The problems of word-meaning

1. Characteristics of the word as the basic unit of the language

Words are the central elements of language system. They face both ways: they are the biggest units of morphology and the smallest units of syntax. Words can be separated in an utterance by other such units and can be used in isolation. Uniting meaning and form, a word is composed of one or more morphemes each consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation.

Morphemes are also meaningful units but they can not be used independently, they are always parts of words whereas words can be used as a complete utterance (e.g., Listen!). Unlike words, morphemes cannot be divided into smaller meaningful words.

The definition of a word is one of the most difficult in linguistics because the simplest word has many different aspects. It has a sound form and morphological structure; when used in actual speech, it may occur in different word-forms, different syntactic functions and signal various meanings. Being the central element of any language system, the word is a sort of focus for the problems of Phonology, Lexicology, Syntax, Morphology and also for some other sciences that have to deal with language and speech, such as philosophy and psychology. All attempts to characterize the word are necessarily specific for each domain of science and are therefore considered one-sided by the representatives of all the other domains.

The word has been defined semantically, syntactically, phonologically and by combining various approaches.

Many eminent scholars of the former USSR, such as V.V. Vinogradov, A.I. Smirnitsky, O.S.Akhmanova, M.D. Stepanova, A.A. Ufimtseva, greatly contributed to creating a word theory based upon the materialistic understanding of the relationship between word and thought, on the one hand, and language and society, on the other. The main points may be summarized in the following definition.

A w o r d is the smallest unit of a given language capable of functioning alone and characterized by p o s i t i o n a l m o b i l i t y within a sentence, m o r p h o l o g i c a l u n i n t e r r u p t a b i l i t y and s e m a n t i c i n t e g r i t y. All these criteria are necessary because they create a basis for the oppositions between the word and the phrase, the word and the phoneme and the morpheme; their common feature is that they are all units of the language, their difference lies in the fact that the phoneme is not significant, and a morpheme cannot be used as a complete utterance.

2. The problems of word-meaning.

The word as any linguistic sign is a two-faced unit possessing both form and content or, to be more exact, sound form and meaning. Neither can exist without the other.

Word meaning is one of the controversial terms in linguistics. There had been many attempts to give a definition of word meaning in accordance with the main principles of different linguistic schools. In our country the definitions of meaning given by various authors, though different in detail, agree in the basic principle: the lexical meaning is the realization of concept (or notion) by means of a definite language system.

In modern linguistics word-meanings are studied from different angles of view: a) through establishing the interrelations between words and concepts which they denote – the so-called referential approach; b) through the observations of the functions of a word in speech – the functional approach.

The essential feature of r e f e r e n t i a l approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning: the sound-form of the linguistic sign, the concept underlying this sound-form, and the actual referent, i.e. that part of reality to which the linguistic sign refers. The best known referential model of meaning is the so-called “basic triangle”. In a simplified form this triangle may be represented as follows:

concept

sound-form referent

Originally this triangular scheme was suggested by the German mathematician and philosopher Gotlieb Frege. Well-known English scholars C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards adopted this three-cornered pattern with considerable modifications.

As can be seen from the diagram, a sign is a two-facet unit comprising form and concept. Thus, the sound-form of the linguistic sign is connected with our concept of the thing which it denotes and through it with the referent, i.e. the actual thing. The common feature of any referential approach is the implication that meaning is in some form or other connected with referent.

To distinguish meaning from the referent is of the utmost importance. To begin with, meaning is lingual, whereas the referent, or the denoted object, belongs to extra-lingual reality. Then, we can denote one and the same object by more than one word of a different meaning. Last but not least, there are words that have distinct meanings but do not refer to any existing thing, e.g. angel, phoenix.

Some advocates of the referential approach identify meaning with sound-form, concept and referent. Meaning of the word is closely connected but not identical with sound-form, concept and referent. It is an objectively existing part of the linguistic sign.

The criticism of the referential theories of meaning may be briefly summarized as follows: a) meaning, as understood in the referential approach, comprises the interrelation of linguistic sign with categories and phenomena outside the scope of language; b) the mentalistic approach to meaning oversimplifies the problem because it takes into consideration only the referential function of words. Actually, however, all the pragmatic functions of language – communicative, emotional, and esthetic, etc. – are also relevant and have to be accounted for in semasiology.

The f u n c t i o n a l approach maintains that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to other linguistic units. E.g., we know that the meaning of the two words move and movement is different because they function in speech differently. Comparing the contexts in which we find these words we observe that they occupy different positions in relation to other words: move the chair, we move – movement of smth, slow movement. As the distribution of the two words is different, we come to the conclusion that not only do they belong to different classes of words but that their meanings are different too.

