connected with its meaning in the
mind of the individual. So that besides the similarity in sound there has
to exist a real or fancied similarity of meaning as well.
Very often proper names are strangely distorted: 'Topping (while
he is reading, Camilie enters from the hall). Here! Have you seen this,
Camel in the Stop Press?' (J. Galsworthy, 'A Family Man'), 'Voice
What's i's nyme? Lemmy Thay calls' 'im Bill. Voice Bill
what? Little-Ann Dromondy, Lemmy Dromedary.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Foundations'). Here the name Dromondy is associated
with the noun dromedary 'a light and fleet breed of the camel'. It is
probable that the latter word was unfamiliar and strange as the name of
Dromondy and since a vague reminiscence probably flickered in the
memory of the speaker the strange sounds and meaning of 'dromedary'
were easily associated with the equally strange sounds of Dromondy.
There is always a chance for foreign words to be distorted one
way or another: 'Gilman searchy la femme, I said to Mrs. Gilman.'
(J. Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'). It is true that the English search comes or
rather is the anglicized French chercher. This is an instance of an
adaptation of the French form, to the already existing version in
English. 'Gokeson Every man of business knows that honesty's the
sign qua nonne!' (J. Galsworthy, 'Justice'). Sign here is a misunderstood
and distorted sine. 'Kickshaws 'a dainty dish', is a corruption of
French quelque chose which means 'something', hence 'a trifle, a
delicacy'I, check-mate Persian shah mat, 'the king is dead', from
Arab, root mata 'he died'. Modern English mate 'confounded'.
Shagreen 'a rough grained leather, French chagrin, Turkish saghri'1.
Obviously here the temptation of identifying grin with, green was
too strong to be resisted. Sirloin 'the upper and choicer part of a loin
of beef, used for roasting, comes from the French surloigne. The
pronunciation of sur- as [s:] connected it with the English sir. 'There is
an anecdote that tells how an English king once knighted a loin of beef
in enthusiastic appreciation of the national dish.'II

IW. Skeat, English Etymological Dictionary

IIGreenough and Kittredge, op. cit.

145-

Battledore 'a beatle used in washing, else for mangling linen

clothes, hence applied to other similarly shaped instruments'. Spanish
batidor 'beater'. We must admit that there is a resemblance in
sound as well as in meaning with the word battle. Cockroach 'a
black, beetle'. This is a borrowing from the Spanish cucaracha. The
English connected the first part of the word with cock and the second
with roach without the slightest closeness in meaning between them.
Vandryes gives an interesting example: 'Italian pomi del miori
(mala aethiopica) was distorted in French as pommes d'amour which
was borrowed in English as a translation loan love apples.I
Compound 'the enclosure in which an Anglo-Indian house or
factory stands', comes from the Malay kampotig - 'an enclosure'. Here
only the sounds are distorted while the meaning is preserved.
Folk etymology affects native words too. This is especially frequent compounds in which one of the components is of Old English
origin but is obsolete as a separate word: sand-blind half-blind,
dim-sighted'. This is a distortion of the Old English sam-blind, where
sam- was an Old English prefix meaning 'half'. By the Middle English
period it was completely obsolete and thoroughly strange to
Englishmen. It was easy to reshape the word into sana. It is only
logical that one is almost blinded when sand is thrown into one's eyes.
Folk etymology has connected the second part of nightmare
with the female horse. Actually it comes from Old English maera
'an incubus'. So that nightmare means 'an evil spirit that haunts people
at night by sitting on their chest and producing a feeling or
suffocafion.' It is highly probable that in the minds of the people
incubus took the shape of a she-horse and that is how it was falsely
connected with mare.
There are instances when a word changes its meaning due to
false etymology. After the form of a word is reshaped into another
which resembles that of a familiar word it is easy to endow it with the
meaning of the latter as well.
Belfry 'the room in a church tower in which the bells are
hung'. Now this word was borrowed from the Old French berfrei
which in turn was a borrowing from the Old Germanic bergfrid
meaning 'a defensive place or shelter'. In English the fanciful connection with bell explains the l and the ultimate influence on the
meaning, restricting it to a bell tower.

I J. Vandryes, Le langage, Paris, 1921

146-

Folk etymology actually amounts to false etymology. It is cause

of some very queer developments. For instance: rhyme is spelt with
-hy- on the supposition that it comes from the Greek rhythmos. The
fact is that in Old English there was a word rmmeaning 'number,
measure' which might have some connection with the Greek word but
it was not a borrowing. So that the spelling only witnesses a
pretentious and groundless attempt at deriving the English word from
the Greek on the assumption that this will make it look more
scholarly.
False etymology explains words like: cherry from Middle English cheri, from the Old French cerise. A mistaken notion that the final
s was the inflexional ending for the plural, reshaped the word into its
contemporary form in English. Pea is a new form for the singular of
the Middle English pese, plural pesen or peses which would give
Modern English peas both for the singular and for the plural. On the
false supposition that the s was an inflexional ending for the plural the
new form was brought about.
The reverse can be observed in quince. This is the plural form of
the Middle English quyne, coine or coin from the Old French coin
'a quince'. Probably on the analogy that many French words end in s
the plural of this word was mistaken for the singular and a new plural
was formed quinces.
There is a tendency in English for the n of the indefinite article to
be attracted by the following word beginning with a vowel. This
tendency can be traced back to Middle English. In contemporary
English it is a mark of vulgar speech. 'Lord,' said Kipps, not a
natheist?' (H. G. Wells, 'Kipps'), 'A bee's not an animal. It's a ninseck.'
(K. Mansfield, 'At the Bay'). It is only by this phenomenon that one
can explain the development of the Old English ndre 'a snake'
through Middle English naddere, neddere and finally giving Modern
English adder. This development is based on the false assumption that
the initial n was that of the indefinite article. The same is true of the
French naperon which was borrowed in English and took the form of
apron.
False etymology, especially with unlettered people, leads to some
very ludicrous misunderstandings. This is a source of humour in many
literary works. Shakespeare's Mrs.. Quickly, Fielding's Mrs. Slipslop,
Sheridan's Mrs. Malaprop, Dickens' Sam Weller and Mrs. Gamp and
the numerous army of footmen, labourers, servants, semi-educated
ladies and gentlemen exemplify the misuse of words because of false
etymology.

147-

'Bardolf Why, sir, for my part, I say the gentleman had drunk
himself out of his five sentences. Sir Hugh Evans It is his five
senses; fie what the ignorance is.' (Shakespeare, 'The Merry Wives of
Windsor'), 'Bottom ... and he himself must speak through, saying
thus, or to the same defect.' (Shakespeare, 'A Midsummer's Night
Dream'), '...and wishin' it were not so, which then this tearful walley be
changed into a flowarin' guardian. . . ' is what Mrs. Gamp says. (Ch.
Dickens, 'Martin Chuzzlewit'), 'I know she wouldn't have a
cowcumber.' (Ch. Dickens, 'Martin Chuzzlewit'), 'Mrs. Mala-prop
...She's as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of the Nile!' (R.
Sheridan, 'The Rivals') are only a few cases in point.

6. Contagion
Often a word is frequently used in combination with another.
Usually it is to specify the latter. If the specification expresses a
permanent quality there will be no need to specify the word since the
specified will take on the meaning of the specifier. It is as if the former
were infected by the latter. This is possible in cases of specialization of
meaning, i.e. when a word is used in special cases, in special contexts.
An interesting instance of contagion is the use of the definite
article for a thing mentioned before or for a thing of which speaker and
hearer are perfectly well aware.
'Once there lived an old doctor in a small town. The doctor was
known to everybody in the town as a very kind man.'I In the second
sentence the doctor and the town stand for the notions 'old doctor' and
'small town'. Here specialization has gone as far as individualization.
This becomes clear when compared with the following cases when one
may use the indefinite article for a thing mentioned but the result is
different. 'At the port we saw a steamer which was being loaded with
grain. It was a steamer of 6,000 tons.IIIn the second sentence a steamer
actually refers to the steamer mentioned before, but the topmost idea is
that it is a 'type of steamer', i.e. one of 6,000 tones. So that here
reference is made to a third notion type, and not that specific
steamer as an individual one.
In the first example it may by considered that the use of the
definite article shows that the antecedent has acquired the additional
meaning of a specifier which is dropped out.
'The lips were livid and thin, and when they moved it was with
difficulty, as though they had been glued to the teeth'. (J. Conrad, 'The

I. . , K. H. ,
, , 1952.

IIIbid.

148-

Nigger of the Narcissus'). The lips and the teeth in this sentence stand
for 'The lips and the teeth of the crew of the Narcissus' preserving at
the same time their more general meaning.

149-

But renders another example of contagion. In Old English beutan

was a preposition, meaning 'outside'. During the Middle English period
an adverb, a preposition and a conjunction were formed out of it.
Besides the meaning 'outside', 'without' it developed the meaning
'except, save'. This latter is the result of contagion. It comes from the
combination ne but. The ne was dropped out and but took over its
meaning. 'We have here but five loaves and two fish-es.' (Math. XIV.
17). This is a quotation from the authorized version of the Bible. In the
Anglo-Saxon version we read: 'We nabbad (ne habbad) her butan fif
hlafas and twegen fiscas.'I
Contagion such as is found in private 'a private soldier',
editorial 'editorial article', with auxiliary and modal verbs like yes
or no, I do, etc. have been already discussed under 'Widening of
Meaning.'

VII. Phraseology
In a language besides words there are phrases which are more or
less equivalent to the word and are also lexical units.
A phrase is 'a small group of words expressing a single notion, or
entering with some degree of unity into the structure of a sentence; an
expression; a characteristic or idiomatic expression'.II
A phrase can be a free combination or a fixed combination of
words following a syntactical pattern. The free combination of words
does not concern us here because each word in it represents a separate
autonomous unit and functions as such.
Fixed combinations or set phrases are the subject of this chapter.
In order to distinguish them from the free combinations we shall use
the term phraseological units.
The components in a phraseological unit are fixed. This fact is of
importance. It seems that once a combination is fixed it acquires the
character of a unit.
The composition of a phraseological unit may vary. It may range
for instance, from the pattern VERB+PREPOSITION or ADVERB
(ring up, sit down, look at, etc.) up to longer patterns like: between
you and me and the lamp-post and sentences like A watched pot is
long in boiling. Oaks may fall when reeds stand the storm, etc.
In order to find out the characteristic features of the phraseological unit first it has to be differentiated from the simple and the

IM. Breal, op. cit.

IINew English Dictionary

150-

common word. Then its structure has to be analysed. For this purpose
several procedures have to be applied. They are: substitution, insertion
and transformation.
Let us take the following linguistic items: eye, eye-witness, the
apple of one's eye.

151-

Eye is a word because this string of sounds forms an item which

follows the morphological pattern of the noun in English and can be a
subject, object, predicative or an adverbial modifier in thesyntactical
patterns. These features make it possible for the item eye to function as
an independent unit within the limits of the structure, of course.
Eye-witness is different in structure from eye. It consists of the
morphemes eye- and -witness which together, in this specific
combination, follow the morphological and the syntactical patterns of
the English noun.
The difference between the word eye and the item eye in the
compound can be found out by testing. If we apply the operation of
substitution to the item eye-witness the result will be the following: the
item eye cannot be substituted by any other word nor by any other form
of the word eye. So the most that can be said win be that eye in eyewitness is the common form in the singular of the word eye. This means
that this position in the pattern -witness can be occupied only by the
form eye of the word eye. This extremely narrow restriction amounting
to only one form of one specific word actually reduces the status of this
form under the circumstances into a morpheme since the latter is not
related to the other three forms of the word eye any more. As far as the
other component witness goes it may be substituted by several items
only. The restriction in this case is on the level of lexis since only several lexical items are possible in this position: witness, ball, sight,
button, etc. The question arises whether they are words or not. In order
to arrive to an answer we have to find out whether they function
independently or not. For this purpose we shall apply the two
operations: insertion and transformation.
It is not possible to insert any other item between e and witness,
eye and ball, eye and sight, eye and button, etc. This not the case with
patterns of the type good witness where with the help of conjunctions
there is theoretically a possibility to insert an infinite number of other
items! Good and ... and ... or ... but (etc.) witness. This points to the fact
that neither eye nor witness function as independent words in this
combination. Further on a transformation like the witness is good
applied to eyewitness will result in the witness is eye which will
immediately be recognized as 'non-sensical'. A relevant transform of
eye-witness might be the (a) witness who has eyed (seen) whatever it is.
These two operations show that in eye-witness neither eye nor witness
function as words (independently). They have their own position in the
compound but the latter as one unit follows the pattern of the noun in
English both from the morphological and the syntactical point.

152-

Still the question whether witness is a word or not remains open. It

was found that eye was a morpheme appearing in this pattern in
combination with witness. This combination as one unit follows the
morphological and syntactical patterns of the English noun i.e. it is a
noun, a word. The components of a word cannot bewords but only
morphemes. So that not only eye but witness too is a morpheme. The
difference between the two is that witness bears the morphological
markers of the whole compound thus giving the impression that it is a
word by itself with a complete grammatical form.
The conclusion is then, that the difference between eye and eyewitness lies in the fact that the former is a one-root noun while the
latter is a two-root noun.
The apple of one's eye is obviously on a different structural level
from the previous two items. If substitution is applied it will show that
any common form of any, noun, both in the singular or in the plural
can stand in the position between the and of. Any genitive form of any
noun both in the singular or in the plural, or a possessive pronoun can
stand in the position right after of. Any common form of any noun
both in the singular or the plural can stand in the position next to it.
The restrictions, are of a grammatical, to be more precise, of a
morphological character. The pattern itself is a syntactical one. On the
other hand the fact that at least: two forms of the noun are possible in
this position points to the comparatively independent functioning of
the nouns within the syntactical pattern.
While substituting the items will not impair the syntactical
pattern it will destroy something in it. What is it? It is the meaning.
There is something about the meaning of the item that makes it
different from, let us say, the apple of one's tree. The extra-linguistic
referents 'apple' and 'tree' are related. Apples grow on trees and a
certain apple may belong to a certain tree. But the fruit apple does not
have this or any other relation with the eye. From the linguistic point
of view this is a case of polysemy. The word eye used: figuratively
acquires another meaning. But this happens only in this specific
pattern. The latter is more than an ordinary syntactical pattern since
there are lexical requirements about it too.
The phraseological unit the apple of one's eye is similar to the
compound word eye-witness. In both units the components are fixed
but in the former the fixity is on the syntactical level while in the latter
on the morphological one.
The semantic relations among the components in both units
could be traced out and are of importance as to the character of the
unit.
The semantic relations in a compound word may be idiomatic or
non-idiomatic. For instance: eye-ball is a compound with an idiomatic

meaning due to the figurative use of ball. It is as idiomatic as the

phraseological unit the ball of fortune. Ash-tray is a compound without
any idiomatic meaning. It corresponds to the free combination of words
on the syntactical level in terms of meaning: 'a tray for ashes'.

154-

It is hardly possible to say that there is a phraseological unit with

a completely non-idiomatic meaning. Actually the most non-idiomatic
phraseological units have figurative meanings, either as a whole or
some of their words: A friend in need is a friend indeed; the pot calls
the kettle black; if you touch pot, you must touch penny, etc.
What makes a phrase a phraseological unit is not its grammatical
structure. In this respect every phraseological unit follows the same
syntactical pattern as any free combination. What is more, the
morphological requirements for the words in a phraseological unit are
exactly the same as in a free combination. What differs a
phraseological unit from a free combination is figurativeness in
meaning. Its grammatical completeness is the basic criterion to
distinguish a word from any other linguistic unit, figurativeness in
meaning may be, considered as the basic criterion for distinguishing a
phraseological unit from every other syntactical unit.
The meaning of a free combination is motivated and brought
home by the syntactical relations while with the phraseological unit the
syntactical relations are of secondary importance and sometimes are
not at all important for the meaning of the unit.
From the semantical point of view a phraseological unit may
have one or more words of importance around which the remaining are
grouped. There are instances though, where all words are of equal
importance. The phraseological unit consisting of a verb and preposition or adverb, for instance, has one vertex I: catch up, ring up, sit
down, hold on, etc. where the verb is the vertex. In the cases of verb +
participle or adjective: to be going, to be pleased, to be aware, etc. the
vertex is not the auxiliary verb but the other word which from the
grammatical point is a true predicative. These cases show a divergence
between the most important word grammatically and the most
important word semantically in one and the same phraseological unit.
Small talk, yellow journal, etc. are double vertex phraseological
units because small and yellow in them play a different role and are
more important from the semantical point, than in the free combinations 'a small piece', 'a yellow leaf'. In the latter they are simply
attributes to their antecedents used with their literal meanings. In small
talk and yellow journal they give an emotional connotation to the
meaning of the head word.
The fact that the grammatically important word in a phraseological unit does not necessarily coincide with the vertex is of paramount
importance in understanding the nature of the phraseological unit. This

I A. I. Smirnitzki in his , , p. 212, uses the

terms , , which I took the
liberty to translate as one vertex, double and polyvertex

is another fact pointing to the importance of semantics and not of the

grammatical form in the phraseological units.

156-

The problem of the semantic relations in the phraseological units

is as interesting and unexplored territory as is with the compound
words. In recent years two very important works on these problems
appeared: H. Marchand, The Categories and Types of Present-day
English Word-formation, Wiesbaden, 1960 and R. Lees, The Grammar
of English Nominalization, Bloomington, 1960.
The Soviet academician V. V. Vinogradov distinguishes three
main types of phraseological units: 1) phraseological mergers, 2)
phraseological unities, 3) phraseological combinations.I A. I.
Smirnitzki limits the scope of the phraseological units by excluding
what he calls 'traditional combination of words' and the 'idioms'.
Actually he differentiates between free combinations of words and
traditional combinations but still does not consider the latter as
phraseological units.
,
, ,
,
.
... ,
, ." (. 209).
...
,
(),

, ,
..." (
, . 224, . . ).
It seems that in this way Smirnitzki puts in rather watertight
compartments the different types of word combinations and in practice
his only criterion for a phraseological unit remains idiomaticness in the
narrowest sense of the word. He himself stresses in his book quoted
above that there are two points characterising a phraseological unit, its
idiomaticness and its existence as a lexical unit in the language, ready
to be used. However, he has overlooked the second point. As a result
Smirnitzki considers as phraseological units only one category of
combinations of words.

I . . , munax
, . . . 18641920. The terms are my translation from the
Russian.

I consider Vinogradov's classification to give a clearer and truer

picture of phraseology. Based on the distinction between a word and a
phraseological unit on the one hand it also reflects the various stages
of development the phrase undergoes on the other: from a free
combination of words to idioms proper. This approach explainsthe
various border-line cases and at the same time shows that there ar no
hard and fast lines of demarcation between different types of
phraseological unit.

1. Phraseological combinations
If we imagine the phraseological units as a ladder the phraseological combinations will be the first rung in it. In them the memory
of the free combination to a certain degree is still living. This means
that the syntactical relations of the component words to some extent
influence the meaning of the phraseological combination. But as a rule
the syntactical relations in them are on the way to lose their
importance, they become fossilized. The various phraseological
combinations represent different nuances and stages of
idiomaticalness (figurative meaning in the widest sense). However, all
of them are set phrases which makes them ready to be used at any
moment as is the case with the words. This feature of theirs is an
important criterion in distinguishing the phraseological combinations
from the free combinations.
The origin of the phraseological combinations are the free combinations which come to be used always in one and the same linguistic
context, i.e. the linguistic components are the same and appear in the
same morphological and syntactical pattern. Because of this the
components start influencing each other until they lose much of their
independent status and meaning. The syntactical relations within the
phrase begin to lose their major importance.
The meaning of a phraseological combination is not exactly the
sum total of the literal meanings of the component words. There is
figurativeness or emotiveness in some of its components.
Phraseological combinations are used as frequently as ordinary
words. This fact explains why in most cases the awareness or being
figurative is dulled. They are not considered as picturesque any
longer.
There are many ways of classifying phraseological combinations
depending on the feature chosen as basic criterion. Since with them
grammatical considerations still play an important role it seems
pertinent to classify them according to the morphological character of
the components:

158-

a) Verb + noun: 'One moment hold the line'. (K. Mansfield

'The Garden Party'). The phraseological combination functions as a
single lexical unit which becomes clearer when compared with the
free combination of words 'hold the line'. In the latter both 'hold' and
'line' can be substituted and the structure will remain the same. Only
lexically it will change. While with the former any change in the
components will impair the unity of the phrase. The same is thecase
with: to change colour, to bring word, to turn traitor, to earn one's
living, to make friends, etc.
b) Verb + preposition + noun: to be on the track, to look into the
matter, etc.
c) Verb + adjective: to grow lazy, to plead guilty, to drive crazy,
etc.
d) Verb + adverb: to go out, to draw back, to sit down, to took
out, to look sharp, etc.
e) Adjective participle or numeral + noun: class consciousness,
solitary confinement, summit talks, iron will, cold war. Fifth column, for instance, is an interesting example of how a
phraseological combination comes into being. 'Etymologically
it derives from the Spanish quinta columna. The expression
came into existence in 1936 during the Civil War in Spain
when the fascist general Mola besieged Madrid with four
columns declared that the fifth column, i.e. his secret
accomplices were in Madrid'.I Today the phrase fifth column is
not a free combination as it was at the beginning but is a
phraseological combination meaning 'a secret accomplice,
traitor, spy etc.' In other words when the item fifth column is
used with the latter meaning it is not a free combination any
more but becomes a phraseological combination.
f) Noun + preposition + noun: a web of lies, word of mouth, slip
of the tongue, etc.
An analysis of the above examples will show that the grammatical
form of at least one word in the phrase is as if fossilized, i.e. it is fixed
and cannot be changed. This is not the case with a free combination
where all kinds of transformations are possible.

2. Phraseological unities
Phraseological unities are potentially equivalent to words, as
Vinogradov says.2 The grammatical form of almost all their components
I . . , - , , 19562

. . , op. cit., . 353

159-

is fixed and cannot be changed. Their semblance to a free combination

of words is almost nil, or rather if amounts only to similarity in form,
homonymy. Phraseological unities express a single notion and are
lexical units completely formed and ready for use in the language just
like the phraseological combinations and the words.
The meaning of a phraseological unity is much more idiomatic
than that of a phraseological combination. But still it is somewhat
related to the meanings of its component word. On the whole with the
phraseological unities the meaning is further from being the sum total
of the meanings of the components than with the phraseological
combinations.

160-

Within this group, as can be expected, there are also various

degrees of idiomatic meaning. Figurative use of the words in a
phraseological unity is typical. There are cases where no figurativeness
in the proper sense of the word is present. But then the phrase has a
wider range of application, in other words it becomes more abstract as
in the case with widening of the meaning of a word.
According to their nature the classification of phraseological
unities may be based on the presence of figurative meaning or not and
on other semantic criteria.
a) Figurative phraseological unities: 'It had struck home'. (J.
London, 'Martin Eden'), 'On my honour, gentlemen, my hand upon my
heart, you will find no bad hats among my passengers.' (Gr. Greene,
'The Heart of the Matter'), '... and since it had been suicide why open
old wounds' (Gr. Greene, 'Brighton Rock'). In these examples the
phraseological unity is thoroughly figurative
There are cases where not all components are used figuratively: 'I
have to keep house?' she said looking at him archly'. 'House'. You can
put a chain round its neck and tie it up,' he retorted'. (D. H. Lawrence,
'The Lost Girl'). 'The ghost of a smile appeared on Soame's face'. (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Man of Property'). 'You got a tip? Mr. Corkery
asked. 'Straight from the horse's mouth.' (Gr. Greene, 'Brighton Rock'),
'Heythorp Name in my family is old as hills... poor as a churchmouse.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Old English'), 'Ernest Your old Dad is as
mad as a hatter with me.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Joy'), 'De Levis Thick as
thieves a good motto, isn't it?' (J. Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'). 'I want
every room in this house as clean as a pin by twelve o'clock'. (E.
Caldwell, 'Runaway'), 'Grandfather came home as pround as punch
and pulled the bottle out of his pocket... He's gone back to his books
and he'll be as happy as a king working away till I make his bed.' (E.
Gaskel, 'Mary Barton').
There are cases when in phrases of comparison the latter element
may vary: 'Constable 'Right as rain' eh, my girl?' (J. Galsworthy,
'The Pigeon'), 'hope you are well, sir.' 'Right as a trivet, sir,' replied
Bob Sawyer.' (Ch. Dickens, 'Pickwick Papers'). And there is still a
third variant to this one: right as nails. This fact shows that the fixity
of the phrase is not so very rigid since it permits of changes. It is true
that they are limited only to lexis and do not affect the grammatical
structure, but still they are changes. Such a thing is not possible with
the idioms proper.
The origin of many phraseological unities is the free combination
of words semantically related to the labour process. These free
combinations soon become set phrases. After that they acquire figurative meanings and begin to be used in standard speech, torn away

161-

from the professional jargon of their birth. In this way their semantic
range is widened.
To build on sand as a phraseological unit means 'to found or rely
on something unsteady'. This expression is from the Bible but

162-

obviously its origin is the free combination of words used in masonry.

One's cake is dough comes from bakery. As a phraseological unity it
means 'the business (enterprise) is not completely ready'. ,'Bly-Fact is
her winder wants cleanin', she' ad a dusty time in there.' (J. Galsworthy,
'Windows'), 'They must cat their coat according to their cloth.' (J.
Galsoworthy, 'The Man of Property'), 'not to do a stitch of work', etc.
From railway jargon a few phraseological unities are: to get up steam,
to put on steam, with full steam on, to blow off steam, etc.
Expressions like: to paint somebody black, to strike the note, to
harp on the same string, to play first fiddle, behind the curtain, to pull
the string, to play the leading role, etc. have their origin in the jargon
of the world of art.
Sports also are a source of many phraseological unities: 'Underwood Don't hit below the belt, Roberts.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Strife'),
'fair game, to be on one's back, to strike the ball under the line, to
knock out, etc.
Every kind of human activity has given rise to many
phraseological unities:
Angling: to jump at the bait.
Hunting: to be at bay, to have (hold, keep) somebody at bay, to
fire into brown, etc.
Military jargon to be in arms, to throw down one's arms, to
fight a battle, to lose a battle, to throw a bomb into. 'Mailer I've
always admired your pluck, sir, keeping the flag flying'. Galsworthy,
'Old English'); nautical jargon: 'But in spite of her, Tom knew where
the wind lay.' (M. Twain, 'Tom Sawyer'), 'Builder Don't put your oar
in.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Windows').
There are the so-called 'inland' or 'freshawater' phrases as: to
shiver on the brink, to clutch at a straw, on thin ice, much water has
flowed under the bridges, etc.
There are many phrases connected with animals: 'Robert We
know the way the cat is jumping.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Strife'), 'Beton
The cat's out of the bag and might just as well have been out sooner.'
"(J." Galsworthy, 'The Forest'), 'Wellwyn ... Suppose he comes in
while the professor's here. They're cat and dog.' (J. Galsworhy, 'The
Pigeon'), 'Builder Shut the stable door? No, my boy, the horse has
gone.' (J. Galsworthy, 'A Family Man'), 'Twisden Of course if you
want to play at wild asses there are plenty who will help you.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Fugitive'), 'Miss Card I fear that land is a white
elephant.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Exiled').
Book-keeping: to settle accounts, of no account, to be in the red,
etc.
Medicine: to feel somebody's pulse, a bitter pill to swallow, to
swallow the pill, etc.

