39921736-A-Course-in-English-Lexicology

I. Introduction

§ 1. Definition. Links with Other Branches of Linguistics

Lexicology is a branch of linguistics, the science of language. The term Lехiсоlоgу is composed of two Greek morphemes: lexis meaning 'word, phrase' (hence lexicos 'having to do with words') and logos which denotes 'learning, a department of knowledge' . Thus, the literal meaning of the term Lехiсо1оgу is 'the science of the word'. The literal meaning, however, gives only a general notion of the aims and the subject-matter of this branch of linguistic science, since all its other branches also take account of words in one way or another approaching them from different angles. Phonetics, for instance, investigating the phonetic structure of language, i.e. its system of phonemes and intonation patterns, is concerned with the study of the outer sound form of the word. Grammar, which is inseparably bound up with Lexicology, is the study of the grammatical structure of language. It is concerned with the various means of expressing grammatical relations between words and with the patterns after which words are combined into word-groups and sentences.

Lexicology as a branch of linguistics has its own aims and methods of scientific research, its basic task being a study and systematic description of vocabulary in respect to its origin, development and current use. Lexicology is concerned with words, variable word-groups, phraseological units, and with morphemes which make up words.

Distinction is naturally made between General Lexicology and Special Lexicology. General Lexicology is part of General Linguistics; it is concerned with the study of vocabulary irrespective of the specific features of any particular language. Special Lexicology is the Lexicology of a particular language (e.g. English, Russian, etc.), i.e. the study arid description of its vocabulary and vocabulary units, primarily words as the main units of language. Needless to say that every Special Lexicology is based on the principles worked out and laid down by General Lexicology, a general theory of vocabulary.

There is also a close relationship between Lexicology and Stylistics or, to be more exact, Linguо-Stуlistiсs (Linguistic Stylistics). Linguo-Stylistics is concerned with the study of the nature, functions and structure of stylistic devices, on the one hand, and with the investigation of each style of language, on the other i.e. with its aim, its structure, its characteristic features and the effect it produces as well as its interrelation with the other styles of language.

§ 2. Two Approaches to Language Study

There are two principal approaches in linguistic science to the study of language material, namely the synchronic (Gr. syn- 'together, with' and chronos - 'time') and the diachronic (Gr. dia- 'through') approach. Withregard to Special Lexicology the synchronic approach is concerned with the vocabulary of a language as it exists at a given time, for instance, at the present time. It is special Dеsсгiptive

Lexicology that deals with the vocabulary and vocabulary units of a particular language at a certain time. A Course in Modern English Lexicology is therefore a course in Special Descriptive Lexicology, its object of study being the English vocabulary as it exists at the present time.

The diachronic approach in terms of Special Lexicology deals with the changes and the development of vocabulary in the course of time. It is special Historical Lexicology that deals with the evolution of the vocabulary units of a language as time goes by. An English Historical Lexicology would be concerned, therefore, with the origin of English vocabulary units, their change and development, the linguistic and extralin-guistic factors modifying their structure, meaning and usage within the history of the English language.

It should be emphatically stressed that the distinction between the synchronic and the diachronic study is merely a difference of approach separating for the purposes of investigation what in real language is inseparable. The two approaches should not be contrasted, or set one against the other; in fact, they are intrinsically interconnected and inlerde-pendent:every linguistic structure and system actually exists in a state of constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evolution, of its historical development.

A good example illustrating both the distinction between the two approaches and their interconnection is furnished by the words to beg and beggar.

Synchronically, the words to beg and beggar are related as a simple and a derived word, the noun beggar being the derived member of the pair, for the derivative correlation between the two is the same as in the case of to sing— singer, to teach— teacher, etc. When we approach the problem diachronically, however, we learn that the noun beggar was borrowed from Old French and only presumed to have been derived from a shorter word, namely the verb to beg, as in the English language agent nouns are commonly derived from verbs with the help of the agent suffix -er.

Closely connected with Historical Lexicology is Contrastive and Comparative Lexicology whose aims are to study the correlation between the vocabularies of two or more languages, and find out the correspondences between the vocabulary units of the languages under comparison. Needless to say, one can hardly overestimate the importance of Contrastive Lexicology as well as of Comparative Linguistics in general for the purpose of class-room teaching of foreign languages. Of primary importance in this respect is the comparison of the foreign language with the mother tongue.

