Lecture 2.
A word and its meaning. Types of meaning
Characteristics of the word as the basic unit of the language.
The problems of word-meaning.
The semantic structure of English words.
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.