163-

Card playing: 'Ventnor ... I'll bring the whole pack of cards
about your ears, young cock.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Old English'), 'Lever

164-

We may not sell after all, dear, we may find it turn out trumps.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Joy'), etc.
Houses and buildings: to force an open door, to lay at the door of, to be
off the carpet, to get up on the wrong side of the bed, to wash one's
dirty linen in public, etc.
Cooking: 'Hornblower I never met people with less notion
of which side their bread was buttered.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin
Game'), 'Maud I do really assure you she won't; it's only wasting
your time and making you eat humble pie' (J. Galsworthy, 'A Family
Man'), 'Dawker Besides, it's got out that there's a scandal; common
talk in the village not the facts, but quite enough to cook their goose
here.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game'), 'Colonel There are a lot of
these chaps about whose business is to cook their own dinners' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Joy'), 'Harris The Mayor's in a regular stew...' (J.
Galsworthy, 'A Family Man'), etc.
References to the human body are to be found in many fixed
phrase. L. P. Smith states that 'The human head with its hair, its eyes
and ears and nose and mouth, is the source of more than two hundred
idioms.'I 'Edgar Then why didn't you put your foot down.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Strife'), 'Clare You wouldn't let me come to you for a
bit, till I could find my feet?' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Fugitive'), 'Walter
I think we owe him a leg up ' (J. Galsworthy), 'Press Now if I could
have an article 'Bombed and Bomber' sort of double interview, you
know, it'd very likely set me on my legs again.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Foundations'), 'Bertley The great thing, Wellwyn, with those poor
fellows is to put your finger on the weak spot.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Pigeon'), 'Mrs. Lame We poor Bohemians, my dear young man, you
can't conceive how we live from hand to mouth...' (J. Galsworthy, 'Old
English'), 'Builder What is it now? With all the world poking their
noses in?' (J. Galsworthy, 'A Family Man'), 'Heythorp Being an
action against you make you pay throught the nose.' (J. Galsworty,
'Old English'), 'Brownbee In fact, we, excuse me admire your
courage in keeping a stiff lip in spite of your your infirmities.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Old English'), 'Lady M. I've been rude to you, I'm
afraid. Please forgive me.' 'Reporter Oh! Our backs are broad, thank
you.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Show'), etc.
Quotations from the Bible are numerous in English and they have
become phraseologcal unities: 'Wilder I wash my hands of it.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Strife'), 'Thomas ... He will be kicking against the
pricks, I am thinking.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Strife'), 'Lammy Their
right' ands never knows wot their left 'ands is writing!' (J. Galsworthy,
'The Foundations'), 'Winsor Dash it, General, we must do as we'd

I L. P. Smith, Words and Idioms, London, 1933, p. 297

165-

done by.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'), 'Hillcrist My father would turn

in his grave.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game'),

166-

'Mrs Builder The camels and the last straw'. (J. Galsworthy, 'A
Family Man'), 'Hornblower Godh elps those who' elp themselves
that's at the bottom of all religion.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game'),
etc.
Mythology, astrology and various other superstitious beliefs have
given rise to many phraseological unities: rising star, to be born under
a lucky star, to believe in one's star, the stars were against it. 'Builder
By George, Ralph, you may thank your stars you haven't got a
delightful daughter.' (J. Galsworthy; 'A Family Man'), etc. All are
connected with the belief that every man has his own star for good and
for evil. During the Middle Ages when this belief was alive these
expressions were free combinations of words because they were used
with their basic meanings. Later they were used only figuratively when
the notion of star-faith lost its significance.
From the same period date phrases like: to be in good (bad)
humour, to be out of humour, to breed (make, stir up) bad blood. All
these are connected with the belief that there were four cardinal
humours m the human body: blood, phlegm, bile and melancholy. The
proper balance of these spelled health. An excess of one or another
caused one to be sanguine, phlegmatic, bilious (choleric) or
melancholic.
When discussing problems connected with the metaphor it was
pointed out that characters from literature often become the symbol of
a person with the corresponding moral qualities. Similarly phraseological unities acquire a figurative meaning and begin to be used
out of their original linguistic context. And here too from a free
combination of words they grew into phraseological units. 'Mary saw
that the grapes were sour and the next day she set out herself to look
for work.' (E. Gaskel, 'Mary Barton'). This phrase comes from Aesop's
fable 'The Fox and the Grapes'. From a free combination in the story
the phrase has become a phraseological unity meaning 'something
unattainable' '...putting into it the lion's share of chopped meat and
vegetables which her ladle scraped from the bottom of the pot.' (J.
London, 'Martin Eden'). This too is from an Aesop's fable and as a
phraseological unity means 'the biggest and best part of something.'
Another phrase whose origin is not quite clear is the skeleton in the
cupboard which is often used in English, 'She's the skeleton in the
family cupboard, isn't she?' 'She wasn't much of a skeleton as I
remember her,' murmured Euphemia, 'extremely well covered.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'In Chancery'). This phraseological unity means 'an
unpleasant secret' (in the family).
Proverbs are also phraseological unities. They can be figurative
and non-figurative but all have an emotional colouring. Their meaning

167-

is widened when compared to their homonymic free combination of

words.

168-

The following belong to the figurative: 'I perceive,' said Jolyon,

'that you are trying to kill two birds with one stone.' (J. Galsworthy, 'To
Let'), 'Bly What's drink to one is drought to another. (J. Galsworthy,
'Windows'), 'Bastaple How about Mr. Tregay? Walls have ears, care
killed the cat.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Old English'), 'Heythorp Kill the
goose that lays the golden eggs' (J. Galsworthy, 'Old English'). With
many of these it is sufficient to mention only a part to suggest the
whole: 'It has not been his fault, but he has played much with... with
pitch?' (J. London, 'Martin Eden'). With pitch is part of the proverb
touch pitch and you will be defiled. It is interesting to note here that the
word pitch is important in the context. Pitch is the characteristic
feature of the whole phrase, and is its vertex. Similarly with: 'Charles
I say, Chloe! You're making mountains' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin
Game'). Making mountains alludes to the saying to make mountains
out of molehills. 'Mr. March Now take her away!' Cook, go and
open the front door for Mr. Bly and his daughter.' 'Mr. Bly too many
cooks? (J Galsworthy, 'Windows'). Too many cooks is an allusion to
too many cooks spoil the broth. Birds of a feather flock together may
be suggested by birds of a feather; a rolling stone gathers no moss
by a rolling stone; still waters run deep by still waters; every cloud
has its silver lining by silver lining, etc.
The proverb a bird in hand is worth two in the bush means that
one has to keep to the realizable and not lose it by striving after the
possibly attainable. This has given rise, in turn, to two other
phraseological unities: a bird in the hand meaning 'something possible
of attainment.'
Many of these proverbs are reshaped according to the extralinguistic circumstances. For instance a stitch in time saves nine is used
by J. Galsworthy as: 'Odiham Thank you, ma'am. A sniff in time
saves nine! ('The Show'), 'A word in time saves nine.' (J. Galsworthy,
'The Man of Property'), 'St. Erth Many a slip between price and
pocket, young man.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'). Here the proverb
Many a slip between the cup and the lip was reshaped. 'Chloe When
there's a straw going, you catch it! (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game').
Here allusion is made to the proverb a drowning man will catch at a
straw. 'Jill... But mother literally looks down her nose. And she
never forgives an 'h'. They'd get the 'hel' from her if they took the
'hinch'. (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game'). This is a pun based on the
proverb: He'll take an ell if you give him an inch. Such paraphrasing is
based on the assumption that the corresponding proverbs are well
known. From the lexical point of view such phraseological units seem
to lose their unity, become amorphous, so to speak, and a starting point
for new phraseological units. They are no longer treated as units ready

169-

to be used in the language but as building material for new

phraseological units.

170-

b) The non-idiomatic phraseological unities have the same origin

as the idiomatic, i.e. they come from a free combination of words.
Here too, due to frequent usage they begin to function as a single unit.
Cliches and hackneyed phrases are phraseological unities. With
these it is not figurative use that is the motivating force in their
becoming phraseological units but it is rather the other way rounds.
Although such phrases might have been figurative they lose their
emotional connotation on becoming cliches. Figurativeness completely
fades away and the only emotion they provoke is infinite boredom. In
this type of phrase an interesting kind of desemantization is to be
observed, a desemantization of the whole phrase as a unit.
Fowler in his 'Modern English Usage' gives a long list of such
phrases which unfortunately can be made very much longer. We have
chosen here only a few as an illustration: sleep the sleep of the just, the
feast of reason, the irony of fate, too many for words, my better half,
young hopeful, at the parting of the ways, etc. Phrases of address and
greeting are also in this group. 'Dear so-and-so' may be a free
combination when dear is taken in its literal meaning. But in business
or (official letters 'Dear so-and-so' is a phraseological unity and is
merely a phrase of address. The same is true of the ending of a letter:
Yours truly, Yours sincerely, Your obedient servant, etc. Such phrases
are not taken at their own value which makes them different from the
free combinations. They become phraseological unities because they
are on the way to desemantization.
The phrase how do you do has gone furthest in this respect. When
two strangers are introduced they pronounce this formula which does
not mean anything at all. Very probably it used to mean something, i.e.
as a free combination. But times have changed and people too. Today
how do you do is a phrase pronounced out of civility in order to cover
the gap of silence which naturally may set in between two persons who
meet for the first time.
There are proverbs and sayings which are not figurative nor
idiomatic. The difference between a phraseological unity and a free
combination of words in these cases lies in the fact that the phrase is
fixed and ready for use in the language as a unit. This is because of the
widening of its meaning. It is used for extra-linguistic situations
different from the original ones: first come, first served, all is well that
ends well, much ado about nothing, to be or not to be, a fool may give
wise man counsel, two wrongs don't make a right, etc. 'Heythorp
Ask no questions be told no lies... Never look back doesn't do.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Old English').
Terms may be classified here too: 'Rolf If the survival of the
fittest is right.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Skin Game'), the missing link, etc.

171-

From the grammatical point of view phraseological unities may be

classified according to their structure:
1) Negative phrases which have become phraseological unities:
Nothing doing, nothing to write home about, it is no good, etc.
2) Interrogative phrases which have become phraseological unities: what next, how comes it, how now, etc.
3)
Exclamatory phrases which have become phraseological
unities: Man alive! Right you are! Here you are!, etc.
4) Phrases equivalent to adverbial modifiers and conductions:
all at once, on end, in order to, as far as, as long as, above all,
all over, at last, all the better, etc.
V. Vinogradov remarks that in some cases euphony is a factor for
welding various words in a free combination into a phraseological
unity.1 It stands to reason that euphony in itself irrespective of
meaning cannot form a phraseological unity. It plays an important role
only as far as the choice of a word fits into the phrase. Euphony
speedy up the establishing of a phrase as a phraseological unit since it
facilitates the human mind in remembering, the combination as one
single unit.
In English euphony is apparent in many phraseological unities:
1) Phrases based on rhyme: "... just answer up fair and
square and don't be afraid.' (M. Twain, A Connecticut
Yankee in King Arthur's Court'), 'Mabel Really and
truly?' (J. Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'), 'Heythorp Thirteen
years ago. Bought it lock, stock and barrel half cash,
half in promises.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Old English').
2) Phrases based on alliteration: 'Twisden Come, what's
your position? Neither fish, flesh, nor fowl,' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Fugitive'), 'Wilder We can't go on
playing ducks and drakes with the Company's property.'
(J. Galsworthy, 'Strife'), 'So he had no more part and
parcel in her than he had in the Puss.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Man of Property'), '... and there you are snug as a candle
in a candlehold.' (M. Twain, 'A Connecticut Yankee in
King Arthur's Court').
3) Phraseological unities based on synonyms and antonyms
are quite frequent in English : 'In all the time you know
good and well I've always been just like I am now.' (E.
Caldwell, 'The Sunfield'), 'It must be going up in value in
leaps and bounds.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Man of Property'),
'... they speak with pride of the fact that he can do a
hundred marvels which are far and away beyond their
own powers.' (M. Twain, 'A Connecticut Yankee in King
Arthur's Court'), 'Harness It's a kind of high and mighty

172-

aristocratic tone I thought we'd grown out of seems I

was mistaken.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Strife'), 'Sir William I
can't have a keeper of mine playing fast and loose in the
village like this.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Eldest Son'),
'Reporter I say before they come you know all the
ins and outs. Do tell

173-

me your theory?' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Show'), 'Ralph There are two
sides to every coin, my dear. John's the head and I'm the tail.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'A Family Man'), etc.

3. Phraseological mergers or idioms proper

174-

From a synchronical point of view an idiom in the narrowest sense

of the word is a phraseological unit which expresses one notion,
thoroughly irrespective of the meaning of the component words. For
instance: 'Mud in your eye! said Pilon.' (J. Steinbeck, 'Tortilla Flat').
If the words in this phrase are taken at their face value, i.e. literally, its
meaning will be: 'There is mud in your eye' or 'May there be mud in
your eye.' However this idiom means anything but that. In
contemporary English this idiom expresses a wish for one's prosperity
while drinking one's health. So that, properly speaking, the meaning of
the idiom does not have anything to do with the literal meaning of its
components. As Vinogradov says: 'From the point of view of
contemporary language it is a chemical combination of dissolved,
amorphous lexical parts.'I Idioms proper primarily might have derived
from free combinations of words. In the course of time they become so
completely torn away from the original extra-linguistic context that
even the syntactical relations between the component words have no
bearing at all on the meaning. It is interesting to point out that with
idioms proper the words are present, properly shaped and correctly
arranged syntactically. Still nobody bothers about this and the meaning
of the phrase does not have anything to do either with the separate
meanings of the words or with whatever kind of combination they may
enter among themselves, or with the meaning of the syntactical unity
as a whole. The meaning of an idiom proper reminds one of the
conventionality of the word. With the word the building material is the
phoneme and the morpheme, while with the idiom it is the word in a
kind of amorphous state. Conventionality is not at the bottom of the
idioms as it is with the word. Conventionality attaches to the idiom
afterwards. Once a phrase acquires a meaning it is accepted for granted
by the following generations. In the idiom proper the grammatical
motivation is not important as is the case with the word. The ultimate
motives for a phrase to become an idiom proper are not of a purely
linguistic character. Nobody cares about syntactical relations of the
words in an idiom proper because they do not affect its meaning. The
idiom proper is an indissoluble unit and thus it becomes really and
truley equivalent to the word. In this respect it comes close to the
compound word. The difference between an idiom proper and a
compound word lies in that its components are words,no matter that
they are in an 'amorphous state' while with the compound word the
components are roots. Of course, border-line cases may occur. 'Poohpooh,' said Mr. Butt cheerfully, adjusting his galoshes, 'I never mind
the rain does one good.' (S. Leacock, 'Perfect Lover's Guide and
Other Stories'), 'Never mind, old boy, You'll feel so much better when

I . . , op. cit.

175-

it's all over.' (J. Galsworthy, 'In Chancery'). 'Do you call yourself a
gentleman, sir?' 'Never mind, sir.' (Ch. Dickens, 'Pickwick Papers'). In
the first example it is almost clear that never mind is a free
combination of words. But how about the other examples? Especially
the last one is never mind a compound word or an idiom proper?
There is a very important thing to bear in mind when discussing
an idiom proper. The moment a word in an idiom stands for itself apart
from the other even as a hint, the spell is all over and we cannot speak
of this as an idiom proper any more. It may be at the best a
phraseological unity. That is why to make hay while the sun shines is a
phraseological unity but to make a clean breast of something is an
idiom proper. In the former make hay is a figurative expression for 'act'
and while the sun shines for 'favourable condition' since the
favourable conditions for making hay are sunshine. With the idiom
proper the free combination of the words would not make much sense.
One cannot take a single word in the phrase at its literal meaning. Nor
is any of the words in it used figuratively. Of course it is very probable
that this idiom proper sprang up from a free combination or a
phraseological unit. The fact is that in contemporary usage it is the
whole phrase that makes sense and it means 'to confess'. This meaning
is as remote from the semantic values of the component words as can
be.
Taking as a basis Vinogradov's classification of the idioms proper
they may be arranged starting with the border-line cases, i.e. those that
are in between phraseological unities and idioms proper and reaching
to cases which are idioms proper beyond any doubt.
We consider phrases from Greek and Roman mythology to be
halfway idioms. The most typical aspect of an idiom is its semantic
indivisibility, the absolute impossibility to derive its meaning from its
components. Is this the case with such phrases?

176-

Let us take the phrases Damocles' sword, Procrustean bed and

compare them with: 'No use beating about the bush, take it or leave it.'
(J. Galsworthy, 'Old English'). Even if one does not know anything
about the origin of the first two expressions one might make out
something of their meaning from the linguistic and extra-linguistic
context: 'Either complete frankness; or complete ignoring and that
meant living with the sword of Damocles above his head.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The White Monkey'), At least it is to some extent clear
that the sword of Damocles had threatened somebody under certain
circumstances similar to the case in question. This is because, to a
certain degree the meaning of the components is still alive inthe phrase.
But the whole expression is used figuratively. Of course, there will be
cases where even the context could not reveal much of the meaning of
'Damocles' sword.' It is such cases that make it possible for these
phraseological units to be considered idioms proper.
With beating about the bush no matter how hard one tries to guess
its meaning it will be in vain. Nothing whatever in the phrase suggests
its meaning, nor is the extra-linguistic situation of much help here. Not
a single word in the phrase is used with its literal or figurative meaning.
It is the whole phrase that stands for the notion. Not a single word can
be changed or replaced. This shows that the welding of the words in the
phrase is complete, and that it represents an indissoluble semantic unit.
Idioms proper in English may be classified roughly into five main
groups:
1) Idioms which reflect an obsolete social practice. To an ordinary speaker this is not apparent. It is the linguist or the
historian who may discover its origin after special investigation
as to the history of the idiom. 'Mrs. Hope There you are on
your high horse!' (J. Galsworthy, 'Joy'), 'Pockwock won his
spurs as a slave-driver and earned the undying hatred of the
proletariat' (J. London, 'The Iron Heel'), to throw down the
glove, etc. These idioms reflect feudal customs. The feudal lord
used to ride on a high horse which occasionally made it easier
for him to survey his lands and the serfs, working them. The
second idiom is connected with the custom of presenting
golden spurs to a knight on his acceptance into knighthood
after performing various exploits. The third idiom reflects the
custom of throwing one's glove down when challenging an
opponent to a fight. To an ordinary English speaking person not
acquainted with the history of these phrases to be on the high
horse means and suggests nothing more than 'to put on airs', to
win one's spurs means 'to gain distinction' and to throw down
the glove 'to challenge somebody'.

177-

2)

Phrases consisting of proper names may be idioms proper. A

clear case of such an idiom is: 'The equipage dashed forward,
and before you could say Jack Robinson, with a rattle and
flourish drew up at Soames's door.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Man of
Property'). One would expect a shorter name, since the
meaning of the idiom is 'in a wink'. But this example once
more proves that the meaning of the idiom proper frequently
lacks logic, as it were. 'De Levis I quite understand and
I'm marked for Coventry now, whatever happens.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'Loyalties'). Marked for Coventry means 'to be
doomed to social isolation'. Why 'Coventry' remains a question.
3) Translation loans result in idioms proper since in many cases
the word for word translation would not mean much as a free
combination of words. 'Colonel It's a pretty tight fit to make
two

178-

ends meet on my income. I've missed a good thing, all owing to

your aunt,' (J. Galsworthy, 'Joy'). To make two ends meet is a
translation loan from the French 'joindre les deux bouts'. 'Belton
This is a bolt from the blue.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Forest'). A bolt from
the blue comes from the German 'Blitz aus blauem Himmel'.
4) Idioms as a result of figurative usage. As has been stated,
phraseological unities may be figurative. In them some components
are used figuratively and this gives us the right to call the whole
phraseological unity figurative.
With idioms proper the matter is slightly different. Since the
separate words in them are of no importance as separate units they
cannot be used figuratively. Actually if a word in an idiom enjoys the
slightest independence the phrase stops being an idiom proper and
becomes a phraseological unity. Thus with the idioms, the meaning of
the whole phrase, as such, has to become figurative. 'Sir William
I've never objected to your sowing a few wild oats'. (J. Galsworthy,
'The Eldest Son'). This idiom comes from the free combination 'to
sow wild oats' as opposed to 'to sow cultivated oats'. The phrase was
used figuratively and later became an idiom. The meaning of the
latter cannot be opposed to the meaning of the free combination. It
does not have anything to do with it any more. To sow wild oats is not
connected either with 'sowing' or with any kind of 'oats' in the proper
or figurative meaning of these words. It simply means 'to indulge in
youthful follies before becoming steady'. 'Mrs. Builder ... But you
must forgive my feeling it impossible to remain a wet blanket any
longer.' (J. Galsworthy, 'A Family Man'). Wet blanket as an idiom
does not have any connection whatsoever with the corresponding free
combination of words. It means 'a person who extinguishes
conversation'. 'Huntingdon Oh, all right. Could be rather a little
devil, of course, when her monkey was up.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The
Fugitive'). To put one's monkey up means 'to enrage', to get one's
monkey up means 'to become angry'. 'Miss Grace There'd soon be
no foxes. Don't get that bee into your bonnet here.' (J. Galsworthy,
'Escape'). To have a bee in one's bonnet means 'to be mad on some
point'.
e) The last category of idioms proper by no means the least
important is that of phrases 'which represent such a strong semantical
unity that the lexical meaning of its components is of no importance
to the understanding of the whole.'I This statement as has been seen,
holds good for all idioms proper. But here and there one may find
exceptions to the rule. That is, in some idioms one may trace the
semantic import of a separate word occasionally. But with this last

I . . , op. cit.

179-

113

group such a thing is out of the question. 'Don't you pull my leg! (J.
Galsworthy, 'Exiled'), 'Fullarton It suits you down to the ground.'
(J. Galsworthy, 'The Fugitive'), 'You're talking through

180-

your hat. You're crazy!' (Th. Dreiser, 'The Genius'), 'They were not
bad at the price, but you couldn't get a good cigar nowadays, nothing
to hold a candle to those old Superfinos of Hansons and Bridger's!' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Man of Property'), 'Tomson Certainly; never
make bones about a little extra never 'ave in all my life.' (J.
Galsworthy, 'The Pigeon'), 'The Judge It goes very much against
the grain with me that the name of a witness should ever be
suppressed.' (J. Galsworthy, 'Justice').

4. Semantic relations of phraseological units

As phraseological units are similar to words, they may have
synonyms and though more rarely, antonyms. From a very format
point of view they may have homonyms in the corresponding free
combination of words.
Phraseological units may be synonymous on the basis of the
common notion they express: to leap in the dark, to look for a needle
in a haystack, to buy a pig in a poke. Those phrases express
uncertainty. To cut one's coat according to one's cloth, to make both
ends meet, to save for a rainy day, half a loaf is better than none,
enough is good as feast express the sober common sense of economy.
This type of synonymy probably has to be taken with a grain of
salt since it is based on a very wide semantic range of the basic notion.
There is an important difference between the synonyms of a
word and those of a phraseological unit. It comes from the difference
between the word and the phraseological unit. The word has a basic
meaning and its synonyms are other words with more or less the same
basic meaning but with various other connotations.
The phraseological unit consists of words which in themselves
are complete linguistic units and have their own meaning. The difficulty arises from the fact that in most cases the phraseological unit has
a meaning which is not exactly the meaning of its components. What
is worse with the phraseological unit, there are always two currents of
meaning: one is the literal meaning of each of its words and the other,
and more important, is the meaning of the phrase as a whole. That is
why such types of synonymy which apply to words are restricted
mainly to idioms proper. With these the undercurrent of the meanings
of the separate words is weak while the meaning of the phrase as a
whole stands out and expresses one notion.

181-

The synonym of a phraseological unit usually is not an entirely

different phrase as is the case with the word. Here it is a kind of
derivative from the phrase. By changes within the phrase
anothersynonymous phraseological unit is formed. So with
phraseological units synonymy amounts to a change in structure and is
called structural synonymy. This is out of the question with the word.
The change in the structure of the phraseological unit may be
lexical, grammatical or lexico-grammatical.
a) Lexical synonymy occurs when one word in the phraseological unit is replaced by another. The two must be either relative
or phraseological synonyms. 'Shut the door in somebody's
face', 'Slam the door in somebody's face'. Shut and slam are
relative synonyms. 'A donkey between two bundles of hay', 'An
ass between two bundles of hay'. Donkey and ass are relative
synonyms too. 'To cast dirt at somebody,' 'to fling dirt at
somebody', 'to throw dirt at somebody'. To cast, to fling and to
throw are relative synonyms. 'To lift a weight off somebody's
mind.', 'to take a weight off somebody's mind' where to lift off
and to take off are relative synonyms.
'To find a common denominator', 'to reduce to a common denominator'. To find and to reduce are phraseological synonyms. 'As
dead as a doornail', 'As dead as a herring', 'As dead as Julius Caesar',
'As dead as a mutton'. Doornail, herring, Julius Caesar, mutton are all
phraseological synonyms. 'Beyond the shadow of doubt', 'without the
shadow of doubt'. Beyond and without are phraseological synonyms.
'To take part with somebody', 'to take sides with somebody'. Part and
sides are phraseological synonyms. 'Use one's brains', 'Use one's
head'. Brains and head are phraseological synonyms.
b) Grammatical synonymy occurs when the words in the phraseological unit are the same but there is a difference in the
syntactical relations: 'Dot the i's and cross the t's.' One may
say: Cross the t's and dot the i's. The difference between the
two phrases lies in the different word order. Since the meaning
is not changed we may consider them as grammatical
synonyms. 'There are more ways of killing a dog that by
hanging', 'there are more ways to kill a dog than by hanging.
'The difference here lies in the different forms of the verb. In
the first phrase it is a gerund while in the second it is an
infinitive. 'Fortune's wheel', 'the wheel of fortune'. The
difference here lies in the different way of expressing a
genitive relation. Other grammatical differences are hardly
possible in English.