§ 3. Lexicology and Sociolinguistics. It is a matter of common knowledge that the vocabulary of any language is never stable, never static, but is constantly changing, growing and decaying. The changes in the vocabulary of a language are due both to linguistic and extralinguistic causes or to a combination of both. The extralinguistic causes are determined by the social nature of the language. In this respect there is a tremendous difference between Lexicology, on the one hand, and Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, on the other. Words, to a far greater degree than sounds, grammatical forms, or syntactical arrangements, are subject to change, for the wordstock of a language directly and immediately reacts to changes in social life, to whatever happens in the life of the speech community in question. To illustrate the

immediate connection between the development of vocabulary and the extralinguistic causes a few examples will suffice.

The intense development of science and technology has lately given birth to a great number of new words such as computer, cyclotron, radar, psycholinguistics, etc.; the conquest and research of outer space contributed words like sputnik, lunokhod, babymoon, moon-car, spaceship, etc. It is significant that the suffix -nik occurring in the noun sputnik is freely applied to new words of various kinds, e.g. flopnik, mousenik, woofnik, etc.

The factor of the social need also manifests itself in the mechanism of wordformation. Among the adjectives with the suffix -y derived from noun stems denoting fabrics (cf. silky, velvety, woolly, etc.) the adjective tweedy stands out as meaning not merely resembling or like tweed but rather 'of sports style'. It is used to describe the type of appearance (or style of clothes) which is characteristic of a definite social group, namely people going in for country sports. Thus, the adjective tweedy in this meaning defines a notion which is specific for the speech community in question and is, therefore, sociolinguistically conditioned.

From the above-adduced examples it follows that in contrast with Phonology, Morphology and Syntax, Lexicology is essentially a sociolin-guistic science. The lexicologist should always take into account correlations between purely linguistic facts and the underlying social facts which brought them into existence, his research should be based on establishing scientifically grounded interrelation and points of contact which have come into existence between the language and the social life of the speech community in question.

§ 4. Lexical Units

It was pointed out above that Lexicology studies various lexical units: morphemes, words, variable word-groups and phraseological units. We proceed from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of language system, the largest on the morphologic and the smallest on the syntactic plane of linguistic analysis. The word is a structural and semantic entity within the language system.

It should be pointed out that there is another approach to the concept of the basic language unit. The criticism of this viewpoint cannot be discussed within the framework of the present study. Suffice it to say that here we consistently proceed from the concept of the word as the basic unit in all the branches of Lexicology. Both words and phraseological units are names for things, namely the names of actions, objects, qualities, etc. Unlike words proper, however, phraseological units are wordgroups consisting of two or more words whose combination is integrated as a unit with a specialized meaning of the whole. To illustrate, the lexical or to be more exact the vocabulary units table, wall, taxi are words denoting various objects of the outer world; the vocabulary units black frost, red tape, a skeleton in the cupboard are phraseological units: each is a word-group with a specialized meaning of the whole, namely black frost is 'frost without snow or rime', red tape denotes bureaucratic methods, a skeleton in the cupboard refers to a fact of which a family is ashamed and which it tries to hide.

§ 5. Varieties of Words

Although the ordinary speaker is acutely word-conscious and usually finds no difficulty either in isolating words from an utterance or in identifying them in the process of communication, the precise linguistic definition of a word is far from easy to state; no exhaustive definition of the word has yet been given by linguists.

The word as well as any linguistic sign is a two-facet unit possessing both form and content or, to be more exact, sound form and meaning. Neither can exist without the other. For example, [θimbl] is a word within the framework of the English

language primarily because it has the lexical meaning — 'a small cap of metal, plastic, etc. worn on the finger in sewing.. .' (Bulg. напръстник) and the grammatical

meaning of the Common case, singular. In other languages it is not a word, but a meaningless sound-cluster.

When used in actual speech the word undergoes certain modification and functions in one of its forms.

The system showing a word in all its word-forms is called its para-digm. The lexical meaning of a word is the same throughout the paradigm i.e. all the wordforms of one and the same word are lexically identical. The grammatical meaning varies from one form to another (cf. to take, takes, took, taking or singer, singer's, singers, singers'). Therefore, when we speak of the word singer or the word take as used in actual utterances (cf., His brother is a well-known singer or I wonder who has taken my umbrella) we use the term word conventionally, because what is manifested in the speech event is not the word as a whole but one of its forms which is identified as belonging to one definite paradigm. (Each part of speech is characterized by a paradigm of its own. Nouns are declined, verbs conjugated, qualitative adjectives have degrees of comparison. Some adverbs also have degrees of comparison (e.g. well, badly, etc.), others are immutable (e.g. here, there, never). Word-forms constituting a paradigm may be both synthetic and analytic. Unlike synthetic forms an analytic form is composed of two separate components (cf. (he) takes ... and (he) has taken ...). In some cases the system of word-forms combines different roots (cf. to go - went - gone; good - better - best).)

