The semantic structure of the word ‘man’ in english and ukrainian languages

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Introduction. 3

II. Theoretical part: 6

2. Meaning and semantic structure of the word. 6

2.1 Meaning. 6

2.2. Typology of meanings. 8

2.2 Lexical meaning – notion. 11

III. Contrastive analysis of the semantic structure of the word

‘man’ in English and Ukrainian languages. 19

IV. Conclusions. 25

V. References. 26

I. Introduction

Since translation is, above all, an activity that aims at conveying meaning or meanings of a given-linguistic discourse from one language to another, rather than the words or grammatical structures of the original, we should look briefly at the most significant and recent developments in the field of study of "meaning", or semantics. Our interest here lies in the change of emphasis from referential or dictionary meaning to contextual and pragmatic meaning. Such a change represents a significant development, particularly relevant to translation, and to communicative register-based approach to translation.

The meaning of a given word or set of words is best understood as the contribution that word or phrase can make to the meaning or function of the whole sentence or linguistic utterance where that word or phrase occurs. The meaning of a given word is governed not only by the external object or idea that particular word is supposed to refer to, but also by the use of that particular word or phrase in a particular way, in a particular context, and to a particular effect.

Special interest is in how words and their meanings combine to form meaningful texts. What makes this task so difficult is the problem of lexical ambiguity. All words are ambiguous to some extent. Even words that appear to have one fixed sense can reveal multiple meanings in different contexts.

Objectives of this course paper is the word ‘man’ and it semantic structure, i.e. the combination of all meanings of this word in English and Ukrainian languages. Due to big variety of meanings such common used words in English like ‘man’, ‘hand’, ‘house’, ‘room’ cause some problem in translation into Ukrainian. 'Room', for example, can mean the physical object (e.g., "John painted the room") or the spatial enclosure defined by this object (e.g., "Smoke filled the room"). The space is just as much a part of the concept of 'room' as is the physical object. This logical polysemy has to be taken into consideration at the time of choosing the Ukrainian corresponding word.

The practical investigation is based mostly on the work with different dictionaries: monolingual, bilingual, encyclopedias, etymological, dictionary of synonyms. All these sources examine different meanings of word with the means of componential analysis. Componential analysis – linguistic analysis of the semantic structure of the word (a monosemantic word or a lexico-semanic variant of a polysemantic unit) as constituted by a set f minimal elements of sense – semes. A seme is a minimal unit of sense, an atom of lexical semantics distinguished on the basis of oppositions by the method of componential analysis. A seme is not expressed in a word in any material unit but it’s revealed and singled out through interrelations of the word with other words on a paradigmatic and syntagmatic levels.

There is a distinction between conceptual meaning, on the hand, and connotative, stylistic, affective, reflected, and collocative types of meaning on the other hand. Therefore we classify the last five types of meaning under one general category of associated meaning. There is a clear distinction between the logical meaning or the lexical reference of a particular word, and between the types of associated meaning. Such a distinction in the field of semantics between the lexical and the associated may remind us of the distinction between the semantic and the communicative approach as far as the literature on translation is concerned. The reason why there is a distinction, however, is that the conceptual meaning of a word is the type of meaning which could be mainly deduced in isolation from any other linguistic or even non-linguistic context, while the other types of meaning, whether associative or theoretical, are broadly speaking to be derived from the context of the utterance. So, this is relevant to translation and translation theories. It is usually easier to find the conceptual or the logical meaning of a given word, but that type of meaning is not always telling in the case of translation. However, it is often difficult to obtain even the lexical equivalent of a given item in translation, when the translation is taking place across two different languages that do not have a culture in common, such as translation from Ukrainian into English and vice versa. Yet, we should not indulge in a boring and rather worthless search for the lexical equivalent, since, even if such lexical items are easy to come by, they might not be helpful in translation.

II. 2. Meaning and semantic structure of the word

The branch of the linguistic studies concerned with the meaning of words is called semantics. The synonym to the word “semantics” is semasiology, but logists insist positively, that the field of studies of semasiology is all codes, not only language. 2.1. Meaning

Meaning – the reverberation in the human consciousness of an object, a quality of extralinguistic reality (a phenomenon, a relation, a quality, a process), which becomes a fact of language because of its constant indissoluble association with the definite linguistic expression. Meaning conveyed by a speaker is the speaker’s communicative intent in using an expression, even if that use departs from the expression’s meaning. Accordingly, any discussion of meaning should distinguish speaker’s meaning for linguistic meaning.