182-

c)

Lexico-grammatical synonymy is to be met sometimes. This

occurs when both words and syntactical relations are changed:
'to give somebody, the door', 'to put the door on somebody'. In
these two phrases to give and to put are different words. They
are not synonyms of any kind. Besides the word order is
different which results from the fact that the verbs have
different meanings and demand a specific word order.
Nevertheless those two idioms are synonyms since they
express the same idea. 'To call white black' is a synonym to 'to
turn white into black'. Here again the verbs are different and
they are not synonyms. Due to the semantic characterof to turn
in the second idiom into is introduced. From the grammatical
point of view in the first idiom black is an object predicative,
while in the second it is a prepositional object. Otherwise
the meaning of the two idioms is practically the same, and that
is why they may be considered as synonymous. 'To go into the
whys and wherefores of it', 'To have the why and the
wherefore'. In these two phraseological units the lexicogrammatical differences are more numerous than in the
previous) examples. The verbs are different words. The first
verb demands the preposition into which is introduced in the
idiom. In the first there is the whys and wherefores in the
plural while in the second the same words are in the singular.
In the first of it is added which is not found in the second. In
the first there is a prepositional object while in the second
the object is direct.
Phraseological units may have antonyms. The difference
between this type of antonym and antonyms of words is that the latter,
having several connotations, may have several antonyms which have
no connection among themselves. With the phraseological unit this is
not possible. From a semantic point of view a phraseological unit ran
have only one meaning. Any nuance or shade in that meaning will be
expressed either by another phraseological unit or by a word. So that
the essence of the phraseological unit does not permit of its having
many antonyms of the type in question. Otherwise a phraseological
unit may have many antonyms, phrases or simple words, but all of
them will be antonyms to the sole meaning of the phraseological unit.
To be as sharp as a needle has the following antonyms: to be dull
as ditch water, dull, blunt, stupid, foolish, slow, etc. Not a penny to
bless one's self with has the following antonyms: to be rolling in
money, to be rolling, to have money (as free combination of words), to
be flushed with money, to be made of money, to have money to burn,
to wallow in money.

183-

These two examples are sufficient for one to see an important

point in these antonyms. While with the word each connotation has its
antonyms, with phraseological units the plurality of antonyms is based
on the possibility to express one notion in different ways.
Phraseological units may become a basis for new formations
other phrases or words. Thus from to turn one' coat is formed the
compound a turn-coat, from to break heart heart breaker, broken
heart, broken-hearted, heart-breaking, from there's no use crying over
spilt milk several new phraseological units were formed, synonyms to
the first: to cry over spilt milk, the milk is spilled, to spill the milk,
spilt milk.

184-

Phraseology is a branch of language study which is very little

elucidated. It expresses the specific character of a language even more
than does the simple word. So that language study from thelexical
point of view should not be restricted only to the word, simple and
compound, but it should include a profound study of phraseology as
well.

VIII. Creative sources

The vocabulary of a language is enriched through borrowings
from other languages (direct and translation loans) and through the
coining of new words by use of linguistic material at hand.
It is commonly known that about 65 per cent of the contemporary
English vocabulary is of French origin, almost 10 per cent
borrowings from various other languages, while only the remaining 25
per cent are words of native, Germanic stock. Those figures alone,
actually give a distorted picture of the real facts. The Oxford English
Dictionary records nearly half a million words. But as it is a dictionary
on historical principles it 'covers not only the history of the general
English vocabulary from the days of king Alfred down to the present
time, but includes also a large number of obsolete, archaic, provincial
and foreign words and phrases, and a multitude of terms of art and
science.'I Out of this large number of obsolete etc. words, a good
percentage belongs to borrowings which are not used in the language
any more, but which are included in the figure 75 per cent. In
analyzing the vocabulary of contemporary standard English speech, it
is doubtful whether the percentage of borrowings would be the same as
quoted above.
The question of borrowings in English is treated in the chapter on
'Vocabulary'.
Here the question of other sources of word formation in
contemporary English will be treated.

1. New coinages
Under new coinages are to be understood words, i.e. sound
complexes, which though entirely new in the language are nevertheless
not borrowings.
a) Onomatopoeia. Properly speaking only onomatopoeic words
are new coinages. They are words imitating various natural sounds.
They usually stand for nouns, but sometimes for a verb too when

I Shorter Oxford Dictionary, preface to the second ed., 1936

185-

giving the name to the action in its process. After such words become
well established in a language they do not differ in any way from other
words. So that they on their own part become a source of word
formation. By derivation or conversion they produce

186-

other words. Quack 'harsh sound made by ducks'; 'talk loudly and
foolishly'. From this word quack-salver was formed with the
meaning 'ignorant pretender to skill especially medicine'. After that
this word was shortened to quack preserving the same meaning. By
conversion a verb was formed from it and the derivatives quackery
and quackish.
In every language there is a number of onomatopoeic words.
This number is not sufficient to provide a sound basis for the hypothesis that onomatopoeia was the originator of language.
Nononomatopoeic words outnumber by far the onomatopoeic in
every language. Besides, as professor Reformatzki remarks: 'one
may imitate sounds produced by a soundproducing body but how
would one name those that do not produce sounds: stones, houses,
triangles, and squares and many others?'I
Even onomatopoeic words are conditioned by the specific
phonetic features of a language. That is why in the different
languages the same sound gives different onomatopoeia: English
cock-a-doodle-doo, Danish kykeliky, Swedish kukeliku, German
kikeriki, French coquellco, Bulgarian koo-koo-ri-gu, Russian koo-kare-koo, etc. English whisper, Danish hviska, Swedish hviska, German
wispeln, Russian , Bulgarian .
Onomatopoeic words in English are verbs like: to bubble, to
splash, to clash, to crack, to peck, to tap, to grumble, to mumble, to
murmur, to chatter, to clatter, to click, to fuss, to whizz, to sneeze, etc.
All of these have corresponding nouns. Besides names of sounds of
onomatopoeic origin there are some names of birds like: cuckoo,
peeweet, pigeon etc. Adjectives are rarely of onomatopoeic origin. If
so they are of secondary formations, i.e. either the result of derivation
or conversion.
A common type of onomatopoeia is the result of doubling the
imitative word. Here probably children's speech, in which repetition
is typical, has had an influence. Some of those onomatopoeic words
are well established in English: pooh-pooh is a verb which expresses
contempt or disdain for; slip-slop is a noun which means 'a sloppy
compound used as food, beverage or medicine'; rip-rap is a noun
meaning 'loose stone thrown down in water or on a soft bottom to
form a foundation for a breakwater or other work'; higgledy-piggledy
is a noun meaning 'a confusion, a disorderly jumble'; pitter-patter is a
noun, 'an imitation of a rapid alternation of light beating sounds as
those made by rain, light footfalls, etc.'; hoity-toity is also a noun
with the meaning 'riotious or giddy behaviour, disturbance, etc.'

I . . , , , 1955, . 350

187-

Another group of such doublings consists of combinations of a

non-onomatopoeic word with art imitative one: topsy-turvy is an adverb with the first element probably connected with the word 'top'.

188-

The meaning of the adverb is 'upside down'. Roly-poly is a noun, the

first component of which is a fanciful formation on the verb 'roll'. Its
meaning is 'a pudding consisting of a sheet of paste covered with
jam or preserves, formed into a roll and boiled or steamed.'
There is a group of doublings in English whose origin is not
onomatopoeic but it is very probable that the onomatopoeia doublings influenced and facilitated their formation. These doublings are
based on euphony and are also connected with children's speech.
They consist of pairs of words etymologically connected in which
only one sound is different: sing-song is a noun meaning 'a ballad or
a piece of verse of a monotonous or jingling character'. It is
probably formed on the analogy of the onomatopoeic 'ding-dong'.
By conversion an adjective sing-song was formed. See-saw is a
noun meaning 'a plank arranged for playing'. This doubling is most
probably based on the homonymy of 'saw', the instrument for cutting wood and 'saw' the Past Tense of the verb 'to see'. The movement of the 'see-saw' resembles that of a saw. For the sake of
euphony 'see' suited the purpose.
There is a tendency with some linguists to look for
onomatopoeia everywhere. It seems that some go too far in this
direction.
For instance O. Jespersen in 'Language', L. P. Smith in 'The
English Language' and to a lesser extent E. Weekly in 'The English
Language' to mention only a few, maintain sound symbolism.
O. Jespersen has dedicated a whole chapter of his book to
this problem. He says that: '... it would be absurd to maintain that all
words at all times in all languages had a signification corresponding
exactly to their sounds, each sound having a definite meaning once
for all. But is there much more logic in the opposite extreme which
denies any kind of symbolism (apart from the small class of evident
echoisms or "onomatopoeia") and see in our words only a collection
of wholly accidental and irrational associations of sound and
meaning ?'1 Further on:'... Thus also, sounds may in some cases be
symbolic of their sense, even if they are not so in all words.'
Jespersen himself has deemed it necessary to say that 'in some cases'
and 'even if they are not so in all words'. If sounds were 'symbolic of
their sense' they would be so in all words. For why should they be
so in some cases and not in others? If sounds were symbolic how
could one explain the fact that the same sound or combination of
sounds, is to be found in words with different meanings and
connotations? And how about the same sounds or combinations of
sounds which with the historical development change and still the
word preserves its original meaning and is not affected by the

189-

phonetical changes? Or how about the change of meaning in a word

while the combination of its sounds remains the same? How about
1

190-

O. Jespersen, Language., London, 1950, p. 397

the different languages in which even perfect homonyms might occur

without the slightest semblance of meaning between the words (English
boss, Bulgarian )? Or why is it then that in different languages the
names for one and the same entity are different complexes of sounds?
There is no point in going into exhaustive criticism of O. Jespersen's
position on this problem here. A few remarks will suffice for the
purposes of this work.
Let us take at random some of Jespersen's examples and analyze
them. On p. 401 we read: '... Hence the vowel (i) is felt to be more
appropriate for light, and (u) for dark, as seen most clearly in the
contrast between to gleam, to glimmer, to glitter, on the one hand and
gloom on the other...' If this were so how can night be explained which
from the point of view of sounds has the same construction and
development as light. How shall we explain the sound complex in
moon, which stands for something bright, as compared to gloom? Some
might retort that the modern form of the word moon goes back to a root
men with a front vowel, so that again that could come more or less into
Jespersen's picture. But then another question arises. Why is it that in all
Germanic languages with the exception of Gothic this word has a back
vowel and, what is more, that it did not change its meaning. On p. 401
Jespersen writes: '... If English moody and sullen have changed their
significations (Old English modig 'high spirited', Middle English solein
'solitary') sound symbolism, if I am not mistaken, counts for something
in the change. 'We would expect according to such logic, that moon
should change its meaning. But obviously this is not the case and what
is more moon is not an exception. If sound symbolism counted for
something in the change why was not mood, the word most connected
with it, affected? We take exception here to O. Jespersen's theory. There
is a final point which strikes me as being thoroughly groundless and
fanciful: '... yet on the other hand everybody must feel that the word to
roll, rouler, rulie, rollen is more adequate than the corresponding
Russian word , (op. cit. p. 398). I suppose that a Russian
could maintain the same for the Russian word with equally good reason.
The point is that there is not much logic in such an approach to
linguistic facts.
Every language has its own specific sound combinations and laws of
development which become natural, actually the most natural, to the
people speaking the corresponding language. No matter how well one
may learn a foreign language it will still be easier and most natural to
speak one's mother tongue. From there the subjective feeling that the
words of one's toother tongue are best suited to express one or another
notion. Such a feeling is not based on linguistic facts and cannot provide a
solid basis for linguistic research. It is ridiculous for one to claim that the

191-

sound complexes of his mother tongue are 'more adequate' to the meaning
than those of another language. What is the criterion for that?

192-

It is a fact that in very language there are onomatopoeic words

and that sound imitation is still a source for coining new words. After
such words become well established in the language they can give rise
to other words with similar sound complexes expressing closely
related notions.
The theory of sound symbolism is so thin that even such partisans as O. Jespersen have to admit openly that the idea that there is a
natural correspondence between sound and sense and that words
acquire their contents and value through a certain sound symbolism is
ridiculous. Nevertheless in practice they try to persuade us that still '...
the vowel (i), especially in its narrow or thin variety is particularly
appropriate to express what is small, weak, insignificant, or, on the
other hand, refined or dainty' and so on and so forth harping on the
same string. We might accept all the examples given by Jespersen,
even his explanations of how one is affected by the sounds and led to
the meaning. But that will still be onomatopeia and not sound
symbolism. For we must bear in mind that every word in the minds of
the people is connected with its phonetical and grammatical form. No
matter whether it is onomatopoeia or not we connect a specific
complex of sounds with its specific meaning, i.e. we connect the
sounds of a word with its meaning. That is why some people think that
it is the sounds in themselves that are naturally connected with the
meaning and impose it on the word.
Linguistic facts oppose the theory of sound symbolism. I am sure
I cannot accept it and refute all kinds of attempts to sneak it through
flaws and cracks. The history of any language proves sound
symbolism to be entirely groundless and ridiculous, and what is more,
in some cases it may lead to chauvinism to which we are opposed on
principle.
b) Slang is another source of new coinages. Onomatopoeia gives
rise to slang often. The etymology of some of these slang words has
not been traced back and it is very probable that they are
onomatopoeic: banter sb. 'wanton or humorous ridicule';
bamboozle vb. 'to deceive by trickery'; chum sb. 'a chamber
fellow'. The point here is that they first appeared as slang expressions.
The question of slang is treated especially in this book. Here we
shall discuss it only insofar as it is a source of new words in standard
English.
Many words originating as slang are so well established in the
language that they have completely lost their strangeness. 'Cockney' is
almost certainly cock-egg"' (Middle English ey 'egg'). The word at
first meant an unusually small egg (such as are termed in New England
'litter-eggs', since the hen is thought to lay one at the end of one litter).
Thence developed the meaning of a cockered child', a 'pet', a

193-

'mother's baby' or in a wider sense, a 'milksop' and next 'a (pampered)

citizen', 'a feeble cit' as opposed to

194-

a hardy rustic. Specifically it meant 'one ignorant of country matters'

as 'a green horn' is one who knows nothing of city life. Its particular
application to a Londoner was then natural and was used as early as
the XVIth century.'I Queer 'a cant word from Low German queer
'across'. In Awdelay's 'Fraternity of Vagabonds' p. 4, a quire fellow is
one who has just come out of prison.'2 Yankee is a nickname for a
New Englander, probably from the Dutch yanke, diminutive of yank.
It is interesting to read the article 'On Style' by Jonathan Swift
in which he complains of the 'manifest evils in the world of letters': '...
The third refinement observable in the letters I send you consists in
the choice of certain words, invented by some pretty fellows, such as
banter, bamboozle, country put, and kidney, as it is there applied;
some of which are now struggling for vogue, and others are in
possession of it. I have done my utmost for some years past to stop
the progress of mob and banter, but have been plainly borne down by
numbers and betrayed by those who promised to assist me.'II These
words which upset Swift's sense of linguistic propriety about two and
a half centuries ago, are now being used in colloquial and literary
English indiscriminately without jarring anybody's ears, not even the
purists'.
In contemporary English many more words from slang are entering standard speech and are readily accepted: fag 'cigarette' etc.
c) Neologisms. Inventions and specially new articles of consumer goods are given the most fanciful names to create consumer
interest. The latter usually are vaguely reminiscent of other words in
the language.
All magazine and newspaper advertisements are crammed with
strange names as: sunkist 'a species of Florida oranges', odorno
'a deodorant', aerosol 'sunburn cream', super plenamins 'tablets
of vitamins', murine 'drops for soothing tired eyes', ungentine 'a
skin salve for healing damaged skin', frigidaire 'refrigerator', quink
'quick-drying ink', etc. The invention of different man-made stuffs
has given rise to many new words like: nylon, perlon, kapron, sylon,
orlon, etc. During the XVIIth century Van Helmonth invented the
word gas which was probably suggested by the Greek 'haos'.
The names of new medicines are readily accepted, sometimes
on a world-wide scale, such as aspirin, penicillin, etc.

I Greenough and Kittredge, Words and Their Ways, London, 1920, p. 66

II J. Swift, On Style, Selected English Essays, Oxford University Press, London, 1939,
p. 57

195-

2. Word Formation
Word formation is a means of forming new words by using the
linguistic building material that is at hand in a given language.
a) Derivation
Affixation is a means of word formation in English. It is a device
which lias been productive in all periods of the history of this language.
An analysis of Modern English vocabulary shows that it includes
words formed by affixation during the Old and Middle English periods.
Words formed by affixation in the Modern English period are not as
numerous as in the previous two periods. This is due to the fact that in
Modern English the grammatical structure of the word underwent a
drastic change. The nature and status of the root morpheme in Modern
English is far more independent than in Old and Middle English. This is
due to the fact that on the whole the paradigmatic endings in Modern
English are almost non-existent and so the root becomes homonymous
with the representative form of the word and also with the stem. The
latter does not bear morphological markers of a given grammatical
category and this is what makes it so flexible and independent.
Independent in the sense that its combinatory abilities are increased.
And what is more a substantive in Modern English can give rise to a
verb, i.e. it is possible for it to be converted. Thus tree sb. By derivation
the stem tree- can combine with the suffix -less thus giving the adjective
treeless. By conversion the same stem tree- combines with the
paradigmatic endings of the verb and thus forms the verb to tree. So that
the paradigmatic endings play at one and the same time the role of word
formatives and of form formatives. More on this when we come to
tackle the problems of conversion later on in this chapter.
A close look at the means of word formation during the various
periods of the history of the English language will reveal that different
means of word formation were preferred at different times. This
preference was not due to the subjective taste or choice of the speakers
but was rooted in the nature of the linguistic system at the given period.
In Old and Middle English popular means of word formation were
affixation and composition, while in Modern English conversion and
phraseology.

196-

In terms of the various affixes an analysis of the vocabulary

reveals the fact that the productivity of different affixes varies in the
different periods. One may say that affixes have their period of glory
and then gradually go into decline until they are completely forgotten,
and become obsolete and nonproductive. This happens when the words
formed by affixation become obsolete or so few in number that they are
not used as a model for stimulating other similar formation. In other
words, while with the type of word formation we are faced with
qualitative characteristic features of the structure of the word, with the
productivity of an affix we have to take into consideration quantitative
criteria. Not that quantity is of no importance with conversion, let us
say. Of course quantity is a factor for the strength of a given model, no
matter its nature. An example of the impact of a model due to its
strength is the usage of the progressive tenses with some verbs of
physical and mental perception. Although their semantic nature opposes
and even excludes this possibility since the nature of the progressive
tenses is contrary to the semantic meaning of these verbs, still it is
possible to say 'I am feeling better now'.
It is a fact that at a given period of the history of a language certain
affixes are not used as word formatives and become obsolete. Not that
the affixes themselves, as such become obsolete irrespective of the
words in which one finds them but either the words in which they
appear happen to be few as is the case with the Old English affix th - in
length, width, breadth, etc. or obsolete.
In English the affixes are of native as well as of foreign origin. We
agree with N. N. Amossova that some linguists overestimate the role of
foreign affixes in English, thus arriving at conclusions which are not
linguistic, namely that English has exhausted its own creative powers in
word formation and is making use of foreign means. The nature of every
language is such that there can be no word of 'exhauting its powers'.
Every language draws 'power' from its own resources and it can never
make use of foreign means if the latter have not become part and parcel
of the structure of the language. This is impossible and contrary to any
system.
In terms of affixes it is pertinent to notice that affixes as such are
not borrowed in any language since they are part of the backbone, just
as isolated grammatical items cannot be borrowed from one language
into another.
The affixes of foreign origin in English were not borrowed as word
formatives. It is the words, of which the affixes are a part, that are
borrowed. Affixes as such may be considered to be adopted in a
language, and in English specifically, only after they are used as word
formatives in this specific language and help the forming of new words.

197-

This is possible when many foreign words with the same affix
become well established in the language so that the affix begins to be
felt as a word formative. For instance the suffix for abstract nouns -cy
(French -cie from Latin tia) was to be found in many French and Latin
words borrowed in English at one and the same period: prophecy,
primacy, policy, advocacy, piracy, infancy, constancy, frequency,
diplomacy, intimacy, etc. The English language adopted this model of
word formation and from the XVIth century onwards purely English
forms started to appear: secrecy, supremacy, permanency, dependency,
consistency, immediacy, pliancy,

198-

leniency, brilliancy.'I Similarly with the suffix -ic (Latin-icus, French

-ique). Within a long period of time borrowings with this suffix entered the language: lunatic, fantastic, public, apologetic, characteristic, pathetic, scientific, automatic, archaic. Purely English formations
with this suffix are: atomic, optimistic, antagonistic. The important
thing to mark here is that no matter what the roots are, native or
foreign, the new words formed by derivation and using the borrowed
suffixes are English formations, which shows that the suffix is already
felt as a building material of the English language.
One point about adopting a foreign suffix as a word formative is
that many words with this affix must be borrowed for that affix to be
felt as a word formative. But this condition alone is not enough.
Affixes of foreign origin are not used indiscriminately in English as
word formatives. 'Foreign word-forming elements are borrowed only
when they are compatible with the basic the development of the
language, when the type of the borrowed word-forming elements fits
the structural specificness of the language.
Despite the penetrating of several French words with the diminutive suffix -ette during the XVIIth century (i.e. cigarette, chemisette,
statuette) this suffix did not acquire the power of productivity in
English since the category of diminutives in English nouns began to
disappear during this period and even English diminutive suffixes -en,
-ling, etc. died out or were used rarer and rarer.
Conversely, the growing demand for giving expression to a
greater variety of abstract notions which could not be satisfied by the
suffixes existing in the language: -dom, -hood, -ness, conditioned the
easy adopting of the suffixes -ism, -cy, -ation since every one of them
gave the possibility of expressing a specific type of abstractness (-ism
the notion of school, a system of views; -cy the notion of quality
connected with the person or object expressed in the noun root; -ation
the notion of process, etc.)II
In English there are prefixes and suffixes. Infixes were never
productive in English. In Old English there were a few verbs with the
infix -n (standan, wcnan Modern English to stand, to waken.)
The function of prefixes in English is purely semantical. They
are used to give a certain nuance to the meaning of the word. So that
the same prefix may be used as a formative of different parts of
speech: mishap a noun and to misunderstand verb.
Suffixes perform a grammatical function besides the semantical
one. That is why they differ for the different parts of speech.

I H. H. , c
, 1956, . 65

II. . . op. tit.

199-

During the Old English period the prefixes be-, bi- were very
productive. Their origin was the weak form of the preposition and
adverb bi which gave Modern English by. 'When prefixed to verbs
be- and bi- either give an intensive signification to a transitive verb,
as sprengan to sprinkle, be-spengan to besprinkle, settan to
set, be-settan to beset, surround; gangan to go, be gangan to
exercise; they have a privative sense as be-niman to deprive, bereafian to bereave, be-heafdian to behead. Sometimes they do
not indicate any perceptible variation in the sense as b-an to
come, be-sencan to sink, etc.'I During the Middle English period
they were still productive: Middle English beknow 'to confess'.
Middle English be-shut 'to shut in', Middle English berain 'to
drench', Middle English be go 'to go around'. The history of these
two prefixes is typical. From the data given in the Anglo-Saxon
dictionary it is clear that even at that early period the desemantization
of these prefixes had begun since in some cases they 'did not indicate
any perceptible variation in the sense. 'Besides that, these two
prefixes had acquired many different meanings. To mention only a
few: 'around, on all sides, from side to side (within a space), in or
through all its parts, thoroughly, soundly, conspicuously, to excess,
ridiculously etc.'II This polysemy was a serious obstacle for the
speakers to distinguish them as formatives with a clearly limited
range of meaning. In the minds of the people the meanings of these
prefixes became quite confused and so we see that most of the words
in which they were a component part became obsolete by the beginning of the Modern English period. Since very few of them remained,
these two prefixes naturally were not to be felt to be word formatives
any more. Today they are completely obsolete except for the few
words in which they exist as archaisms. In many such words they are
not even felt to be prefixes and have lost their status of morphemes:
because, to become, before, to begin, behind, to behold, belief, to
belong, etc. In a few other verbs they are still felt as prefixes, i.e. they
have retained their status of morphemes: to becloud, to becurl, to
bedarken, to bedazzle, to bedew, to bedim, to befit, to bemoan, to
besmear, to bespeak, etc. The fact that the prefix be- in this group of
verbs has retained its status of a morpheme is due to the existence of
a parallel verb without a prefix: to cloud, to curl, to darken, to dezzle,
to dew, to dim, to fit, to moan, to smear, to speak etc. and the
similarity in the basic connotation between the prefixed and the nonprefixed verbs. However, practically all verbs of the prefixed group
are felt either as archaic or poetic. On the other hand the prefix be- in

I J. Bosforth and T. Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary, London

IIShorter Oxford English Dictionary
1

200-

all these verbs functions with its various connotations. Because of

these two important points the mere fact of the existence of such a
group of words

201-

in the language is not enough to make the prefix be- productive.

