LIETUVIŲ KALBOTYROS KLAUSIMAI XXXV (1995)

LIETUVIŲ LEKSIKOLOGIJOS TYRINĖJIMAI

Irena ERMANYTĖ

CONTRAST AS THE SEMANTIC AND LOGICAL BASIS OF ANTONYMY

Semantic antonymy is based on words with opposite meanings that denote opposing properties and characteristics and describe opposing phenomena and processes, e.g.: good — bad, cheerful — sad, happiness — unhappiness (property); begin — finish, spring — autumn, start — finish, always — never (time and its duration); top — bottom, outside — inside, on — under (place); pull — push, enter — exit, east — west, here — there (direction); fast — slow, hurriedly — leisurely (pace); strong — weak, intense — slow, strengthen — weaken, stimulation — inhibition (intensity). Semantic opposites are generally quite varied, and the types of relations between them are diverse. For example, one may analyze the properties of adjectives or the movement denoted by verbs in one way, and qualitative opposites in another.

Logical opposites are semantic relations between two incompatible concepts, between which there may be either one intermediate concept (see white — black; the intermediate concept is gray), or several intermediate concepts: white — light, gray, dark — black. Thus, the logical basis of antonymy consists not of contradictory (white — nonwhite) concepts, but of opposite (white — black) concepts.

Nevertheless, language works somewhat differently, since opposition is possible not only between qualitative adjectives. Theoretical studies of systems of semantic and logical antonymy show that antonyms are words that meet any one of the following requirements:

a) Words X and Y, corresponding to opposite concepts and serving as the extreme members of a coordinated set, are related contrarily: X — (not X/not Y) — Y: good — (not good/not bad) — bad.

b) Words X and Y express a vectorial opposition involving various directions, actions, characteristics, etc.: raise — lower, enter — exit, bring in — take out, democratic — antidemocratic, left — right, here — there, and so on. This class of antonyms consists mainly of verbs, adjectives, adverbs, etc.

c) Words X and Y, while formally corresponding to contradictory concepts, X — not X, may in language also express a contradictory opposition. This class of antonyms consists most often of qualitative adjectives or participles functioning as adjectives, nouns, and adverbs, e.g.: alive — dead, truthful — false, truth — lie, open — closed, together — separately, bachelor — married, etc. There is no intermediate member between these antonymic opposites, and the

9

The opposition is not gradual, but is characterized by complementarity. By negating one of these opposites, we obtain the other—a defined and extreme opposite, e.g.: bachelor – not + bachelor = married, alive – not + alive = dead.

d) words—conversives—indicate the inverse relations within an antonymic pair, i.e., when the same situation (action, relationship) is represented as reversible from the perspectives of its different participants. The presence of a conversive is determined by logical stress, which singles out the most important participant in the situation, e.g.: The neighbor sold a horse to the father = The father bought a horse from the neighbor.

Conversives are formed by verbs with opposite meanings (win – lose and lose – win), as well as comparative adjectives or adverbs, e.g.: The brother is older than the sister – The sister is younger than the brother, and so on.

There is a certain connection among all these types of words with opposite meanings and their semantic relations: the very nature of words (their categorical meaning and semantic-grammatical classification) often determines one antonym type or another.

Usually, one member of an opposition negates the other. This member is semantically complex (e.g.: noble “observing moral norms” – vile “not observing moral norms”). The underlying semantic feature of antonymy is not just any negation, but the greatest degree of negation. Nevertheless, the negation inherent in one member of a pair does not yet mean that one of the opposite meanings (concepts) is actually negated. This negation becomes evident only through semantic analysis, when antonyms are examined as a semantic invariant phenomenon. For example, the second members of the antonym pairs warmth – cold, truth – lie are negative. In logic, however, the reverse is true. The concepts cold, lie are affirmative, since there are neither positive nor negative concepts here. Thus, from the standpoint of logic, concepts such as warm – not warm, short – not short, etc., are equivalent.

The key elements required for analyzing oppositions, as for semantic analysis in general, are the following: the text, the researcher, and the language system.

Certain objects are selected from the text for analysis—opposite word meanings and the relations among those linguistic elements expressed by these words.

The researcher is essential because they analyze the text under study. In the opinion of the Russian scholar A. Zinovyev, many scientific problems would be “easier to solve if thought were given to researchers, without whom certain problems are entirely unsolvable” (Зиновьев 1971: 10).

This researcher must necessarily understand the language system, semantically analyze oppositions in the text, and have a good command of the language being analyzed.

At least several stages of semantic analysis of oppositions can be distinguished.

With a good command of the language, the researcher uses intuition and speakers’ linguistic experience to select the necessary material in advance. Even the most general and still incomplete stage of analysis shows that some semantic relations between words are incidental and isolated, whereas others, by contrast, recur regularly, are systematic, and encompass a substantial part of the lexical system. Sentences that are typical and meet these requirements reveal the most essential properties of antonyms and their syntagmatic and paradigmatic relations in language. Semantic oppositions in Lithuanian are generally also reflected from syntagmatic, paradigmatic, and pragmatic perspectives.

10

Syntagmatic Analysis of Oppositions

In examining antonyms from a syntagmatic perspective, the main conditions governing their use in language were taken into account:

a) regular context: both antonyms are generally used in the same sentence. In this case, they complement each other more fully and together emphasize their opposition. E.g.: long — short (For the industrious, even the longest day is short Užp.* When snow covers the fields and ice blankets the waters, you will be a lonely guest of the short day and the long night V.Myk-Put); strong — weak (You are so strong that you could be a man. You are so weak that you could be a baby J.Marcin. The weak wait for an opportunity to arise, while the strong find one for themselves PPr102); north — south (It is warmer in the south, colder in the north J. Birds living in the north move south when winter sets in T.Ivan); rise — set (I look out the window—the sun is rising; I look out the other one—the sun is already setting M.Mart. Set, O sun; rise, O moon; grant us a holy evening flk).

b) stable lexical associations: both antonyms are used with the same words. E.g.: good — bad (Good deeds are heard far away, bad ones even farther flk. For a good ploughman even a bad horse ploughs well; for a bad one, even a good horse does poorly Ds); one’s own — чужой (Whoever seeks foreign lands always loses their own V.Krėv. One’s own bread tastes better than чужие pastries Al).

The illustrative sentences were selected so that the semantic relations between words with opposite meanings, regularly recurring in them, would be systematic, have stable lexical associations, and encompass a substantial part of the Lithuanian lexical system.

A syntagmatic examination of antonyms showed that they can be genuine or contextual.

Genuine antonyms have opposite meanings in any context in which they are used. E.g.: large, great — small (A small stump overturns a large cart B. Born small, grew great J.Jabl. In Prussia, not only in the towns but also in the smaller and larger castles and border fortifications, everyone was preparing for war A.Vien); morning — evening (Oh, morning, morning, soon it will be evening; the young man will ride here from the early morning (song) J.Balč. Morning is wiser than evening Srd. Owls hunt mostly at dusk, in the evening and morning, or on moonlit nights T.Ivan).

