Terrible Angels: Semantic Ambivalence and Polysemy

Alexandra Smirnova, Igor Tolochin


This study deals with the problem of ambivalence at the semantic level of word meaning. We argue that semantic ambivalence determines the whole structure of polysemy of certain English words and propose a method of establishing contextual markers indicating the presence of semantic ambivalence as the essential element of word meaning. Having studied a large variety of contexts for the word ‘angel’, we have identified three typical collocational patterns of its use in texts. Therefore, we suggest that this word has three main senses that are distinguished by their evaluative properties: ambivalent, positive and negative. In the ambivalent type of context ‘angel’ collocates with both positively and negatively charged words at the same time, which creates verbal sequences of high emotional tension. This fact proves the idea that certain words in the English language can convey simultaneously positive and negative aspects of human experience in a particular type of their usage as intrinsically inseparable from each other. Ambivalent word senses are referred to as archetypes, for they represent the legacy of the archaic syncretism of the human mind, which has been handed down to us in religion and poetry. Most modern monolingual English dictionaries do not take into account the distinction in the evaluative characteristics of collocational patterns when defining the word ‘angel’. This leads to a number of problems in their lexicographic descriptions of this word. Taking into account its semantic ambivalence would contribute to a more coherent picture of its sense structure.



lexicography; polysemy; semantic ambivalence; archetype; collocational patterns

Full Text:



Albertson, B., Brehm, J. & Alvarez, R. M. (2005) Ambivalence as Internal Conflict. In S. Craig, M. Martinez (Eds.). Ambivalence and the Structure of Political Opinion (pp. 15-32). Palgrave Macmillan US.

Bellah, R. N. (2011). Religion in Human Evolution. From the Paleolithic to the Axial Age. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.

Сorpus of Contemporary American English (COCA). Retrieved May-September, 2018 from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.

Dattamajumdar, S. (2007) Ambivalence and Contradiction in Advertising Discourse. The Asiatic Society. 84-99. Retrieved November 30, 2017 from http://ut.pr/biblioteca/Glossa2/Journal/dec2007/Ambivalence%20and%20contradiction.pdf

Harreveld (van), F. et al. (2015). The ABC of Ambivalence: Affective, Behavioral, and Cognitive Consequences of Attitudinal Conflict. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 52, 285-324.

Heidegger, M. (2001). Poetry, Language, Thought. Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Hillman, J. (1997). Archetypal Psychology: A Brief Account. Spring Publications.

Larue-Tondeur, J. (2009). Ambivalence et énantiosémie. Une thèse de doctorat. Science de l’Homme et Société. Université de Nanterre, Paris, France.

Lévy-Bruhl, L. (1923). Primitive Mentality. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English (LDCE) (2003). Pearson Education Limited.

Milićević, J. & Ploguère, A. (2010) Ambivalence sémantique des noms de communication languagière du français. Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française. Conference Proceedings. Paris: Istitut de Linguistique Française.

Mladinic, A. (1998) Ambivalence and the Study of Attitudes. Psykhe. Vol. 7(1), 13-23.

Nohlen, H. U. et al. (2014) Evaluating ambivalence: social-cognitive and affective brain regions associated with ambivalent decision-making. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. Vol. 9, 924-931.

Online Collins English Dictionary (OCED). Retrieved February 14, 2018 from https://www.collinsdictionary.com /dictionary/english/angel.

Online MacMillan Dictionary (OMD). Retrieved February 14, 2018 from https://www.macmillan dictionary.com/dictionary/british/angel.

Online Merriam-Webster Dictionary (OMWD). Retrieved February 14, 2018 from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/angel.

Schneider, I. K. et al. (2013) One Way and the Other: The Bi-directional Relationship Between Ambivalence and Body Movement. Psychological

Science. Vol. 24(3), 319-325.

Shmelev, A. (2012) Cognitive and Communicative Sources of Enantiosemy. Proceedings of the 10th World Congress of the International

Association for Semiotic Studies (IASS/AIS). Spain: Universidade da Coruña. ISBN: 978-84-9749-522-6

Smirnova, A. Yu. (2016) “Where is the bank?” or how to “find” different senses of a word. Heliyon. 2 (6). Retreived June 27, 2016 from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844015300797

Smirnova, A. Yu. & Tolochin, I. V. (2016) Arkhetip v lingvistike: forma I soderzhaniye (na primere angliyskogo slova fire) (Archetype in Linguistics: its Form and Meaning (a Case Study of the English Word FIRE)). The World of Science, Culture and Education. Vol. 4(59), 214-218.

Stamenov, M. (2011) The Status of Ambivalent Meaning in Lexical Semantics. In K. Stoycheva, A. Kostov (Eds.) A Place, a Time and an Opportunity for Growth. Bulgarian Scholars at NIAS (pp. 97-104). Sofia: Faber.

Tolochin, I. V. (2014). Uchebnik po leksikologii (A Coursebook on Lexicology). Saint-Petersburg: Antologiya.

Jasmina, Millicevic & Alain, Polguère. (2010). Ambivalence sémantique des noms de communication langagière du français. Institut de Linguistique Française (ILF). 2e Congrès Mondial de Linguistique Française (CMLF'10), Jul 2010, La Nouvelle-Orléans, États-Unis. pp.


Jung, C. G. (Ed.) (1988). Man and his Symbols. New York: Anchor Press, Doubleday.

Jung, C. G. (2003). Four Archetypes: Mother, Rebirth, Spirit, Trickster. London, New York: Routledge.

Werner, H. (1948). Comparative Psychology of Mental Development. Follett.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1803-09


  • There are currently no refbacks.




eISSN : 2550-2131

ISSN : 1675-8021