There exist a number of definitions of meaning:

- a reciprocal relation between name and sense, which enables them to call up one another (St. Ullmann);

- function in a context. Meaning, then, we use the whole complex of functions which a linguistic form may have (J.R.Firth);

- a function of the descriptions at all levels (M.A.K.Halliday) and many others.

According to Vinogradov, meaning of a word can be:

1. Nominative.

2. Nominative-derivative.

3. Collegationally and collocationally conditioned.

4. Phraseologically bound.

1. Nominative is the basic meaning of a word, which refers to object of extra linguistic reality in a direct way and reflects their actual relations.

2. Nominative-derivative meaning comes into being when the word is “stretched out” semantically to cover new facts and extra linguistic phenomena.

When the speaker uses the word metaphorically he extends its content. The metaphorical use is based on certain similarities observed by the speaker. Different meaning – the identity of the word remains intact, because the difference in meaning is not great enough to split the word into 2 different units. When the speaker observes similarities between the objects, the semantic content of the word is made elastic to be stretched out and cover new bits of reality. Such metaphorical meanings are poetically present in the semantic structure of the word.

If nominative meaning is a direct meaning, nominative-derivative meaning is a transferred meaning.

3.Collegationally and collocationally conditioned meanings are not free, but bound.

a. Collegationally conditioned meaning is determined by morphosyntactic combinability of words.

Some meanings are realized only without a given morphosyntactic pattern (colligation).

to tell – ñêàçàòè, ðîçêàçàòè

In passive constructions means to order/to direct: You must do what you’re told.

to carry – íåñòè

In passive construction – to accept: The amendment to the bill was carried.

b. Collocationally conditioned meaning is determined by lexical-phraseological combinality of words.

There are meanings which depend on the word associations with other words (collocation): a herd of cows, a flock of sheep.

Collocation is used here as a typical behavior of a word in speech.

4. Phraseologically bound meaning.

Collocations should be distinguished from idioms and phraseological units. Idioms and phraseological units are devoid of referential meanings. The meanings of the individual words can’t be summed together to produce the meaning of the idiomatic expression. The word combination is literal in meaning, because its degree of idiomatic is low, it’s called phraseological unit.

2.2. Typology of meanings

According to different approaches in linguistic and semantic studies, next types of meanings can be distinguished:

- actual m. – actualized in speech, specified by linguistic and situational context;

- associative m. – weak implication, a conceptual entity to which the systemic m. of a given word merely hints, indirectly implies, which is trigged by association;

- bound m. – actualized by a word in a given phrase or context, predetermined by semantic or morphosyntactic combinability (or collocationally or colligationally bound);

- broad m. – resulting from generalization of meaning, when word develops the broadest referential capacity possible; further stage is deemantization and loss of purely lexical meaning, transformation of a lexical unit into a grammatical morpheme;

- categorial m. – part-of-speech meaning;

- cognitive m. – a) same as conceptual or denotative or nominative or main meaning; b) the conceptual core, significative part of m. reflecting essential features of the referent conceptualized by our cognition; distinct from pragmatic m.;

- colligationally and collocationally conditioned m.;

- connotative m. - emotional, suggestive meaning of the word;

- contentional m. – reflects the structure of essential features of a notion, name;

- contextual m. – brought in by the contextual (both verbal and non-verbal) environment of the word; acquired on a definite occasion only;

- derived m.;

- direct m. – the main meaning of the word, which appears in the act of primary semiosis;

- dynamic m. – actually, any m. is characterized by certain dynamism – ability to change either synchronically or diachronically, so that it would be correct to discriminate between dictionary meaning as being static and speech meaning as dynamic, although in a current speech event meaning is necessarily subject to contextual influence hence actual is more dynamic that virtual meaning;

- etymological m. – original m. of a word, which later on underwent semantic changes;

- expressive m.;

- further m. – meaning or meanings within the prospective scope of semantic changes (only vaguely) predetermined by the current semantics of the word, the prospective sphere of its semantic variation;

- figurative m.;

- free m. – nominative meaning can be regarded as ‘free’ as distinct from the collocational and colligational meanings as bound ones;

- functional m. – grammatical meaning of a word (word-like unit) as an element of syntax, predetermined by its categorical, subcategorial meaning and individual lexical m.;