There are also many contextual antonyms in language, but they will be examined in greater detail as a stylistic device in the chapter on pragmatic analysis.

It has been observed that the concept of opposition between word meanings is highly important not only in terms of their paradigmatic identity and difference, but also in cases of their syntagmatic use in a text. Syntagmatic analysis of oppositions shows that their use in language is systematic. Alongside paradigmatic relations that link “absent elements (in absentia) into a potential mnemonic (=remembered) series,” F. de Saussure also distinguishes oppositions that are “always evident (in praesentia)” (Соссюр 1933: 121). This prompts us to speak of syntagmatic and paradigmatic oppositions.

* Illustrative examples are taken from: Lietuvių kalbos žodynas 3—16, Vilnius, 1956—1995; 2nd ed., 1—2, 1968—1969, and from the card index of this dictionary.

11

For syntagmatic opposition (a synonym of semantic opposition), antonymic contexts are used, in which regularly repeated oppositions seem to bring antonyms together, e.g.: He works day and night (all the time) J. Jabl. Good or bad (whatever he may be), he is always a child to his mother Trgn. From the same mouth come both warmth and cold (both malice and kindness) S. Dauk. That one, whether winter or summer, is always barefoot Tvr. In summer, neither caught nor released (feeling awkward, confused), he stood in the vestibule V. Myk-Put. Analyzing such opposition constructions, we see not only semantically compatible antonyms but also a variety of oppositions that testify to the pragmatic convergence of words. Although these opposition constructions and contexts are characteristic not only of words with opposite meanings but also of words belonging to other categories, their analysis helps us clarify the regularities governing the use of antonyms in language and identify their most general classes. Particularly important is the fact that, when related as certain syntagmatic oppositions, antonyms form a wide variety of contrasts. Moreover, compounds of this type are most often idiomatic expressions.

For this kind of analysis, texts containing the relevant oppositions are first selected intuitively. These oppositions are initially analyzed in terms of form, that is, structurally, and then in terms of meaning, that is, semantically. The results obtained are subsequently synthesized and conclusions drawn.

The most numerous type of these oppositions is formed with the conjunction and (as well as). For example:

Homemade bread seemed like a real treat to young and old J. Mik. The earth bears two colors. The two principal ones are white and black. J. Marčin. Between hell and heaven, between good and evil, between white and black stands a human being J. Marčin. In the state there is a national majority and national minorities S. Šalk. Happiness and misfortune pass with time M. Valanč. Love and hatred, forgiveness and stubbornness... one moment one feeling, the next another, would prevail K. Bor. A life, alive and full of cares, of tragic and comic things... began to burst from within J. Mik. I am like a spring from which goodness always flows and can never run dry K. Sirv.

A somewhat different type of syntagmatic opposition, expressing vectorial opposition, includes antonyms expressed by verbs and adverbs. For example:

The Dutch put much care and labor into raising and lowering the embankments rš. Every mechanic must take apart and assemble the machine rš. I am the authority... I can elevate and I can degrade J. Marčin. As I lay him down and lift him up, I think about how to save him Žem. And the crowds, which went first and followed afterward, shouted M. Dauks. The hides of old boars are marked with scars crosswise and lengthwise sp.

In texts, conversive antonyms are most often joined by the conjunction and, e.g.: Our team won, and the visitors lost again (= The visitors lost, and our team won again); Agricultural products are bought cheaply and sold at a high price (= Agricultural products are sold at a high price and bought cheaply), etc.

Another type of syntagmatic opposition is similarly related; it is linked by the repeated conjunction and (both X and Y). For example:

Lithuanian has both open and closed syllables rš, A person has to-

12

sufficiently both devilish and divine lore J.Marcin. You cannot shut people’s mouths. An evil rumor will be spread by both enemies and friends J.Gruš. Wolves howled both high and low—it was frightening to go out Krš. They began attacking here and there, seeking help V.Kudir.

Contrasts with these repeated conjunctions and add expressiveness to opposing meanings and intensify them. Here, the abundance of properties, phenomena, objects, etc. is emphasized.

In Lithuanian, there are contrasts in which opposing properties, actions, phenomena, etc. are presented in parallel. In this case, repeated conjunctions are used: here, if, when. For example:

The old man kept bringing the tobacco pouch closer and moving it away rš. Indeed, the cuckoo looks about and flutters, here it weeps as it calls, there it laughs and chuckles A. Baran. The voice rang sometimes louder, sometimes softer, like an organ when the air flows unevenly rš. If you are innocent—shut the door; if you are guilty—run for it Hk. If the roots are strong, longer shoots are left; if they are weak, shorter ones rš. When death is far away, they call it; when it is near, they drive it away Skr. When you forget, you sing; when you remember, you weep J.

Sentences expressing parallel directional contrasts are formed with these conjunctions. For example:

The little animal moved very slowly, twitching its whiskers all the while first to the left, then to the right rš. Birds here rose up, there descended again rš. When you come home, it is pleasant; when you leave, neither one thing nor another Erž.

Similar contrasts are also formed with the conjunctions the more …, the more … (the more X, the more Y). For example:

He did not understand where the physical pain was, and where the spiritual pain rš. You feel your own worth, too; you see where you are right and where you are wrong rš. The merrier one’s youthful days are, the sadder old age must be V. Krėv.

Contrasts with the repeated negative conjunctions neither (not) X nor (not) Y are like a transformed antonymic context both X and Y, presented in negative form and expressing indifference or neutrality; sometimes these contrasted members, by negating one another, seem to merge into a single whole. For example:

Yet from the sky, the colorful falcons returned to earth neither early nor late V. Myk-Put. Pinčiukas was such a worthless devil, and so lazy besides, that he did neither good nor evil to anyone K. Bor. I am neither stupid nor clever Prk. She spun the flax neither thickly nor thinly LTR. I am neither the first nor the last; there are more girls J. The wind blows neither from the east nor from the west, but from that little land where our parents lie (song) J. Balč.

There are some directional contrasts formed with neither X nor Y. For example:

The door has swollen shut: I can neither open it nor close it Jnš. I do not want to either exalt or demean her (my generation), because I know her too well rš.

It should be noted that this type of antonymic context also occurs in idioms. For example:

Neither add nor subtract (just right, exactly) DŽ¹. What a job he did—neither a candle for God nor a pitchfork for the devil (useless, no good)! Kp.

That there are parallels here with the antonymic context both X and Y is shown by corresponding idioms, e.g.: Both mounted on a horse and been under a horse (seen it all

13

experienced in life) Trgn. From the same mouth comes both warmth and cold (both spite and kindness) S.Dauk.

The syntactic oppositions presented here are joined by means of conjunction. Depending on the lexical and syntactic context, they have certain semantic functions (juxtaposition, opposition, etc.). Oppositions with the conjunction or (or else) are also quite common in language. Such antonymic contexts involve a relation of disjunction. For example:

On platforms there are covered or open areas for passengers rs. Erikas decided to take it along (the fish) alive or dead, whatever its condition Mš. The twilight of our language can be hard or soft J.Jabl. Old or young—he sighed, left all alone, like a finger A.Vien.