A similar development is to be observed with the Old English
prefix a-. This was very productive during the Old English period and
part of the Middle English period when it was confused with the
French and Latin prefixes a-, ad-, ac-, af-, and with an the Old English
prefix an/on-.
The prefix with- is no longer productive but is still felt as a prefix
in words like: to withdraw, to withstand, to withhold, etc.
Some Old English prefixes still productive in Modern English
are: fore-, out-, over-, un-, up-, under-, mis-. To my mind one of the
reasons for this, worth bearing in mind is the fact that they have
support in the other type of word formation composition. What I am
trying to point out is that out-, over-, up-, under-, etc. are also
homonyms to the respective adverbs and the latter have formed various
verbal phrases in Modern English changing their status into postfixes
in the new formations: outrun, run out of: overcome, come over; upset,
set up; etc. Obviously the fact of differences in meaning is not
important.
Fore-. In Old English it was used as a prefix to verbs adding the
connotation of 'before' (either in time, position, order or rank) and to
substantives, either forming designations of objects or parts occupying
a front position, or expressing anteriority of time. Although it was very
productive in Old and Middle English especially, it can scarcely be
said to be productive today.
Old English forseon 'to forsee', Old English forsceawian 'to
forshow, foretaste' (1450), foretell (Middle English), forenoon (1506),
forename (1533), foreman (1547), foresight (1591), forerunner (1595),
foreshadow (1577), foreword (1842), etc. This prefix was ousted by the
Latin prefix pre- meaning 'before', 'in front', 'in advance'. The latter is
more frequently attached to words of French and Latin origin and only
occasionally to native ones: pre-em-body (pre + embody of native
origin), pre-plot (pre + plot from Old English plot); otherwise: to
precede, to pre-mature, to predispose, to presume, to predict, pre-war,
pre-historic, etc.
Out- comes from Old English ut- with the meaning 'outside,
remote, from, external' etc. Some words compounded in Old English
are: t-laga 'outlaw', t-lendisc 'outlandish', t-weard 'outward'. The following several examples taken haphazardly from the
Oxford English Dictionary show that in all periods out- has been a
productive prefix: outline (1472), outgrow (1594), outbreak (1602),
outburst (1657), outcome (1788), outrush (1872), etc.

202-

Over-. Old English ofer- with the meaning 'over in space, higher,
superior, away, off', etc. In Modern English there are many words in
which over- is a formative. Here too we find words formed in the
different periods of the development of the language: to overcome from
Old English ofercuman, to overdo from Old Eng-lish oferdon, to
overgo from Old English ofergan, overburden (1579), overcook
(1584), overcharge (1611), overall (1789), overestimate (1840),
overcoat (1848), etc.
Un-. In Old English the two prefixes 1) un- from Primitive
Germanic un-, Indo-European *n, the zero grade of ne 'not' and 2)
un- originally identical with and- expressing reversal or deprivation,
fell together. So that the prefix un- was considered to have several
meanings. Probably it would not be a mistake to consider this prefix
as one of the most productive in English during its whole history: Old
English un-faederlice 'unfatherly', Old English un-forgiven
'unforgiven', Old English un-freondlice 'unfriendly', Old English
ungewriten 'unwritten', unable (1456), unattached (1498),
unaproachable (1581), unaware (1592), unassisted (1614),
unappropriate (1767), unconventional (1839), unbarbed (1844), etc.
During the Middle English period un- had to fight the Latin prefix inexpressing negation or privation. It was frequently to be met with in
words of French and Latin origin which at that period were pouring
into the English language. After a period of antagonism and
hesitation in Modern English usage there is a tendency to restrict into words of French and Latin origin and to apply un- to Germanic
words. But any dictionary will show that there are very many
exceptions to this rule which points to the fact that the prefix in- is
not and cannot be felt as a foreign element. Words of French and
Latin origin with the prefix un-: unarmed, unbalanced, uncertain,
unconscious, etc.
Under-. In Old English the prefix is common with verbs, less so
with nouns and rare with adjectives. Many of the Old English
compounds are translations of Latin words in sub-. In most of its
uses, under- may be frequently employed to, form new compounds,
the meaning of which is usually obvious.' I Old English undergangan
'to undergo', Old English understandan 'to understand', Old
English underliggan 'to underlie', Old Englich underleggan 'to
underlay', underground (1590), undershirt (1648), undertone (1806),
underbreath (1844), underdress (1908), etc.
Up- from Old English up-. In Old English this prefix was quite
productive. During the Middle English period it was mainly a formative, of verbs and nouns. It seems that the XVIth century and the

I Shorter Oxford English Dictionary

203-

XIXth century were the busiest time for up-. Today its productivity
might be considered latent. Old English upbregdan 'to upbraid',
upright (1509), uprise (1500), upbringing (1520), uproar (1526), uproot (1620), upheaval (1838), uplift (1845), upholster (1861), etc.

204-

Mis- from Old English mis-. The predominant meaning of the

prefix is that of 'amiss' 'wrongly', 'mistakenly', 'imploringly'. During
the Middle English period it was strengthened in a way by French
words with the homonymic prefix mis- from Latin minus, with practically the same meaning. The XIIth century was not fruitful in new
words formed with mis-. In contemporary English there are words
from different epochs with mis-: to mislead from Old English misldan, misdeed from Old English mis-dd, to mishear from Old
English mishyran, misgovern (1440), misfortune (1502), misgive
(1513), misinterpret (15:9), mis-spell (1655), misalliance (1738),
misappreciate (1818), etc. In Modern English the Latin prefix disousted mis- in cases when the latter had a purely negative meaning:
mislike dislike, etc.
The only prefix that had a grammatical function in English was
ge-. It is of Germanic origin and probably connected with the Latin
cum. As a preposition it meant 'together'. 'It was used in forming
collective nouns but at a later period it often had only an intensive
meaning or no specific meaning at all.' 1 In Old English it was used as a
grammatical formative of the past participle of the verbs without any
semantical function whatever: geridan 'ridden', gedrunken
'drunken', gesegen 'seen'. In Middle English it was dropped out in
the northern dialects while in the South it was replaced by the prefix twhich had exactly the same character and functions of the older ge-. In
Modern English there is no prefix with grammatical functions.
Suffixes differ from prefixes in that they have a double role to
perform: they add something to the meaning of the word and the same
time they have a grammatical function. That is why different
grammatical categories have different suffixes.
In English we must distinguish suffixes practically void of lexical
meaning, performing only grammatical functions: -ed, characteristic of
the Past Tense and Past Participle of weak verbs and -en
characteristic of the Past Participle of strong verbs and -ing
characteristic of the Present Participle of verbs and other suffixes of
lexico-grammatical character.
Verb suffixes: -l, a suffix that helped the verb to acquire an
iterative aspect. It was especially productive in Middle English. Nowadays it is not used as a formative since the idea of iterativeness of the
verbal action is not expressed by means of the form of the verb in
Modern English: Old English twinclian 'to twinkle', Old English
wrestlian 'to wrestle', Old English nestlian 'to nestle', paddle
(1530), rattle (1587), crumble (Middle English), stumble (Middle
English), sparkle (Late Middle English).
-er was used to form verbs with a connotation of frequency and
iterativeness. In Modern English it is no longer productive for the same

205-

12&

reason as O. Jespersen maintains that it has an onomatopoeic origin

which is quite probable: Old English clatrian 'to clatter', pitter
(1592), patter (1611), twitter (Late Middle English),
1

Wright, Grammar of the Gothic Language, p. 172

206-

chitter (Middle English), chatter (Middle English), jabber (1499),

jibber (1824), jigger (1867), etc.
Noun suffixes: -er, a most productive suffix representing Primitive Germanic arjo-z. The relation between the latter and the
Latin -arius is obscure. Its original meaning was 'a man who has to do
with'.
It designates persons according to their profession or occupation: worker, teacher, singer, dancer, etc. In some other words it
indicates place of origin or residence: Londoner, New Yorker, foreigner, villager, etc. In American English it is used in forming
derivatives of the type: diner 'dining car', sleeper 'sleeping car',
etc.
-ster comes from the Primitive Germanic -stro forming feminine
agent nouns. In Old English it was appended to verbal roots: Old
English hoppian hoppestere 'hop hopster'. The latter word is
obsolete now. Only spinster has survived from the Old English
spinnan, Middle English spinnestre. In Middle English this suffix was
indiscriminately used for deriving feminine as well as masculine
nouns from verbal roots. Later on it acquired a pejorative meaning. In
Modern English it is not very productive but, as far as it is, it gives a
degrading nuance to the meaning of the words: gamester, rhymester,
punster and gangster (1896). It is interesting to note that in these last
derivatives it is appended to noun roots and not to verbal ones. Most
probably this has something to do with the shifting of its meaning.
-ness comes from Old English -ne/s, ni/s. It is usually appended
to adjectival roots forming abstract nouns: goodness, bitterness,
sweetness, brightness, darkness, absentmindedness, straightforwardness, etc. It is very productive in Modern English and can be appended
to any type of simple or compound adjectival root, thus forming an
abstract noun.
-ing from Old English -ung/-ing. Appended to verbal roots it
forms abstract nouns of action: working, writing, playing, teaching
etc. It is very productive today. In English it is used to form gerunds,
i.e. verbal forms with a substantival character.
-dom appended to noun and adjectival roots forms abstract
nouns with the connotation of 'condition', 'state', 'dignity': kingdom,
dukedom, halidom, etc. It has never been very productive due to its
meaning. Nevertheless it has a marked vitality, i.e. it is always ready
at hand to produce a new word.

207-

-ship comes from Old English -sciepe which is connected with

shape. In Old English it was appended to noun and adjectival roots
thus forming abstract nouns with the connotation 'state or condition of
being so-and-so': hardship, worship, fellowship, etc. Later appended to
noun roots it formed abstract nouns with the connotation: 1) 'state or
condition of what is expressed by the noun': friendship, authorship,
citizenship, etc. 2) 'qualities or character asso-dated with, or the skill or
power of accomplishment of the person denoted by the noun':
craftsmanship, leadership, kingship, tutorship, etc.
-hood from Old English had sb. meaning 'state, condition,
nature, form, kind' which were preserved in the suffix. It was productive during the Old English period and in Middle English too but
now is quite passive. In Modern English derivatives from every period
of the language are preserved: childhood from Old English cildhad,
maidenhood from Old English mgdenhad, priesthood from Old
English preosthad, manhood from Middle English, brotherhood
(Middle English), motherhood (1473), womanhood (Late Middle
English) etc.
-the is a very old Old English suffix which appended to adjectival
roots, formed abstract nouns: length, filth, health, strength, truth,
breadth, etc. It is probable that this suffix lost its vigour in Old English
since already in Middle English it was not productive.
Adjectival suffixes: -ed from Old English -ede. Appended to noun
roots it forms adjectives with the connotation 'possessing, provided
with, characterized by'. It is one of the most productive suffixes and
forms derivatives out of compound adjectival roots as well: ringed,
booked, hooded, wretched, bearded, gloved, skilled, one-eyed, goodhearted, long-legged, etc.
-y is also a very productive suffix. It is appended to any type of
root forming adjectives with various connotations. In Modern English
derivatives from all periods of the language are to be found. Old
English cloudy, dizzy, hungry, guilty, icy, mighty, etc. Middle
English blushy, chalky, dusty, faulty, etc. Modern English lucky,
silvery, chilly, fluffy, funny, plucky, snoopy, tweedy, etc.
-ful was originally an adjective full. In the XIVth century the
suffix acquired the meaning 'possessing the qualities of'. It is appended
to noun and adjectival roots forming adjectives: masterful, purposeful,
doubtful, hopeful, wrongful, etc. On the whole it is not very productive
now.
-less was derived from the Old English leas adjective, meaning 'devoid (of)'. The suffix preserved that meaning. It is appended to
noun roots forming adjectives with the connotation of deprivation:
pennyless, worthless, mindless, colourless, windless, etc.

208-

-ish 1) In Old English it was used to form adjectives from names

of nations: English, Scottish, Danish, Swedish, etc. 2) When added to a
noun root adjectives are formed which have acquired a pejorative
connotation: childish, womanish, etc. 3) Added to adjectival roots the
resultant adjectives have the connotation 'approaching the quality of':
greenish, yellowish, darkish, vaguish, roundish, etc. In contemporary
English the third type is most frequently to be met with.
-ly from Old English lc from the noun likom 'appearance,
form, body'. The meaning of the suffix is 'having the appearance,

209-

form or qualities indicated by the first element of the word'. It is

equally added to noun roots: manly, masterly, orderly, scholarly etc.
-some from Old English -sum. Appended to noun and adjectival
roots it forms adjectives like: loathsome, troublesome, gladsome, etc.
It is not very productive in Modern English.
Adverbial suffixes: -ly was usually added to adjectival roots thus
forming adverbs of manner: kindly, badly, readily, quickly, strongly,
easily, etc. This suffix added to noun, roots forms adverbs of time with
an additional connotation of frequency: daily, hourly, yearly, monthly,
etc. It has always been the most productive suffix for forming adverbs.
-ward(s) from Old English weard(s). In Old English it was added
to roots from phrases which used to be accompanied by the preposition
'to'. Those phrases expressed direction. This meaning was preserved in
the suffix. There are a few words in contemporary English with
-ward(s), otherwise it is quite unproductive: homewards, towards,
skywards, leeward, forward, backward, etc.
In English there is a large number of affixes of foreign origin.
Some of these are confined only to forming words of foreign roots
which means that they are semi-naturalized in the language. They are
used in word creation but still they are felt to be a somewhat foreign
element and are not added to native, roots. To mention only a few
instances: pro profascist, proboer, etc.; trans transatlantic,
transmigratory, transmitter, transoceanic, etc.
Other foreign affixes like hypo-, meta-, cata- etc. have entered
the language as component parts of borrowed words. Even when felt
as affixes they cannot be considered to belong to the stock of linguistic
building material in English since they are not used as such in the
language.
There is a third group of affixes which are thoroughly naturalized
in English and some are so productive that they have even replaced
affixes of native origin: dis-, en-, re-, etc. -able, -ation, -ism, etc.
Dis- from Latin dis-. It is used in English with privative meaning.
In Modern English it is added to verbal, noun and adjectival roots of
both native and foreign origin, thus forming verbs, nouns and
adjectives: verbs to dislike, to dishonour, to disown, to disobey, etc.
nouns disrepute, disdain, disorder, discord, etc.; adjectives
disagreeable, disloyal, disproportionate, etc.
En- from the Latin in- meaning 'in': to encamp, to enclose, to
encourage, to endanger, etc.
Re- from the Latin re- with the general sense 'back' or 'again': to
rebuild, to rebirth, to recast, to recall, to recline, to recognize, to
recommence, to record, etc. This is an extremely productive prefix.

210-

-able from the French -able. It entered English with the French
borrowings during the Middle English period. Later with the help of
able, the adjective, it was recognized as a formative and is quite
productive now: agreeable, malleable, amiable, inevitable, loveable,
reliable, vulnerable, manageable, etc.
-ation is a noun suffix of French origin. According to the New
English Dictionary nouns ending in -ation number more than 1500 in
Modern English use. This is an illustration of the productive power of
the suffix. It has become so typical of English that for people not
acquainted with the language its sound complex is a characteristic
feature of the language: relation, mutation, formation, gradation,
location, stagnation, etc.
-ism comes from the French -isme, Latin -ismus. It forms nouns:
baptism, criticism, heroism, patriotism, marxism, etc.
Affixation is one of the most productive means of word creation
in English. In the different periods of the history of the language
different means of word formation were productive. Affixation has
been productive throughout the whole history of the English language,
though not with the same vigour all the time.
,

,
.

",
,

;
, ,
."I
The ease with which English forms new words by affixation is
rooted in the nature of the morpheme in this language in general. It
seems that on the whole, judging by the facts of word formation
throughout the history of English, it is comparatively easy for a word
to become a morpheme and for a morpheme to lose its status of such
and merge into another morpheme.
The history of many words in English illustrates this, for
instance: lord, lady, daisy. In Old English they were free combinations
of the following words: hlaf weard, (Modern English loaf guardian
guardian of the loaf), hlaf dige (Modern English louf kneader), dales
eie (Modern English day's eye). Little by little, since these words were
constantly used together they became fixed phrases. Later, it was not
difficult for the elements in a fixed phrase, especially after they had
lost their literal meaning, to lose their status of words and turn into
morphemes. Thus, the fixed phrases became compound words.

I H. H. , op. cit. p. 67

211-

Afterwards the two morphemes merged into one. Today the

morphemic analysis of these three words shows that they are
monomorphemic in structure (one must be careful not to confuse
morphemes with syllables).

212-

Contemporary English gives ample evidence of this kind of development. In some of the compound words with the morpheme 'man'
one can detect a tendency for this morpheme to be turning into a suffix.
This is further supported by the lack of stress and a change of its
lexical meaning. While in milkman, tradesman, etc. the element 'man'
although unstressed still preserves to a certain degree its basic
meaning, in chairman, etc. this is hardly so. Witness the fact that
chairman is used also for a female. The unit 'man' has lost its basic
connotation which implies the semantic element of masculine.
In the same historical period, that is on the same synchronical
level, it is possible to find one and the same element from the point of
view of origin, having different status and performing different
functions. This is the case with the item 'full', for instance. In contemporary English it is to be found as a word: 'This room is full of
furniture', 'a basket full of apples', 'a spoon full of salt', etc. The same
item turned into a morpheme in: roomfull, basketfull, spoonfull, etc.
Transformation shows that the item 'full' has preserved to a great extent
its meaning in these words and they are a case of nominalization of the
free combinations exemplified above. So that the morpheme full in
these items functions as a component in a compound. One has to point
out, however, that there is a slight change in the meaning of this
morpheme in the compounds as compared with its meaning in the free
combinations. Probably this is enhanced by the very fact of taking part
in a different structure. Whatever it is, this tendency for change in the
semantics is pushed further in cases like: careful, helpful, grateful, etc.
The very fact that the first elements (care-, help-, grate- vary from
room-, basket-, spoon- in the sense that they have the element of
'abstractness' is significant. This obviously has influenced not only the
meaning but also the status of the item '-ful'. Here it is also a
morpheme but qualitatively different from the morpheme 'full' in the
above mentioned examples. It does not share the same status as 'care-,
help- and grate-' as was the case with the compounds. Here it plays the
role of a word formative and in this sense is formalized, i.e.
grammaticized. This element of grammaticalness is completely lacking
in the item 'full' in the compounds.
It changes the whole structure of the morpheme and turns it into a
suffix. From then onwards, that is, after becoming a suffix, it can
combine not only with items having the element of abstractness but
also with items having the element of eoncreteness: tearful.

213-

b) Vowel gradation. A characteristic feature of Indo-European

languages is vowel gradation. It was a means of word formation and
was also used for forming the grammatical forms of the different parts
of speech, especially of the verb. Thus in Old English there were seven
classes of the so-called strong verbs whose diffe-rent forms were based
on vowel gradation. The model for forming the various grammatical
forms of the strong verbs in Old English was the following: from the
normal grade of the root vowel was formed the Present Tense; the grade of the root vowel was a characteristic feature of the Past Tense
singular, the zero grade of the root vowel marked the Past Tense plural
and the reduced grade of the root vowel the Past Participle.
Verbs belonging to the first class had the diphthong ei in the
Indo-European stage of the development of the language. The IndoEuropean ei due to spontaneous phonetic developments gave Old
English : ridan Modern English to ride belongs to this class. The
o-grade of this diphthong was oi in Indo-European which due to
phonetic developments gave Old English a. So that the Past Tense
singular of this verb in Old English was rad which gave Modern
English rode. The zero grade of the same diphthong in Indo-European was i which gave Old English i. Hence the form for the Past
Tense plural of this verb in Old English was ridon. In Modern English this form is obsolete. The reduced grade of the diphthong was i
in Indo-European and in Old English also i. So that the Past Participle
in Old English was geriden, Modern English ridden.
Vowel gradation was used for word formation as well. The socalled causative verbs were formed out of the grade of the Past Tense
singular of the strong verb. Thus Old English sittan, saet, ston,
geseten 'to sit' is a strong verb. From the form of the Past Tense
singular a weak verb was formed: st+jan (a characteristic for the
infinitive of the weak verbs of the 1st conjugation in Old English)
settan 'to set'.
This is a very old device for word formation but it ceased to be,
productive even during the Old English period. This fact has to be
borne in mind. In Modern English there are many cases in which
vowel gradation seems to be present. One must be very careful here
since only after a diachronical investigation one may be sure whether
it is a case of vowel gradation or something else. Many such cases in
Modern English are the result of phonetical developments which do
not have anything to do with vowel gradation.
The grammatical category in which we are almost sure to find
vestiges of vowel gradation is the verb. However, here too it is very
possible to make a mistake. Thus in Modern English: sell, sold, tell,
told, etc. From the point of view of contemporary English and
descriptive phonetics here are to found different vowels in one and

214-

the same root. Does this mean that it is due to vowel gradation?
Hardly, because vowel gradation is a linguistic phenomenon which
took place at a given historical period of the development of the
language and after that it did not function. Besides any diachronical
investigation will make it clear that in the two verbs mentioned
above, the difference in the root vowel is due to combinatory
phonetic developments. Old English sellan from the older *saljan,

215-

Old English tellan from an older *taljan. In both verbs the root was saland tal- respectively. Weak verbs in structure, they formed their Past
Tense by adding the suffix -de to the root. Due to the ld group the short
a of the root was lengthened to a long a. Old English long a regularly
gave Middle English long open o, with the exception of the North.
Middle English sold(e), told(e). With the great vowel shift during the
XVth century the Middle English long open o became the diphthong
ou. That is how the Modern English forms of these verbs became: sell
sold, tell told.
c)
Contagion is also a means of word formation. It was
discussed on page 9596.
d) Composition. After affixation, composition was the most
productive means of word formation in Old and Middle
English. It did not operate with the same vigour
throughout the history of the language nor were words
belonging to the various parts of speech coined with the
same ease during all periods. As far as Modern English
goes we are inclined to consider that conversion,
metonymy and metaphor and phraseology are becoming
the main means for forming new words.
Composition is that means of forming new words which causes
two or more roots to be merged into one, whose meaning as a rule
might be the sum total of the meanings of the components or it might be
idiomatic. The main criterion for differentiating a compound from a
free combination of words is whether or not it is a morphological unit.
...

, ,

, .. .

."1
If we accept that a compound is a word then its components
cannot have a complete grammatical form of their own, in other words,
they cannot be words in themselves.
As far as the meaning is concerned it differs from case to case and
may range from the most non-idiomatic: light-blue, short-sighted,
waterfall; to the idiomatic: butterfly, rainbow, banknote, etc.
The difficulty lies in deciding whether a word combination is a
compound (a morphological unit) or a free combination of words (a
syntactical unit) in English. On the one hand due to the use of
adjectivized nouns playing the role of attributes it is difficult to find out

216-

whether this is the case or whether they have changed into roots. On the
other hand due to the numerous phrases which are

217-

sometimes on their way to become phraseological units it is difficult to

decide whether one is dealing with a phraseological unit or a compound.
As far as stress goes, a word in English may have a single or a double
stress so that stress by itself could hardly be a sound criterion. Neither
can spelling provide a solid basis for recognizing a compound. It is pure
conventionality whether a compound is spelt as one word, with a hyphen
or the components are separated: book-keeper, bookseller, black eye, etc.
From the point of view of spelling it is only too logical to assume
that from a free combination of words through hyphenation one arrives at
the compound spelt as one word. If we take the above mentioned three
words one wonders why book-keeper is spelt with a hyphen. Is there any
difference in degree of the merging of the two roots in book-keeper and
bookseller? Not really. The only answer is that the spelling is due to
conventionality. What is more, if we compare black eye with the other
two items we see that from the the point of view of semantic integrity the
former is idiomatic and expresses one single notion. So that it represents
a grammatical as well as a semantical unity and there is more reason for it
to be written as one word. But the fact remains that its components are
written sepatatel as if they were two separate words.
Every compound should be judged from the point of view of its
lexico-semantical structure as well.
According to Smirnitzki's classification from the point
grammatical structure the following types of compounds may be
distinguished in English: 1. Compounds with a specific morpheme as
link:
a) Two roots linked by -o-. This is usually the case with ethnic
names but now it is used in all kinds of scientific terms of Greek and
Latin origin formed after the model: Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman,
Franco-German,
etc.;
gasometer,
speedometer,
thermometer,
galvanometer, etc.
b) Two roots linked by -s-. In these cases the s is a link from the
functional point of view. Diachronically it is a fossilized genitive and
points to how a phrase consisting of an attribute in the genitive + its head
had merged and finally formed one word. That the components are roots
and not words, including the first component could be proved by an
operation of substitution. Let us put to the test a genitive phrase and a
compound of this type: John's book, statesman. In the position of 'John's'
one can place any other noun in the Genitive and the restriction will be of
a lexical nature, also in this position can stand all adjectives and
adjectivized items and again the restriction will be of a lexical nature. In
the position of book can stand any noun in the common form and again
the restriction will be of a lexical nature. What is more a phrase of the
type

218-

Ngenit (Adj.) + N can be transformed into NP+Vaux. (to be)+Ngenit

(Adj.)= The book is John's.
Both substitution and transformation show that the items in the
phrase John's book are comparatively independent, i.e. they are words.
In the position of 'states' one can place only 'trades', 'bees',
'hogs', 'harts', 'hearts', 'steers', 'boats', 'crow's', etc. only specific items.
On the other hand 'man' can be substituted again only with specific
items which are very much dependent on the first item. Thus:
stateswoman, but not *beesman, nor *crow'sman; 'beeswax and not
*stateswax. Then items of this type cannot undergo transformation of
the kind applied to 'John's book'. It is not possible to have a
construction like 'The man is states' or 'The man is trades'. This shows
that the status of 'states' and 'man' is not the same as that of 'John's'
and 'book'.
This group of compounds is not numerous: statesman, stateswoman, tradesman, tradespeople, beeswax, hogshead, hartshorn,
heartsease, steersman, crow's-foot, foolscap, etc.
2. Compounds without any morpheme as
a) Compound adjectives formed of two adjectival roots:
light-blue, dark-brown, pinkish-red, etc.
b) Compound adjectives formed of a noun root + an
adjectival root: ice-cold, milk-white, home-sick,
waiertight, star-bright, fire-proof, etc.
c) Compound adjectives formed of a numeral root + a
noun root: five-year (plan), eight-hour (day), fortyfive-minutes (hour), etc.
d) Compound adjectives, formed of noun, adjectival or
adverbial root + the suffixes -ed, -en: grey-haired,
grey-hooded, light-hearted, bare-headed, middleaged, short-sighted; coral-paven, bloodstained, heartbroken, dumb-stricken, god-forsaken, etc.; illdisposed, well-bred, well-known, etc.
e) Compound verbs formed of a noun root + a verbal
root: backbite, backslide, backwash, browbeat,
dumbfound, henpeck, hoodwink, way-lay, etc. There
are many compounds of this type in Modern English
but the majority of them are formed by conversion of
a compound noun or an adjective.
f)
Compound noun formed of an adjectival root + a
noun root: blackberry, blacksmith, black board,
goldfinch, goldsmith, stronghold, etc.
g) Compound nouns formed of a noun root + a noun
root: cowherd, homestead, backbone, bagpipe,
beehive, rainbow, waterfall, railway, tiptoe,

219-

lighthouse, mouthpiece, rosebud, linseed, nightgown, apple-tree, plum-tree, etc.

