Національна Академія Мистецтв України Інститут культурології

The same concerns the devices of homonymous confrontation with ensuing dissociation of meanings. It is to stress here especially that it doesn’t go about the trivial case of the homonymy between the direct and derivative meanings. Such confrontation belongs to widely used poetic devices⁴⁶⁶. In such cases different valences and lexical attractions with ensuing different collocations entail semantic differentiation and homonymous dissociation. Everybody knows a universal colloquial locution of the kind of <there are words and words / questions and questions etc.> where actually the fact is meant that such ‘words’ or ‘questions’ split into homonyms. A proverbial example of the kind is tom be found in the Latin proverb <manus manum lavat> with its Ukrainian version <рука руку миє> where the same noun ‘hand’ presupposes the differentiation into the right and the left ones (with ensuing homonymous split). A similar model can be demonstrated with the Ukrainian proverb <біда біду знайде, хоч і сонце зайде> (a harm will find a harm even when the sun sets): although it goes here about ‘harm’ only it is obvious that the word designates different events in the both its uses. In the proverb <швидко пісня співається та не швидко складається> (one sings a song quickly but one doesn’t compose the song quickly) the two notions are referred to with the concept of ‘velocity’, namely ‘the velocity of performance’ and ‘the velocity of composition‘. A bright example of the homonymous play of the kind is witnessed with an epigrammatic verse by E. von Kleist: “Du drohtest mit den Augen, ich drohte mit der Hand; / Versöhnt sagst Du, Du schielest; ich schiele mit der Hand” [Kleist, 1982, 159] (Thou threatened with the eyes, I threatened with the hand; Thou said of reconciliation, Thou squint the eyes, I put the hand askew): both ‘threat’ and ‘skew movement’ (designated in German for eyes and hand with one verb) promote here the homonymous divergence of the meanings. A peculiar case of such divergence is to be found in the contrast between direct and derivative meanings as a special poetic device. In particular it concerns the literal interpretation of idioms so that they are conceived as the reproducible and the spontaneous together⁴⁶⁷. It is evident that partial negation takes place in such cases. It is this differentiation that turns out to become the integration of textual collocations. Thus synonymous convergent association and homonymous divergent dissociation of meanings make up the basement for the development of periphrastic transformation. Furthermore one can say about lexical attraction & repulsion disclosed with synonymous association and homonymous dissociation.

Terminological idioms show tight connections of idioms’ generating with homonyms’ splitting. Actually the generation of new terms is the revelation of latent homonyms supplied with the means of building stable terminological combinations. For instance, doesn’t mean anything connected with sewing or nesting: it denotes “the cycles inserted one into another” in computational devices. In the same way

Terminological idioms can be also easily represented as the kind of homonymous splints of keywords as their sources. They do not only create unique lexical combinations. It is of an importance that such idioms are often designated with abbreviations. For example, there are for as the medical symptom or for as the technical term concerning the location of wheels in a car. Still of a more importance is the fact that such abbreviations are often the area of intersection with proper names both of institutions as for and of geographical names as for or
for
. Thus the similarity between terminological idioms and proper names arises. In its turn abbreviations generate new bunches of homonyms as, for instance, met for , , , , , not to say of the military term or simply and the generally used . Thus the very high degree of semantic specialization leads to the generation of homonymous splinters that necessarily coincide with abbreviations and ultimately lead to proper names.

In the same way as inexact synonyms give partitive descriptions of an object’s attributes one can say of inexact homonyms that refer to the field of paronomasia or the mutual approximation of the sound forms of lexical units. Then the similitude of signification’s devices becomes the indication of the presence of homonymous locutions’ semantic mutability as in rhyme that is the clearest form of paronomasia. Homomorphism reveals itself in rhyme as the force for uniting locutions within the field of the isotopic place. One can say about rhyming homonyms referring to the circumscriptions where only separate syllables (or phonemes) coincide whereas the lexical units that include them are varied. The effect of the contrast between partial similarities of the Signifiers with the divergence of the Signified is especially felt in rhyme as homonymous phenomenon⁴⁶⁸. One can cite also the example of premeditated distortion with the aim of producing artificially contrived paronomasia. Such are those light distortions that the designations in Tolkien’s works have got and provoked permanent “war with correctors”. Such distortions aren’t meanwhile innocent as they could seem while they promote language’s disintegration.