The disjunction in these examples means not exclusion (either this or that), but a certain joining, a simultaneous presence.

There are also somewhat different disjunctive relations in which exclusion comes to the fore. For example:

Shall we not turn the earth to ashes? Do we serve life or death? J.Gruš. A rule is a norm that permits or prohibits the performance of certain actions LTEXI73.

In oppositions joined by the repeated conjunctions or (or else), or (or else), they seem to intensify the properties, actions, etc. expressed by the antonyms. In this case, these oppositions coincide with both X and Y. There are also elements of a certain mutual exclusion here. For example:

The father did not know whether to rejoice or to grieve K.Bor. All wealth is health—for young and old alike Skdt. The two of them no longer knew themselves whether alive or dead rs. Whether I am happy or sad, I keep walking, walking, walking V.Myk-Put. Either work or idle—it is all the same to him! Gs. There was always water—whether the summer was dry or wet Gdr.

Semantically related antonyms joined by sometimes (thus), sometimes (thus) are associated with this type of opposition. For example:

Like two grains of sand in the desert, we whirl as the winds rage in the boundless wasteland, sometimes moving apart, sometimes drawing near V.Myk-Put. The earth’s surface sometimes whitens, sometimes darkens sp. She cannot be pleased—sometimes give her more quickly, sometimes more slowly to put in the cart Krkn. The condition of a patient with atherosclerosis sometimes improves, sometimes worsens rs. I sowed so sparsely, yet it sprouted so thickly (d.) Grz. His voice sometimes grew stronger, sometimes weaker until it was a whisper rs.

These examples also reveal a particular sequence of actions, phenomena, etc., and their alternation.

In some antonymic contexts, antonyms are juxtaposed by certain conjunctions according to the principle of contrast. Such conjunctions are but (yet); the entire antonym-juxtaposition construction is not X, but (but also) Y. For example:

It is not the worker who gets a wage advance, but the idler flk. He is not wise, but foolish J.Jabl. The book is interesting not only to the young, but also to the old rs. The first glance reveals not similarities, but fundamental differences rs. The healthy do not need a healer, but the sick do M.Dauks.

14

Often in language (especially poetic language), the construction juxtaposing antonyms varies: one or the other of its members is omitted, and the members of the construction themselves exchange places. For example: Work elevates a person, not lowers them V.Krėv. They (the brothers) guard me day and night not only from the enemy—but also from a friend V.Myk- Put. From life, as if from an open courtroom, you will leave neither condemned nor acquitted J.Marcin. The main tendency of all human society is not regression but progress rš. Horticulture is the only passion that in old age does not weaken but grows stronger T.Ivan.

In Lithuanian, comparing the members of an antonym pair is also familiar; its construction is as follows: comparative adverb derived from an adjective (more, better, more...) + X (not) than Y, or comparative adverb + Y (not) than X. For example:

Better to lose something with a wise person than to find it with a fool Als. Better to keep silent than to talk nonsense LTR. For an old person, heat is already better than cold Nmn. It is easier to destroy than to create rš. Better for the free to die than for the enslaved to live A.Vien. For the struggle they are more useful than harmful sp. My outlook on life is more tragic than comic or logical J.Mik.

Antonym pairs of this type are subject to converse relations; in that case, the comparative adverbs change from positive to negative, respectively—less, worse, harder, etc. For example: It is worse to find something with a fool than to lose it with a wise person. It is harder to create than to destroy, etc.

Sometimes antonymic constructions are joined by the prepositions from... to (up to, as far as) (from X to (up to, as far as) Y). Most often these prepositions indicate the outer limits of a period of time (or its duration). For example: Work from sunrise right through to sunset, or even dusk Vaižg. A little boy has barely scrambled over a hummock—and he is already a shepherd, from the first grass of spring to the autumn rains K.Bor. From eight in the morning until ten in the evening I would spin about like a top A.Vien. We worked from sunrise to sunset Bsg.

Often, the order of members in an antonym pair is unconventional (from Y to X), e.g.: The two of us would go to sleep from sunset until sunrise Jrb. The situation being described determines this kind of sentence construction.

Adjectival constructions with these prepositions are quite rare. For example: When he died, the people of the whole country, from the smallest child to the oldest man, mourned that a great man and benefactor had died V.Krėv.

More complex constructions also occur in language, consisting of verbs that express change, becoming, or being something, together with members of an antonym pair. Schematically, this would look like this: a) X + verb (become, turn into, transform into something) + Y. For example: While you are happy, you will have many friends (companions); having become unhappy, not one M.Valanč. If you have not been bad, you will not become good S.Dauk. In the second sentence, the members of the antonym pair have exchanged places—Y + X + verb. In poetic language, the elements of this antonymic context are grouped differently still (Spring turned into autumn for me, and the withered leaves fell onto the path S.Nėr).

15

b) X + a copular verb (“to be” and its forms) + Y. For example: Do not be discouraged by failure, for one defeat is often the guarantee of ten victories S.Nėr. In this sentence, conversion relations are apparent; moreover, the members of the antonym pair have switched places — Y + is + X.

In sentences with these constructions, opposites coincide, one turns into the other and permeates the other, so the contrast disappears.

Besides syntactic means, syntagmatic oppositions are frequent in language, where the semantic relations between antonyms are expressed by intonation. There are two kinds of intonation — rising and falling.

These intonations are characteristic of antonyms occurring in the middle of a sentence (X║Y) and (X║Y). For example:

Squirrels have to spend the day and the night in a warmly curled-up nest rš. Over autumn fields I have no white horses, only black ones M.Mart. Weep with the weeping, sing with the singing, that is how it goes everywhere Gs. The biggest pushes the smallest piglets aside, so they are thin Ut. From happiness to misfortune is one step, but from misfortune to happiness is a long road LTR. At dusk, love wanders along that path, hatred slithers up hatred, and self-sacrifice walks J.Marcin. Heavier than wood, harder than a brick, softer than porridge (water) Ds. As in the antonymic contexts analyzed earlier, the members of antonym pairs often switch places (especially in poetry or folklore).

The antonyms in these sentences seem to be calculated and linked to one another. Nevertheless, sentences of this kind may express contradiction or conversion relations. For example:

Kas nekula aukštun, tas žemyn krinta V.Krėv (= Tas žemyn krinta, kas nekula aukštun); Pergalėmis reikia saikingai džiaugtis, o pralaimėjimus vyriškai pakelti sp (= Pralaimėjimus reikia vyriškai pakelti, o pergalėmis saikingai džiaugtis).

Rising-falling intonation is characterized by a pause (or pauses) indicating the semantic contrast between opposites (X║Y). For example:

Young children are their parents’ joy, grown children are heartache flk. Pain. If you lie down to work, you will travel upright (you will always have to urge on a hungry horse) LTR. Do not be hot-tempered — you will burn your eyes out; do not be cold — you will lose your share Lp. Joy is brief, sadness long Tr.