- generic m. – reflection in lexical m. of a generic concept, concept of the higher level of abstraction;

- grammatical m. – meaning of the grammatic form of a word;

- idiomatic m. – meaning, actualized within certain idiomatic expression only, idiomatically bound meaning;

- lexical m. – meaning of a lexical unit, comprises categorical meaning, subcategorical meaning and individual meaning of a lexeme; reflects a certain part of corresponding concept on the level of language;

- lexico-grammatical m. – categorial meaning;

- main m. – nominative m.;

- naive m. – lexical meaning as represented in the mind in common native speaker, not an expert in the field which includes the denotatum of the word;

- next m. – meaning or meanings within the actual scope of semantic derivation of a lexeme, easily predetermined or expected by the core semantics (lexical prototype) of the word;

- nominative m. – also basic, main, direct, conceptual, cognitive meaning of the word, referring to objects, phenomena, actions and qualities in extralinguistic reality (referent) and reflecting their general understanding by the speaker (can be correlated with referential denotative, descriptive, factual, objective meaning.); realization of the word’s nominative capacity (to serve as a name for some extralinguistic entity). The nominative meaning also has the following ‘free’ authentic equivalents in English: essential, central, domain, primary, focal, pivotal, common, usual – which are mostly used to avoid repetition in speech and not as technical terms;

- nominative-descriptive m. – comes into being when the word is stretched out semantically as a result of semantic derivation to cover new facts and phenomena of extralinguistic reality;

- original m. – etymological m.;

- phraseological m. (phraseological bound meaning) – also idiomatic meaning – the meaning which is realized only in some phrases and belongs only to a given collocation – when a word is habitually associated together with another word to form a ‘natural-sounding’ combination: e.g. to raise becomes part of the phrase meaning ‘to show surprise’ in to raise one’s eyebrows (at smb.);

- pragmatic m. – semantic component of lexical m. (as distinct from conceptual meaning)which reflects the attitudes, emotions of the speakers (either personal or communal), so it can be regarded a correlative term to connotation;

- primary m. – which to the greatest degree is dependent upon or conditioned by its paradigmatic links, while such meanings as display a greater degree of syntagmatic ties are secondary;

- referential m.;

- secondary m.;

- significative m.;

- situational m.;

- specific m. – meaning of the specific term, correlates with the specific concept, a subordinate one in the hierarchical taxonomy;

- usual m. – meaning, accepted by the language-speaking community, fixed in dictionaries, reproduced in speech actualizations of the word.

2.3. Lexical meaning - notion The lexical meaning of a word is the realization of a notion by means of a definite language system. A word is a language unit, while a notion is a unit of thinking. A notion cannot exist without a word expressing it in the language, but there are words which do not express any notion but have a lexical meaning. Interjections express emotions but not notions, but they have lexical meanings, e.g. Alas! /disappointment/, Oh,my buttons! /surprise/ etc. There are also words which express both, notions and emotions, e.g. girlie, a pig /when used metaphorically/. The term "notion" was introduced into lexicology from logics. A notion denotes the reflection in the mind of real objects and phenomena in their relations. Notions, as a rule, are international, especially with the nations of the same cultural level. While meanings can be nationally limited. Grouping of meanings in the semantic structure of a word is determined by the whole system of every language. E.g. the English verb "go" and its Ukrainian equivalent "éòè" have some meanings which coincide: to move from place to place, to extend /the road goes to London/, to work /Is your watch going?/. On the other hand, they have different meanings: in Ukrainian we say :"Îñü â³í éäå" , in English we use the verb "come" in this case. In English we use the verb "go" in the combinations: "to go by bus", "to go by train" etc. In Ukrainian in these cases we use the verb "¿õàòè". The number of meanings does not correspond to the number of words, neither does the number of notions. Their distribution in relation to words is peculiar in every language. Development of lexical meanings in any language is influenced by the whole network of ties and relations between words and other aspects of the language.

In the process of nomination only the lexical meaning of a word is formed, unlike the grammatical meaning which is not always conditioned. We can define that reason for the generation of such units as to hand, to water, to face is the nomination of their original nouns. Their existence is caused by the nominative productivity and the syntactical function in the expression that is a characteristic of it. But such units as «coke» that means either Coca-Cola or coal derivative or cocaine can be decoded correctly only in the context.