220-

3) Compound words formed by 'inner syntax', i.e. the structure

of the words reminds one of the structure of a sentence or a phrase.
This type is very frequently met. Many such compounds are coinedon
the spur of the moment. Some are very short lived while others
become well established in the language: lily-of-the-valley, forget-menot, Ne'er-do-well, well-meaning, well-to-do, etc.
'... she had brains enough but her training made her an ass that
is, from a many-centuries-later point of view...' (M. Twain 'A
Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court'). 'Other gentlemen who
had no briefs to show, carried under their arms goodly octavos with a
red label behind, and that underdone-pie-crust coloured cover, which is
technically known as 'law calf'...' (Ch. Dickens, 'The Posthumous
Papers of the Pickwick Club'). 'They made her sing so many of these
kiss-me-farewell-by-the-old-mill-stream numbers when she was a kid
that they got right into her blood.' (J. B. Priestley, 'Let the People
Sing'), 'There is a sort of oh-what-a-wicked-world-this-is-and-how-iwish-i-could-do-something-to-make-it-better-and-no-bler expression
about Montmorency that has been known to bring the tears into the
eyes of pious old ladies and gentlemen.' (J. K. Jerome, 'Three Men in a
Boat').
4. Compound words which are easily dissolved and become
phrases again: stone wall, gold watch, silk dress, speech sound, etc.
There have been so many controversial descriptions of the items
in this group that they have grown into the notorious 'stone wall'
problem', as it is called in linguistic literature. The difficulty lies in the
status of the items 'stone, gold, silk, speech' which is not easy to define.
Some consider these items to be adjectivized nouns and this precludes
the matter for them. Others, maintain that they are nouns which play
the role of an attribute. The next controversial point is whether they are
free combinations or phrases or compound words.
As far as the free combination goes it seems to be out of the
question since the simple transformation of an attribute phrase into a
predicative construction is not possible with them : '*The wall is stone'
is hardly possible but 'The wall is of stone' is actually the right
transform. This is further substantiated by the fact that all such
constructions can undergo the same transformation: 'the watch is of
gold', 'the dress is of silk', 'the sound is of speech'. The question
remains whether they are compound words or phraseological units. Of
course, this is hardly the place to go into the details of this problem.
When everything is said and estimated for the time being it is most
probably best to consider them as borderline cases: something in
between a phrase and a compound.

221-

There are two important problems in regard to compounds: 1) the

connection between the compound and the notion for which it stands;
2) the relationship between the component parts of the compound.
These two questions are interrelated and cannot be discussed
separately.

222-

From a survey of many compounds we might say that usually the

first component is a nominal root which as an independent lexeme
represents a noun, a pronoun, an adjective, a numeral but in the
compound it lacks grammatical completeness. That means that if it is a
noun it does not have all the grammatical forms of the noun. Even in
cases when the first component is a fossilized genitive it cannot be
substituted by the common form of the corresponding 'noun in the
combination. Thus beeswax does not appear in the language as beewax.
Here it is pertinent to remind that a genitive form is meaningful, i.e. has
a genitive meaning only when opposed to the common form of the noun.
'John's bag' is considered to be a genitive phrase because of the form
'John's' which has retained its genitive meaning. This is proved by the
transformation 'the bag of John' where the relation between bag and
John' remains as genitive, only it is expressed by means of 'of' and the
common form of John. This kind of transformation is not possible with
'beeswax'. The transform 'the wax of the bee' is a transform of the free
combination 'bee's wax'. So that 'bees' is not the genitive of 'bee in
'beeswax'. On the synchronical level it is only an homonym to the
genitive form 'bee's'. In terms of its status, obviously it is not a word, so
that it is a morpheme. This is an instant of a form of a word being
transformed into a morpheme. One can make a parallel with the last
group of compounds of the type: stone wall. In this latter group one may
say that the common form of the noun was fossilized and turned into a
morpheme or is on the way to become one while with the group of
compounds of the type: beeswax it is the genitive form that was
fossilized and turned into a morpheme.

223-

The second component in a compound is not a word either. Not

only because theoretically it is not possible in one structure to have
different elements of levels, namely a morpheme and a word, or vice
versa, but because the evidence of the structure of compounds is such.
For instance, it is a fact that the grammatical category part of speech of
the second component, if we assume that it is a word, is irrelevant for the
category of the whole compound. So that the only possibility to define it
will be that it is also a morpheme. The following example will illustrate
this contention. In the compound 'absent-minded', absent' has an
adjectival nature and 'mind' a substantival. The possibility for
'minded' to be the Past Participle of the verb 'to mind' is excluded
because of the meanings of the verb which are as follows: 'bear in mind,
give heed to, concern oneself, apply oneself to, object to, etc.' They do
not have anything to do with the meaning of 'mind-' in this compound.
The possibility to be the noun mind is also excluded. This is proved by
the operation of substitution. If it were the noun mind it could appear in
all possible forms, i.e. the common forms for the singular and plural and
the genitive forms for the singular and plural. But the forms minds,
mind's, minds' do not appear in combination withabsent-. What is more it
is not possible for a noun to combine with an adjectival or participial
suffix as is -ed in this compound. All these facts show that mind in this
compound is not a word but a morpheme. So that the two items are root
morphemes which are grammatically shaped by the suffix -ed. The latter
is the factor which determines the class of words to which the compound
belongs and not the adjectival or the substantival nature of the roots.
Another example making the above points clearer is makebelieve. Both roots make- and believe- are verbal. But the compound
itself is a noun. This fact shows again that the verbal character of the
roots in this compound is of no importance for the substantival nature of
the compound. This may happen if the components are not
grammatically shaped as is obviously the case here. Linguistic items
that are not grammatically shaped completely are not words. So that the
conclusion will be again that if the components in this compound are
not words then they can be only morphemes. The nature of these
morphemes is obviously different from the nature of the paradigmatic
endings (in this case O and S). So that these morphemes are root
morphemes, or stems as the case may be.
To sum up: the components of a compound are root morphemes.
Their grammatical nature, if any, is irrelevant and has no effect on the
grammatical nature of the compound as a whole. The last root in the
compound bears the morphological markers of the whole word.
The relations in a compound are not of grammatical (syntactical)
character. It stands to reason that if the components of a linguistic unit
are roots and affixes they cannot enter into syntactical relations. They

224-

are of a semantic character. Each type of compound shares one and the
same deep structure with other linguistic units which are phrases or
even sentences. This is one of the reasons for understanding the
semantic relations in compounds. From the point of lexicology then,
every compound has at least one synonym. Thus: tradesman a man
who trades; crow's foot - like the foot of a crow; ice-cold cold as ice,
fire-proof proof against fire; heart-broken terribly upset as if one's
heart were broken; henpeck as if pecked by a hen, or passive as
something which a hen pecks; bagpipe a pipe like a bag, etc.
Composition answers the requirement for linguistic economy, to
use Martinet's term. It is a semantically loaded very concise linguistic
formation. The ease with which new compounds are coined in English
lies also in the fact of the analytical nature of the grammatical structure
of the language which has an impact on the overall nature of the words
and lexical morphemes.
e) Contraction or shortening. Contraction is shortening of a word
by omitting some of its elements. This is also an expression of the
tendency for linguistic economy.

225-

Contraction results in a shortened form which may either

preserve the old meaning or acquire a new one. The fact t at a new
form is created opens the way lor this form to become a separate word.
So that from the point of view of word formation we may consider
contraction as a source only as far as the contracted forms acquire a
new meaning and become separate words.
Contraction should be approached both from the synchronical
and diachronical level.
There are three types of contraction: 1) Aphaeresis when the
first sound or syllable is dropped out at the beginning of a word; 2)
Syncope when a sound or a syllable is dropped out in the middle of
a word; 3) Apocope when a final sound or syllable is dropped out.
Aphaeresis
a) There are quite a number of words of French origin that were
shortened when borrowed in English:
French
English
avanguard
vanguard
aventurer
venture
arriere
rear
escadron
squadron
esclave
slave
espace
space
espier
spy, etc.
In all these cases the words have preserved their meaning so that
we may speak of modifications in form rather than of new word
formations.
b) In colloquial speech words are often clipped for the sake of
brevity. In most cases they preserve their original meaning and
thus remain as colloquialisms. But there are instances when
the clipped forms are accepted in standard language and
actually oust the full forms: wig is a contraction of periwig.
The former has completely replaced the latter and the average
English speaker is not aware that wig is a contracted form of
periwig. Bus is a contraction of omnibus. Bus has ousted the
full form in colloquial speech and is accepted in literary
standard English as well and is not considered a vulgarism any
more. Although omnibus is still used it is not felt to be an
archaism as periwig. Van is a contraction of caravan 'a
covered vehicle', one may say that van is on the way to replace
caravan completely. However van has acquired another
meaning in Modern English: 'a closed carriage or truck on
railways for conveying passengers' luggage and the guard of

226-

the train'. Here is an instance of word creation conditioned by

contraction since caravan does not have that meaning. It is
only the contracted form that acquired this new meaning and
helped van to become a separate word.

227-

Phone comes from telephone. The former has preserved the

original meaning of the full form. It is still considered to be colloquial
although it is accepted in literary standard. This is because telephone is
still widely used.
From these four examples it becomes clear that different clippings
have different position in the language. This depends on the kind of
word the clipping is, i.e. whether there is a possibility for it to acquire a
new meaning. This latter depends on the semantic range of the long
form. If it is wide there is always a chance for the clipping to take over
one of these meanings.
c) In rapid speech there is always a possibility for the initial
syllable to be dropped especially if it is not stressed. If one is not
particular about one's speech there is also a slight distortion of word
endings: 'I'll keep the pipe clean till I get some slap-up bacca to christen
it.' (J. Lindsay, 'Betrayed Spring'), 'They were going over to Uncle Ned's
to dig taters, they hoped to get two sacks for themselves:' (Masses and
Mainstream, Jan. 1956), 'Timson Than'ee smoke pipe of baccer!'
(J. Galsworthy, 'The Pigeon'). Bacca, baccer are contracted forms of
tobacco. Taters is a contraction of potatoes. Brolly is a contraction of
umbrella. All these forms are vulgarisms which are not accepted in
standard language. To this group may be added tummy, a clipping of
stomach, reshaped in children's speech.
We cannot consider these clippings as separate words. They only
contracted forms.
In Modern English there are cases when the full form and the
clipping live side by side in standard language. Then the latter acquires
a new meaning which is usually the reason why they exist side by side.
In such cases this is real word formation on the basis of contraction.

acute - 'sharp, pointed';

to amend 'to improve, to correct'.
appeal 'an act of supplication';
defence 'protecting from attack';
defender 'one who defends';

228-

despite 'insulting action';

engine 'machine';
escape 'the action of escaping';
cute 'clever, attractive';
to mend 'to repair (broken
articles, stockings, clothes, etc.)';
peal 'a loud ringing of bells';

especial 'pertaining chiefly to

one particular person, or thing';
estate 'a landed property';

special 'of such a kind as to

exceed in a way';
state 'a condition manner of
existing', etc.

d) With proper names this type of shortening is very common:

Bert for Herbert for Albert; Bella for Arabella; Trix for Beatrice, Bess
for Elizabeth, Nora for Eleanor, Dora for Theodora, Sander for
Alexander, Gene for Eugene, etc.
Syncope
a) French words borrowed in English have undergone syncopation.
French
English
capitain
captain
nouriture
nurture
cheminee
chimney
halebard
halberd
couvre-feu
curfew, etc.
In this group we can scarcely speak of new words but for very
few exceptions: from the free combination of words couvre feu in
English was formed the compound curfew. It is a compound only when
compared with the French phrase since in English it is a simple noun.
Almost the same is true of kerchief. The Old French couvrechef meant
'a head covering'. In English it acquired the meaning of 'a piece of
cloth' and from there new derivatives: handkerchief, neckerchief,
pocket handkerchief.
b) In colloquial speech some abreviations are made for the sake
of speed (economy): shan't, won't, can't, shouldn't, wouldn't,
couldn't, don't, won't, doesn't, etc. These are felt to be out of
place in written language.
c) Proper names are often syncopated in English: Cholmondeley
is pronounced ['tmli]; Marjoribanks ['ma:tbnks];
Worcester ['wust]; Leicester ['lest]; Bennet from
Benedict. The pronunciation of some English place names is
trully a puzzle. And as a whole when it comes to place names
any foreigner will have difficulties.
In this group there are some clippings which have become
separate words and exist in the language side by side with the full
forms:
courtesy 'courteous behacurtsy 'a feminine
movement viour';
of respect made by
bending the

knees and lowering the

body'; fantasy 'imagination';
fancy_ 'a mental image';
hospital 'institution for the
hotel 'an inn of a
superior care of the sick and wounded';
kind', etc.;

230-

Apocope is the most frequently used type of contraction.

a) In different kinds of slang and jargon there are clipped forms.
Students' jargon is especially rich in such forms. Some of the
contractions have been accepted in standard language while others
have remained as jargonisms: prof for professor, grad for graduate,
etc. are still felt as jargonisms. Exam, gym, lab for examination,
gymnastics, laboratory respectively are steadilly making their way into
standard English and have succeeded in this respect in American
English. In contemporary English literature one comes across such
clippings very often. Of course there are excesses in this respect. The
works of Dylan Thomas reflect the extreme in this direction: 'Wait half
a sec. I want to fill the old pipe'. 'I picked her up on the prom one
night.' (Dylan Thomas, 'Portrait of an Artist as a Young Dog').
Otherwise apocope is very ordinary in colloquial speech: 'There's not
much in the mag... I think I was next best at maths but I was never any
good at trigonometry.' (Gr. Greene, 'The Heart of the Matter'), 'The
ready made demob coat was tight in the armpits.' (J. Lindsay, 'Betrayed
Spring'). Here we may consider demob as a new word. It is a clipping
of demobilized and by conversion it has become an adjective with a
different meaning from that of the full form. A demob coat is not a
demobilized coat but one made for demobilized men. So there is a shift
of meaning.
'Mrs. B. I must get my specs. (J. Galsworthy, 'The Roof'),
Foreman As a vet, I can tell you that a dog knows when he's going
mad.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Show'), Girl Oh! You are fun... No zeps
tonight' (J. Galsworthy, 'Defeat'), 'Tramp You didn't recoignize me
in the Court yesterday but I got your phiz all right.' (J. Galsworthy,
'Exile'), 'Lockyer Got fever yourself, haven' you? Collie's temp's
down.' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Forest'), etc.
b) Proper names very frequently undergo apocope: 'Al for Alfred,
Alec for Alexander, Ed for Edward, Fred for Frederic, Nick for
Nickolas, Vic for Victor, Ron for Ronald, Palm for Palmerstone, Flo
for Florence, etc. Thackeray in 'Pendennis' constantly uses Pen for
Pendennis, Cos for Costigan, Pop for Popjoy. B. Shaw in 'The Apple
Cart' uses the clipped names Pam and Sem for the lofty names of the
still loftier courtiers Pamphilius ana Sempronius with the effect that
the satyrical element is strengthened.
Quite a long list of clippings may be given which have been
accepted in the standard language: mob from Latin mobile vulgus, cap
from cabriolet, pub from public house, fan from fanatic, pram from
perambulator, photo from photograph, zoo from zoological gardens,
etc. These may be considered as already established in standard
English while some are not even felt as clippings.

Others like: mike for microphone, cit for citizen, phiz for
physionomy, vamp for vampire, sup for supper, doc for doctor, etc.
are colloquialisms.

232-

In written English there are words that have an abreviated spelling

but take full pronunciation. The majority are never spelt full size. So
that in a way they can be considered as orthographical clippings.
Among these are: Dr. (doctor), Esg. (esquire), Mr. (mister), Mrs.
(missis), Messrs. (gentlemen, sirs), Ms., Mss. (manuscript,
manuscripts), etc. (Latin et cetera) 'and the rest', e.g. (Latin exempli
gratia) 'for example', i.e. (Latin id est) 'that is', ibid. (Latin
ibidem) 'the same place', N.B. (Latin nota bene) - 'note well'.
It is an interesting fact to note that only nouns are subjected to
contraction.
In many cases the contracted forms have a special stylistic colouring. For instance, contracted personal names are charged with a
connotation of endearment. The various clippings belonging to jargons
have a hint of intimacy borne from the fact that the most unexpected
clipping invented by the speaker is understood by the hearer because
they belong to one social group.
f) Blending is closely related to contraction. The difference
between blending and contraction lies in the fact that with blending two
words are blended into one. In the process sounds from each word are
dropped out.
a) In Modern English there are words which are the
result of blending but are not felt to be such: gossip is
the result of the blending of god + sib. Sib is an Old
English word meaning 'kinship'. So that originally
gossip meant 'a godfather or godmother'. Today this
meaning is obsolete and gossip means 'a person who
delights in idle talk'.
Sheriff comes from the blending of two Old English words: scir
'shire' + gerefa ' 'reeve' = Old Fnglish scirgerefa. Owing to
different phonetic developments the word acquired its contemporary
form.
Stirrup comes from the Old English stigrap. It was a blending of
stig (stigan 'to rise, to climb') + rap (rope).
Nostril derives from Old English nosu + thyrel 'a perforation',
Old English nosthyrl.
Lord is the result of the phonetical changes of the Old English
hlafweard. The latter was a blending of hlaf 'loaf' + weard 'ward,
quard'.
Lady comes from Old English hlafdige which is a blending of
hlaf 'loaf' + dige 'kneader'.
Goodbye is a blending of 'God be with you'. The phrase became a
compound word, in which blending took place. As is to be seen
blending here is a secondary development and is not the direct cause
for the forming of the word.

233-

b)

234-

A favourite way of forming new words especially in

American English is by blending pairs of synonyms.
Some of the resul-

tant formations have proved quite successful and have entered the
standard language:
flurry (flaw + hurry)
blot (blemish, black + spot, dot)
blunt (blind + stunt)
smog (smoke + fog)
flush (flash + blush)
glaze (glare + gaze)
knoll (knell + toll)
scroll (scrow + roll)
slender (slight, slim + tender)
gruff (grim + rough)
slide (slip + glide)
twirl (twist + whirl)
electrocute (electrictiy + execute), etc.
A very good example is paratroop, which was readilly accepted.
Here the blending is more successful probably because the word
sounds like words with the Greek prefix para- (paragraph, paradox,
etc.). It is a blending of parashute + troop.
c) Acrostic words are the result of a special type of blending, i.e.
the blending of the initial letters or initial syllables of a compound
name. This type of blending is typical of neologisms reflecting notions
in socialist society: kolkhoz (kolektivnoe khozjaistvo), sovkhoz
(sovjetskoe khozjaistvo). These two words were borrowed in English
in their Russian form.
During the war many acrostic words cropped up for the names of
institutions of military bodies: DORA (Defence of the Realm Act),
RAAF (Royal Auxiliary Air-Force), SCAP (Supreme Command of
Allied Powers), SONAR (Submarine Sound Operation, Navigation and
Ranging), CRUSUS (Cruiser United States Fleet), etc.
Names of organizations: WFDY (World Federation of Democratic
Youth), IUS (International Union of Students), the FBI (Federal
Bureau of Investigation), the BBC (the British Broadcasting
Corporation), MP (Member of Parliament), etc.
In contemporary English there is a tendency to use the initial
letters of a personal name for the name itself. 'Hugh Ben'll be all
right, W.O.!' (Ketti Frings, 'Look Homeward, Angel'). The initials are
from the name W.O. Grant, one of the characters in this play.
g) Back formation. Back formation is 'formation of a seeming
root-word from a word which might be (but is not) a derivative of t.'I

I Maia Pencheva, Some specific features of the verbs coined by conversion in

1

contemporary English, dissertation, Sofia, 1975.

235-

The verb darkle (1800) 'to show itself darkly' and grovel
(1593) 'to lie with the face downward', were formed from
theadverbs darkling and grovelling respectively on the false
supposition that such verbs existed and that the adverbs were their
derivatives. The fact is that these adverbs were formed from the
adjectives dark and groof + ling and that the verbs were actually new
coinages.
On the same false supposition were coined the verbs burgle
(1872) 'to rob or steal burglarously', scavenge (1644) 'clean out',
beg 'to ask bread or money in alms', peddle, etc. from the nouns
burglar, scavenger, beggar, pedlar. Obviously the model: verbal root +
-er or -ar = N (noun), played an important role here. On the
assumption that burglar was formed from a verb burgle + ar the suffix
-ar was dropped out thus forming the verb. This was the case with all
the verbs in the examples given above. But as a matter or fact such
verbs never existed before and they are English formations. Burglar is
of Anglo-Latin origin: burg + l + ator; scavenger is of French origin,
beggar is supposed to be derived from the French beghard the
name of a mendical order in France. From there everyone who asked
for alms was called a beggar. Pedlar is of obscure origin.
From the French word donation and oration the verbs donate
(1845) and orate (1860) were coined. Here the model: verbal root
ending in -ate + ion = N (noun) played a decisive role. On this model
were formed nouns like: lubrication, dictation (lubricate vb. root +
-ion, dictate- + -ion). That was not the case with donation and oration
since neither donate nor orate existed before but they were English
formations.
The verb diagnose (1861) is also a back-formation from diagnosis. Salve (1706) is a back-formation from salvage (1645), etc.
In the majority of cases back-formation was possible mainly with
borrowings. It also may occur with words of native origin whose forms
have lost their primary significance and have coincided with other
forms. Such is the case with adverbs ending in -ling where the -ing is
suggestive of the Present Participle of the verb (examples are given
above).
h) Conversion is becoming one of the most productive means of
word formation in contemporary English. This applies especially to the
category of the verb and of the noun. A recent research in this field 1
gives the following statistics:... We counted all verbs from the first 4
letters of the dictionary (which are about 1/4 of the whole vocabulary)
Then the verbs were classified according to the structure of their
stems:
1) Out of 827 verbs with simple stems 725 stand in
relation of Modelled Homonymy (87%).

236-

2)

Out of 1024 verbs with derivative stems only

405 are related to Modelled Homonymy
(39%).3) Out of 169 verbs with compound stems
136 are related to Modelled Homonymy (80%).
At first glance at the pairs of word consisting of the mother
word and the newcoined one the observer is struck by the fact that
both words have the same root and as if only the paradigms are
different. This is what made Smirnitzki state that conversion is word
formation in which the paradigm is the word formative element. There
is much controversy on this statement and we shall not dwell upon it
here. The fact remains that the two words related by this type of word
formation differ in terms of paradigm on the morphological level. Of
course, in cases where there are no paradigmatic (morphological)
markers it is the distributional characteristic materialized on the
syntactical level which marks out the difference. Thus: mark sb. to
mark vb., pin sb. to pin vb., which can be well distinguished by
their varying morphological patterns. But hard- adj. and hard adv.
have homonymous forms on the morphological level. Actually all
possible forms in which these two words appear are homophones and
homographs. What is more, the only morphological category they
distinguish on morphological level is the degrees of comparison. Both
adjective and adverb have exactly the same markers, i.e. in form and
meaning for the grades of comparison. Then the only way to
distinguish them is by their distribution in the sentence, by their
syntactical functions. This is hard work. This is harder work than...
This is the hardest work I ever experienced. The adjective appears in
the forms hard, harder, hardest.
He worked hard. He worked harder than... He worked hardest
during... The adverb appears in the forms hard, harder, hardest.
Such pairs of words make some linguists assume that in actual
fact in English one and the same word plays the role of an adjectiveattribute when related to a noun and of an adverb-adverbial modifier
when related to a verb. The conclusion will be that in English the
difference between the various parts of speech (word classes) is dying
out and changing fundamentally the entire structure of the language.
And so everything is possible: a word can play the role of a verb, of a
noun, of an adjective, even a conjunction: provide vb., provided Past
Participle, provided conj. He provided them with rare books. This
book was provided by him. He will come provided he is in town.
Such a conclusion disregards the fundamental characteristic features of language as a system. It disregards the specific structuring of
language into various levels each having its own specific character and
specific units. It disregards the existence of the word and its character

237-

in English. This kind of attitude is the result of formalism void of

linguistic sophistication.

238-

However it is a fact that at this stage of the development of the

English language one can detect an increase of homonymy and
polysemy which somehow affects in terms of quantity the various
means of word formation. As was already mentioned in this book,
affixation and composition are giving way to conversion and phraseology. So that one has to look deeper into the structure of the word
in order to explain these facts.
On the whole as early as Old English one can trace the tendency
for unification of various forms within a given paradigmatic pattern
and also between different paradigmatic patterns which inevitably
resulted in partial homonymy. From the point of view of the
morphological markers, they became polysemantic. This affected the
nature of the lexical as well as of the grammatical morphemes. By the
Middle English period the morphological patterns of the various
declensions and conjugations marked a drastic reduction in number
and kind. And thus we come to the Modern English period where the
number of morphological markers is extremely reduced. This in itself
brought about further changes in the system, more markedly in the
nature of the morphemes and consequently of the words. Many full
forms of the words became homonymous with the root morphemes.
On the other hand, as was already mentioned, the existence of several
homonymic forms within the microsystem of the word also influenced
the overall nature of language. In a synthetical language there is a
strict distinction between root morphemes, affixes and grammatical
morphemes (markers). What is more, as a rule the grammatical
morphemes are monosemantic and there is hardly any room for
syncretism while in an analytical language like English there is high
percentage of syncretism. The very few grammatical markers very
often perform also word-formative functions. Some examples of such
cases are to be found in the class of nouns in English, more
specifically within the category of number. The morpheme -s is the
basic marker for plurality in English. In words like colours, customs,
airs, etc. the -s- definitely marks at one and the same time plurality
and a change in the meaning of the word. This change is further
supported by the change in the distributional character of these forms:
The colours of her dress; He entered the room with flying colours;
The customs of this land are strange. They were very kind at the
customs, etc. The morpheme -s in nouns like: trousers, pincers, etc.
marks plurality and at the same time a kind of semantic element
'consisting of two similar parts'. Within the class of nous this marker
-s looses completely its grammatical meaning of plurality and
becomes a word formative element as is the case with news;
linguistics, mathematics, physics, etc.