As in other sentences with syntagmatic oppositions, conversion relations are also present here. For example:

Contradictory trumpet signals rang out — some ordered the troops to defend themselves, others to attack rš. (= Contradictory trumpet signals rang out — some ordered the troops to attack, others to defend themselves); When you add — it gets smaller, when you take away — it gets bigger (a hole) Jnš (= When you take away — it gets bigger, when you add — it gets smaller); Injustice rides in a carriage, truth walks on foot flk. (= Truth walks on foot, injustice rides in a carriage).

The main feature of antonymic contexts is their regularity. This feature characterizes many sentences with antonyms linked by paired conjunctions when... then, the adverbs when... then, as... so, as much... as (here these adverbs are reversed), in one way... in another, and the pronouns who... that, what kind...

16

one, the other... For example:

When he took off yesterday, he did not return until this evening today Dž¹. When you were young, you will also be old flk. When money talks, truth is silent Trg. As he came in rags (with nothing), so he will leave in rags (having lost everything) Mrj. As the old ones whistled, so the young ones danced LTs. His plans to marry would rise as quickly as they would subside A.Vien. A calm old age, full of wisdom, can be as beautiful as a youth full of strength V.Krėv. In theory, something may look one way, but in practice turn out another J.Gruš. Who sows, reaps; who scatters, gathers Sim. Who goes into the sack first, comes out of the sack last flk. Who is sad, cries; who is happy, laughs Trgn. What you take for meat, you will find later Vrn. As life is, so is death Ėr. As the question, so the answer Dss. One hand gives, the other takes away Jnš. It goes in one ear and out the other PPr409. And the ministers, like those musicians, one on the high notes, another on the low notes, and a third in the middle, would all play together K.Saj.

There are cases in which the regularity of antonymic contexts is not so obvious. For example:

He does not so much repair as ruin Dkš. True art is first and foremost responsibility not so much for abstract humanity as for a very concrete person J.Mik. He drank that cup not so much to my health as to his own ill health J.Jabl. Even defeated things serve people not so much as rule them J.Marcin.

Graphically, this relation of opposites would appear in two forms:

a) not so much X as Y and b) not so much Y as X.

Analysis of antonymic contexts usually begins with form (structure) and proceeds toward semantics. Contexts are most often polysemous, with several semantic relations between words of opposite meanings intertwined. An example is the relation of opposites between X and Y, when in one case a conjunction is expressed and in the other a disjunction. We illustrate these claims with examples given earlier, but especially characteristic in this instance:

Two colors clash. The two basic ones—white and black J.Marcin. Love and hatred, forgiveness and stubbornness... one moment one feeling, the next moment another would prevail K.Bor.

In this case, the opposites X and Y are both conjoined and contrasted. Therefore, not only an analysis of the named opposites is necessary, but also a synthesis of the results obtained. Analysis and synthesis are necessary when examining all the other cases of syntagmatic opposites mentioned here as well.

In another case of disjunction (X or Y), the primary function is division (Usually the brain must be stimulated or inhibited alternately rš). When the disjunction is less strong (either (or) X, or (or) Y), the opposing semantic functions are connective-disjunctive, and the opposites here neutralize one another (All wealth and health—whether for rich or poor Skdt).

When the antonymic context takes the form X, then Y, the opposite meanings alternate (The condition of a patient suffering from atherosclerosis sometimes improves, sometimes worsens rš), and so on.

17

Table of semantic analysis of antonymic contexts:

Main types of semantic relations of oppositions | Structural types of oppositions | a | b | c | d | e₁ / e₂ | f | g | h | X and Y | P | A | A | A | X or (or else) Y | A | P | A | X or (=and) Y | A | A | either X or Y | A | A | P | not (only) X, but (also) Y | P | X (not) as (than) Y | P | from X to (up to, as far as) Y | P | X́ || Ý | P | A | X̌ || Y̌ | P

Presented here are not all, but only the most characteristic types and kinds of antonymic contexts (Новиков 1973: 124). This table does not include antonymic contexts illustrating intensification, negation, and other relations.

Here P denotes a primary semantic function, and A—a secondary one.

a — denotes conjunction (joining). Here the primary antonymic contexts are X and Y, X́ || Ý, while the secondary ones are X or (= and) Y, either X or Y.

b — denotes juxtaposition. There is no primary function here, because the juxtaposition of antonyms itself also signifies their opposition. The secondary antonymic contexts are X and Y, X or (or else) Y.

c — denotes contrast. The primary contexts are not (only) X, but (also) Y, X̌ || Y̌; the secondary one is X and Y.

d — denotes contradiction. There is no primary context here. The secondary ones are X and Y, X́ || Y̌.

e₁, e₂ — denote disjunction (separation). The primary context is X or (or else) Y; the secondary ones are X or (= and) Y, either X or Y.

f — denotes alternation. The primary context is either X or Y; the secondary one is X or (or else) Y.

g — denotes comparison. The primary context is X (not) as (than) Y; there is no secondary one.

h — denotes the whole, the totality, divided into opposites. The primary context is from X to (up to, as far as) Y (where the antonymic contexts have the same or a similar meaning: from small to large—“all” (both large and small); from morning to evening—“all the time” (both in the morning and in the evening, etc.).

Analysis of antonym structures is the basis for studying syntagmatic antonymy. It helps to understand the main aspects of antonym structure and semantics

18

features, to distinguish the often-confused concepts of “opposition” and “contrasting (juxtaposition).” Opposition is characteristic of one of the four types of paradigmatic antonymy, whereas contrasting is one type of relation between words of opposite meaning when antonymic contexts are examined from a syntagmatic perspective. The oppositions in such contexts may not only be contrasted, but also linked, juxtaposed, alternated, complement one another, and so on.

A positive result of this analysis is that antonyms could be classified into types and the most important kinds of their semantic relations identified.

Paradigmatic Analysis of Oppositions

The syntagmatic analysis of antonyms presented in the previous chapter was conducted at the “horizontal” level. By contrast, when antonyms are analyzed from a paradigmatic perspective, antonyms with identical meanings are arranged in “vertical rows.” For example:

A good plowman and a bad horse plows well; for a bad one, even a good one is no use Ds. A bad life unseen, you will not understand a good one Gdž. A good person listens even to words; a stick cannot undo an evil one J.Jabl.

Since such antonyms are usually regularly contrasted in texts, paradigmatic oppositions between words arise that call for corresponding analysis, for example: good (life) — bad (life); good (work) — bad (work). These examples of antonyms are semantically identical, since both good (life) and good (work) share the same feature—“characterized by positive, valuable qualities; suitable,” whereas bad (life) and bad (work) mean “characterized by negative, worthless qualities; negative.” Semantically, good (work) — bad (work) and good (person) — bad (person) do not coincide, because when referring to a person, these antonyms good — bad mean “characterized by positive character traits” — “characterized by negative character traits” (To the good, everyone is good; to the bad, everyone is bad LTs. A bad person wrecks things, while a good person repairs them An).

