Word-Meaning.

There are broadly speaking two schools of thought in present-day linguistics representing the main lines of contemporary thinking on the problem: the referential approach, which seeks to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing the interdependence between words and the things or concepts they denote, and the functional approach, which studies the functions of a word in speech and is less concerned with that meaning is than with how it works.

Meaning is closely connected but not identical with sound-form, concept or referent. Meaning is to be found in all linguistic units and together with their sound-form constitutes the linguistic signs studied by linguistic science.

The criticism of the referential theories of meaning:

1. Meaning, as understood in the referential approach, comprises the interrelation of linguistic signs with categories and phenomena outside the scope of language. As neither referents nor concepts belong to language, the analysis of meaning is confined either to the study of the interrelation of the linguistic sign and referent or that of the linguistic sign and concepts, all of which, properly speaking, is not the object of linguistic study.

2. The great stumbling block in referential theories of meaning has always been that they operate with subjective and intangible mental processes. Semasiology has to rely too much on linguistic intuition and unlike other fields of linguistic inquiry does not possess objective methods of investigation.

3. Functional Approach to Meaning.

In recent years a new and entirely different approach to meaning known as the functional approach has begun to take shape in linguistics and especially in structural linguistics. The functional approach maintains that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to other concept or referent. In a very simplified form this view may be illustrated by the following: for instance, that the meaning of two words move and movement is different because they function in speech differently. Comparing the contexts in which we find these words we cannot fail to observe that they occupy different positions in relation to other words. (To) move, e.g., can be followed by a noun (move the chair), proceeded by a pronoun (we move), etc. The position occupied by the word “movement” is different: it may be followed by a preposition (movement of smth), proceeded by an adjective (slow movement) and so on.

As the distribution of the two words is different: they belong not only to different classes of words, but that their meanings are different too.

When comparing the two approaches described above in terms of methods of linguistic analysis we see that the functional approach should not be considered an alternative, but rather a valuable complement to the referential theory. There is absolutely no need to set the two approaches against each other.

Lecture 7

Theme: 1) Change of Meaning.

2) Causes of Semantic Change.

3) Types of Semantic Change

Word-meaning is liable to change in the course of the historical development of language. Changes of lexical meaning may be illustrated by a diachronic semantic analysis of many commonly used English words. The word fond (Old OE English fond) used to mean “foolish”, “foolishly credulous”; glad (Old English, glæd) had the meaning of “bright”, “shining” and so on.

Change of meaning has been thoroughly studied and as a matter of fact monopolized the attention of all semanticists whose work up to the early 1930’s was centered almost exclusively on the description and classification of various changes of meaning.

Causes of Semantic Change.

The factors accounting for semantic changes may be roughly subdivided into 2 groups:

1. extra-linguistic and

2. linguistic causes.

By extra-linguistic causes we mean various changes in the life of the speech community, changes in economic and social structure, changes in ideas, scientific concepts, way of life and other spheres of human activities as reflected in word meanings. Although objects, institutions, concepts, etc. change in the course of time in many cases the soundform of the words which denote them is retained but the meaning of the words is changed. The word car, e.g., ultimately goes back to Latin carrus which meant “a four-wheeled wagon” (ME carre) but now that other means of transport are used it denotes “a motor-car”, “a railway carriage” (in the USA).

Some changes of meaning are due to what may be described as purely linguistic causes, i.e. factors acting within the language system. The commonest form which this influence takes is the so-called ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two words of these is omitted and its meaning is transferred to its partner. The verb to starve, e.g., in Old English OE steorfan) had the meaning “to die” and was habitually used in collocation with the word hunger (ME. sterven of hunger). Already in the 16^th century the verb itself acquired the meaning “to die of hunger”.

Nature of Semantic Change.

Generally speaking, a necessary condition of any semantic change, no matter what its cause, is some connection, some association between the old meaning and the new, There are 2 kinds of association involved as a rule in various semantic changes namely:

1. similarity of meanings

2. contiguity of meanings.

Similarity of meanings or metaphor may be described as a semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. The word hand, e.g., acquired in the 16^th century the meaning of a “pointer of a clock or a watch” because of the similarity of one of the functions performed by the hand (to point at smth.) and the function of the clockpointer. Since metaphor is based on the perception of similarities it is only natural that when an analogy is obvious, it should give rise to a metaphoric meaning. This can be observed in the wide currency of metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of the human body in various languages (“the leg of the table”; “the foot of the hill”; etc). Sometimes it is similarity of form, outline, etc. that underlies the metaphor. The words warm and cold began to denote certain qualities of human voices because of some kind of similarity between these qualities and warm and cold temperature.

Contiguity of meanings or metonymy may be described as the semantic process of associating two referents one of which makes part of the other or is closely connected with it. This can be perhaps best illustrated by the use of the word tongue – “the organ of speech” in the meaning of “language” (as in mother tongue; cf. also L. lingua, Russ. язык).The word bench acquired the meaning “judges”, “magistrates” because it was on the bench that the judges used to sit in the law courts, similarly the House acquired the meaning of “members of the House” Parliament.

. Other types of Semantic Change

Following the lead of literary criticism, linguists have often adopted terms of rhetoric for other types of semantic change, besides metaphor and metonymy. These are: hyperbole, litotes, irony, euphemism. Namely, there is a difference between these terms as understood in literary criticism and in lexicology.

Hyperbole (from Gr. Hyperballo “exceed”) is an exaggerated statement not meant to be understood literally but expressing an intensely emotional attitude of the speaker to what he is speaking about.

A very good example is chosen by I.R. Galperin from Byron, and one cannot help borrowing it.

When people say “I’ve told you fifty times”, they mean to scold and very often do.

Hyperbole here is not poetic but linguistic.

The same may be said about expressions like: I hate troubling you, It’s monstrous, Haven’t seen you for ages, I’d love to do it, etc.

The reverse figure is called litotes (from Gr. litos “plain”,”meagre”) or understatement. It might be defined as expressing the affirmative by the negation of its contrary: e.g. not bad or not half bad for “good”, not small for “great”, no coward for “brave”. Some understatements do not contain negations: rather decent; I could do with a cup of tea. The purpose of understatement is not to deceive but to produce a stronger impression on the hearer.

Also taken from rhetoric is the term irony, i.e. expression of one’s meaning by words of opposite meaning. One of the meanings of the adjective nice is “bad”, “unsatisfactory”.

The same may be said about the adjective pretty:

E.g.: You’ve got us into a nice mess!

A pretty mess, you’ve made of it!

Euphemism (Gr. euphemismos from eu “well” and pheme “speak”) is the substitution of words of mild or vague connotations for expressions rough, unpleasant or for some other reasons unmentionable.

Within the diachronic approach the phenomenon has been repeatedly classed by many linguists as taboo. This standpoint is hardly acceptable for modern European Languages.

With primitive peoples taboo is a prohibition meant as a safeguard against supernatural forces. Names of ritual objects or animals were taboo because the name was regarded as the equivalent of what was named.

With peoples of developed culture, euphemism is intrinsically different, has nothing to do with taboo and is dictated by social usage, moral tact and etiquette. Cf. queer “mad”, deceased “dead”, perspire v “sweat”.

Lecture 8