239-

Within the history of the English language one can trace the
increasing degree of complexity of the semantic elements and of the
structure of the words which makes up for the lack of formal markers. It
is these changes in English which brought about factslike provide vb.,
provided Past Participle, provide conj. To sum up, we are not facing a
complete disintegration of the systemic and structural character of the
English language resulting in chaos and linguistic permissiveness. But
we have to put up with some fundamental changes in the nature of the
system.
Smirnitski was the first Soviet linguist to pay special attention to
the problems of conversion. He contributed much for elucidating the
problems of this phenomenon and drawing attention to the fact that at
one and the same time it can be approached diachronically and
synchronically. He maintained that conversion as a means of word
formation was to be found in Old English exemplified in pairs like
lufu sb. lufian. Today his critics object to this by stating that the
nature of the stem in lufu and lufian was different from the nature of the
stem love- in Modern English love sb. and love vb. There is no question
that they are different as we. tried to point out that the changes of the
morphemes have affected the whole system of the language. But this
still does not and cannot make a linguist overlook the fact that in Old
English there existed such pairs of words, namely noun verb, which
had similar stems and differed in terms of their paradigm. This fact,
together with the others mentioned above could not fail to make its own
contribution to the changes in the language and more specifically to the
glorious march of conversion as a means of word formation in contemporary English.
Typical of conversion is that it excludes all kinds of affixes playing
the role of word formation with the exception of the paradigmatic
marker. Thus, in Old English adverbs were formed from adjectival roots
by adding the suffixes -ly, -lice. This is still a word formative pattern in
Modern English. Thus: bright adj. brightly adv., happy adj.
happily adv. In these cases the root of the adjective is similar to the root
of the adverb. Still we cannot say that this is another kind of word
formation but affixation since the affix -ly marks the new word.
Another typical feature of conversion is that the words belonging
to one and the same class cannot be coined by this means of word
formation. By the way, this fact comes to support Smirnitski's
observation about the role of the paradigmatic model in conversion. So
it is not possible for a verb to form another verb by conversion, or a
noun another noun, etc. In such cases everything will be not only
similar but identical and nothing will have changed. If there be a slight
change in the meaning in such instances one could speak of polysemy
but not of new formation.

240-

Let us analyse the verb to run and the noun run. The principal parts
of this verb are: run ran run. Vowel gradation explains the different
vowels in the rot. Together with the personal endings, vowel gradation
was the marker of the various principle

241-

parts of the verb in Old and part of Middle English. The noun run was
formed by conversion during the XVth century. The difference
between run vb. and run sb. lies in the different paradigms and
differenr distributional characteristics on the syntactical level. Thus,
the forms of the verb are as follows: Simple Present Tense run, runs
Simple Past Tense ran, Present Participle runnig, etc. The forms of the
noun are: run common form, singular, runs common form, plural,
and (*run's genitive singular, *runs' genitive plural). The
meaning of each form of the verb and the noun depends on the
meaning of the remaining forms. This is a basic characteristic feature
of every structure. So that, although the two forms of the noun have
their homonyms in two forms of the verb that does not mean that these
forms are identical. It is not the form of the verb run that we find in
the form of the noun run. Here there is a mere
coincidence
of
the string of sounds and nothing else.
As a whole, of course there are similarities between the verb
and the noun which were already mentioned in describing some basic
characteristic features of conversion. Even within the model of the
verb the form run for the Simple Present Tense is not identical with
the form run for the Past Participle. They are homonyms and nothing
more since their grammatical meaning is different.
In English there are pairs of verbs like: lie - lay, sit set, fall
fell, etc. which are obviously related in terms of derivation. They are
Old English formations. The pattern after which they were coined was
that the vowel grade of the form for the Past Tense singular gave rise to
the basic form of the new verb. The forms of the mother verb in
Modern English are: lie, lay, lain and of the derived verb ...: lay, laid,
laid
mother verb sit, sat, sat
derived verb set (Old English st- + jan), set, set
mother verb fall, fell, fallen
derived verb fell, felled, felled, etc.
Here again there are homonymous forms between the two types
of verbs. But this fact in itself does not mean that these forms are
identical. They are not since they belong to different microstructures
(words) and have different grammatical and lexical meanings. So that
they are forms belonging to different words. Then it is not possible to
say that they are the result of conversion. Here it is pertinent to stress
upon a third characteristic feature of the words related due to
conversion which these pairs of verbs do not meet. It is that the basic
forms of the two words are homonyms.
The above mentioned pairs of verbs are also related in a way
more complex than meets the eye. There is a lexical meaning con-

242-

nected with this pattern of word formation. The meaning of the derived verb contains the meaning of the mother verb but it is re-

243-

moulded into 'to make to X' where X is the meaning of the mother
verb. This is the pattern of the meaning of all verbs derived by vowel
gradation. That is why they are called causative verbs.
The verb to
balance formed a derivative to overbalance (XVIth century) by means
of the prefix over-. During the XVIIth century to overbalance vb.
gave rise to the noun overbalance. Obviously this was a case of
conversion. The basic forms of both verb and noun are homonyms.
They differ in their paradigms and distributional nature on the
syntactical level. What is more, there is a relation between the lexical
meanings of the two words. The noun actually nominates the verbal
action, or, to put it in a different way in terms of their relation to the
extra-linguistic fact, the verb represents this fact as actually
happening, while the noun just nominates it.
Throughout the more recent history of the English language
basically verbs can be coined by conversion out of nouns and vice
versa. But, theoretically in contemporary English words belonging to
any class can produce words of any other class by conversion. Of
course, this is not without restrictions. Linguistic evidence shows that
conversion being a phenomenon of a given language, of a system, has
systematic character too. This entails rules which determine the scope
and potentialities of the phenomenon. However, even in
contemporary English the majority of cases of conversion are related
to noun and verbs, less so to adjectives and far lesser to other parts of
speech. In Modern English the flexibility of the structure of the words
and morphemes and their characteristic features have influenced also
the phrase. The. latter easily turns into a unit functioning like a word.
And once acquiring this status it is not difficult for it to take part in
conversion. This is especially frequent in colloquial speech where
converted words are coined on the spur of the moment. Even set
phrases can be converted. Thus: '... I do not stove-polish him and I
may find him, leave it to me...', '...Every year expeditions went out
holy grailing and next year relief expeditions went out to hunt for
them... all the chances were that at the end of that time Sir Sagramour
would still be out grailing...,' (M. Twain, 'A Connecticut Yankee in
King Arthur's Court'), 'At any moment if he should look up from his
plate, he might be crying 'Hey!' again before the night was out he
might be keying Timmy into the nearest police station.' (J. B.
Priestley, 'Let the People Sing'), 'Copenhagen girls have
coldshouldered the Fejoe Island bachelors...' (Daily Worker, May 19.
1956).
It is a fact that during the Middle English period the
productivity of conversion became intensified and many pairs of
words were created and established in the language. Such as: stream

244-

sb. (Old Englis stream) gave stream vb., rupture sb. (1481) created
rupture vb. (1739), sack sb. (Middle English) sack vb. (Middle
English), sandwich sb. (1762) sandwich vb. (1861), rumour sb.

245-

(late Middle English) rumour vb. (during the same period). Modem
English developments: black adj. black vb., ruddy adj. ruddy vb.,
yellow adj. yellow vb., etc.; shave vb. shave sb., cry vb. cry
sb., go vb. go sb., say vb. say sb., treat vb. treat sb., down adv.
down vb., in adv. in vb., out adv. out vb., etc.
In Modern English most curious words have been formed by
conversion and some of them are well established in the language:
'There was one curious effect, which I need not take the trouble to
describe, because I can scissor a description of it out of the railway
company's advertising pamphlet, and save my ink. We visited two long
covered wooden bridges which span the green and brilliant Reuss just
below where it goes plunging and hurrahing out of the lake.' (M.
Twain, 'A Tramp Abroad'), '... it was simply preposterous that this boy
had warehoused two thousand sheaves of Scriptural wisdom on his
premises.' (M. Twain, 'Tom Sawyer'), 'The bitter law takes the
convicted man's estate and beggars his widow and his orphans.' (M.
Twain, 'A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court'), etc.
Although there is not an exhaustive investigation of concrete
linguistic material connected with conversion the evidence so far seems
to lead to the following most general requirements in order to have
conversion dependent on: 1) the semantic structure of the root of a
given word and its overall lexical meaning, 2) the structural
peculiarities of the whole word which in their turn might be explained
diachronicafly, c) the social justification of the new word, i.e. whether
its forming is called for by the demands of social life in a given human
collective. Of course, this latter consideration should not be interpreted
in a simplistic way. For instance in Modern English there exist the noun
beggar and the verb to beg but this did not make M. Twain refrain from
coining a verb to beggar which is a conversion of beggar. The meaning
of the verb to beggar is 'to turn into a beggar' and it is different from
the meaning of to beg.
It seems that verbs like: to suffer, to live, to breath, to eat, to
drown, to come, to hear, to see, etc. cannot form nouns by conversion.
May be this is due to their semantic structure. All such verbs express
actions of long duration or mental and physical perception. At any rate,
they do not express a momentary action or one that can be divided into
separate moments. They are durative verbs.
Verbs like: to ache, to drink, to attack, to plunge, to go, to look,
etc. form nouns like: ache, drink, attack, plunge, go, look. These verbs
express either an action of starting (verba inchoativa) or one that can be
divided into separate moments.

246-

1)

2)

3)
a)

Words with lexico-grammatical suffixes that clearly show their

grammatical category can hardly be converted: nouns in -tion,
forinstance, as creation, liquidation, afforestation, etc. The suffix -ation
is characteristic of nouns and is very strong as a marker because it is
not polysemantic. So that this suffix with a strong substantival nature
can hardly be part of a word belonging to another class. Nevertheless
there are formations of this type: to condition (1491), to partition
(1741), to portion (1712), to ration (1859), to requisition (1837), etc.
'Before he could even begin any kind of work he'd have to requisition
workbenches, some stools, a desk, the barest necessities of laboratory
furniture.' (Mitchell Wilson, 'Live with Lightning').
These converted words show that the rules are not strictly
followed in the language. The examples are few but all of them are
Modern English creations. We might assume that since conversion is
becoming such a powerful model of word formation even words which
cannot fit into the pattern because of their nature have to conform.
The same happens with adjectives and adverbs ending in -ly. On
the synchronical plane they can hardly be by-passed and not included in
the pattern of conversion.
An analysis of the pairs related through conversion in contemporary English may distinguish the following sources:
'generic pairs' (from Old English)
anger sb. anger vb.
mind sb. mind vb.
blossom sb. blossom vb.
name sb.
name vb.
love sb. love vb.
ship sb. ship
vb.
borrowings (mainly from the French)
accord sb. accord vb.
concern sb. concern
vb.
account sb. account vb.
distress sb. distress
vb.
genuine conversion
simple stems
book sb. book vb.
try vb. try sb.
cook sb. cook vb.
nail sb. nail vb.
b) derivative
stems
(with
affixes)
c) condition sb. condition vb.
d) inconvenience
sb.

inconvenience vb.
e) requisition sb. requisition
vb.

247-

f)

j)

compound stems (from compound

words)
g) blacklist sb. blacklist vb.
h) blackmail sb. blackmail vb.
i) windowshop sb. windowshop vb.

phrases
drawback phr. drawback sb.
pin up pin up adj.
hand cuff handcuff vb.
pin point pinpoint vb.

248-

e) back formation
hitch-hike hitch-hike vb.
hi-jack hi-jack vb.
f) blendings
g) demob demob adj.
h) prefab prefab vb.
i) paratropp - paratroop vb.
j) onomatopoeia
k) blah-blah blahblah vb.
l) pooh-pooh poohpooh vb.
m) shoo shoo vb.
An interesting problem connected with conversion is the relation
between the mother word and the new coinage. Ah important thing to
bear in mind is that it is part of the pattern for the derivative word to
preserve to a great extent the meaning of the mother word. This seems
also to be one of the characteristic features of this type of word
formation.
The classification of the words coined by conversion seems best
to be based on parts of speech, for instance: Nouns a) coined from
verbs go vb. go sb., say vb. say sb., talk vb. talk sb., etc. b)
coined from adjectives red adj. red sb., native adj. native sb.,
common adj. common sb., English adj. English sb., etc. c) coined
from adverbs in adv. in sb., out adv. out sb., etc., d) coined
from conjucntions: but conj. but sb., or conj. or sb., etc. e) coined
from pronouns: I pron. I sb. (there is even a change in the meaning
of I = ego), why pron. why sb. etc. Then most probably within the
various groups there will be subgroups based on other criteria pertinent
to this phenomenon. For instance one important criterion will be the
relations in terms of semantics between the mother word and the coined
word.
As far as new coined nouns by conversion go in Modern English
it seems that there are two main types: 1) Nouns which name a single
action of a whole process: go, say, couch, sneeze, etc. They are formed
from verbs expressing the beginning of an action or verbs expressing an
action which can be divided into separate moment. 2) Nouns which
denominate the action in its integrity: start, stand, roll, leap, etc. These
nouns do not stand for a momentary action. The corresponding verbal
nouns denominate the verbal action in its process. A comparison
between nouns formed by conversion and verbal nouns will make this
difference clear: start sb. starting, stand standing, roll rolling,
leap leaping, etc..

249-

The already mentioned dissertation enumerates about 21 semantic

groups of nouns which produce verbs by conversion and 8 groups of
verbs producing nouns by conversion. Most probably the number of
groups can expand if one tries to be more specific about the various
nuances of the meanings.

250-

My own investigations on a much more limited material realed

the following large groups of verbs resulting from conversion,
classified according to their semantics:
1) A process whose connection with the noun is as if the latter
were the instrument of the action: to drum, to nose, to pipe, etc. Only
nouns denoting tools or instruments or objects used as such can create
such verbs.
2) A process expressing the business of the person
denominated by the noun: to cook, to nurse, to boss, to star, etc.
3) A process expressing an action like the noun: to snail, to
shower, to thunder, etc.
4) A process expressing certain specific connection with the
noun: to milk, to bottle, to bracket, etc.
5) A process connected with the noun in meaning but
acquiring different connotations depending on the extra-linguistic
circumstances: to water 'to give a drink of water to an animal, to
take cattle to the water to drink, to supply water to a plant, to sprinkle
or drench with water, to add water to as diluent or solvent thereby
increasing the bulk and reducing the strength, etc.'
The problems of conversion and especially of the semantic
classification of the words thus formed are not sufficienly investigated.
Another interesting problem connected with the semantics of
these words is that once formed, they undergo developments irrespective of the meaning of the mother word. For instance, cock sb. has
the following meanings: 'the male of a common domestic fowl also of
various other birds; one who arouses slumberers; leader, head, chief;
and other numerable technical notions'. While cock vb. coined by
conversion means: 'to stick stiffly up or out, to turn up the brim (of a
hat), to train or use fighting cocks, to shoot wood cocks.'
i) Shifting of the accent and voicing of the final consonant.
Another means of forming new verbs from noun roots and vice versa
is by shifting of the accent and the different paradigms. Already in
Primitive Germanic it was well established for the verbs to have the
stress on the root syllable and the noun on the first syllable. Hence
such pairs of words as: accent vb. [k'sent] - accent sb. ['ksnt];
addict vb. ['dikt] addict sb. ['diktj; conduct vb. [kn'dkt]
conduct sb. ['kndkt]; confine vb. [kn'fain] confine sb. ['knfain];
object vb. [b'dzekt]; object sb. ['bdzikt]; permit vb. [p:'mit]
permit sb. ['p:mit]; produce vb.; [pr'du:s] produce sb. ['prdju:s];
project vb. [prou'dzekt] project sb. ['prodzekt].
These cases cannot be considered as conversion since the role
of word formative here is played by the stress and the paradigm.

251-

It is to be noted also that the difference in the stress is carried

throughout the whole paradigm.

252-

In this book the question of vowel gradation as a means of word

formation is treated on p. 134. Here we shall dwell upon cases of
consonant changes as a means of word formation. This is a Middle
English device. It seems that there is a basic difference between two
types of sound changes. With vowels it is a primary phenomenon, i.e.
from the very beginning it was a means of word formation. With
consonants it is a secondary phenomenon. The first stage here was
conversion and then the change of the consonant was introduced to
ensure the distinction. The pattern goes like this: the verb is pronounced
with a voiced final consonant, while the noun with an unvoiced final
consonant: excuse vb. [eks'kju:z ] excuse sb. [eks'kju:s]; use vb.
[ju:z] use sb. [ju:s], etc. In some cases the difference in
pronunciation is recorded in the spelling: advise vb. [d'vaiz] advice
sb. [d'vais]; save vb. [seiv] safe sb. [seif]; serve vb. [s:v] serf
sb. [s:f], etc. This is one more proof that this pattern is a well
established model of word formation in English although it is not very
productive if at all now. Probably this is due to the fact that conversion
proved to be a very powerful means of word formation and there is no
need of supplementary devices for differentiating the various parts of
speech as are the shift of accent and the voicing of the final consonant.
j) Popular etymology. Popular etymology is also a source for
coining new words. It is rather a way of modifying strange words and
making them sound more English, more familar. On popular etymology
see p. 9295.
Metonymy and metaphor are also becoming productive creative
sources for coining new words, or rather a source for enriching the
semantic range of already existing words. On metonymy and metaphor
see p. 8291.

IX. Etymological sources of

contemporary English
1. Basic problems
In discussing the problems connected with the contemporary
English vocabulary there is one of general interest: the question of the
historical identity of the language. How is it that words change in form
and meaning and yet we speak of the language as remaining the same
and often of the words as being the same too.
The component parts of every language are its vocabulary,
grammatical and phonological structures. Vocabulary as such is only

253-

building material. It gains momentum only when it follows the grammatical patterns of language. On the other hand grammatical patterns do not
amount to anything if there are no words.
When we speak of a language we have in mind its vocabulary in
action and not a list of words on the one hand and a set of so called
'grammatical rules' on the other. Every language, no matter how
primitive has its own grammatical structure. A haphazard piling of forms
without heeding the grammatical patterns is to no effect. Those patterns
are typical of one language and cannot be applied to another. That is why
a word-for-word translation very often makes no sense:
'Official Warum haben Sie einen Buben mit Typhus mit
ausgebracht?'
Am. What was that? I don' want to miss any.
German He say: why did you baby with typhus with you bring
out' (J. Galsworthy, 'The Little Man')
The grammatical structure of a language is like a framework, or
like a backbone. No structure is possible without it.
Changes in grammar are the result of a very slow process. They
cannot be very ostensible and are not clearly felt by the people speaking
the language. Each generation hands down the language to the following
generation. The slight differences or changes under way are lost to the
people using the language, or if not lost at least they are not given such
importance because they are not so drastic and do not hinder the correct
understanding between people of different generations.
At this point the identity of a language from the point of its
vocabulary is of interest.
It is a well known fact that the vocabulary of English is one of the
richest. But that was not always so. In comparison with Old English the
contemporary vocabulary is almost 13 times larger. The difference does
not lie only in the bulk of the words, but in their origin and meaning as
well.
There are many words which have changed their meaning. For
instance: to worry originally meant 'to seize by the throat', now mainly
'to tease, to harass, etc.', to muse 'to meditate' originally was
connected with the image of a dog sniffing the air when in doubt of a
scent. Mind once meant 'memory' and this meaning survives in the
phrases 'to keep in mind', 'to call to mind', 'time out of mind'. It also had
the signification of purpose or intention which survives in the phrase 'to
know one's won mind', 'to change one's mind', 'to be of two minds', 'to
have a great mind to'. The word blush preserves in the phrase 'at first
blush' the meaning of 'glimpse' or 'sight'; pain used to mean 'punishment',
also 'trouble', 'effort'. These meanings live on in the phrases 'pains and
penalties', 'under the pains of death', 'to be at pains to', 'to get for one's
pains'. The

254-

word brown preserves its old meaning of 'gloomy' in the phrase 'a
brown study', the meaning of the idiom 'by degrees' comes from the
old use of degrees for 'step'.I
There are even instances when a word acquires a meaning opposite to its original one: nice, etc. Still we say that the word is the
same. This is so because in the minds of the people living at given
period the differences in the meaning of one word are considered as
'... variants of one and the same unit, i.e. every such changing unit
functioned as one and the same despite the changes, so that in its
historical development there was no break: it was handed on and on
as one and the same and hence, historically it continued to be the
same even when finally it had become considerably changed.'II
As a rule changes in the meaning are not the result of such a
slow process as is the case with grammatical changes. Every new
concept demands a linguistic expression. Depending on its character
and on the circumstances the name for the new concept may be of
native or of foreign origin. 'The people, however, in its modern sense
appears during the Civil War (XVIth century) when Parliament made
a solemn declaration that the people are under God, the original of all
just power.'III
Clerk comes from the Greek clerikos, Latin clericul 'one of
the clergy'. In Modern English it started to be used for 'officer in
charge of records, secretary, man of business; person employed in
bank, shop, office, etc. to make entries, copy letters, keep accounts,
etc.'. This meaning did not crop up at one instance. In the oldest times
of English culture it was the clergy that provided the country with its
men of science and its scribes. So that it was only too natural for a
word like clerk to stand for the concept mentioned above.
In the Old English period husband meant 'the master of the
house'. In Middle English this connotation was lost. Now the word
husband stands for 'the man to whom a woman is married'. The older
meaning is a secondary connotation.
Meat in Old English meant 'food'. Now only a special kind of
food.
These words and many others similar to them have slowly
changed in meaning in the long course of the history of the English
language. With them the historical continuity was of paramount
importance. One generation handed them to the following and all were
equally conscious of the changes taking place in the meaning. In some

IL. P. Smith, Words and Idioms. London, 1933, p. 185

II. . , , , 1956
IIIL. P. Smith, The English Language, London, 1938, p. 205

255-

cases this awareness is stronger and in others it is weaker, but the

important point is that it exists. If it were otherwise no two succes-

256-

sive generations could understand each other. Each would have to

invent new words and the other to learn them as a new language.
People would have to spend their lifetime in learning the language. Of
course, this is just an absurd mental speculation.
However there are cases when a word changes in meaning
within a very short period of time. The word brigade was borrowed in
English from the Italian brigata through French. In English it means 'a
subdivision of army'. This word was adopted in many European
languages including Russian. In the latter it acquired the connotation 'a
group of people working together'. This connotation reflects an aspect
of the socialist organization of labour. The change in the meaning of the
word sprang up simultaneously with the appearance of this type of
labour group. This change in meaning therefore was not the result of a
slow semantic process. This connotation, in turn, was borrowed from
the Russian by all European languages including English. In all such
cases the word remains essentially the same except that it has acquired
lone more connotation.
In order to trace the origin of a word one has to undertake an
etymological investigation. This is quite a difficult task since 'the
etymological identity is not restricted by any conditions of similarity
between the sounds of the words compared or between their meaning.
In other words, units of speech very remote from each other in sound as
well as in lexical meaning may be etymologicall identical.'I
Let us try to trace the origin of a few words: full, father, lore, cup, dish,
candle.
Full is a word of Indo-European origin. It goes back to the
Indo-European root *painos. Due to specific phonetic developments it
acquired different forms in the different Indo-European languages:
Latin plenus, Bulgarian , Russian , English full, German voll, Icelandic fullr, etc. In all these languages the word has
preserved its basic meaning.
Father goes back to an Indo-European *pter. This gave Sanskrit pitar, Latin pater, Greek pater, English father, German Vater, etc.
Here again the differences are due to specific developments in the
different languages. The meaning has been preserved in all of them.
Lore is an archaism in English, meaning 'erudition, scholarship
body of traditions, etc.'. It goes back to a Primitive Germanic verb
*laizjan 'to trace out'. Modern English learn is connected with this
form. In Latin we find the same root in the word lira meaning 'a track'.
From there delirium meaning 'off the track'. Bulgarian is also from
the same root. So that it seems that English lore is etymologically
connected with the Latin delirium and the

I . . , op. cit., p. 233

161
257-

Bulgarian . In this example there is no identity in sound nor in

meaning and still it is a fact that these words are etymologically
connected.
Cup is from the Latin cuppa. The difference in sound is due to the
fact that this Latin borrowing has undergone the phonetic developments
of the respective sounds in English. The same meaning has more or less
been retained.
Dish is from the Latin discus. This case is similar to that of cup.
In tracing back the etymology of a word one has to bear in mind
the period of its first appearance in the language. This is sometimes
quite a hard task especially with old words. It is important because in
this way one is sure to know the phonetical developments of the period
and by the form of the word can judge whether it had been influenced
by these developments or not. Hence the consonant shift with the
Germanic languages is quite a reliable milestone in this respect. By it
we judge that full is a very old word in English and existed before the
consonant shift since it was affected by it. Witness the development of
the Indo-European p into Germanic f. Of course, there is always the
probability that a word is a borrowing. That may well be. There have
always been borrowings from one language into another, even in the
most remote times. Here the fact that the word full is to be found in all
groups of the Indo-European languages is important. Taking into
consideration the meaning of this word it would be quite difficult to
assume that it existed in all other Indo-European languages but English
and that later it was borrowed by the latter.
The same procedure applies to the other examples. The phonetic
development shows that cup and dish were borrowed after the
consonant shift since they were not affected by it. Dish shows a
palatalization of sc which was an Old English development. The
conclusion must be that the word dish was borrowed before that
phonetic development took place since it was affected by it. It is
interesting to note that Latin discus was borrowed a second time in
English disc, 'a thin circular plate'. This borrowing was apparently
later than the first, witness the preservation of the combination sc. And
a third time the Latin discus was borrowed giving English discus.
From the point of view of the word as a lexical unit are we
justified to consider the following as one and the same word: full and
, father and pater, lore, lira and ; cup and cuppa; dish, disc,
discus?