From a paradigmatic perspective, antonyms are divided into absolute (pure) and partial antonyms. When an antonym pair consists of words with a single meaning, or the primary meanings of polysemous words (polysemy), they are absolute antonyms. Besides the examples good (life) — bad (life) already mentioned, there are many such antonyms (white field — black field, full pit — empty pit). It should be emphasized that the meaning of absolute antonyms is inseparable from the words with which they are used; moreover, in many cases such antonym pairs (rows, chains, cycles) exhibit synonymy and variation, which become fully apparent through paradigmatic analysis.

When an antonym pair consists of secondary meanings of polysemous words, or the primary meaning of one word and a secondary meaning of the other, such antonyms are partial. They may have numerous semantic variants, but these are usually not semantically identical, e.g.: light — heavy (light work — heavy work) and light — impoverished (a light life — an impoverished life) (Ermanytė 1985: 5—6).

19

The paradigms of other words with opposite meanings are formed similarly, although the number of antonymous meanings usually does not match the paradigms of words with these meanings.

Sometimes pairs of antonyms form several parallel sets, for example:

praise¹ — scold

praise² — criticize;

gentle¹ — strict

gentle² — rough;

green¹ — ripe

green² — ripe, and so on.

As noted earlier, in many cases such pairs of antonyms are synonymous and variant forms. For example, when analyzing hot (water) — cold (water) and hot (person) — cold (person); warm (weather) — cold (weather) and warm (word) — cold (word), we see certain variants of antonym pairs and cases of gradable paradigms.

Graphically, such antonymic paradigms look as follows:

Antonymic paradigm of lexical-semantic variants of a word

large (tree) — small (tree)

big (child) — small (child)

large (number) — small (number)

loud (laughter) — quiet (laughter)

great (concern) — small (concern)

etc.

an antonymic word paradigm

Such antonymic paradigms vary considerably: they may consist of two words (e.g., summer — winter) or several words arranged in a gradual sequence (e.g.: healthy... not healthy... ill; warm... not warm... cold; bright... not bright... dark). Such antonym series exhibit not only semantic but also derivational relations (when the words share the same root — wealthy — without wealth, strong-willed — weak-willed, etc., and when the words have different roots — positive — negative, happy — sad; truthful — false; truth — lie, etc.).

Similarly, other types of paradigms of words with opposite meanings and their antonymic relations can be identified, e.g.: youth — old age (cf. young — middle-aged, elderly... old); benefit — harm (cf. beneficial — not beneficial — harmful), etc.

It is particularly important to analyze root antonyms with the negative prefixes ne-, be-, which are quite numerous in Lithuanian. Such analysis reveals a typological difference between pairings that appear identical on the surface. For example, adjective antonyms derived from direct antonyms friend — enemy, woman — man, etc., with the negative prefix ne- (friendly — unfriendly, not hostile — hostile, and feminine — non-feminine (=masculine), masculine — non-masculine (=feminine)) differ in nature. The first pair of these antonyms has a contrary, seemingly not overtly manifested, scalar paradigm (after all, not a friend does not yet mean an enemy). In the second pair (feminine — non-feminine

20

(=masculine) and masculine — non-masculine (=feminine) — negating one of the opposites asserts the other, and the semantic distance between the words non-masculine and feminine is zero. The same applies to not a man = a woman or not a woman = a man.

A paradigmatic analysis of lexical opposites demonstrates the systematic nature of antonymy as an important linguistic phenomenon (e.g.: good — bad → goodness — badness, for the better — for the worse; high — low → raise — lower, height — depth; enter — exit → entry — exit, entrance — exit, etc.).

The system of antonyms is particularly evident when these lexical and derivational word groups are large, for example:

long — short

to grow longer — to grow shorter

toward longer — toward shorter

to lengthen — to shorten

to become longer — to become shorter

to lengthen — to shorten

long-haired — short-haired, etc.

or

young — old

to grow younger — to grow older, to age

to become young again — to grow old, to age

to make younger — to make older

to rejuvenate — to age

youngster — old man (old codger)

the young — the old

young man— old man

toward youth — toward old age and so on.

Antonyms are also linked by functional relations, which depend on the objects with which one or the other antonym is used. For example: big — small the function of the antonym pair is the same, but only the object changes:

big — small {(tree) tall — short; (road) near — far; (time) long — short; (load) light — heavy; (pipe) thin — thick; (cold) strong — weak; (lake) deep — shallow and so on.

The examples presented here show that in all cases the same universal pair could appear on the right-hand side of the antonym pairs — big — small (big (tree) — small (tree); big (cold) — small (cold); big (lake) — small (lake) and so on, although the main function of the opposites and, alongside it, the additional feature describing the object's content remain.

The members of this pair can be treated as converses (using the comparative degree of the adjective), for example: This tree is bigger than that one = That tree is smaller than this one, and This tree is taller than that one = That tree is shorter than this one, etc.

21

Certain functional relations also link antonym pairs that denote the beginning and end of any phenomenon or period of time (duration). For example:

to be born — to die birth — death to weave — to grow dark beginning — end to begin — to finish start — finish to start — to finish uverture — finale and so on.

Antonyms, relating to one another not only as qualitative opposites but also exhibiting directionality, contrariety, complementarity, and so forth, are important and constructive elements of the semantic field.

Antonyms denoting spatial relations and based on the measurement of three-dimensional space (length, width, height) probably best represent the semantic field. For example:

Šios schemos (Новиков 1973: 147) semantinis laukas grindžiamas darybiškai glaudžiai tarp savęs susijusiais priešingų reikšmių žodžiais. Beveik visada šie žodžiai giminingi (viršus, viršutinis, aukštyn — apačia, apatinis, žemutinis, žemyn; priekis (priešakys), prie(ša)kinis, pirmyn — užpakalis,

22

rear; backward; left, to the left — right, to the right) and characterize three-dimensional space.

Both the core of a semantic field and the further, related semantic fields are interconnected. First to be mentioned among them are those based on functionally related lexical units (objects), e.g.: f (cone) = vertex — base; f (mountain) = summit — bottom; f (room) = ceiling — floor; f (river) = source — mouth; f (society) = cream of society — dregs. All members of a semantic field share a general semantic element (seme) indicating direction, as well as specific elements characterizing vertical distance, dimensions, and so on. These members not only form a single structure, but each also has its own distinct place.

The principal members of a semantic field often acquire secondary semantic functions as well, e.g.: left — right, in addition to their primary meanings—“located on the left side” and “located on the right side”—also have secondary meanings when referring to members of different political persuasions or parties. Only in this case do antonyms, having shifted from adjectives to nouns, take definite forms: the left-winger₂ — the right-winger₂. In turn, a derivative pair is formed from these antonyms with secondary semantic functions: to move leftward — to move rightward—“to adopt left-wing views” — “to adopt right-wing views.”

From the perspective of the semantic field, such oppositions are also important: head — feet, head — tail, even hands — feet (which, in J. Karaulov’s view (Караулов 1972: 60), are not lexical antonyms, but when interpreted semantically are also antonymic oppositions). All these oppositions are almost equivalent to the “classical” spatial opposition top — bottom.