Obviously partitive homonymy in rhyme as well as partitive synonymy of hendiadys belongs to the devices of lexical attraction and combinations’ generative means. Paronyms can be said to become the fuzzy homonyms in the same way as partitive occasional synonyms can be called fuzzy synonyms (to use here the fuzzy sets’ theory’s terms). Paronyms behave as the partitive synonyms so that a single differential feature comes here to being as in phonological oppositions in <шити / жити> or <бити / пити>. Such phenomena belong to the realm of rhyming. Here the essential difference between synonyms and homonyms becomes clear: in opposite to lexical and phrasal units that can become synonyms it is lexical and syllabic (even phonemic) units that lies within homonymy. Due to partitive homonymy (rhyme) separate syllables become the formants of poetic language. That gives also grounds to regard the rhyming effects as the consequence of textual compression that attains even separate syllables where the text is folded. Partitive synonyms can be conceived in more general terms of suppletive relations as the case of heterogeneities and so the partitive homonyms (rhyme) are. In this respect isotopes are to be contrasted with suppletive phenomena as the places of detecting the unity of homogeneities and heterogeneities.

Homonymous dissociation and accumulation of partitive synonyms are reciprocally tied because already the combination of a couple of situational synonyms (as in hendiadys hope & joy) presumes the selection of the only valid meaning from the multitude of meanings proper to the combined words. A word is included in the “isotope” as the vehicle of the separated meaning that is selected from the set of homonyms. A word becomes the member of the row of partitive synonyms not as a bunch of homonyms but as the representative of a singular meaning. Especially clear homonymous dissociation associated with partitive synonymy becomes in translations where the removal of ambiguity gains necessity⁴⁶⁹. In the end it is historical development with its semantic transitions and derivations that causes such interconnection of homonymy and synonymy⁴⁷⁰.

This interplay of equivalences and differences reveals the general verbal property of homology where similarity replaces exact identity. Homonymous and synonymous heterogeneities serve just as the means of approximating such similarity without attaining exact equivalence. Semantic differentials play here decisive role. In its turn partitive synonyms and homonyms give rise to metonymy that is to be exemplified with the so called “isosemantic row” [Майзель, 190] that deserves special attention: according to the definition of this notion “a new concept is put in new relation with the preceding ones”, so that one combines “the words that were semantically interwoven with the others in certain rows that are identical as to the mood of the transfer of meaning”: as an example such tropes can be cited as “back - assistance” (“to back (up) somebody”), “pig - plumb” (both in Russian [чугунная свинья > чушка] and in English the equivalent locution “iron pig > pig”). It is of special importance that isosemantic rows represent regular semantic transitions within etymons that are usually reflected in figurae etymologicae (for example, Lat. calx – calculation or Russ. муть – смута) [Майзель, 203, 206]. The productivity of the method of isosemantic rows can be demonstrated on the example of its application by O.N.Trubachev who had used such a device to prove the origin of German Pflug from Slavic плавати (“flow”) (as in an isosemantic row Latin aratrum = рало has a relation to Indian aritra ‘oar’), or of Russian рожь (and its Germanic cognates and equivalents Roggen and rye) from рвати. ‘to tear, to pick up’ (as in Latin secale “rye” that is derived from secare = сікти) [Трубачев, 1991, 212-213]. It is obvious that each etymological nest based on the semantic transitions of metonymy can be regarded as a kind of isosemantic row where metonymy is combined with partitive homonymy as a kind of rhyme. It ensues from here the role of such rows for the study of the probabilities of etymological relations⁴⁷¹. At the same time it these rows that play an important role in the languages with rich creolized lexical stuff as in Japanese⁴⁷² where differential semantic attributes can be provided with them.