It follows that in the functional approach meaning is understood essentially as the function of the linguistic units. Functional approach should not be considered an alternative, but rather a valuable complement to the referential theory. There is no need to set two approaches against each other: neither is complete without the other.

3. The semantic structure of English words

Word-meaning is not homogeneous but is made up of various components, or types of meaning. They are as follows.

The g r a m m a t i c a l meaning is the component of meaning in identical sets of individual forms of different words, as e.g., the tense meaning in the word-forms of verbs (asked, thought walked, etc. or in Ukrainian - їхав, йшов, говорив) or the meaning of plurality (books, intentions, phenomena, столи, вікна, etc.).

The l e x i c o – g r a m m a t i c a l meaning (part-of-speech meaning) is the common meaning of words belonging to a lexico-grammatical class of words, it is the feature according to which they are grouped together. The interrelation of the lexical and the grammatical meaning varies in different word-classes. In some parts of speech the prevailing component is the grammatical type of meaning (e.g., in prepositions), in others – the lexical (e.g., in nouns, verbs, etc.).

The l e x i c a l meaning is the component of meaning proper to the given linguistic unit in all its forms and distributions. E.g., in the forms go, goes, went, gone (читає, читав, читатиме) we find one and the same semantic component denoting the process of movement.

Both the lexical and the grammatical meanings make up the word-meaning as neither can exist without the other.

Lexical meaning is not homogeneous either; it includes denotative and connotative components.

The d e n o t a t i v e component of lexical meaning expresses the conceptual content of a word. Fulfilling the nominative and the communicative functions of the word, it is present in every word and may be regarded as the central factor in the functioning of the language.

The c o n n o t a t i v e component of lexical meaning expresses the pragmatic communicative value the word receives depending on where, when, how, by whom, for what purpose and in what contexts it is used. Unlike the denotative component, the connotative component is optional. There are four main types of connotation. They are stylistic, emotinal, evaluative and expressive, or intensifying.

When associations concern the situation in which the word is uttered (formal, familiar, etc.), the social relationships between the interlocutors (polite, rough), the purpose of communication (poetic, official), the connotation is s t y l i s t i c. E.g., parent (bookish) – father (neutral) – dad (colloquial); чоло (poetical) – лоб (neutral) – макітра (low colloquial)

An e m o t i v e connotation is acquired by the word because the referent named in the denotative meaning is associated with emotions. In the synonyms, e.g., large, big, tremendous and like, love, worship (подобатися, любити, обожнювати) the emotional charge of the words tremendous and worship is heavier than that of the other words. Cf. голівонька, серденько, матуся.

An e v a l u a t i v e connotation expresses approval or disapproval, e.g., clique – group, magic – witchcraft (вітер – вітрюга; козак – козаченько).

A fourth type of connotation is the i n t e n s i f y i n g connotation (also expressive, emphatic). Thus, magnificent, splendid, superb (вітер – вітерець – вітрище – вітрюга) are all used colloquially as terms of exaggeration.

Words may be monosemantic or polysemantic. Monosemantic words are sometimes represented by a whole lexico-grammatical class, as it is in case of all pronouns, numerals, conjunctions and various nomenclature words (terms). E.g.: we, she, nobody, ten, thirty, and, or, atom, oxygen, sugar, today; він, вони, десять, перший, і/та, чи, кисень, цукор, сьогодні, торік, etc.

The semantic structure of the bulk of English polysemantic nouns, e.g., is richer than that of the Ukrainian nouns. Thus, the English noun boat can mean човен, судно/корабель, шлюпка; the noun coat in English can mean верхній одяг, пальто, піджак, кітель, хутро (тварин), захисний шар фарби на предметі. Ukrainian words may sometimes have a complicated semantic structure as well. E.g., the noun подорож may mean cruise, journey, travel, trip, tour, voyage; or the word ще may mean still, yet, as yet, more, any more, again, else, but.

Рекомендована література:

1. Ніколенко А.Г. Лексикологія англійської мови. Теорія і практика (English Lexicology. Theory and Practice): Посібник. – Вінниця: Нова книга, 2007. – С. 132-135.

2. Верба Л.Г. Порівняльна лексикологія англійської та української мов: Посібник для перекладацьких відділень вузів. – Вінниці: Нова книга, 2003. – С. 18-25.

Практичні завдання:

Ex. 3, p. 53; Ex. 9, p. 64; Ex. 11, p. 65 – Kveselevich D.I. Modern English Lexicology in Practice: Навчальний посібник. – Вінниця: Нова книга, 2001.

Ex. 3, p. 155 – Ніколенко А.Г. Лексикологія англійської мови. Теорія і практика (English Lexicology. Theory and Practice): Посібник. – Вінниця: Нова книга, 2007.