In conclusion, antonyms, through their close connections with various elements of the corresponding semantic field, form a complex system of lexical oppositions and exert a considerable influence on the structure of the vocabulary. On the other hand, the semantic field aggregates lexical units with opposite meanings (when viewed paradigmatically), whereas antonymy, although it acts upon the semantic field, can manifest itself only within that field.

Pragmatic analysis of oppositions

Pragmatics is one of the branches of semiotics that studies people’s relationship with the system of signs, language. At present, the relationship of the speaker (writer) and listener (reader) to the information conveyed and received through signs is becoming increasingly relevant. Through them, communication between people is possible, as is the impact of such information on the imagination and feelings. In this connection, we should recall F. de Saussure’s thought: ”... for there to be language, there must be a speaking community... Its (i.e., language’s) social nature is one of its internal properties” (Sosiūras 1983: 140).

The norms governing the use of all languages (including lexical oppositions) are the result of the development of language and signs. In turn, lexical oppositions, as they expanded and continually developed, took shape as a persuasive and effective means of human communication, while antonyms became an important lexical phenomenon. It is therefore important to ana-

23

lyze them from the perspective of pragmatics as well. The inclination, present in language since ancient times, to use certain words in a particular way led to their becoming antonyms that would stylistically enrich the language.

Numerous sociological, psychological, cultural, and historical studies clearly show human relationships with particular signs expressed by words of opposite meanings. For example, summer is usually associated not only with warmth and light, but also with goodness, beauty, and coziness, while winter embodies cold, evil, and harshness. The antonyms day — night also symbolize good and evil (not merely the light and dark parts of the day). Lithuanian has quite a wealth of examples of folklore and idiomatic expressions featuring these words. For example: Night deeds — daytime jokes Grž. Day and night he laughs B; golden days Rdm “good life”; black night Dv “bad life”; winter and summer Ob “all the time.” In language, such idioms most often express a generalized action or the duration of a phenomenon from beginning to end, and vividly describe quality, time, space, emotions, and so on. For example:

He day and night (all the time) works J.Jabl. That stream never freezes: winter and summer (always) it flows Zp. Good or bad (whatever the case) — to a mother, a child is always a child Trgn.

These pragmatic, syntagmatic, and paradigmatic relations of opposition are illustrated extraordinarily vividly by the following diagram, based on the antonyms summer — winter:

Here the relationship between the sign and meaning, and between the sign and the object, is clearly shown—

24

of the image (i.e., the concept). The concept, in turn, links the sign and the thing as an intermediary connection. This graphic illustration brings out all the diverse properties of autonomy and the complex internal relations of this phenomenon (Новиков 1973: 65).

Other stylistic devices—antitheses, paradoxes, oxymorons, irony, etc.—also lend variety to language pragmatically.

Antithesis (Greek antithesis—opposition) is the juxtaposition of contrasting but semantically related images, which heightens the logical and emotional impact. Antithesis, usually constructed from antonyms or simply contrasting concepts, clarifies characters’ traits and describes the most important features of actions and phenomena. Antitheses may be simple or extended.

The following examples illustrate simple antitheses:

In black earth white bread grows J.Jabl. Cheap to buy—dear it costs Žg. More sense, less conceit VIkv. Happiness sings, misery groans LTs. Spacious gates to enter, but narrow to leave B. To the good all are good; to the bad all are bad LTs. Small he was born—great he grew J.Jabl.

Extended antitheses are illustrated by sentences whose syntactic structure is much more complex. There is a certain difference between these types of antithesis. For example:

You began from afar, though you arrived from nearby (of diplomatic conduct) J.Marcin. You won’t go away across the sea; when you wish, you’ll come Sdk. When the sun does not rise up, it sets down V.Krev. What the sober thinks, the drunk says Pnd. Work earns bread; laziness brings misery LTR. We can often teach others, but only few can manage to teach ourselves rš. The cowardly is frightened by a leaf, the brave does not flee even from a wolf Vlkj. With malice, not even across fallow land (will you gain anything); with kindness, even across a grain field (you will accomplish everything) Šmn. Without a mask, it is easy to be born and easy to die; only living is difficult J.Gruš. A mother with one hand punishes, with the other embraces Brž. Foolish while he wore bast shoes (was poor), clever once he wore boots (grew rich) flk. Don’t speak at length—a short word carries more weight than a long speech Nm.

Also included among pragmatic contrasts is the paradox (Greek paradoxos—unexpected). It usually expresses an unexpected opinion that runs counter to widely held beliefs, as if contradicting logical thought. This stylistic figure belongs to the sphere of aphorisms, is often based on irony, and is generally used in satire and rhetoric. J. Pikčilingis rightly observed that antonymic juxtaposition of phenomena yields “stylistic strength” (Pikčilingis 1975: 230). This stylistic figure is especially abundant in folklore (as is antithesis), in spoken language, and in imaginative literature (chiefly poetry). For example:

When death is far, they call for it; when it is near, they drive it away Skr. Better to die honorably than live dishonorably flk. Twelve sleeping virtues cannot overcome one awakened weakness V.Kar. Courageous fear tells more truth than fearful courage V.Kar. The illness is getting better as the person grows worse Šim. Whoever criticizes, gives to himself; whoever praises, gives to another Ps. If you are to speak foolishly, better to keep silent wisely An. My child, you do not yet know that wounded, I live a deathly life M.Mart. What will you sweeten the water with—the bitterness of wormwood? M.Mart. Better bitter truth than sweet lies J.Mik.

Oxymorons (Greek oxymōron—con-

25

(deliberately foolish). In a coherent context, juxtaposed words that seem logically different create a new, usually semantically unusual combination, producing an effect of surprise. By juxtaposing such seemingly incompatible words, objects, phenomena, qualities, and properties acquire additional features that enliven the language. An oxymoron most often consists of an adjective (or a participle functioning as one, or a genitive noun) + a noun. For example:

harsh kindness (Svečų salelė[j] rūsti žmoneliai, their harsh kindness JD183). the great unknown (Iš tikro didį darbininką K.Būgą didžių nežinomuoju palaidojome... A.Sal).

a tear of joy (Esi, ugnele, tu auksinėj varpoj kviečio, viltis — varge, skausme, kaip a tear of joy šviesi B.Braz).

a living dead man (Naktim tamsiais šešėliais slinkdavo living dead men J.Gruš. Ne, the living dead valdžios akyse negalėjo būti mėgiama publika B.Sruog).

a young old man; an elderly youth (Dabartinė karta — tai young old men... Jūs an elderly youth J.Grus).

royal poverty (Parkritau ant nukritusių ąžuolo lapų. Koks royal poverty! rs).

foolish mind (Foolish mind makes everyone laugh TŽIII380).

a skinny piglet (We slaughtered the skinny piglet; it is all one membrane Ll).

an unhanged hanged man (Taip teisdarybė ir liko nukentėjusi: the unhanged hanged man nebepagavo B.Sruog).

an endless beginning (Akla kaip sutvėrėjas meilė, galinga, nesuvaldoma kaip Dievas, ateinanti širdies regėjimais, tu — an endless beginning J.Grus).

dry tears (Apsiverkė with dry tears kap (kaip) marti, anytą laidodama KrvP(Drsk)).

resounding silence (Rudenį kaip niekad pajuntame gamtos grožį, įsiklausome į resounding silence rs).

midwinter heat (O ant širdies vis sninga — gėlės, sniegas — sninga... Kokia unearthly midwinter heat! B.Braz).

an open secret (An open secret is that some teachers of other subjects [not Lithuanian] have a rather poor command of the language and make many elementary language mistakes rs).