So to be on coke in the expression ‘they are on coke’ might denote either they are drinking Coca-Cola or they have solid-fuel heating or they use cocaine. Despite the fact that to be on coke is the derivative from coke, its meaning in the new function is comparatively simple to explain. The example A Buy Nothing Day is similar. It's easy to decode in spite of the fact that the meaning of the components differs in a certain way from the original one and demonstrates some combination which is not typical.

Though in the abstract we don't make much of the fact that the context itself influences the function of a unit, it should be stressed that it's the context that is important for the decoding of verbalized information. The meaning or its change, intended by a producer of expression, can be illuminated by its context. G. V. Kolshansky defined the problem and the ways of solving it as follows: "Every word has the typical context that is predetermined by it, but not the other way round as is sometimes thought .". In this case the context is given the role of turning some standard into its varieties. On account of that every abstract standard of speech can be transformed and validated by: "its sound from the new stylistic point of view" .

From what has been said above we can derive the conclusion that the perceived meaning is decoded mainly with the help of context. If it is so, we can consider the context generating or changing its meaning. Though the role of the context is rather essential, we have to consider it as not so important, taking into account N.Chomsky's words: "Reference to context in phrase structure rules is restricted to rules such as that assign lexical items to their syntactical categories”.

The contextual predetermination of the syntactical form is displayed in its orientation towards macro- and microstructure of the expression (in other words, the so called "wide" and "narrow" context).

The category of foreseeing realized through the correlativeness and valency of language units in the structure of expression is relevant. The syntactical connections are considered from the point of view of how they reflect the features of lexical units. The syntactical features of a phrase mainly reflect the meaning of the words that are the central components of these phrases. Correlation between the difference of meaning of a word and the difference in syntactical construction including that word is also important.

A person's brain represents the meaning of the word and reflects it grammatically.

The context as the result of language activity is the source of information about the performed valencies of language units. The study of the features of valency and the features of context are united. Word valency is the word's feature in language memory, opportunities for semantic-grammatical combination with other words and substitution of the syntactical function in a sentence. Grammatical valency represents the word's ability to be syntactically situated and to be combined with the appropriate parts of a sentence.

Lexical valency is the word's ability to be combined with other words semantically in grammatical valency. Besides, the type component in the word's meaning should be used as the basis for the theory of valency.

The type component of meaning is the reserve of forming new combinations, not fixed in expressions before. It is the potential source of the functional reorientation of language units. It creates an opportunity for a word to be combined with other words.

The following combinations are rather difficult to imagine in use, aren't they? A clever chair; a memory table, etc.

Language memory blocks are formed by using combinations from prior language experience. So a word is able to be combined with other words that have already been used in the context. There is no contradiction between usual and occasional valencies (occasional valency is based on person's ability to produce new expressions). Occasional valency is based on language experience but the combination has not been produced before.

From this point of view the type component of meaning gives a splendid opportunity to display occasional valency. Besides a word's relevant and type features and different components, a word acquires some contextual components of its structure. This idea can be well illustrated by the following: the situation when the narrator introduces a new character under a certain name in the novel. First we can distinguish him only by his name, later we are able to do this by his features, his behavior, speech, etc. The sounding of the name is contextual, as it is concretized by the semantics of the context. When two words are combined their meanings are mutually restricted. It causes the re-formation of both the entire combination and its separate elements. As a result lexical meanings of adjoining words are mutually restricted. So the denotate can be defined as a certain imagination of what's meant by this language expression as a whole. In such situations words can extend their valencies, that means that they can be used in new microtexts, in order to connect with other signs to form in a way great values. All the main models of the contemporary English word-building are fixed in microtext. They are the result of functional reorientation. Word-building is one of the basic ways of the functional extension of language. It is connected with a person's communicative activity. Many word-building processes based on functional reorientation, can be explained by means of an expression. They are: conversion, functional transposition, lexicalization of plural forms of nouns, substantivation, adverbialization, adjectivation, pronominalization, forming new words with the help of prepositions and postpositions, syntactic word-building. These can be defined as morphological-syntactic and the syntactic types of word-building.

This is determined by the fact that such a functional reorientation concerns syntactical structures. Its fixation is therefore not possible on the morphological level of language system alone. Word-building models are activated according to the necessity of organizing expression itself that predetermines the generation of new dictionary units despite the fact that there are a lot of words to express each meaning in the lexical system of language.

