- •И. В. Арнольд
- •001(01)—86 215-86 4И (Англ)
- •Introduction
- •§1.1 The object of lexicology
- •§ 1.2 The theoretical and practical value of english lexicology
- •§ 1.3 The connection of lexicology with phonetics, stylistics, grammar and other branches of linguistics
- •§ 1.4 Types of lexical units
- •§ 1.5 The notion of lexical system
- •§ 1.6 The theory of oppositions
- •§ 2.1 The definition of the word
- •§ 2.2 Semantic triangle
- •§ 2.3 Phonetic, morphological
- •Chapter 3
- •§ 3.1 Definitions
- •§ 3.2 The lexical meaning versus notion
- •§ 3.3 Denotative and connotative meaning
- •§ 3.4 The semantic structure of polysemantic words
- •§ 3.5 Contextual analysis
- •3.6 Componential analysis
- •§ 4.1 Types of semantic change
- •§ 4.2 Linguistic causes of semantic change
- •§ 4.3 Extralinguistic causes of semantic change
- •Chapter 5 morphological structure of english words. Affixation
- •§ 5.1 Morphemes. Free and bound forms. Morphological classification of words. Word-families
- •§ 5.2 Aims and principles of morphemic and word-formation analysis
- •§ 5.3 Analysis into immediate constituents
- •§ 5.4 Derivational and functional affixes
- •§ 5.5 The valency of affixes and stems. Word-building patterns and their meaning
- •§ 5.6 Classification of affixes
- •§ 5.7 Allomorphs
- •§ 5.8 Boundary cases between derivation, inflection and composition
- •§ 5.9 Combining forms
- •§ 5.10 Hybrids
- •§ 6.1 Definitions and introductory remarks
- •§ 6.2.1 The criteria of compounds
- •§ 6.2.2 Semi-affixes
- •§ 6.2.3 “The stone wall problem”
- •§ 6.2.4 Verbal collocations of the ‘give up’ type
- •§ 6.3 Specific features of english compounds
- •§ 6.4.1 Classification of compounds
- •§ 6.4.2 Compound nouns
- •§ 6.4.3 Compound adjectives
- •§ 6.4.4 Compound verbs
- •§ 6.5 Derivational compounds
- •§ 6.6 Reduplication and miscellanea of composition
- •§ 6.6.1 Reduplicative compounds
- •§ 6.6.2 Ablaut combinations
- •§ 6.6.3 Rhyme combinations
- •§ 6.7 Pseudo-compounds
- •§ 6.8 The historical development of english compounds
- •§ 6.9 New word-forming patterns in composition
- •§ 7.1 Shortening of spoken words and its causes
- •7.2 Blending
- •§ 7.3 Graphical abbreviations. Acronyms
- •§ 7.4 Minor types of lexical oppositions. Sound interchange
- •§ 7.5 Distinctive stress
- •§ 7.6 Sound imitation
- •§ 7.7 Back-formation
- •§ 8.1 Introductory remarks
- •§ 8.2 The historical development of conversion
- •Oe ModE
- •OFr ModE
- •§ 8.3 Conversion in present-day english
- •§ 8.4 Semantic relationships in conversion
- •§ 8.5 Substantivation
- •§ 8.6 Conversion in different parts of speech
- •§ 8.7 Conversion and other types of word-formation
- •§ 9.1 Introductory remarks. Definitions
- •§ 9.2 Set expressions, semi-fixed combinations and free phrases
- •§ 9.3 Classification of set expressions
- •§ 9.4 Similarity and difference between a set expression and a word
- •§ 9.5 Features enhancing unity and stability of set expressions
- •§ 9.6 Proverbs, sayings, familiar quotations and clichés
- •Part Two english vocabulary as a system
- •§ 10.1 Homonyms
- •§ 10.2 The origin of homonyms
- •Origin of Homonyms
- •§ 10.3 Homonymy treated synchronically
- •§ 10.4 Synonyms
- •§ 10.6 Sources of synonymy
- •§ 10.7 Euphemisms
- •§ 10.8 Lexical variants and paronyms
- •§ 10.9 Antonyms and conversives
- •In poetry, unless perhaps the end (Byron).