The main feature of an oxymoron is that an object, phenomenon, or quality expressed by one word is further described by a second word that is semantically entirely opposite to the first. Thus, against a background of contrast, the essence of the object being characterized is brought into sharper relief.

Sometimes the usual structure of oxymorons is altered (especially in poetic language), that is, the components of this stylistic figure are reversed. For example:

There is only this instant—embracing everything and eternal J.Marcin. I, a winged dreamer, love sorrowful joy B.Sruog.

Alongside “traditional” oxymorons, new, intellectual ones are now being created. For example:

Oh, that earth! It dislikes tales the fabulous in its everyday life. And the eccentrics still do not turn their faces toward its most fantastic reality J.Marcin. Make me an icyberg of fire, having known the depths of darkness...

26

This stylistic figure can be extended to three (or even more) members. For example:

I felt the burden growing ever heavier—like a stone, a bundle of those words, and a bitter-sweet apple K.Brad. Glory be for the sun that rises every morning, and for the greatness of our small hearts B.Braz.

Sometimes oxymorons are formed not only from an adjective + noun, but also from other parts of speech (verbs and their forms, adverbs) that perform the same semantic and stylistic functions. For example:

Stoutly sharpened stake—it will not go into the ground (into the earth) Slm. Let us show a cheerful face, let us smile through our tears, for not everything is lost yet Kel1866, 127.

In the most recent linguistic literature, oxymorons are also called “paradoxical antitheses” (Литературный энциклопедический словарь 1987: 258), since the semantic structure of this figure includes elements of both paradox and antithesis.

Irony (Greek eirōneia—feigned ignorance) is likewise expressed in language in an antonymic form, although there is no usual pair of antonyms here. Irony is generally illustrated by logically incompatible concepts that imply the concealed superiority of the person judging a situation, mockery, or even pity tinged with ridicule. It is only the apparent seriousness with which an opinion is expressed that distinguishes irony from humor and satire. In language, this stylistic device is expressed through comparisons, tropes, and other vivid expressions which acquire meanings opposite to their literal ones in context. For example:

White as a boot shaft PPr315. White as soot KrvP(Vrn). You are as handsome as an owl KrvP(Trg). Clever as a ram, brave as a hare PPr345. I love you as a dog loves a cat Al. They get along like a goose and a pig B. Beautiful as a fairy’s child PPr284. They get along like a goat and a ram Sb. Fat as an axe, round as Tauragnas Krd. And so fat—nothing but bones! LTR(Grk). Rejoiced like a child who has tasted the rod KrvP(Mrk). Terribly strong—between the fingers it crumbled like an egg KrvP(Ps). As hard as carrying feathers (feathers) for a calf LTR. Do not be afraid; with me behind you, you are as safe as behind a fence LTR(Užg). They live like a sow and a cat LTR(Km). As compassionate as a wolf toward a goat Pmp. Clever as a hen, fierce as a sheep KrvP(Ut).

He is sick and groaning, yet cannot keep his mouth from food LTR(Erž). With words he can demolish walls, but with work he cannot break a blade of grass Sim. Even a goose will frighten such a brave fellow Kt. You cannot whiten soup with beauty Er. You ride a mare, yet go looking for a mare B. A brave goat beside a dead wolf Vdk. For a drunk, even a puddle is dry TŽIII378(Vrn). What sort of gentleman would he be if he had no debts? Skd. Even a cat is fierce beside a dead dog LTR(Vdk). Lame—but nimble; lisping—but talkative Brb. You will not buy oats from a gander LTR(Jz).

From a pragmatic point of view, contextual antonyms, which lend language vividness and persuasiveness, should also be analyzed. There are, in fact, quite a few such antonyms in Lithuanian. Compared with true antonyms (e.g., young—old, top—bottom), their common component is secondary, and the relation of opposition is usually symbolic.

27

Contextual antonyms acquire opposite meanings only in a particular coherent context. For example:

Flew like a falcon, alighted like a beetle M.Valanč. You see a straw in another’s eye, but not even a log in your own PPr120.

These antonyms symbolize both concrete and abstract qualities of people, things, or phenomena. These qualities are so interconnected that explanations of contextual antonyms are usually difficult to confine to one or two words. For example:

a) size, strength, power; value, pride — smallness, weakness; worthlessness, humility are expressed by certain pairs of antonyms. For example: oak — sapling, reed; elk — pigeon, sparrow; grain — chaff, straw; ox — fly, sparrow; wagon — straw; wolf — sheep, lamb; promise — nail (From gray ash, from pain and ruins, with a green spring branch you rise toward God’s great, bright sun, destined to be an oak, not a roadside sapling! B.Braz. Juozas Gruodis was no reed and, given his spiritual convictions, could not bend in response to every breath of wind. He was an oak, able only to break sp. A better sparrow in the hand than an elk in the forest M.Valanč. Better a pigeon in the claws (claws), than an elk in the forest (forest) prš. If I try to sift out the grains of his thoughts from all that I have read, I most often find only chaff rš. More straw than grain from that work KrvP(Žl). A word flies out like a sparrow, but returns like an ox LTs. Your word flew out as a fly, came back as an ox Jnš. He notices a straw in another, but not even a wagon in himself LTR(Mrj). He cherishes them like a wolf cherishes sheep Btg. He has cloaked himself in a lamb’s fleece (seems gentle), but you cannot hide a wolf’s claws Lkč. A promise (pledge) is like a nail, and a gift like a fingernail Vkš).

b) activity, industriousness — inactivity, laziness. For example: horse — rooster; man — shepherd (As eager for work as a rooster, and for food as a horse J.Jabl. At (by) the cabbage bowl, the man; at (by) the scythe, the shepherd VP38).

c) pleasantness, attractiveness — unpleasantness, repulsiveness. For example: honey — pepper; wax — stone (Honey you sow, peppers you reap Sch88(B). You sow with honey, and peppers explode MŽ331. A man’s heart is stone, a woman’s wax Erž).

d) inspiration, exaltation — everyday life, simplicity. For example: poetry — prose (We seek the springs of poetry as we wade through the everyday, wading through prose B.Braz).

e) any beginning, life — any ending, death. For example: alpha — omega (Words of our native language are our alpha and omega; from them one can cast spells for oneself and others, and they can be placed beneath the head of a sick person sp. A stream runs through the green ancestral homestead, shining like silver out of the dusk, like the alpha — omega of life B.Braz). The two members of this antonym pair seem to merge into a whole and, in meaning, draw close to a phraseological expression.