258-

In order to reach an answer the above items have to be put to the

test. Our starting point will be the definition rather the description of
the word as a basic linguistic unit: a complex of sounds, following a
fixed morphological pattern and entering into fixed syntactical patterns
with a fixed semantic meaning. All the patterns and semantic meanings
are on a strictly synchronical basis.
From the point of view of sound there is no identity between the
words in the above mentioned groups. As far as their grammatical
characteristic goes each of them follows different morphological and
syntactical patterns. In terms of meaning there is certain similarity
between some of them which others lack. The fact that they are
different phonetically and grammatically decides the question. It shows
that those items belong to different linguistic structures. That is why
full cannot be used in Bulgarian, nor can be used in English,
pater cannot be used in English with the meaning of 'father' except as a
jargonism, nor father in Latin, etc. In other words the above mentioned
words are not different paradigmatic forms of one and the same word
but are different words belonging to different linguistic structures
which point only to one and the same hypothetical source.
Not only borrowings like disc and discus from the Latin discus
cannot be considered to be one word in the language from which they
were borrowed but even such words which school grammars say that
have preserved their original forms like: stratum strata, datum
data, phenomenon phenomena, etc.
If we take stratum strata as representative of all such words in
English be they of Latin or Greek origin and analyse it we shall come
to the following conclusions: There is a word stratum in Latin which is
a noun in the neuter and follows a fixed morphological pattern. In this
latter the form stratum is the nominative singular of the word and it is
opposed to all other existing forms, i.e. the accussative, dative, genitive
and ablative singular and plural. The suffix -um is the marker of this
form. Strata is the nominative plural and is likewise opposed to all
other forms of this noun. The ending -a is the morphological marker of
this form.
In contemporary English there is no such morphological pattern
of the noun. The basic one is as follows:
SINGULAR
PLURAL
COMMON FORM
zero ending
-s
ending
GENITIVE FORM
-'s ending
-s'
ending
The ending -um in the English word stratum is not the marker of
the nominative singular as in Latin. It has lost its characteristics of a
grammatical suffix and has blended with the root of the word. So that

259-

the whole form has a zero ending in English. The ending -a in strata is
not the marker of the nominative plural since there is not such a
grammatical category in English. It is the marker of the common form
in the plural. So that the word stratum and all other words of the same
kind follow the pattern of the English noun as given above. The foreign
element about such words

260-

is the ending for the plural as far as form goes. But as far as the
grammatical meaning and significance go they are those of the suffix -s
the marker for the plural of the common form of the English nouns.
In conclusion: stratum strata, etc. similar words belong to the
English vocabulary and language and not the Latin although they are
Latin borrowings.
Another proof that such words are not identical in both languages is
the fact that in English there are borrowings etymologically identical
with native English words: Latin pater which is etymologically identical
with the English father is borrowed in English and is the name given to
Catholic priests. Only in English upper class jargon it is used with its
original meaning.
On the other hand even pater in English cannot be considered as
one and the same word with the Latin pater. Not because of the different
connotations but because as a linguistic unit each follows a different
morphological and a syntactical pattern typical of the two languages.
All the above considerations point to the following conclusion from
the point of view of the word as a separate linguistic unit: we may speak
of identical form only within the limits of one language. In all other cases
only the question of etymological identity may be posed and solved
respectively.

2. Basic word stock

On analysing the vocabulary of a language one is inevitably struck
by the fact that there is a considerable number of words which form the
core of the vocabulary. These are frequently used and are indispensable
in the most ordinary intercourse among people and have been such for a
very long period of time. We may call them the basic word stock of a
language.
The basic word stock of a language is a historical category.
Although very stable nevertheless it is subject to changes. Naturally the
words which were indispensable in everyday speech in the days of king
Alfred were far fewer than those needed now. So that the basic word
stock of that period was smaller than that of contemporary English.
Besides the difference in the quantity of words at different periods there
is a difference in meaning as well. The changes in the basic word stock
are very slow and not easily perceptible. The speed of this change differs
at different historical periods.
There are two main problems connected with the vocabulary of a
language: 1) the origin of the words, 2) their development in the
language. These two questions refer both to the basic word stock and to
the vocabulary.

261-

A. Since English belongs to the Germanic branch of the IndoEuropean group of languages it is obvious that the oldest words in
English are of Indo-European origin. As a matter of fact it may be said
that they constitute the very heart of the language. Etymological
parallels of such words are to be found in the other Indo-European
languages as well. So that the words of Indo-European origin form part
of the basic word stock of all Indo-European languages.
Words expressing basic notions, those which remain basic for
quite a long time, belong to the basic word stock of a language. We
differentiate several semantic groups here:
a) Words expressing family relations definitely belong here. As a
matter of fact in English those words are, with a few exceptions, of
Indo-European origin.
Brother (Old English brothor, Gothic brothar, Icelandic, brathir,
German Bruder, Bulgarian , Latin frater, Sanskrit bhratr.)
Daughter (Old English dohtor, Gothic dauhtar, Icelandic dottir,
German Tochter, Bulgarian , Greek thygater, Sanskrit duhitr).
Father (Old English fder, Gothic fadar, Icelandic fathir, German
Vater, Latin pater, Greek pater, Sanskrit pitar.)
Mother (Old English modor, Icelandic mothir, German Mutter,
Russian , Latin mater, Greek meter, Sanskrit matr).
b) Names of parts of the human body:
Foot (Old English ft, Gothic fotus, Icelandic fotr, German Fuss,
Latin ps).
Knee (Old English crie, Gothic kniu, Icelandic kn, German
Knie, Latin genu, Bulgarian, ).
Eye (Old English age, Gothic augo, Icelandic auga, German
Auge, Bulgarian , Latin oculus).
Ear (Old English are, Gothic auso, German Ohr, Latin auris,
Bulgarian ).
Nose (Old English nosu, Icelandic nos, German Nase, Bulgarian
, Latin nosus).
c) Names of elements and celestial bodies:
Water (Old English wter, Gothic wato, German Wasser, Latin
unda, Bulgarian ).
Wind (Old English wind, Gothic winds, German Wind, Latin
ventus, Bulgarian ).
Moon (Old English , Gothic , German Mond, Latin
mensis, Bulgarian ).
Star (Old English steorra, Gothic stairno, German Stern, Latin
Stella, Greek aster).
Sun (Old English sunne, Gothic sunno, German Sonne, Latin sol,
Bulgarian ).
d) Names of trees, birds, animals:

262-

Tree (Old English trow, Gothic triu, Bulgarian ).

263-

Birch (Old English birce/berc, Icelandic bjrk, Sanskrit bhurja,

Bulgarian ).
Cow (Old English cu, Icelandic kr, German kuh, Latin bos,
Bulgarian , Indo-European stems *g(w)ou, g(w)ow).
Ewe (Old English ewe, Icelandic ae, Latin ouis, Sanskrit avi-,
Bulgarian ).
Goose (Old English gs, German Gans, Latin anser, Bulgarian
).
Wolf (Old English wulf, German Wolf, Latin vulpes, Bulgarian
).
e) Words expressing basic actions:
To come (Old English cuman, Gothic ciman, German kommen,
Latin venire).
To know (Old English cnawan, Latin noscere, Bulgarian ).
To lie (Old English licgan, German liegen, Latin leg-, Bulgarian
).
May (Old English mugan, Pres. T. mg, Gothic magan, German
mogen, Bulgarian ).
To sit (Old English sittan, Gothic sitan, German sitzen, Latin
sedere, Bulgarian ).
f) Word expressing qualities:
Red (Old English rad, Gothic rauds, German roth, Latin ruber,
Greek erythros).
White (Old English hwit, Gothic hweits, German weiss, Bulgarian
).
Quick (Old English cwic, Gothic kwius, Latin vivus, Bulgarian
).
g) Numerals:
One (Old English an, Gothic ains, German ein, Latin unus).
Two (Old English twa, Gothic twai, German zwei, Latin duo,
Bulgarian ).
Three (Old English threo, Gothic threis, German drei, Latin tres,
Bulgarian ).
Ten (Old English teon, Gothic taihun, German zehn, Latin decem,
Bulgarian ).
Hundred (Old English hundrd, Latin centum, Bulgarian ).
There are many more words of Indo-European origin in the basic
word stock of the English language. Many names of tools, household
objects, etc. are of that source.
B. Another large group of words belonging to the basic word
stock is of German origin, i.e. words which are not to be found in other
Indo-European language but the Germanic.
Nouns:

264-

Ankle (Old English ancleow, Danish, Swedish ankel, Dutch enkel,

German Enkel).

265-

Breast (Old English breost, Gothic brusts, Icelandic brjst, Danish

bryst, German Brust).
Bone (Old English bn, Gothic bain, Icelandic bein, German
Bein).
Calf (Old English cealf, Gothic kalbo, Icelandic kalfr, German
Kalb).
Cloth (Old English clath, Dutch kleed, German Kleid).
Coal (Old English col, Icelandic kol, Dutch kool, German Kohle).
Ground (Old English grund, Dutch grond, Icelandic grunar,
Danish grund, German Grund).
Hand (Old English hand, Gothic handus, Dutch hand, German
Hand, Icelandic hind, Danish hand).
Ice (Old English is, Icelandic iss, Dutch ijs, German Eis).
Iron (Old English iren, Gothic eisarn, German Eisen, Dutch
ijzer).
Life (Old English lif, Icelandic lif, Swedish liv, Danish liv).
Oar (Old English ar, Icelandic ar, Dutch are).
Sea (Old English s, Gothic saiws, Icelandic srr, Swedish sj,
Dutch zee, German See).
Ship (Old English scip, Swedish skepp, Dutch schip, German
Schiff).
Shoe (Old English sceo, Gothic skohs, Icelandic skor, Danish sko,
German Schuh).
Adjectives:
Broad (Old English brad, Gothic braids, Icelandic breithr, Danish
bred, Dutch breed, German breit).
Dead (Old English dead, Gothic dauths, Danish dod, Dutch
dood).
Dear (Old English deore, Icelandic dyrr, Danish dijr, German
teuer).
Green (Old English grene, Dutch groen, Icelandic graenn, Danish
grn, German grn).
Grey (Old English grg, Dutch graauw, Icelandic grar, Danish
graa, German grau).
Sick (Old English seoc, Gothic sluks, Icelandic sjukr, Danish syg,
Dutch ziek, German siech).
Sorry (Old English sarig, Swedish sarig, Dutch zeer).
Verbs:
To bake (Old English bacan, Icelandic bake, Danish bage, Dutch
bakken, German backen).
To bow (Old English bugan, Gothic biugan, German biegen,
Dutch buigen, Swedish bja, Danish bje).
To burn (Old English beornan, Icelandic brinna, Gothic brinnan,
Danish baernan).

266-

To draw (Old English dragan, Gothic dragan, Icelandic draga,

Danish drage, Dutch dragen, German tragen).

267-

To drink (Old English drincan, Gothic dringkan, Icelandic

drekka, Danish drikke, Dutch drinken, German trinken).
To find (Old English findan, Iceiandic finna, Gothic findan,
Danish finde, Dutch vinden, German finden).
To forgive (Old English forgiefan, Gothic fragiban, Dutch
vergeven, German vergeben).
To go (Old English gan, Gothic gaggan, German gehen, Danish
ga, Dutch gaa).
To have (Old English habban, Gothic haban, Icelandic hafa,
Dutch hebben, Danish have, German haben).
To let (Old English laetan, Gothic letan, Icelandic lata, Dutch
laten, Danish lade, German lassen).
To live (Old English libbah, Gothic liban, Icelandic lifa, Dutch
leven, Danish leve, German leben).
To sing (Old English singan, Gothic siggwan, Icelandic singja,
Danish synge, Swedish sjunga, German singen, Dutch zingen).
To tell (Old English tellan, Icelandic telja, Swedish Dutch tellen,
Danish tlle, German zahlen).
Pronouns:
All (Old English eal, Gothic alls, Icelandic allr, Swedish all,
Danish al, German all).
Each (Old English lc, German jeglich, Dutch elk).
He (Old English he, Dutch hij).
Self (Old English self, Gothic silba, Icelandic sjalfa, Danish
selv, Swedish sjlv, Dutch zelf, German selbst).
Such (Old English swylc, Gothic swaleikis, Dutch zulk, Icelandic slikz, Danish slig, German solch).
Adverbs:
Again (Old English ongegn, Danish igen).
Forth (Old English forth, Gothic faurthis, German fort, Dutch
voort).
Forward (Old English1 forweatd, German vorwarts, Dutch
voort).
Near (Old English near, Icielandic nar, Gothic nehwa, German
nah).
Prepositions:
After (Old English fter, Swedish efter).
At (Old English t, Gothic at, Swedish at).
By (Old English be, Gothic bi, German bei).
Over (Old English ifer, Gothic ufar, Swedish ver, German
ober)
Under (Old English under, Gothic undar, Dutch onder, Swedish
under, German unter).
Up (Old English up, Gothit iup, German auf).1

268-

Adverbs:
Here (Old English her, Dutch hier, Icelandic her, Danish her,
Swedish hr, German hier, Gothic her).
There (Old English thaer, Dutch daar, Icelandic thar, Danish der,
Gothic thar, German da).
Nigh (Old English neah, Dutch na, Icelandic na, Gothic nehwa).
C. There is a group of Latin borrowings that belongs to the basic
word stock of contemporary English.
Nouns:
Chalk (Old English cealc, Latin calc-).
Cheese (Old English ciese, Latin caseus).
Cook (Old English , Latin coquus).
Coppe (Old English copor, Latin cuprum).
Cup (Old English cuppe, Latin cupa).
Dish (Old English disc, Latin discus).
Kitchen (Old English cycene, Latin coquina).
Line (Old English line, Latin linea).
Mile (Old English mil, Latin mille (passum).
Mill (Old English mylen, Latin molina).
Pepper (Old English pipor, Latin piper).
Plant (Old English plante, Latin planta).
Port (Old English port, Latin portus).
Pound (Old English pund, Latin pondo).
Wall (Old English wall, Latin vallum).
Wine (Old English wine, Latin vinum).
Adjectives:
Correct (Old English correct, Latin correctus).
Equal (Modern English equal, Latin equalis).
Perfect (Middle English perfect, Latin perfectus).
Quiet (Middle English quiet, Latin quietus).
Verbs:
To add (Middle English adden, Latin addo).
To spend (Old English spendan, Latin expendo).
To turn (Old English tyrnan, Latin torno).
D Some Scandinavian borrowings also penetrated into the basic
word stock of contemporary English:
The personal pronoun they is of Schandinavian origin. During the
Middle English period it steadily made its way into the language and by
the Modern English period completely replaced the Old English he.
Bag (Scandinavian bagge).
Band (Scandinavian band).
Egg (Scandinavian egg).
Fellow (Scandinavian felagi).
Harbour (Scandinavian herbergi).

269-

Law (Scandinavian leg).

270-

Leg (Scandinavian leggar).

Skirt (Scandinavian skyrta).
Sky (Scandinavian sky).
Wing (Scandinavian vaengr).
Verbs:
To call (Scandinavian
kalla).
To
crawl
(Scandinavian krafla).
To give (Scandinavian
geva).
To take (Scandinavian
taka).
To want (Scandinavian
vant).
Adjectives:
Ill (Scandinavian illr).
Low
(Scandinavian
lagr).
Wrong (Scandinavian
rangr).
Ugly
(Scandinavian
uggligr).
Odd
(Scandinavian
oddi).
Prepositions:
Till (Scandinavian till).
E. Words of French origin also entered the basic word stock of
English.
Nouns:
Advice (Old French avis).
Age (Old French aage).
Aunt (Old French aunte).
Autumn (Old French autompne).
Beauty (Old French beaute).
Beast (Old French beste).
Car (Old French carre).
Cattle (Old (French catel).
Chair (Old French chaiere).
Change (Old French change).
Choice (Old French chois).
City (Old French cite).
Coat (Old French cote).
Colour (Old French colour).

271-

Country (Old French contree).

Courage (Old French courage).
Cousin (Old French cosin).
Creature (Old French creature).
Enemy (Old French enemi).
Family (Old French familie).
Flower (Old French floure).
Fruit (Old French fruit).
Garden (Old French gardin).
Honour (Old French honur).
Hour (Old French hore).
Joy (Old French joye).

272-

Judge (Old French juge).

Language (Old French language).
Matter (Old French metere).
Money (Old French moneie).
Mountain (Old French montaine).
Pain (Old French peine).
Peace (Old French pais).
People (Old French peple).
Place (Old French place).
Pleasure (Old French plesir).
Quarrel (Old French querele).
Question (Old French question).
Sign (Old French signe).
Story (Old French estoire).
Table (Old French table).
Adjectives:
Brave (Old French brave).
Common (Old French comun).
Close (Old French clos).
Cruel (Old French cruel).
Foreign (Old French forain).
General (Old French general).
Honest (Old French honeste).
Important (Old French important).
Large (Old French large).
Opposite (Old French opposit).
Poor (Old French povre).
Verbs:
To agree (Old French agreer).
To appear (Old French aparoir).
To carry (Old French carier).
To catch (Old French cachier).
To cover (Old French covrir).
To cry (Old French crier).
To decide (Old French decider).
To dress (Old French dresser).
To enter (Old French entrer).
To hurt (Old French hurter).
To finish (Old French finist from finir).
To invite (Old French inviter).
To pass (Old French passer).
To pay (Old French paier).
To receive (Old French recoivre).
To refuse (Old French refuser).

To remain (Old French remaindre).

To remember (Old French remember).
To repeat (Old French repeter).

274-

To stay (Old French estayer).

To try (Old French trier).
To use (Old French user).
To wait (Old French guetter).
F. There are a few words in the basic word stock of contemporary
English of various other sources. Those have entered the basic word
stock because they are names of notions which in the course of time
have become basic. Some belong to languages with which English
does not have much in common. Thus:
Church (Greek kyriakon).
Stove (Dutch stove, a hot-house).
Tea (Irom Amoy pronunciation (te) of the Chinese name for the
plant, which is (in other parts of the country) called cha or tsa. Hence
the Italian cia, French the, German Thee, Malay teh).
Tomato (Spanish tomate).
Potato (Spanish patata).
Tobacco (Spanish tab. A word taken from the language of
Hayti.)I
During the Middle English period there was a rapid development
of the vocabulary. Some of the new words which appeared at that time
entered the basic word stock. It is rather strange that the etymology of
a number of words of that period is uncertain.
Girl (answering to an Anglo-Saxon lorm *gyrel-, Teut. *guril-,
Low G. gr, gre, a child'. Cf. Swiss gurre, gurril, a deprecatory term
for a girl.)2
Boy (preserved in E. Friesic boi, boy, allied to M. D. boeve, 'a
boy', Du. boef 'a knave', Icel. bofi 'a knave'; G. bube, Bavarian bueb,
baa, bui, 'a boy'.)3
Bud (Dutch bot 'a bud').
To cut (Middle Swedish kotta).
To kill (E. Friesian kullen).
Many of the above mentioned words as those that were not
mentioned but belong to the basic word stock, besides their basic
meaning have other connotations: Thus hand has basic meaning
'terminal part of human arm beyond wrist'. And the following other
connotations: 'similar member lor all four limbs of monkey, forefoot of
quadruped, authority, disposal, share in action, manual worker at
factory, etc., person who does something, etc.' It is only the basic
meaning that enters the basic word stock, the other connotations
remain in the vocabulary of the language. It may happen that the basic
meaning is replaced by another which once was secondary. In this case

, 2, 3

Skeat, Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English Language.

the secondary meaning enters the basic word stock. Such words should
be evaluated from the synchronical point of view.

To tell 'to relate in spoken or written words, make known

state, express in words, utter, decide, determine, distinguish, produce
marked effect, count'. The last one used to be the original meaning.
During the Middle English period it was replaced and now is
considered to be archaic and is preserved only in fixed phrases: 'all
told', etc. So that this connotation does not belong to the basic word
stock now. 'To relate' in spoken or written words' which diachronically
is a secondary connotation has entered the basic word stock of
contemporary English and is considered to be the basic meaning of the
verb today.
There are some words which owing to polysemy finally split into
two distinctly separate words and it may happen that both belong to
the basic word stock:
Box 'kind of small evergreen shrub' and box 'receptacle of
wood, cardboard, metal,' etc.1 The second word was formed by
metonymy from the first. The first boxes were swall receptacles made
of box wood.
As has been mentioned the basic word stock, though a considerably stable category, is not impervious to changes. Certain notions
cease to be basic and the words tor them cease to be indispensable,
others become basic and the words for them enter the basic word
stock. For instance, in the socialist countries the words for king,
kingdom, etc. are on the way to drop out of the basic word stock of the
language. For the younger generation they are actually archaisms.
Words like:
Cotton (Middle English and A. French cotoun, French coton,
Spanish coton, algodon where al is the Arab, art., Arab, qutn, cotton,'2
Silk (Perhaps from Chinese se sei 'silk').3
Picture, etc. are indisputably in the basic word stock of contemporary English.
However there is an important point to bear in mind as regards
the new words. It is quite risky to decide whether a new word will
enter the basic word stock or not. For instance electricity, gas, bicycle,
etc. are almost indispensable words in contemporary speech. They are
used by everyone in every kind of speech and literary work. And still
nobody can predict whether they will remain so for a longer period of
time and that they will be considered part of the basic word stock of
English.
There are instances where a notion remains basic but the name
for it is changed. The new word may be of native or foreign origin.
The replaced word may either narrow its meaning and remain in the
vocabulary of the language or become obsolete.
1, 2, 3

Skeat, op. cit,

The Old English thu, personal pronoun, second person singular

was replaced by you. You is a Middle English formation. It is a
contamination of the form ge, nominative plural of the personal
pronoun, second person and eow, accusative plural of the personal
pronoun with a shifting of the diphthong from falling to a rising one.
The form thu Modern English thou, is used only as an archaism and
by members of some religious communities like the Quakers. Old
English witan was thoroughly replaced by the Old English, cnawan, 'to
know'.
Hound was replaced by dog. Both words were to be found in Old
English. In Modern English dog belongs to the basic word stock while
hound to the vocabulary.
The Old English form for the personal pronoun, third person
plural, was h, he. Since it was easily confused with h, personal
pronoun, third person singular, masculine and he, the accusative of the
personal pronoun, third person singular, feminine, it was easily
replaced by the Scandinavian they. By the end of the Middle English
period they, them, their triumphed over the respective Old English
forms.
Heaven (Old English heofon) belonged to the basic word stock
during the Old English period. Later it was replaced by the Scandinavian ski. Today heaven, with a restricted meaning 'the habitation of
God and his angels' belongs to the vocabulary, while sky belongs to the
basic word stock of English.
Fiend (Old English fond) once belonged to the basic word stock.
Now it is replaced by enemy (Old French enemi) which entered the
basic word stock. Fiend with a restricted meaning 'the devil, an evil
spirit' belongs to the vocabulary of the language.
Maiden (Old Fnglish mgden) belongs to the vocabulary today.
In Old English and Middle English it used to be in the basic word stock
until it was replaced by girl. The meaning remains the same today only
that it has a flavour of the romantic, archaic.
Sooth (Old English sth) is an archaism in Modern English. It
was once in the basic word stock but was replaced by truth, a word of
Scandinavian origin.
There are words which once belonged to the basic word stock but
are completely obsolete now.
Old English niman was ousted by the Scandinavian taka 'to take'.
There is no trace whatever of the old verb in English today.
Old English band was replaced by death. The old word is preserved only as a dialectism in some of the Northern dialects.
Old English bunnan was replaced by the equally Old English
verb related to it cnwan 'to know'.
Old English barme was ousted by German Bosom.

278-

Old English am was replaced by the French uncle.

Old English theod was replaced by the French people.
Old English ord was replaced by the French point, etc.

279-

From these few examples it becomes clear that borrowings may

be so thoroughly assimilated that they may enter the basic word stock
of the language in which they are borrowed. However there is again
one point to bear in mind. Words belonging to the basic word stock of
one language when borrowed usually remain in the vocabulary of the
language which has, borrowed them. It takes quite a long time for a
foreign word to be completely naturalized. Of course that depends on
the meaning of the borrowing very much. In some cases the process is
quicker and in others slower, but there is not a single example of a
borrowing which entered the basic word stock of another language
immediately after it was borrowed.

3. History of the vocabulary

The history of the vocabulary of language is closely related to the
history of the people speaking the language.
a) As English is an Indo-European language it has a stock of
words of Indo-European origin. Not all of these belong to the
basic word stock of contemporary English. We shall mention
here some that belong to the vocabulary of the English of
today:
Bid (Old English biddan, Latin fidere, Greek pethein).
Hound (Old English hund, Latin canis).
To spew (Old English spwan, Latin spuere, Greek spivein).
Staff (Old English stff, Sanskrit stambh).
b) Words of Germanic origin belonging to the vocabulary are
more numerous: deal, deem, herd, kin, lust, leech, quean,
seeth, etc.
c) Latin words entered the English language during several periods. The first influx seems to have been at the time before the
migration of the Anglo-Saxons to Britain. It consists of words
connected mainly with trading since it was through trade that
the Germanic tribes first got in touch with the Romans.
Practically all these words entered the basic word stock of the
language.
When the Anglo-Saxon tribes migrated to Britain they found
Roman settlements there. Probably dating back to that time are words
like:
Tower (Old English torr, turris).
Port (Old English port, Latin portus) which also belong to the
basic word stock of contemporary English.
With Christianity Roman missionaries came to Britain. Since
Latin was the language of the Roman Catholic church all terms
connected with its doctrine and rituals were Latin and were directly
adopted in English.

280-

Abbot (Old English abbod, Latin abbas).

Alms (Old English celmesse, Latin eleemosyna).
Altar (Old English altar, Latin altaria).
Anthem (Old English antefen, Latin antiphona).

281-

Ark (Old English earc, Latin arca).