There are two approaches to the paradigm: (a) as a system of forms of one word it reveals the differences and relationships between them; (b) in abstraction from concrete words it is treated as a pattern on which every word of one part of speech models its forms, thus serving to distinguish one part of speech from another. Cf. the noun paradigm— ( ), -' s -s, -s' as distinct from that of the regular verb—( ), - s, -ed2, - ed2, -ing, etc. {The symbol ( ) stands for the so-called zero-inflection, i. e. the significant absence of an inflectional affix.}

Besides the grammatical forms of words, i.e. word-forms, some scholar distinguish lexical varieties which they term variants of words Distinction is made between two basic groups of variants of words.

In actual speech a word or to be more exact a polysemantic word is used in one of its meanings. Such a word in one of its meanings is described as lexico-semantic variant. Thus Group One comprises lexico semantic variants, i.e. polysemantic words

in each of their meanings, as exemplified by the meaning of the verb to learn in word-groups like to learn at school, cf. to learn about (of) smth, etc.

Group Two comprises phonetic and morphological variants. As exam ples of

phonetic variants the pronouncing variants of the adverbs often and again can be given, cf. ['o:fn] and ['oft@n], [@'gein] and [@'gen] The two variant forms of the past

indefinite tense of verbs like to learn illustrate morphological variants, cf. learned [- d] and learnt [-t]. Parallel formations of the geologic—geological, phonetic— phonetical type also enter the group of morphological variants. { Pairs of vocabulary items like economic — economically or historic — historical differing in meaning cannot be regarded as morphiological variants.}

It may be easily observed that the most essential feature of variant of words of both groups is that a slight change in the morphemic or pho nemic composition of a word is not connected with any modification of its meaning and, vice versa, a change in meaning is not followed by any structural changes, either morphemic or phonetic. Like word-forms vari ants of words are identified in the process of communication as making up one and the same word. Thus, within the language system the word exists as a system and unity of all its forms and variants.

II. Semasiology

By definition Lexicology deals with word, word-forming morphemes (derivational affixes) and word-groups of phrases. All these linguistic units may be said to have meaning of some kind: they are all significant and therefore must be investigated both as forms and meaning. The branch of lexicology that is devoted to the study of meaning is known as Semasiology. (Sometimes the term Semantics is used too).

It should be pointed out that just as lexicology is beginning to absorb a major part of the efforts of linguistic scientists, semasiology is coming to the fore as the central problem of linguistic investigation of all levels of language structure. It is suggested that semasiology has for its subject matter not only the study of lexicon, but also of morphology, syntax and sentential semantics. Words, however, play such a crucial part in the structure of language that when we speak of semasiology without any qualification, we usually refer to the study of word-meaning proper, although it is in fact very common to explore the semantics of other elements, such as suffixes, prefixes, etc. Meaning is one of the most controversial terms in the theory of language. At first sight the understanding of the term in this term seems to present no difficulty at al - it is freely used in teaching, interpreting and translation. The scientific definition of meaning however just as the definition of some other basic linguistic terms such as word, sentence, etc., has been the issue of interminable discussions. Since there is no universally accepted definition of meaning the material presented here shall confine to a brief survey of the problem as it is viewed in modern linguistics both in our country and elsewhere.

WORD MEANING

§ 1. Referential Approach to 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 what meaning is than with how it works.

All major works on semantic theory have so far been based on referential concepts of meaning. The essential feature of this 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 or that aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers. The best known referential model of meaning is the so-called "basic triangle" which, with some variations, underlies the semantic systems of all the adherents of this school of thought. In a simplified form the triangle may be represented as shown below:

Concept, thought, reference, meaning designation

As can be seen from the diagram the sound-form of the linguistic sign, e.g. [dVv], is connected with our concept of the bird which it denotes and through it with the referent, i.e. the actual bird.1 The common feature of any referential approach is the implication that meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent.

