Questions and Tasks

1. Why the word is the basic unit of the language?

2. Why the word is considered to be a linguistic sign?

3. What are the main structural features of the word?

4. What is the word’s integrity?

5. Why is it difficult to give a satisfying definition of the word?

6. What are the main functions of the word?

7. What are the main means and corresponding types of nomination?

8. What’s the difference between the primary and secondary nomination? Give examples.

9. What is motivation? Give examples of motivated and unmotivated lexical units.

10. What is a lexeme? What variants of lexemes do you know? Give examples.

Chapter 2 semasiology. The problem of meaning

1. Referential and Functional Approaches to Meaning

Semasiology (Greek semasia ‘meaning’) is a branch of lexicology investigating meaning of language units. It is universally accepted that language units having meanings are morphemes (the smallest meaningful units), words (lexemes), word combinations (phrases), sentences. The problem of phonetic meaning is controversial [Журавлев 1974]. There is also the term semantics which refers to the content of language and speech units. It is used in the following word combinations: semantics of the word, semantics of the sentence, semantics of the text, etc. Also this term refers to logical semantics.

As it was mentioned above, meaning is the inner facet of the word as a linguistic sign, its content. The very function of the word as a unit of communication is made possible by its possessing a meaning. Besides, meaning is a linking element between the objects of extra-linguistic reality (also qualities, processes) and the sound sequences which are the names of the objects. Therefore, meaning is the most important property of the word.

The problem of meaning has a long tradition in linguistics. Philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome were interested in relations between the name and the thing named and what role meaning plays in these relations.

There are two main approaches to the problem of meaning in modern linguistics: referential and functional. The referential approach (or theory) has a long tradition. It proceeds from the assumption that the word as a name is related to a thing (object) it names, which is called a referent (denotatum). The word ‘referent’ allows twofold interpretation. It denotes either a certain object, quality, process (real or imaginary) in actual situations of speech as in sentences: ‘The pen is on the table’ or ‘The book is interesting’, or a class of objects as pen (a class of pens) different from pencil (a class of pencils) or table different from chair, etc. It means that the word has a generating function.

The classes of things having names are distinguished by certain features, or properties, inherent in them. These features make up the concept of the object in our minds. The generating function of the word is most obvious in such contexts as The dog is a domestic animal, where the objects named refer to a class. In order to give a name to an object, one should form the notion, or concept of it, i.e. one must know the salient features of the object which differentiate it from other objects. Hence there is interrelation between word (its outer facet - a sound or graphic form), concept and referent which is represented by the so-called semantic triangle offered by the British linguists C.K.Ogden and I.A.Richards [Ogden, Richards 1946]:

By ‘linguistic symbol’ here is meant the sound or graphic form of the word. The dotted line suggests that there is no immediate relation between word and referent: it is established only through context. Hence, meaning in referential approach is a component of the word through which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with the ability of denoting objects, qualities, phenomena, actions and abstract notions. One should bear in mind that though meaning is related both to referent and concept, it is not identical to either of them.

Meaning is not identical to referent (denotatum) as the latter, be it a single object referred to, or a class of objects belongs to extra-linguistic reality while meaning is a linguistic category. One and the same object can be named by different words, having different meanings. A woman can be called mother, sister, lady, doctor, etc. Not every word is related to really existing objects, some of the referents are fantastic or imaginary ones (e.g. dragon, devil).

Meaning is neither identical to concept as the latter is a category of cognition, i.e. it is a mental but not a linguistic phenomenon. Concepts reflect general and prominent features of objects and phenomena while meanings mostly fix features differentiating objects. Concepts are more or less identical for peoples speaking different languages, but meanings may be different. For example, the concept of house is identical for people speaking English and Russian languages as it is ‘a place for human habitation’, but the Russian word дом has a wider volume of meaning than the English word house as it embraces meanings of both the words house and home.

Synonyms more often than not reflect one and the same concept but differ in components of meaning. Thus the concept which refers to the initial phase of certain activities is reflected in the meanings of synonymous lexemes to begin (to start, take the first step), to start (to begin to do sth., begin an action), to commence (formal – begin, start), to initiate (set a scheme, etc working), to inaugurate (introduce a new official at a special ceremony). Each of these synonyms has its own meaning which brings to light a certain aspect of the underlying concept.