In such rows the metonymy dominates that determines the role of partial designations and transitions so that the principle pars pro parte becomes definitive. These phenomena where metonymy arises demonstrate the fact that there are no insurmountable border between collocation of text and taxonomic class of thesaurus what is still more clearly to observe in etymological nests. The discussed phenomena of taxonomic order appearing within the text from synonymous and homonymous bifurcations to isosemantic rows demonstrate the formation of inner taxonomic order within a textual entity. Such structures undoubtedly belong to text in a manner of its nodes; meanwhile they are also the nests of a code. They can be said to build up the nodal-nidal background of language.

1.5. Etymons as the Codified Counterpart to Idioms
1.5.1. The Problem of Code’s Integration
It is with the appearance of idioms (and the succeeding synonymous, homonymous etc. classes) that the transitory state from text to code becomes immediately observable. Idioms as textual singularities represent passage to codification and behave as signs due to their reproducibility. Such intermediary phenomena presuppose the existence of a metasystem as the integral part of a code as they are identified as such and discerned from textual environment through interpretation. As far as any code is always given as a whole hierarchy (of taxonomy and metasystem) that has been brought forth due to reflection the newly disclosed code imposes the recurrent restrictions of feedback upon text as its indispensable reproduction. The ultimate product of the observer’s codifying interpretative and descriptive activity is etymon. To produce etymon means to carry out reflection upon the alien textual objects. With the transition from text to code the integrative problem of a taxonomic class (in particular of etymological nest) replaces lexical compatibility; therefore the question on the integrative foundation gets here a new outlook.

It is to stress that there would not be such grounds to pose the integrative problem as far as one remains within textual aspects. The existence of any text as a coherent entity would be out of question without deixis. Textual coherence implies referential net in its syntagmatic dimension. Thus it is only codification where the problem gains its importance. Synonymous and homonymous taxonomic classes are inconceivable without textual environment presuming and implying text in its “state of repose” (that one can especially observe in hendiadys, in jokes with homonyms and first of all in rhyme). From their side reciprocally such taxonomic classes represent the state of unstable equilibrium in showing tendency towards the restoration of textual entity. While regarding such reciprocal transitions between code and text one ought also to remark that syntagmatic compatibility can extend over the whole taxonomic classes, therefore it goes about the reintegration of text where these classes can act as generative sources.

Such combinational possibilities of taxonomic classes and their capacity of attraction and repulsion entail the necessity of taking into consideration inner and outer form as the genuine foundation of etymons’ formation. The derivational potential condensed in the inner form of word implies already the motivational problems of semantic transition. Here the motivational grounds are to be found or not as the arguments for the acquisition of connotations (increments of meaning) within the inner form and without the involvement of the outer form of expressive means of language. The motivational aspect concerns first of all textual conditions where such accumulation of connotations becomes most evident in its contents. Meanwhile the motivation must include also “an outer outlook” of the lexical unit as far as the bilateral pair “sense & sound” develops as an indivisible unity. The involvement of the Signifier of the outer form in the motivational process of the Signified in the inner form becomes evident within an idiolect’s borders where the totality of derivative process results in reciprocal changeability of the outer form’s Signifier and the inner form’s Signified: in particular, the outer form’s literal meanings can here become the Signifier for the inner form’s derivative meanings as the Signified. In its turn in common language the problem of the motivation of a sign’s meaning can be regarded only in the diachronic perspective as the virtual approximation to the primary nomination. Thus the involvement of sound “skin” of lexical units in the motivational process takes place as the ultimate point of derivational process. As to the historical semantic transitions, they are conceived as derivative procedures and included (according to the cited Potebnya’s statement) in the very act of primary nomination. It suffices here to cite such example as the Old Slav. *krasa ‘beauty’ where the roots *krĕsiti ‘to resurrect’ and *kresati ‘to sparkle’ intersect: the indivisibility of meanings attests here the derivational potential of a nest⁴⁷⁵. It doesn’t go about the motivation and derivability as the semantic integration is given here beforehand. One deals with the phenomenon of spontaneity or diffusion where the seemingly unmotivated connection between the both cited ideas refers to the primary integrated semantic load of diffuse nature. Integration can therefore be of a spontaneous nature and void of visible motivation and derivability (or be of non-systemic nature, to use M.M. Makovski’s terminology). Such seemingly paradoxical integration of taxonomical class (of a nest) betrays the existence of the integrative powers irreducible to motivational and derivational relations of nowadays.

