§ 12. Some Debatable Problems of Lexicology

Counting up vocabulary units we usually proceed from the assumption that the English lexicon comprises not only words but also phraseological units. The term “phraseological unit” however allows of different interpretation.² If the term is to be taken as including all types of set expressions, then various lexical items ranging from two-word groups the meaning of which is directly inferred from the meaning of its components, e.g. to win a victory, to lose one’s balance, etc. to proverbs and sayings, e.g. It Is the early bird that catches the worm, That is where the shoe pinches, etc. have to be counted as separate lexical units on a par with individual words. Thus in the case of to win a victory we must record three vocabulary units: the verb to win, the noun victory and the phraseological unit to win a victory. If however we hold that it is only the set expressions functioning as word-equivalents are to be treated as phraseological units, to win a victory is viewed as a variable, (free) word-group and consequently must not be counted as a separate lexical item. The results of vocabulary counts will evidently be different.

Another debatable point closely connected with the problem of the number of vocabulary units in English is one of the least investigated problems of lexicology — the border-line between homonymy and polysemy when approached synchronically and divergent views concerning lexico-grammatical homonymy.³ If identical sound-forms, e.g. work (n) and work (v) are considered to be different grammatical and semantic variants of the same word, they are accordingly treated as one word. This conception naturally tends to diminish the total number of

¹ See Horman A. Estrin and Donald V. Mehus, The American Language in the 1970s, USA, 1974. See also C. Barnhart, op. cit.

² See ‘Word-Groups and Phraseological Units’, § 11, p. 74.

³ See ‘Semasiology’, §§ 37-39, pp. 43 — 47.

195

vocabulary units in English. In some cases of lexical homonymy the boundary line between various meanings of one polysemantic word and the meanings of two homonymous words is not sufficiently sharp and clear and allows of different approaches to the problem.¹ Thus, e.g., words like fly — ‘a two-winged insect’ and fly — ‘a flap of cloth covering the buttons on a garment’ may be synchronically treated as two different words or as different meanings of the same word.²

Next comes the problem of word and word variants. If, for example, we consider the clippings doc, prof, etc. as variants of the words doctor, professor, etc., we must count prof and professor, doc and doctor as two words having each two variants. If, however, we regard them as different words having each of them its sound-form and ’semantic structure, we shall count them as four separate words.

There is one more point of interest in connection with the problem of the number of words that should be mentioned here. Paradoxical as it may seem a great number of lexical items actually used by English-speaking people cannot practically be counted. These words are usually referred to as “occasional”, “potential” or “nonce-words". The terms imply that vocabulary units of this type are created for a given occasion only and may be considered as but “potentially” existing in English vocabulary. They may be used by any member of the speech community whenever the need to express a certain concept arises. These are derived and compound words which are formed on highly productive and active word-building patterns.³ Some of these word-formation patterns and affixes are so active and productive as “to make even a representative sampling beyond our resources".⁴ In fact the suffix -er, e.g., may be added to almost any verbal stem to form a noun denoting the agent of the action. If we count up all the words that may be formed in this way, the number of vocabulary units will be considerably magnified.

It is clear from the above that the divergent views concerning the nature of basic vocabulary units cannot but affect the estimate of the size of English vocabulary in terms of exact figures.