- •§ 11.1 The english vocabulary as an adaptive system. Neologisms
- •§ 11.2 Morphological and lexico-grammatical grouping
- •§ 11.3 Thematic and ideographic groups. The theories of semantic fields. Hyponymy
- •§ 11.4 Terminological systems
- •§ 115 The opposition of emotionally coloured and emotionally neutral vocabulary
- •§ 11.6 Different types of non-semantic grouping
- •§ 12.4 Poetic diction
- •§ 12.5 Colloquial words and expressions
- •§ 12.6 Slang
- •§ 13.4 International words
- •§ 14.1 Standard english variants and dialects
- •To James Smith
- •§ 14.2 American english
- •§ 14.3 Canadian, australian and indian variants
- •Chapter 15 lexicography
- •§ 15.1 Types of dictionaries
- •Types of Dictionaries
- •§ 15.2 Some of the main problems of lexicology
- •§ 15.3 Historical development of british and american lexicography
- •Conclusion
- •Oxford Dictionaries
- •Ирина Владимировна Арнольд
§ 2.2 Semantic triangle
The question that now confronts us is this: what is the relation of words to the world of things, events and relations outside of language to which they refer? How is the word connected with its referent?
The account of meaning given by Ferdinand de Saussure implies the definition of a word as a linguistic sign. He calls it ‘signifiant’ (signifier) and what it refers to — ‘signifie’ (that which is signified). By the latter term he understands not the phenomena of the real world but the ‘concept’ in the speaker’s and listener’s mind. The situation may be represented by a triangle (see Fig. 1).
Here, according to F. de Saussure, only the relationship shown by a solid line concerns linguistics and the sign is not a unity of form and meaning as we understand it now, but only sound form.
Originally this triangular scheme was suggested by the German mathematician and philosopher Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925).
Well-known English scholars C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards adopted this three-cornered pattern with considerable modifications. With them a sign is a two-facet unit comprising form (phonetical and orthographic), regarded as a linguistic symbol, and reference which is more
_____________________
1 A concept is an idea of some object formed by mentally reflecting and combining its essential characteristics.
31
linguistic than just a concept. This approach may be called referential because it implies that linguistic meaning is connected with the referent. It is graphically shown by there being only one dotted line. A solid line between reference and referent shows that the relationship between them is linguistically relevant, that the nature of what is named influences the meaning. This connection should not be taken too literally, it does not mean that the sound form has to have any similarity with the meaning or the object itself. The connection is conventional.
Several generations of writers, following C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, have in their turn taken up and modified this diagram. It is known under several names: the semantic triangle, triangle of signification, Frege semiotic triangle, Ogden and Richards basic triangle or simply basic triangle.
We reproduce it for the third time to illustrate how it can show the main features of the referential approach in its present form. All the lines are now solid, implying that it is not only the form of the linguistic sign but also its meaning and what it refers to that are relevant for linguistics. The scheme is given as it is applied to the naming of cats.
The scheme is still over-simplified and several things are left out. It is very important, for instance, to remember that the word is represented by the left-hand side of the diagram — it is a sign comprising the name and the meaning, and these invariably evoke one another. So we have to assume that the word takes two apexes of the triangle and the line connecting them. In some versions of the triangle it is not the meaning but the concept that is placed in the apex. This reflects the approach to the problem as formulated by medieval grammarians; it remained traditional for many centuries.
32
We shall deal with the difference between concept and meaning in § 3.2. In the modification of the triangle given here we have to understand that the referent belongs to extra-linguistic reality, it is reflected in our mind in several stages (not shown on the diagram): first it is perceived, then many perceptions are generalised into a concept, which in its turn is reflected in the meaning with certain linguistic constraints conditioned by paradigmatic influence within the vocabulary. When it is the concept that is put into the apex, then the meaning cannot be identified with any of the three points of the triangle.1
The diagram represents the simplest possible case of reference because the word here is supposed to have only one meaning and one form of fixation. Simplification, is, however, inherent to all models and the popularity of the semantic triangle proves how many authors find it helpful in showing the essence of the referential approach.