Let us now examine the place of meaning in this model. It is easily observed that the sound-form of the word is not identical with its meaning, e.g. [dVv] is the soundform used to denote a pearl-grey bird. There is no inherent connection, however, between this particular sound-cluster and the meaning of the word dove. The connection is conventional and arbitrary. This can be easily proved by comparing the sound-forms of different languages conveying one and the same meaning, e.g. English [dVv], Russian [golub], German [taube], Bulgarian [гълъб] and so on. It can also be proved by comparing almost identical sound-forms that possess different meaning in different languages. The sound-cluster [kOt], e.g. in the English language means 'a small, usually swinging bed for a child', but in the Russian language essentially the same sound-cluster possesses the meaning 'male cat'.

As terminological confusion has caused much misunderstanding and often makes it difficult to grasp the semantic concept of different linguists we find it necessary to

mention the most widespread terms used in modern linguistics to denote the three components described above:

sound-form — concept — referent symbol — thought or reference — referent sign — meaning — thing meant

sign — designation — denotatum

For more convincing evidence of the conventional and arbitrary nature of the connection between sound-form and meaning all we have to do is to point to the homonyms. The word seal [si:l], e.g., means '.a piece of wax, lead', etc.stamped with a design; its homonym seal [si:l] possessing the same sound-form denotes 'a sea animal'.

Besides, if meaning were inherently connected with the sound-form of a linguistic unit, it would follow that a change in sound-form would necessitate a change of meaning. We know, however, that even considerable changes in the sound-form of a

word in the course of its historical development do not necessarily affect its meaning. The sound-form of the OE. word lufian [lufi@n] has undergone great changes, and

has been transformed into love [lVv], yet the meaning 'hold dear, bear love', etc. has remained essentially unchanged.

When we examine a word we see that its meaning though closely connected with the underlying concept or concepts is not identical with them. To begin with, concept is a category of human cognition. Concept is the thought of the object that singles out its essential features. Our concepts abstract and reflect the most common and typical features of the different objects and phenomena of the world. Being the result of abstraction and generalization, all concepts are thus intrinsically almost the same for the whole of humanity in one and the same period of its historical development. The meanings of words however are different in different languages. That is to say, words expressing identical concepts may have different meanings and different semantic structures in different languages. The concept of 'a building for human habitation' is expressed in English by the word house, in Bulgarian by the word дом, but the meaning of the English word is not identical with that of the Bulgarian as house does not possess the meaning of 'fixed residence of family or household' which is one of the meanings of the Bulgarian word дом; it is expressed by another English polysemantic word, namely home which possesses a number of other meanings not to be found in the Bulgarian word дом.

The difference between meaning and concept can also be observed by comparing synonymous words and word-groups expressing essentially the same concepts but possessing linguistic meaning which is felt as different in each of the units under consideration, e.g. big, large; to die, to pass away, to kick the bucket, to join the majority; child, baby, babe, infant.

The precise definition of the content of a concept comes within the sphere of logic but it can be easily observed that the word-meaning is not identical with it. For instance, the content of the concept six can be expressed by 'three plus three', 'five plus one', or 'ten minus four', etc. Obviously, the meaning of the word six cannot be identified with the meaning of these word-groups.

To distinguish meaning from the referent, i.e. from the thing denoted by the linguistic sign is of the utmost importance, and at first sight does not seem to present difficulties. To begin with, meaning is linguistic whereas the denoted object or the referent is beyond the scope of language. We can denote one and the same object by more than one word of a different meaning. For instance, in a speech situation an apple can be denoted by the words apple, fruit, something, this, etc, as all of these words may have the same referent. Meaning cannot be equated with the actual properties of the referent, e.g. the meaning of the word water cannot be regarded as identical with its chemical formula H2Q as water means essentially the same to all English speakers including those who have no idea of its chemical composition. Last but not least there are words that have distinct meaning but do not refer to any existing thing, e.g. angel or phoenix. Such words have meaning which is understood by the speaker-hearer, but the objects they denote do not exist.

Thus, meaning is not to be identified with any of the three points of the triangle.

§ 2. Meaning in the Referential Approach

It should be pointed out that among the adherents of the referential approach there are some who hold that the meaning of a linguistic sign is the concept underlying it, and consequently they substitute meaning for concept in the basic triangle. Others identify meaning with the referent. They argue that unless we have a scientifically accurate knowledge of the referent we cannot give a scientifically accurate definition of the meaning of a word. According to them the English word salt e.g., means 'sodium chloride (NaCl)’. But how are we to define precisely the meanings of such words as love or hate, etc.? We must admit that the actual extent of human knowledge makes it impossible to define word-meanings accurately. It logically follows that any study of meanings in linguistics along these lines must be given up as impossible.