The above-mentioned correlation of word, concept and referent underlies certain definitions of meaning. Though the users of the language freely operate with the notion of meaning, giving a satisfying definition to meaning is no less easy matter than giving a definition to the word due to complexity of both notions. Definitions based on relations of the word and the referent are called ostensive, or referential. Such definitions are illustrative. In fact an ostensive definition is pointing at the corresponding referent and this method of defining words is widely used in teaching languages.

Ostensive definitions, however, are not free of shortcomings. Mere pointing at the object is not enough to give a satisfying definition of the word. Besides, the meanings of such abstract nouns as, for example, beauty, idea, verbs and adjectives as think, interesting, conjunctions, etc. are impossible to define by pointing at their referents. Thus ostensive definitions are applicable only to a relatively limited number of words, the so-called denotative, or identifying words, i.e. the words referring to material objects. The so-called predicative, or characterizing names, referring to properties and manifestations of objects or relations between the objects, cannot be defined ostensively [Харитончик 1992: 31]

A number of conceptual definitions of meaning based on interrelations between the word and the concept were put forward by linguists. For instance V.V.Vinogradov defines “lexical meaning of the word as its conceptual content, which is formed according to grammatical norms of the given language and is an element of the lexico-semantic system of the language” [Виноградов 1953].

Professor A.I.Smirnitsky proceeded from the basic assumption of the objectivity of language and meaning, and understanding the linguistic sign as a two-facet unit. He defined meaning as “a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations (or imaginary constructions as mermaid, goblin, witch) that makes part of the linguistic sign – its so-called inner facet, whereas the sound form functions as its outer facet, its material shape...” [Смирницкий 1956: 152].

O.N.Sеliverstova defines meaning as information contained in the word [Селиверстова 1975].

Conceptual definitions were subject to criticism on the grounds that they are not purely linguistic and to a certain extent subjective. Besides some linguists claim that despite the obvious interrelation between the word meaning, the referent and the concept, it is not sufficient to elucidate the linguistic essence of the word meaning.

The functional approach aims at giving a purely linguistic definition of meaning thus overcoming the shortcomings of the above-mentioned definitions. According to this approach “meaning of the word is its functioning in speech” (Witgenstein) [Витгенштейн 1985]. This approach is based on the assumption that the meaning of a linguistic unit should be investigated in actual speech through its relations to other linguistic units and not through its relation to either concept or referent. For instance, the word black has different meanings in contexts: a black hat, black sorrow, Black Death. The functional approach helps us determine meanings of words in different contexts. However, it would be erroneous to fully identify the meaning and function of the word. Contexts indicate the meaningful differences of word meanings, but words have meanings outside contexts and it is not always possible to determine word meaning without correlating the word with its referent no matter how many contexts of its usage might be produced [Харитончик 1992: 34].

The referential and functional approaches should not be opposed to one another. The best way to have better understanding of meaning would be using both approaches in combination. They supplement each other and will provide a deeper understanding of such a complex linguistic phenomenon as meaning.

At present one more trend in semantic theory initiated by foreign linguists W.Chafe, Ch.Fillmore, J.Lakoff, R.Jackendoff, R.Langacker and others is being developed within the cognitive linguistic theory which got the name of theory of prototypes. It proceeds from the cognitive function of the language. Language is a very important instrument of human cognition with the help of which people get knowledge of the world and fix the new facts they learn in the language. Linguistic categories are conceptual categories of cognition. The interpretation of semantic phenomena is based on the sense underlying the word meaning which comes to light in the course of human experience and is important for distinguishing one object from another.

The word meaning in the cognitive approach is treated as the prototype of the object it refers to. This understanding of word meaning proceeds from human experience and perception of the reality and tends to reflect the peculiarities of human cognition of the world. The prototype of the object is formed in the course of observations and experiments when a human being discovers certain cognitive, or prototypical features of objects which distinguish this object from others and make up its prototype. For example, in order to distinguish fish from other living creatures one must know that the fish are animals living in water having gills and fins, etc. – these are the prototypical features of the object which got the name of fish. This theory differs from other semantic theories inasmuch as it takes into account the human factor in the processes of cognition and the language.