Apostle (Old English apostol, Latin apostolus).
Bishop (Old English bisceop, Latin episcopus).
Disciple (Old English discipul, Latin discipulus).
Martyr (Old English martyr, Latin martyr).
Mass (Old English msse, Latin missa).
Pope (Old English papa, Latin papa).
Shrine (Old English scrin, Latin scrinium).
Some Latin borrowings of this period entered the basic word stock
as for instance:
Candle (Old English candel, Latin candela).
Devil (Old English deofol, Latin diabolus).
Monk (Old English munoc, Latin monachus)
Nun (Old English nunne, Latin nonna).
Priest (Old English preost, Latin presbyter).
A number of names of fruits and plants are from the, same period:
Celandine (Old English celethonie, Latin chelidonium),
Chevril (Old English cerfille, Latin carefolium).
Coriander (Old English celander, Latin coriandrum).
Fennel (Old English finugle, Latin foeniculum).
Periwinkle (Old English perwince, Latin pervinca).
Parsley (Old English petersilige, Latin petroselinum).
The supremacy of the Catholic church and its interest in all aspects
of life had a marked influence on Mediaeval culture all over Europe
including England. Scientific life was entirely under the patronage of the
church. This naturally had an imprint on the language the more so, since
almost all scientific papers were written in Latin. Even artistic works
were rendered in this language. So that it is not strange that words
belonging to abstract notions and scientific terms in English are of Latin
origin.
With Latin borrowings it is difficult to determine whether a word
was borrowed straight from the Latin or whether it entered the language
through the French.
By the end of the XIIth century English was in a very poor state.
After the Norman Conquest in 1066 there was an influx of French
words in the language which came like an avalanch sweeping aside
everything in its way. Since Latin words never for a moment stopped
entering the language, how can one differentiate the direct borrowings
from those that came through the French?
Amossova offers a list of Latin words claiming that they are direct
borrowings on the basis that some of them are not to be found in the
French of that time: 'admonition, ablution, acid, act, beatitude,
benediction, caption, cassation, censure, conception, collision, consent,

282-

defect, dial, effect, emolument, election, fate, formula, fraction, illusion,

lapse, locution, magnanimity, margin, medium,

283-

meditation, memory, militia, necessity, salvation, torture, vehicle,

velocity, vicar, vortex, to abhor, to abnegate, to absolve, to acquiesce,
to addict, to castigate, to collide, to comprehend, to convince, to
decorate, to deliberate, to despond, to discriminate, to emerge, to elect,
to elevate, to expel, to frustrate, to illuminate, to litigate, to neglect, to
salute, to tolerate; abject, absent, absolute accurate, beneficial;
deficient, desolate, direct, efficient, equal, fatal, future, humane,
igneous, illiterate, immediate, immaculate, jovial juridical, latent,
literary, lunar, major, malignant, manual, neutral, solar, torpid, turbid,
vernacular, voluptuous, etc.'I
During the Renaissance there was such an interest in everything
classical that many words of Latin origin which had entered English
before were reshaped to bring them closer to the Latin forms. We find
in Chaucer's works the following words:
Amintstre (Old French aministrer) which during the XVIth century was reshaped to administer after the Latin administrare.
Calcule (Old French calculer) was reshaped to calculate after
the Latin past participle of the verb calculare.
Contrary (Old French contrarier) was reshaped to contradict
after the Latin past participle of the verb contradicere.
Corrump (Old French corompre) was reshaped to corrupt after
the Latin corruptus.
Doute (Old French douter) was reshaped to doubt after the Latin
dubitare.
Egal (Old Frehch egal) was reshaped to equal after the Latin
aequalis.
Enlumine (Old French enluminer) was reshaped to illuminate
after the Latin illuminat, etc.
After the XVIIth century most Latin borrowings have been
scientific terms.
d) For about three centuries (VIII-XI) Britain was devastated by
the inroads of Different Scandinavian tribes. Many of them even
settled there and that was how English came in close contact with
Scandinavian. At that remote period the two languages were so closely
related that Smirnitzki considers them as 'different dialects of one and
the same language.'II
This closeness determined the character of the influence of
Scandinavian on English.

I. , op. cit., p. 247

II. . , op. cit., p. 247

284-

In the main the roots of the words were of the same origin. So
that communication between the English and the Scandinavians was
practically unhampered. This explains why Scandinavian borrowings
in English are far less than the French. In many cases it is difficult to
determine whether a word is of Scandinavian origin or whether it
belongs to a Northern English dialect. A characteristicfeature of
Scandinavian borrowings is the preservation of sc while in words of
native origin the sc was palatalized to sh: scab, scald ('a poet'), scalp,
scant, scare, scatter, scoff, scoop, scoundrel, scraggy, scramble, scrap,
scrape, scratch, scrawl, scream, screech, scrubs, skull, skill, skillet,
skin, skip, skirt, skittles, bask, etc.
One must be on one's guard even with such words because not
all words in English that have the combination sc are of Scandinavian
origin: thus scaffold (Old French escafalt), scald (Old French escalder,
Latin escalare 'to burn'); (Old French escale), scale (Latin scala
'ladder'), scandal (Latin scandalum, Greek skandalon), scarf (French
escarpe), scorn (Old French escorne), scribe (Latin scribus), script
(Latin scriptum), skeleton (Greek skeleton), etc.
Other words of Scandinavian origin that belong to the vocabulary of contemporary English are: to hit, to raise, meek, odd, etc.
There are a few words which had a palatal g in Old English. One
would expect this palatal g to develop regularly into ay. But strangely
enough these words appear in Modern English with a g. The only
explanation is that in Scandinavian there existed corresponding words
with g and under the influence of those the g in the English words was
retained, or rather that the Scandinavian words replaced the English:
egg, get, give, forget, etc. These belong to the basic word stock of
contemporary English.
After the Norman conquest in 1066 French or rather Northern
French became the official language in England. By the time there was
practically no English nobility left because of the terrible internecine
wars. The few that survived were reduced to knights, i.e. the lowest
stratum of the ruling class. English was the language of the common
people, at that time illiterate and with no prospects for cultural
progress. The nobility were Normans and the clergy too. French was
the language of the court, the church, trade, etc. Whoever wished to
prosper and attain success in life had to learn French.
The first French borrowings were terms connected with warfare,
the court, law, etc.: army, lieutenant, chancellor, baron, banner, court,
crown, country, council, castle, duke, justice, office, passion, paradise,
procession, peace, treason, war, saint, etc.
English was enriched with words standing for more abstract
notions: to accuse, to amend, conscience, dainty, devotion, patience,
pity, pure, purity, etc.

285-

There was almost no end to the French words that continued to

pour into English during the XIIth, XIVth, XVth and XVIth centuries.
During the XVIIth century there was a change in the character of the
borrowings. While there was a tendency for earlier ones to be
thoroughly assimilated and Anglicized during the Restoration period
in England the opposite tendency is to be discerned a conscious
preservation of the French forms of the words. This was under the
influence of the court which was entirely pro-French. The French,way
of life is reflected in words used at the court and preserved in the
language from that period: burlesque, badinage, travesty, jocose, to
droll, to ridicule, etc.
During the XVIIth century words connected with business but
now reflecting capitalist economy began to appear: capital, divident,
investment, insurance, commercial, discount, etc. During the same
period the words bank, machine, manufacture, etc. started to acquire
their modern meanings:
Bank, a long seat for several to sit on, a bench or form (1050) the
shop, the office or place of business of money-dealers (1474), the table
or counter of a money-dealer (1567).
The XVIIth century brought words like: banking, bancruptcy,
capitalist, currency, finance, etc. Words connected with politics and
the French Revolution were readily adopted in English: minister,
ambassador, administration, budget, estimate, aristocrat, royalism,
revolutionary, bureaucracy, centralize, centralization, counterrevolution, decade, demagogic, demoralize, diplomatic, fraternization,
guillotine, etc.
French words still continue to enter English to the present day.
f)
The Celts were the aborigines of the British Isles before the
settlement of the Anglo-Saxons. It is a strange fact that there
are only very few Celtic words borrowed in English. Apart
from these few there are vestiges of Celtic only in place
names. Many a linguist has offered an explanation for this
fact. There is no point in discussing this problem here.
Unfortunately no explanation given up till now is entirely
convincing.
Some of the words of Celtic origin are: bannock (a home-made
loaf), bard, bog, brogue, down, dun, glen, lad, loch, shamrock, slogan,
etc. 'Tory was first used about 1680 in the political sense. The Irish
State Papers, Jan. 24, 1656 mention 'tories and other lawless persons',
Irish toiridhe, lit. 'a hostile pusuer', also 'a searcher' (hence 'a
plunderer').I Clan coracle, colleen, flannel, plaid, whisky are later
borrowings.

I Skeat, op. cit.

286-

g)

287-

A group of words of Greek origin may be traced in the vocabulary of contemporary English. The earlier Greek words
that penetrated in the language were connected with the
introduction of Christianity in the British Isles and that was
through Latin. Later on scientific terms and a few other words
were borrowed directly from the Greek: apotheosis,
enthusiasm, apathy, athlete, emphasis, catastrophe, lexicon,
myth, phenomenon, etc.

The Greek language helped mainly in the formation of numerous

contemporary scientific terms which belong to international lexis.
They are especially abundant in the fields of medicine, chem-istry,
physics, etc. For instance: barometer, chronometer, litography,
telegraphy, telephone, gramophone, photography, diabetes, phtisis,
etc.
h) During the Middle Ages there was an intense give and take between
England and Holland. Many Dutch specialists, especially in the textile
industry, came to England. As a result, a number of Dutch words were
adopted in English the majority of which still remain in the language:
to gloss, spool, stripe, etc. are from the textile industry. Others
connected with seafaring: bowsprit, buoy, commodore, cruise, dock,
marline, orlop, reef, sloop, yacht, etc.
Since the art of painting flourished in Holland during the XVIth
century and the XVIIth century, some Dutch words connected with art,
were borrowed in English; easel, to etch, landscape, maulstic, etc.
i) English has borrowed from the Italian words standing for art
or for typical italian objects: adagio, allegro, andante, aria,
baritone, basso, conralto, falsetto, finale, intermezzo, legato,
libretto, prima donna, piano, opera, solo, sonata, soprano,
tarantella, tempo, trio; cameo, chiaroscuro, fresco, intaglio,
stucco, studio, term cotta; canto, stanza; violin, duet, quartet,
madrigal; gondola, casino, cicerone, maccaroni, spaghetti,
piazza, etc.
j) Spanish has contributed to the richness of the English language too. Through Spanish many words of South American and Mexican origin entered the language: alpaca, armada, banana, bastinado,
bravado, canyon, cargo, coco (Spanish cacao, Mexican cacautl), canoe
(Spanish canoa, Hait. canoa), chocolate (Spanish chocolate, Mexican
chocolatl), cigar, cork, contraband, desperado, embargo, fandango,
guerilla, hurricane, junta, maize, mosquito, matador, mulatto, negro,
peccadillo, pampas, quinine, ranch, renegade, siesta, tornado, etc.I
k) Some other borrowings are: moccasin, tomahawk, squaw,
wigwam, papoo, etc. from North American Indian; bazar, caravan, etc.
from Persian; algebra, sofa, sherbet, admiral (Amir-al-bahr
'commander of the sea'), etc. from Arabic; cherub, seraph, hallelujah,
messiah, etc. from Hebrew; boyar, cossack, rouble, muzhik, verst, tsar,
copeck, steppe, borzoi, etc. from Russian, etc.
1) Translation loans form a special group of borrowings. Some
very early ones are:

I H. H. , op. cit.,

288-

Gospel from Old English god + spell which corresponds exactly

to Greek euaggellon.
Heathen from Old English hoethen ('hoeth, heath'), corresponding
to Latin paganus from pagus ('a country district').
Almighty is the exact translation of the Latin omnipotens, etc.
In more recent times such translation loans, i.e. translations of the
components of words are rather rare. In this respect socialist,

289-

terminology may serve as an example. These terms were either

borrowed or translated from the Russian: kolchoz, sovchoz, brigadier,
brigade; shockworker, socialist emulation, etc. In recent years the
Russian sputnik became part of the English vocabulary.
Phrases are much more frequently translated. The majority of
such translations in English are of French or Latin origin.
FRENCH
fair un point de

ENGLISH
to make a point of

tre sur le point de

to be on the point of

penser furieusement

to think furiously, etc.

'To cross the Rubicon' and 'the die is cast' are from Caesar's
advance on Rome. 'A snake in the grass' and 'a sop to Cerverus' are
Virgillian phrases; 'a purple patch' is from Horace 'the sinews of war'
from Cicero; 'better late than never' is found in Livy and 'a pions fraud'
in Ovid; the phrases 'with a grain of salt' and 'in a nutshell' are from
the elder Pliny's writings.1
There are some phraseological units which are translation loans in
English, and are common to many other European languages including
Bulgarian: 'to swim against the current', 'to break the ice', 'to fish in
troubled waters', 'to be under arms', 'to lay down arms', 'to beat a
retreat', 'to take the bull by the horns', 'a bird of passage', 'a hornet's
nest', 'the beaten road', 'to take root', 'as a man makes his bed so he must
lie on it', 'to play with fire', 'to strike while the iron is hot',' to be
between anvil and hammer', 'to swallow the oil', 'to pull the strings', 'to
read between the lines', 'to make the hair rise', 'to lead by the nose', 'to
throw dust in someone's eyes', 'to show one's teeth', 'to make two ends
meet', 'to pass the time', 'to have a good time', 'to kill time', etc.

4. Fate of borrowings
The fate of borrowings in a language is different for different
words.
a) Some words are borrowed to express new notions. These usually are
readily accepted and assimilated in the language and are not felt to be
borrowings at all. After some time many of these enter the basic word
stock of the language as was already illustrated.

290-

b)

Other words are borrowed to express nuances of a given notion,:

'upper' superior etc. Still others are used to achieve a specific
stylistic effect. Usually the native word is more emotional while the
borrowing is more formal:
1

L. P. Smith. Words and Idioms, London, 1933

291-

foe enemy feed nourish

delve dig
help aid
deep profound
begin commence
c) There are instances when there is a native word for a given
notion but still a word with the same meaning is borrowed. The only
explanation for such borrowings is that they are not expressly
borrowed but manage to make their way into the language somehow
together with a large bulk of words of the same origin. And once a
word makes its way into a language the latter makes the best use of it.
Usually in such cases differentiation between the two synonyms soon
takes place. The borrowing or the native word may restrict its
semantic range. A few examples will suffice to illustrate this:
To ask (Old English axian) 'to call for an answer'.
To inquire (Old French enquerir) 'to seek information'.
Big (Middle English big), 'something big in volume: measure,
weight'.
Large (French large) 'something big in volume'.
The choose (Old English ceosan) expresses the most general
notion of the action of choosing.
To select (Latin selectus, Past participle of seligere 'to choose),
'to choose implying rejection or exclusion of what is deemed inferior'.
To come (Old English cuman) 'to start, move, arrive, towards or
at a point, time or result'.
To arrive (French arriver) 'come to destination or end of
journey'.
All those examples illustrate a restriction of the meaning in the
borrowings in one way or another.
Restriction of the semantic range of native words: Beautiful (Old
French beaute + ful) 'delighting the eye or ear, gratifying the taste'.
Fair (Old English fseger) 'beautiful but rather in the moral sense,
unblemished, etc.'
To carry (Old Erench carrier) 'convey in vehicle, ship hand or
head'.
To bear (Old English beran) 'to carry on back, head, etc.
supported by hands and usually stressing the importance of the effort'.
Used with abstract notions as well.
To finish (Old French finiss-, base of the present participle of
finir) 'to complete'.
To end (Old English ende sb.) 'put an end to something no matter
whether it is finished or not', etc.
Sometimes there is only a stylistic difference between the native
word and the borrowing:
To begin is more colloquial, while to commence is more official
and bookish: 'Michael and Fleur began to dance', 'Byron commenced

292-

his literary career by the publication of a small volume of detached

poems, entitled 'Hours of Idleness'.

293-

To go on is colloquial while to continue is loftier: 'Please,

continue your story', 'Pray, go on with your next story.'
Borrowings are usually adopted in a language in their original
form. The moment they enter the new language they are subject to the
phonetical, grammatical and semantical rules of development of the
language. The sooner a borrowing is assimilated the quicker it ceases to
be felt as a borrowing. It becomes an element of the language in which
it was borrowed and a different linguistic unit from what it used to be
in the original language.
This brief survey illustrates the fact that the vocabulary of a
language is in constant change: some words fall into oblivion, new
words crop up. However it is not very frequent for obsolete words to be
reinstated in the language after a period of time.
Such a tendency was strong with the Romantics in England.
Some of their revivals are words like: raid, onslaught, fitful, etc.

5. Archaisms
There are some very old words and forms in English which are
still used in literary language, especially in poetry. Spencer was a great
reviavalist. He rediscovered the charm of some of the words used by
Chaucer which had become obsolete by his time. Coleridge, W. Scott
have also contributed to the revival of old words. Coleridge's zeal in
this respect went so far that he had to reduce the number of archaisms
used in the first edition of the 'Ancient Mariner' so as to make it
comprehensible.
The use of archaisms leads to a marked artistic effect. Here are a
few examples:
'I arise from dreams of thee
In the first sweet sleep of night,
When the winds are breathing low,
And the stars are shining bright;
I arise from dreams of thee
And a spirit in my feet
hath led me who knows how?
To thy chamber window, Sweet!'
(P. B. Shelley, 'The Indian Serenade')
In the above excerpt there are no archaic words but only archaic
forms: thee, thy, hath. These are grammatical archaisms. The effect
achieved is that of solemnity and reverend love. In contemporary

294-

English other grammatical archaisms are: art 'are', wilt 'will', shalt
'shall', wouldst 'would', etc.
Poetical archaisms are usually words which are not used in
ordinary speech.

295-

'Her tears fell with the dews at even..' (A. Tennyson, 'Mariana')
'Break up the heavens, O Lord' and far,
Thro' all yon starlight keen,
Draw me, thy bride, a glittering star,
In raiment white and, clean.'
(A. Tennyson, 'St. Agnes' Eve')
Even, yon, raiment are words in a long list of similar archaisms.
Another type of archaisms are used in journalistic jargon: albeit,
perchance, save, wellnigh, hereof, hereto, thereas, therein, there of,
thereon, etc.
In English there are obsolete words which remain in the vocabulary of the language as parts of compounds. We may treat these as
archaisms.
Garlic (Old English garlc a compound formed from the roots of
the words gar 'spear' + leac 'leek'). The first component as a word is
obsolete in contemporary English.
Nightmare The second component of this word is not 'mare'
'a she horse'. It comes from Old English mara 'an incubus' which was
believed to sit upon sleeping people and suffocate them. The Old
English mere 'a she horse' has been confused with Old English mara
'an incubus'. This same confusion is to be traced in Dutch too.
Mermaid Old English mere 'sea' + Old English mgden 'maid'.
The first component as a word is obsolete. It is to be found in proper
names Windermere, etc.
Nightingale Old English niht + Old English gale, a singer
related to the verb galan 'to sing'. The latter verb and the corresponding noun are both obsolete as words now.
Folk-lore folk + lore. The second component as a word if not
completely obsolete is obsolescent.
Absolete words are preserved as roots in place and family names:
Webb is the Old English webba which was thoroughly replaced by the
formation weaver.
Every language is enriched by newly coined words. This question
was treated in the chapter on creative sources.
This is a short exposition of some problems connected with the
English vocabulary. Unfortunately from the lexicological point of
view these questions have not been exhaustively elucidated until now.
One may say that one side of the problem of vocabulary has been
handled in extenso: the compilation of various dictionaries.
Lexicography is far more advanced than any other branch of linguistics related to problems of vocabulary.

296-

Selected bibliography
1. Arnold, I., The English Word Moscow, 1966.
2. Bonfante, G., Etudes sur le tabou dans les langues indoeuropeennes Melanges de linguistique offerts a Charles
Bally Geneve, 1939.
3. Benveniste, E., Nature du signe. Acta Linguistica, Vol. I,
1939.
4. 4. Borgeaud, W., De la nature du signe. Acta Linguistica,
1942/43.
5. Bosworth & Toller, An Anglo-Saxon Dictionary.
6. Bradley, H., The Making of English London. 1937.
7. Breal, M., Essai de semantique Paris, 1921.
8. Buyssens, E., Les langages et le discours Bruxelles, 1943.
9. Buyssens, E., La nature du signe linguistique, Acta
Linguistica.
10. 10. Carnap, R., Introduction to Semantics New York,
1948.
11. Carnoy, A., La science du mot Louvain, 1927.
12. Darmsteter, A., La vie des mots Paris.
13. Fowler, H. W., A Dictionary of Modern English Usage
London, 1936.
14. Greenough, J. B. & Kittredge, G. L., Words arid
their Ways in English Speech London, 1920.
15. Guiraud, P., La semantique Paris, 1955.
16. Guiraud, P., L'argot Paris, 1956.
17. Jespersen, Otto, Growth and Structure of the
English Language VIII ed. Leipzig, 1935.
18. Jespersen, Otto, Language London, 1950.
19. Lees, R. B., The Grammar of English Nominalization, Fourth
Printing, Indiana University, Bloomington, Mouton & CO, the
Hague, 1966.
20. Marchand, H., The Categories and Types of
Present-day English Word-formation
Wiesbaden, 1960.
21. Marouzeau, J., La linguistique ou science de langage Paris,
1944.
22. Matore, G., La methode en lexicologie Paris, 1953.
23. Meillet, A., Linguistique historique et
linguistique generale 2 vol., Paris, 1921.
24. Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A., The Meaning
of Meaning VII ed., London, 1945.
25. Pichon, E., Sur le signe linguistique. Acta Linguistica, 1940/41.
26. Price, H. H., Thinking and experience London, 1953.
27. Rosetti, A., Le mot Copenhague Bucuresti, 1947.
28. Saussure, F. de, Cours de linguistique generale Paris, 1931.
29. 29. Shorter Oxford English Dictionary, second edition.
30. Skeat, W. W., A Concise Etymological
Dictionary of the English Language
Oxford, 1927.
31. Skeat, W. W., Principles of the English Etymology Oxford.
32. Smith, E. P., The English Language London, 1938.
33. Smith, L. P., Words and Idioms London, 1933.
34. Spitzer, L., Essays in Historical Semantics New York, 1948.

297-

35. Stern, G., Meaning and Change of Meaning Goteborg, 1932.

36. Ullmann, S., The Principles of Semantics Glasgow, 1951.

298-

37.
38.
39.
40.

Ullmann, S., Words and their Use New York. 1951.

Ullmann, S., Precis de semantique francaise Berne, 1952.
Vebdryes, J., Le langage Paris, 1921.
Weekley, E., The English Language London, 1952.
41. , H. H.,

, 1956.
42. , . ., , .
"
, 1955.
43. , . .,

, 1955, . 5.
44. , . .,
, 1957.
45. ,
,
1955.
45. , . .,

, .
" , 1952.
47. , . .,
, 1953, . 5.
48. , . .,
, . . . " 18641920.
49. -,
- , , 1951,
9.
50. , . ., ,
1953, 3.
51. , . ., -
, , 1955, 1.
52. , . ., - ,
1948.
53. , . . , ,
1955, 5.
51. , . ., ,
1965.
55. , . ., -
, 1956.
56. , . ., , , 1970.
57. , . .,
, . "
" , 1952.
58. , . 14., , 1947.
59. , , 1957.
60. , . .,
.
1954, 4.
61. ,
.
.,

, .
" , 1955.

299-

62. , . .,
,
1953, 3.
63. , . .,
, 1954.
64. , . ., , .
" , 1952.
65. , . ., ,
1954, . 4.
66. , . ., ,
. " , 1955.
67. , . .,
, 1955, 2.
68. , . ., ,
, 1956.
69. , . ., , , 1974.
70. , . ., ,
, 1953.
71. , . ., , .
" , 1955.

300-

Contents
I. Lexicology. Its relations with other branches of linguistics...................
7
II. The Meaning of the Word................................................................................
11
1. The Sign Character of Language...................
....................................................................11
2. Language and Thought .............................................................................
14
3. Is the Meaning of the Word Motivated....................................................
19
a) Phonological Motivation........................................................................
20
b) Grammatical Motivation......................................................................
20
c) Semantical Motivation...........................................................................
21
4. The Generalizing Character of the Word.................................................
24
5. Words Expressing Correct and Incorrect Notions . 25
6. Catachresis..........................................................................................
.........25
7. Basic and Marginal Moments in the Meaning of the Word....................
26
III. The Word as the Basic Linguistic Unit..........................................................
27
1. Language as a Structure...........................................................................
27
2. The Morpheme................................................................................................
3. The Word..................................................................................................
29
a) Phonetical Aspect..................................................................................
29
b) Lexical Aspect.......................................................................................
29
c) Grammatical Aspect.............................................................................
30
IV. Semantic and Other Relations of the Word .......................................................
1. Plurality of Meaning (Polysemy)..............................................................
34
2. Homonymy.................................................................................................
42
a) Character
........................................................................................................
........................................................................................................
42
b) Complete Homonymy

301-

........................................................................................................
43
c) Partial Homonymy................................................................................
43
d) Formal Classification............................................................................
45
1) Homophones ................................................. 45
2) Homographs...................................
..................................................45
3) Perfect Homonyms
45
e) Sources of Homonymy..........................................................................
46
f) Ways of Avoiding Misunderstanding...................................................
50
g) Use...........................................................................................................
50
3. Synonymy........................................................................................................
a) Characteristics..............................................................51
b) Different Aspects........................................................................................
c) Sources of Synonymy............................................................................
52
d) Classification.................................................................................
............................................................53

302-

1) Absolute Synonyms .......................................

53
2) Phraseological Synonyms .............................53
3) Stylistic Synonyms
.........................54
4) Relative Synonyms
......................54
e) Synonyms as Stylistic Means...........................................
...........................................................................54
4. Antonyms
...............................................................................................................
...................................................................... 55
a) Characteristics. ...............
................................55
b Antonyms as a Stylistic Means .
.........................................................
.........................................................56
V. Causes for the Change of the Meaning of
Words .............................................57
1. Linguistic Causes.................................................................................
.......... 58
2. Historical Causes........................................................................................
60
3. The Social Factor .......................................................................................
61
Slang.....................................................
..............................................................
..............................................................61
Cant .................................................................................................
............62
4. The Psychological Factor ..............................................................................
a) Elevation of Meaning ......
..................... 64
b) Degradation of
Meaning...........................................................................65
c'j Taboo and Euphemism ...............................................
.................................................................................................67
d) Hyperbole ..............................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................
.....................................................................71
VI. How Words Change Their Meaning......................... .............................
72
1. Widening of Meaning . ...................................... . .............................
73
2. Narrowing of Meaning...................................................................
76
3. Metaphor.............................................................................................
82
4. Metonymy. .....
................................................................................................87
5. Folk Etymology .........................................................

303-

6. Contagion............................................................. .....................................
95
VII. Phraseology......................................... . ..................................
1. Phraseological Combinations ..
.......................................101
2. Phraseological
Unities ...........................................................................102
3. Phraseological Mergers or Idioms Proper . . . ...........................
110
4. Semantic Relations of Phraseological Units........................................
114
VIII.
Creative Sources . . ..................................................................................
1. New Coinages......................................... . .
.............................117
a) Onomatopoeia...........................................................................
..........117
b) Slang ............................121
c) Neologism ...................................................................................
..... 122
2. Word Formation
.......................................... 123
3.
a) Derivation .............................................
.............................
123
Affixation...............................................................................
.......... 123
b) Vowel Gradation
.......................................134
c) Contagion
..........................................................................................136
d) d)
Composition................................................................................
....... 136
e) ) Contraction or Shortening.............................. .....................
Aphaeresis..........................................................................................
Syncope...................................................................................
........... 144
Apocope................................................................ ................
.......145
Blending .................................................................................
............146
g) Back Formation
..........................................................................................................
...........147
h)
Conversion.......................................................................................
.148
i) Shifting of the Accent and Voicing of the Final
Consonant.............

304-