Here we have sought to show that meaning is closely connected but not identical with sound-form, concept or referent. Yet even those who accept this view disagree as to the nature of meaning. Some linguists regard meaning as the interrelation of the three points of the triangle within the framework of the given language, i.e. as the interrelation of the sound-form, concept and referent, but not as an objectively existing part of the linguistic sign. Others and among them some outstanding Soviet linguists, proceed from the basic assumption of the objectivity of language and meaning and understand the linguistic sign as a two-facet unit. They view meaning as "a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations that makes part of the linguistic sign — its so-called inner facet, wh ereas the sound-form functions as its outer facet." The outer facet of the linguistic sign is indispensable to meaning and intercommunication. 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 may be briefly summarized as follows:

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 (i.e. actual things, phenomena, etc.) 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 concept, 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. The results of semantic investigation therefore depend to a certain extent on "the feel of the language" and cannot be verified by another investigator analysing the same linguistic data. It follows that semasiology has to rely too much on linguistic intuition and unlike other fields of linguistic inquiry (e.g. phonetics, history of language) does not possess objective methods of investigation. Consequently it is argued, linguists should either give up the study of meaning and the attempts to define meaning altogether, or confine their efforts to the investigation of the function of linguistic signs in speech.

§ 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 LINGUISTIC UNITS AND NOT THROUGH ITS RELATION TO EITHER CONCEPT OR REFERENT. In a very simplified form this view may be illustrated by the following: we know, for instance, 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 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), preceded 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), preceded by an adjective (slow movement), and so on. As the distribution of the two words is different, we are entitled to the conclusion that not only do they belong to different classes of words, but that their meanings are different too. [By the term distribution we understand the position of a linguistic unit in relation to other linguistic units.]

The same is true of the different meanings of one and the same word. Analysing the function of a word in linguistic contexts and comparing these contexts, we conclude that meanings are different (or the same) and this fact can be proved by an objective investigation of linguistic data. For example, we can observe the difference of the meanings of the word take if we examine its functions in different linguistic contexts, take fee, tram (the taxi, the cab, etc.) as opposed to to take to somebody.

It follows that in the functional approach (1) semantic investigation is confined to the analysis of the difference or sameness of meaning; (2) meaning is understood essentially as the function of the use of linguistic units. As a matter of fact, this line of semantic investigation is the primary concern, implied or expressed, of all structural linguists.

§ 4. Relation between the two approaches

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. It is only natural that linguistic investigation must start by collecting an adequate number of samples of contexts. [It is of interest to note that the functional approach is sometimes described as contextual, as it is based on the analysis of various contexts. See, e. g., St. Ullmann. Semantics. Oxford, 1962, pp. 64-67.] On examination, the meaning or meanings of linguistic units will emerge from the contexts themselves. Once this phase had been completed it seems but logical to pass on to the referential phase and try to formulate the meaning thus identified. There is absolutely no need to set the two approaches against each other; each handles its own side of the problem and neither is complete without the other.

TYPES OF MEANING

It is more or less universally recognized that word-meaning is not homogeneous but is made up of various components the combination and the interrelation of which determine to a great extent the inner facet of the word. These components are usually described as types of meaning. The two main types of meaning that are readily observed are the grammatical and the lexical meanings to be found in words and word-forms.

§ 5. Grammatical Meaning

We notice, e.g., that word-forms, such as girls, winters, joys, tables, etc. though denoting widely different objects of reality have something in common.

This common element is the grammatical meaning of plurality which can be found in all of them.

Thus grammatical meaning may be defined as the component of meaning recurrent 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 the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (girl's, boy's, night's,etc.).

In a broad sense it may be argued that linguists who make a distinction between lexical and grammatical meaning are, in fact, making a distinction between the functional (linguistic) meaning which operates at various levels as the interrelation of various linguistic units and referential (conceptual) meaning as the interrelation of linguistic units and referents (or concepts).

In modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some elements of grammatical meaning can be identified by the position of the linguistic unit in relation to other linguistic units, i.e. by its distribution. Word-forms speaks, reads, writes have one and the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in