Native-speakers often create new lexical units. The reason is the necessity of verbalizing a meaning that hasn't been reduced to a word before or not fully according to the producer's intention. Contextual words are very often the result of word-creating (contextual words are units that create and realize their potential only in a certain context).

The unusual syntactic function of a language unit can also be considered contextual. This is based on the fact that the syntactic function of a certain unit without any morphological adjustment can be specified in the context. The functional reorientation of nominative units might be understood by taking into account various "narrow" contexts, while communicating within one "wide context. The external form of any English word in itself conveys no meaning. It is not the form but the meaning of a word, it's own semantics that limits acceptable varieties of a word usage. The syntactic form of a word doesn't set any formal indexes characterizing these words as they are used in an expression.

Such special features which are given to a word syntactically are reflected in its lexical form and semantic structure. Words in a contemporary English sentence acquire various qualities in accordance with their syntactical form and their functions. Thus the syntactic function turns the syntactic index of a word into the lexical one. The relationships between words so positioned within a narrow context get more complicated on account of the fact that some words perform their basic function in the sentence, the function of others is an unusual one. This case complicates the process of decoding a message, e.g.: "Then I started horsing around a little bit (J. Salinger); He had chosen not to think about money, knowing that it was un-American, natural and in a way ridiculous not to think about money.(J.Krantz); Well, you little so-and-so ; I kept thinking about that beat-up old straw basket they went around collecting money with which they were not teaching school ".

In all these sentences the unusual function of the underlined words combines with the traditional functions of other components the microtext consists of.

Lexical unit might in some way influence context. It can be oriented to the following:

a) The choice of lexical unit according to its semantic features.

b) The choice of semantical position of a word within a context.

The first is more typical of synthetic languages, the second one of analytical languages. In modern English the morphological features of a word take a back seat in context unlike some functional peculiarities connected with semantical and morphological-syntactic indexes.

Thus the comprehension of the expression ‘Thoughts father ideas’ depends on the comprehension of the predicate. In other words, the regular syntagmatic word connections, predetermining its functional peculiarities are realized in context. The most important function of the context for clearing up the meaning is, that it predetermines the semantics, pragmatics and grammar realized in it. Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations of a word can't be considered in isolation, as all its syntagmatic relationships predetermine what paradigm it belongs to. In its syntagmatic relationships a word is also realized as a paradigmatic unit. This is the basis of the functional reorientation of nominative units.

Each seme of a word can be syntagmatically realized in contexts with the help of its actualization with adjusted words. The paradigmatic inequality in rights is reflected in its syntagmatics. The more important a seme is for a word, the sooner it will be realized in context. This realization is not always performed by using a person's communicative experience.

Even if two words are not connected with each other originally, a speaker makes the syntagmatic chain in his mind to reproduce it in a similar context.

So a beginner as well as a native speaker has to combine the semantic and the syntactic components in the structure of the meaning, based on his/her language experience.

As far as the structure of logical meaning is concerned, we should pay attention not only to how a certain language unit is used, but also to how it is used from the point of view of certain contextual adjustments. This raises the importance of the functional and the contextual aspects of word meaning.

It would be rather interesting to observe this mechanism from the point of view of the one who has to comprehend the statement, e.g.: a cracking good story causes a problem when decoding this expression, as the learner's experience is based mainly on some information he gets from dictionaries. In this case they are not enough. The position of "cracking" in the expression points out that the word functions as an adverb of degree. It helps to make clear its logical meaning, and the wider context helps to define the personal attitude, and some connotations the word introduces. When we are aware of the situation we can comprehend the textual meaning "behind the text", so we can define the contextual meaning of the language unit.

The function of language is to represent language units on the basis of their potential forms and the intercommunication existing in language system. Being aware of system forms and their combinations means their occasional meanings or their functions in an expression can be construed.

Similar to grammatical categories that can be either objective or subjective, lexical units are also divided into objective and subjective units - language signs of full meaning and functional language signs.

So a person has some ideal representation of reality with the help of his imaginative world, some definitions or fancies. Thus the objective nature of a language unit is in representing the reality, expressing the two sides of a sign, defining some concepts and their combinations. To define the meaning of a word it's of great importance to make clear its connection with the person using such language units, and the relationships between the words themselves in the lexical system of language and in a certain sentence.

Lexical meaning is a complex thing based on the procedure of reflecting the reality in a person's mind.

The choice of the necessary nominative units is always performed within a limited quantity of units and their forms. On account of that some variants of separate forms are possible.