The totality of life (i.e. beginning and end) is also symbolized by these antonyms — cradle — grave, coffin (You rocked me in the cradle to die, so that the graves might live again M.Mart. With feet toward the door where they carry them out, always between the cradle and the coffin rš).

28

It is interesting that alongside old, traditional contextual antonyms, for example: horse — rooster, grain — chaff, writing — a speck, a splinter, etc., new ones are being created, adapted to poetic and intellectual settings. These include alpha — omega; ocean — drop; poetry — prose; pyramid — anthill, etc.

A pragmatic analysis of linguistic oppositions draws attention to a particularly interesting and very old linguistic phenomenon — enantiosemy. This phenomenon is thought to date back to a time when the primary meanings of words had not yet been differentiated.

Verbs that describe temperature fluctuations in one way or another have especially clear enantiosemy (e.g., to burn, to bake, to scorch; to burn, to roast, to bake through, to singe, etc.). In this case, the same word has two opposite meanings: it can mean intense heating (or warming) and cooling (or chilling).

(This linguistic phenomenon calls for an article devoted to it alone, so it is thought that it will be analyzed in greater detail in the future.)

Words most commonly set in opposition in language are characterized by pragmatic properties. These words stand out for their expressive contrast, although they often resemble “traditional” antonyms neither in content nor in form. For example, children — parents relate as antonyms, representing generations with different, sometimes even opposing, views. Such pragmatic oppositions as work — word; celebration — everyday life; sky — earth, etc., are also regularly used in language.

Pragmatic oppositions are usually connotative in nature, i.e. a secondary meaning is emphasized (Oppression weighs heavily on the heart and mind, oppression binds hands and feet Vaizg. On the everyday and festive table, rye bread occupies perhaps the most modest place, yet it is always needed sp).

Nevertheless, in some cases such pragmatic oppositions even reinforce the corresponding semantic oppositions, for example: sky — earth (high — low); heaven — hell (good — bad), etc.

Antonymy is an important lexical and semantic phenomenon that has so far been analyzed relatively little in Lithuanian lexicology and is presented sparsely and inconsistently in lexicography. It is one of the constituent elements of vocabulary and semantics, reflecting the natural human need to compare and examine oppositions of various kinds and types. The structure of antonymy itself is based on oppositions that express contrary logical concepts in language.

ABBREVIATIONS

M.Daukš D a u k š a M. (between 1527 and 1538 — 1613), his writings V.Kar K a r a l i u s V., his writings M.Mart M a r t i n a i t i s M., his writings K.Sirv S i r v y d a s K. (between 1578 and 1581 — 1631), his writings St.Šalk Š a l k a u s k i s St. (1886 — 1941), his writings (Other abbreviations in the “Dictionary of the Lithuanian Language”)

LITERATŪRA

D r o t v i n a s V. 1986: Pagrindinės leksikologijos sąvokos, Vilnius. E r m a n y t ė I. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos antonimų žodynas, Kaunas.

29

E r m a n y t ė I. 1973: Išvestiniai žodžiai su prieš-taros priešdėliais. — Kalbos kultūra 25, 32—33.

E r m a n y t ė I. 1982: Dvi prieštaraujančios reikšmės žodžių stilistinės funkcijos. — Kalbos kultūra 42, 24—27.

E r m a n y t ė I. 1984: Apie antonimų reikšmes ir vartojimą kalboje. — Kalbos kultūra 46, 43—46.

E r m a n y t ė I. 1991: Antoniminės to paties veiksmažodžio reikšmės. — Kalbos kultūra 61, 73—74.

E r m a n y t ė I. 1993: Kontekstiniai antonimai. — Kalbos kultūra 65, 74—78.

G a i v e n i s K., K e i n y s S. 1990: Kalbotyros terminų žodynas, Kaunas.

J a k a i t i e n ė E. 1980: Lietuvių kalbos leksikologija, Vilnius.

J a k a i t i e n ė E. 1988: Leksinė semantika, Vilnius.

L e k s y k o n P W N. 1972: Warszawa.

P a l i o n i s J. 1985: Kalbos mokslo pradmenys, Vilnius.

P a l m e r F. R. 1982: Semantic a new outline, Moscow.

P a u l a u s k a s J. 1977: Lietuvių kalbos frazeologijos žodynas, Kaunas.

P a u l a u s k a s J. 1987: Sisteminis lietuvių kalbos žodynas, Vilnius.

P i k č i l i n g i s J. 1975: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika 2, Vilnius.

S o s i ū r a s F. 1983: Bendrosios lingvistikos kursas. — Mintis ir ženklas, 140.

W e b s t e r 1973: Webster’s New Dictionary of Synonyms. A Dictionary of Discriminated Synonyms with Antonyms and Analogous and Contrasted Words, Springfield.

V o s y l y t ė K. B. 1985: Lietuvių kalbos palyginimų žodynas, Vilnius.

Ž u p e r k a J. 1983: Lietuvių kalbos stilistika, Vilnius.

З и н о в ь е в А. А. 1971: Логика науки, Москва.

К а р а у л о в Ю. Н. 1972: Структура лексико-семантического поля. — Научные доклады высшей школы. Филологические науки 1, 57—68.

Литературный энциклопедический словарь. 1987: Москва.

Н о в и к о в Л. А. 1973: Антонимия в русском языке (Семантический анализ противоположности в лексике), Москва.

С о с с ю р Ф. де. 1933: Курс общей лингвистики, Москва.

AN OPPOSITION AS A SEMANTIC AND A LOGICAL FOUNDATION OF ANTONYMY

Summary

A logical foundation of antonymy is created not by contradictory (baltas — nebaltas), but contrary (baltas — juodas) conceptions. In this way a lexical antonymy by its logical and semantic content concerns these oppositions.

An inherent semantic sing of antonymy is a greatest negation, which turns up only during the semantic analysis, which is being made in a sintagmic and paradigmic way. In this case antonyms are interpreted as a matter of the text and the language system.

Pragmatic way also is important for the semantics of antonyms. For e.g. vasara in the Lithuanian language is compared not only with the warmth, but also with light, goodness and comfort and žiema is compared with darkness, badness and discomfort, but not only with cold.

A stylistic variety and figurativeness is a pragmatic characteristics of the nature of antonymy. Antonyms give emotional to the language, make it more suggestive and richer.

Such an important stylistic figures there are: antithesis, paradox, irony.

Antonyms can make oxymorons — stylistic figure, which is made of two logically incompatible words.

Contextual antonyms also brighten up the language. The relations of oppositions here are symbolical and a common component is secondary.

30

Antonymous phraseologisms diversify the language very much. They mean a generalized action of the lenght of the phenomenon from the begining to the end and expresionally described quality, time, space and so on.

The another phenomenon of antonymity — enentiosemy — is a wonderful way to enliven the language.

31