Here one must stress that etymology doesn’t concern only diachronic dimension of language as such. Etymology presupposes first of all the opposition of implicit vs. explicit (latent vs. manifest) objects and respectively of genotype vs. phenotype. Etymological space is always redoubled so that there are two parallel lexical rows: that attested in existent texts and that marked with asterisk (*) as the sign of latent and virtual presence. Respectively one has to explore the two parallel worlds – those of phenotypes (including in its number ghost-words and charades built occasionally or erroneously) and those of reconstructed genotypes (virtual morphemes). The principal task then looks out as the searches for correspondence between those two worlds. Then it becomes possible to contrast etymons to real lexical units as abstract attributes to concrete real objects and subsequently to regard etymology as the procedures taking place within abstract attributive space. These latent genotypes of “asterisk’s” class are the products of interpretative activity and therefore belong to the metasystem of language as its presupposition. Etymon doesn’t exist explicitly; it is not observable immediately and belongs to virtual latency of inner form that builds up the background of a nest and presupposes the outer form of lexical explicit manifestation. As the means for designating invisible essence etymons belong to the metasystem of a code as a particular kind of descriptors. Then the visible spontaneity of integration is to be conceived as the outer form’s surface for problematic latent motivation within the depth of inner form. In this spontaneity the developmental capacities of language reveal themselves.

Idioms are comparable to etymons as the mediation between text and code. Moreover, they are endowed with diachronic aspect while bringing forth phrasal neologisms as the rudiments for future development. While mediating textual derivative meaning with the direct meaning of codified signs idioms become counterpart to etymological nests where in the same manner latent (with “asterisk”) and manifested elements are joined together. Meanwhile it would be absurd to say of the etymology of separate words (analogously to the singularities of idioms) because each change of diachronic scope concerns the dictionary as a whole leaving no vacant place that would not be touched with all the consequences of meaning as well as phonemic configurations. It is language in its entirety that develops in diachronic dimension and by no means separate lexemes or nests. Etymons are unthinkable as separate units or classes because they can exist only as an integrated system in its full entirety. Here the utmost contrast of etymons to idioms is to be observed. The entirety of the set of etymons obtained as the result of reconstructing procedure (that exhausts phonological and semantic possibilities) does perfectly oppose to disparateness of idioms designating separate particulars (as well as to isoglosses where separate isolated correspondences are taken into account). This set of virtual etymons does not exist in reality (as idioms and isoglosses do). Besides, each member of this set is unthinkable without the whole. Thus the totality of etymons opposes to the partiality of idioms.

As the result of the entirety of etymons’ set the effect of “friction” or “cohesion” between different etymological nests becomes observable. Most evidently such effects of etymological nests’ reciprocal impact is to be observed in the effects of paronymous attraction between the nests that generate the intermediary zone of interference between adjacent nests so that lexical units from this zone can belong to the both these nests with equal reasons. These effects are generalized in the concept of the “pressure” of lexical system when the slightest modification of separate units evokes “chain reactions”⁴⁷⁶. The very possibility of the existence of such “trigger-words” that make change all the configuration of lexical units proves the entirety of lexical set as an integrated system. It is here that the effect of the “pressure” of the whole system over its parts becomes observable

Due to inner form’s derivative potential a nest (as well as an idiom) can be represented as a set of layers of derivative meanings revealing themselves through separate lexical units as its reflections, thus acquiring an outlook of a derivational system enabling motivation for distanced etymological confrontations. It is such motivational derivational opportunities that are hidden as the