Despite the fact that the amount of lexical indices is limited in a person's mind, the realization of meaning in expression can be considered unlimited.

It might be also underlined that the communicative realization of any language unit functions is in their potential. These potential abilities are embodied in the communication first and then they become a part of language system.

3. Practical contrastive analysis of the semantic structure of the word ‘man’ in English and Ukrainian languages.

To understand whole semantic structure of the word ‘man’, at first it’s necessary to study the history of its formation, its etymology.

According to Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins:

man [OE] Man is widespread Germanic word (with relatives in German mann ‘man’ and mensch ‘person’, Dutch and Swedish man ‘man’, Danish mand ‘man’, and Swedish menniska ‘person’), and connections have even been found outside Germanic (Sanskrit, for instance, had mánu- ‘man’). But no decisive evidence has been found for an ultimate Indo-European source. Among the suggestions put forward have been links with a base men- ‘think’ or ‘breathe’, or with Latin manus ‘hand’.

The etymologically primary sense of the word is ‘human being, person,’ and that is what it generally meant in Old English: the sexes were generally distinguished by wer ‘man’ (which survives probably in werewolf and is related to world) and w¿f (source of modern English wife) or cwene ‘woman.’ But during the Middle English and early modern English periods ‘male person’ gradually came to the fore and today ‘person’ is decidedly on the decline (helped on its way by those who feel that usage discriminates against women). Woman originated in Old English as a compound of w¿f ‘woman, female’ and man ‘person’.

As to talk about nominative and nominative-derivative meaning we have to mention such different meanings:

man /mæn/

1. an adult human male, esp. as distinct from a woman or a boy – ìóæ÷èíà, ÷îëîâ³ê

a man of a thirty – òðèäöÿòèë³òí³é ÷îëîâ³ê;

a tall man – âèñîêèé ÷îëîâ³ê;

men, women and children – ÷îëîâ³êè, æ³íêè òà ä³òè;

to play the man – ïîâîäèòèñü ïî-÷îëîâ³÷îìó (ìóæíüî);

he is only half a man - â³í íåñïðàâæí³é ìóæ÷èíà.

Mr. Simpkins is a man who knows his own mind. (T. S. Eliot)

He had seen old men cry, and little boys, but never a man, man of feeling, honour, peace, property, sense, wisdom, etc. (B. Rubens)

2. a human being, a person - ëþäèíà

the man in the street – ëþäèíà ç âóëèö³. çâè÷àéíà ëþäèíà;

straight man – ÷åñíà ëþäèíà;

a man of principle – ëþäèíà ïðèíöèï³â;

a man of his word – ëþäèíà ñëîâà;

a man of honour – ïîðÿäíà (÷åñíà) ëþäèíà;

a man of straw – íåíàä³éíà ëþäèíà, êðèâîïðèñÿæíèê;

a man of ideas – âèíàõ³äëèâà ëþäèíà;

a man of character – ëþäèíà ç õàðàêòåðîì (ñèëüíèì, âåðåäëèâèì òîùî)

Misery acquaints a man with strange bedfellows. (Shakespeare)

The Child is father to the Man. (Wordsworth)

When the wind is in the east, ‘tis neither good for man nor beast. (Proverb)

3. (without article) the human race– ëþäñòâî, ëþäñüêèé ð³ä

Man must change in a changing word. – Ó çì³ííîìó ñâ³ò³ ëþäñòâî ïîâèííå ì³íÿòèñü òåæ.

man is mortal – ëþäñüêèé ð³ä ñìåðòíèé

Man is not only a working but a talking animal. (Carlyle)

4. a person showing the characteristics associated with males – ÷îëîâ³ê, ìóæ÷èíà

she’s more of a man than he is – âîíà ïîâîäèòü ñåáå á³ëüø ïî-÷îëîâ³÷îìó, í³æ â³í; ç íå¿ á³ëüøèé ÷îëîâ³ê, í³æ ç íüîãî.

5. any of the sort of the human-like creatures that lived in former times – ëþäèíà

neanderthal man - íåàíäåðòàëåöü;

peking man - ñèíàíòðîï.

