37. Word meaning

The fundamental unit of language is a word. The problem associated with the definition of the term "word" is some of the most complex in the analysis of linguistic structure, because the simplest word has many different aspects. It has a sound form because it is a certain arrangement of phonemes; it has its morphological structure, being also a certain arrangement of morphemes; when used in actual speech it may occur in different word forms, different syntactic functions and signal various meanings. The unit "word" has been reinterpreted by many scholars in many ways. We can accept that a word is the smallest significant unit of a given language capable of functioning alone and characterized by positional mobility within a sentence, morphological uninterruptability and semantic integrity.

Another controversial term in the theory of language is meaning. Meaning is the reverberation in human consciousness of an object or extra linguistic reality (a phenomenon, relationships, a quality, a process) which becomes a fact of language because of its constant indissoluble association with a definite linguistic expression. In modern linguistics there are two main approaches in treating the problem of word meaning: a) through establishing the interrelations between words and concepts which they denote - the so-called referential approach; b) through the observations of the functional use of a word in speech - the functional approach.

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 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".

CONCEPT

SOUND FORM REFERENT

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

Let's examine the place of meaning in this diagram. It is easily observed that the sound-form (symbol) is not identical with its meaning ([kset] is the sound-form used to denote a small domestic animal with soft fur kept as a pet or for catching mice). The connections between sound-forms and meanings are conventional and arbitrary. It can be easily proved comparing sound-forms of different languages conveying one and the same meaning (English [dAv],Ukr [golub]). It can be also proved by comparing identical sound-forms that possess different meaning {night- knight). Besides, if meaning were inherently connected with the sound-form, it would mean that a change in symbol would necessitate a change of meaning (OE lufian has been transformed into love but the meaning remained 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. Concept is a category of human cognition. Concept is the thought of the object that singles out its essentia! features. Our concepts are abstract and reflect the most common and typical features of the different objects and phenomena of tie 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 semantic structures in different languages. The concept for "a building for human habitation" is expressed in English by the word house, in Ukrainian - дім, but the meaning of the English word is not identical with that one of the Ukrainian as house does not possess the meaning of "fixed residence of family or household" which is part of the meaning of the Ukrainian word дім; it is expressed by another English word, namely home.

To distinguish meaning from referent, i.e. from the thing denoted by the linguistic sign is of the utmost importance. First of all, 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, an apple can be denoted by the words apple, fruit, something, this, etc. as all of these words may have the same referent. Meaning can not be equated with the actual properties of the referent.

Thus, meaning is not to be identified with any of the three points of the triangle. Meaning is closely connected but not identical with sound-form, concept and referent.

The functional approach maintains that a linguistic study of meaning is the investigation of the relation of sign to sign only. In other words, they hold the view that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to either concept or referent.

e.g.: We know that the meaning of the two words a step and to step is different because they function in speech differently. To step may be followed by an adverb, a step cannot, but it may be preceded by an adjective.

The same is true of the different meanings of 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): to take a tram, taxi as opposed to to take to somebody. Hence, meaning can be viewed as the function of distribution.

When comparing the two approaches described above we see that the functional approach should not be considered as alternative, but rather a valuable complement to the referential theory. 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.