6. a usually male worker or employee – ðîá³òíèê, ïðàö³âíèê

the manager spoke to the men – çàâ³äóâà÷ ïîãîâîðèâ ç ïðàö³âíèêàìè;

The men weren’t happy with the employer’s pay offer. – Ïðàö³âíèêè áóëè íåçàäîâîëåí³ çàðïëàòíåþ, ùî ¿ì çàïðîïîíóâàâ ðîáîòîäàâåöü.

this factory employs 300 men – íà ö³é ôàáðèö³ ïðàöþþòü 300 ïðàö³âíèê³â.

7. (usu. in pl) soldiers, sailors, etc., esp. non-officers - ñîëäàò, ðÿäîâèé, ìàòðîñ

the officers and men of the regiment – îô³öåðè òà ðÿäîâ³ ïîëêó;

he was in command of 200 men – â³í êîìàíäóâàâ 200 ñîëäàòàìè.

8. a manservant, a valet – ñëóãà

Hire a man to take care of the garden. – Íàéìè ñàä³âíèêà äîãëÿäàòè çà ñàäîì.

9. a husband, lover, suitor or other adult male with whom woman lives – ÷îëîâ³ê, êîõàíåöü, õëîïåöü

she’s waiting for her man to come out of prison – âîíà ÷åêàº, ïîêè ¿¿ ÷îëîâ³ê âèéäå ç â’ÿçíèö³;

man and wife – ÷îëîâ³ê ³ äðóæèíà;

he made them man and wife – â³í îáâ³í÷àâ ¿õ;

to live as man and wife – æèòè ÿê ïîäðóææÿ.

10. a person fulfilling requirements - â³äïîâ³äíà ëþäèíà

I’m your man. – ß òå, ùî âàì òðåáà.

if you want a good music teacher, here is your man – ÿêùî Âàì ïîòð³áåí õîðîøèé â÷èòåëü ìóçèêè, îñü õòî Âàì òðåáà.

he is the very man to this job – ³í ï³äõîäèòü íà öþ ðîáîòó.

11. a vassal – ³ñò. âàñàë

12. any of the object moved by each player in a board game – ï³øàê, øàøêà, ô³øêà (ó ãð³)

chess man – ï³øàê, øàõîâà ô³ãóðà

draughtsman

13. (as second element in compounds) a man of the specified nationality, place of origin, abode, or education, profession, occupation, or interest

clergyman – ñâÿùåíèê;

bondsman – ðàá, íåâ³ëüíèê;

Englishman – àíã볺öü;

swordsman – ôåõòóâàëüíèê;

chairman – ãîëîâà (çáîð³â, êîíôåðåíö³¿ òîùî)

14. a male member of a team – ãðàâåöü

The captain led his men onto the field. – Êàï³òàí âèâ³â ñâîþ êîìàíäó (ãðàâö³â ñâ êîìàíäè ) íà ïîëå.

15. at a university or public school, an undergraduate or student, as distinguished from a graduate or don – ñòóäåíò

an Oxford man – ñòóäåíò Îêñôîðäó;

senior man – ñòàðøîêóðñíèê.

16. an expression of impatience etc. used in addressing a male, a general mode of address – äðóã, ÷îëîâ³ê

speak up, man! – ãîâîðè æ, äðóæå!

hurry up, man! – øâèäøå, äðóæå!

nonsense, man! – öå í³ñåí³òíèöÿ, äðóæå!

17. (preceded. by a) one – õòîñü, äåõòî

what can a man do? – à ùî òóò ìîæíà çðîáèòè?

18. a person pursued – âò³êà÷

the police have so far not caught their man – ïîë³ö³ÿ ùå äîñ³ íå ñï³éìàëà âò³êà÷à

19. colloq., black slang a person or group with power or authority, esp. white

20. (the Man) US slang the police – ïîë³ö³ÿ

When I heard the siren, I knew it was the Man. – Êîëè ÿ ïî÷óâ ñèðåíó, ÿ âæå çíàâ, ùî öå ïîë³ö³ÿ.

21. admirer – ïîêëîííèê, ïðèõèëüíèê

He was a vanilla ice-cream man. – ³í áóâ âåëèêèì ïðèõèëüíèêîì âàí³ëüíîãî ìîðîçèâà.

22. relig. God, the Devil, death and other non-human being linked to or a thing personified as a male human – Ãîñïîäü, Áîã, äèÿâîë, ñìåðòü

Collegationally and collocationally conditioned and phraseologically bound meaning can be distinguished less exactly, but there are some stable units which have to be mentioned in this course paper.

man of law – þðèñò, àäâîêàò

man of letters – ïèñüìåííèê, àâòîð, ë³òåðàòîð

man of office – ÷èíîâíèê, óðÿäîâåöü

man of motley – áëàçåíü

man of a few words – ìîâ÷àçíà ëþäèíà

the inner man – âíóòð³øíº ºñòâî

the outer man - ïëîòü

odd man – âèð³øàëüíèé ãîëîñ

heavy man – àêòîð, ùî âèêîíóº òðàã³÷í³ ðîë³

one-dollar-a year man – âåëèêèé êàï³òàë³ñò, ùî áåðe ó÷àñòü ó ðîáîò³ óðÿäîâèõ îðãàí³çàö³é

a man of the world – ñâ³òñüêà ëþäèíà

a man about town – áàãàòà, â³äîìà ëþäèíà

man in blue - ïîë³ñìåí

a run-of-the-mill man – ïåðåñ³÷íà ëþäèíà

man and boy – âñå æèòòÿ

the man at the wheel - êåð³âíèê

Man Friday – â³ääàíèé äðóã, ñëóãà

the man of the match - íàéêðàùèé ãðàâåöü ãðè

4. Conclusions

The main aim of this course paper was to show differences between meaning of word ‘man’ in English and Ukrainian languages, to reveal possible proper ways of translating this lexical unit from one language into another. Correct selection of Ukrainian corresponding words is very important, thus some meanings of word ‘man’ are not known for all English language learners.

For example, very significant is the fact, that the primary meaning of this common used word - ‘person’ is decidedly on the decline. Formerly ‘man’ meant a human being explicitly irrespective of sex and age, but now it can’t be simply translated into Ukrainian as ‘ëþäèíà’.

Some meanings of word ‘man’ can be understood only in linguistic utterances, and during translating into Ukrainian we have to be carefully with selection proper corresponding lexical unit. For example, the meaning in sentence “What can a man do?” has to be translated into Ukrainian omitting the subject. Almost in such way we have to examine the meaning ‘a fulfilling person’, which can be simply translated as ‘ëþäèíà, ùî â³äïîâ³äຠâèìîãàì’.

The special interest in this course paper I had examining the slang meanings of word ‘man’, which due to its frequent use occur in different utterances specific for some social groups.

References

1. Ginzburg R.S. et al. A course in Modern English Lexicology. – M., 1979

2. Halliday M. A. K. Language as social Semiotics. Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. – Lnd., 1979

3. Rayevskaya N. English Lexicology for Faculties of Foreign Languages and Pedagogic Language Institutes. – K., 1957

4. Àðíîëüä È. Â. Ñåìàíòè÷åñêàÿ ñòðóêòóðà ñëîâà â ñîâðåìåííîì àíãëèéñêîì ÿçûêå è ìåòîäèêà åå èññëåäîâàíèÿ. – Ë., 1966

5. Âàðøàâñêàÿ À.È. Ñìûñëîâûå îòíîøåíèÿ â ñòðóêòóðå ÿçûêà. – Ë., 1984

6. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñåìàíòè÷åñêîé ñòðóêòóðû ñëîâ è èõ ñî÷åòàåìîñòè. Ìåæâóç. ñáîðíèê íàó÷íûõ òðóäîâ. – Ì. : ÌÃÏÈ, 1984

7. Èññëåäîâàíèÿ ñåìàíòè÷åñêîé ñòðóêòóðû ñëîâ è èõ ñî÷åòàåìîñòè. Ñáîðíèê íàó÷íûõ òðóäîâ. – Ì. : ÌÃÏÈ, 1979

8. Ñìèðíèöêèé À. Ëåêñèêîëîãèÿ àíãëèéñêîãî ÿçûêà. – Ë., 1956

Dictionaries

9. Apresyan Yu. D. New English –Russian Dictionary. – M., 2001

10. Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins. – Lnd., 1991

11. Crystal David. The Penguin Dictionary of Language. Second Edition.-Penguin Books, 1999.

12. Illustrated Oxford Dictionary. – New York, 1998

13. Longman Dictionary of English Language and Culture. – Lnd., 2000

14. The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary. – New York, 1993

15. Áàëëà Ì. ². Àíãëî-óêðà¿íñüêèé ñëîâíèê. – Ê., 1996

16. Áóñëà Â. Ò. Àíãëî-óêðà¿íñüêèé ñëîâíèê. – Ê., 2000