Exercises in lexicology

Questions:

Prove that all elements of language are interdependent.

What makes phonetics important for lexicology?

How do stylistic and lexicology correlate?

Prove that grammar is closely connected with lexicology.

Can grammatical form influence the meaning of a word? Give examples.

How are lexical and grammatical meaning correlated?

Seminar 2 Semasiology

Meaning as a Linguistic Notion. Approaches to Meaning Study

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §2.1. Definitions [pp. 37-38]

The branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words and word equivalents is called semasiology.[…]If treated diachronically, semasiology studiesthe change in meaning which words undergo. Descriptive synchronic approach demands astudy not of individual words but of semantic structures typical of the language studied, and of its general semanticsystem.

The main objects of semasiological study […] are as follows: semantic development of words, its causes and classification, relevant distinctive features and types of lexical meaning, polysemy and semantic structure of words, semantic grouping and connections in the vocabulary system, i.e. synonyms, antonyms, terminological systems, etc.

An exact definition of any basic term is no easy task altogether. In the case of lexical meaning it becomes especially difficult due to the complexity of the process by which language and human mind serve to reflect outward reality and to adapt it to human needs.

In our country the definitions of meaning given by various authors, though different in detail, agree in the basic principle: they all point out that lexical meaning is the realization of concepts or emotions by means of a definite languagesystem. The definition stresses that semantics studies only such meanings that can be expressed, that is concepts bound by signs.

It has also been repeatedly stated that the plane of content in speech reflects the whole of human consciousness, which comprises not only mental activity but emotions, volition, etc. as well. The mentalistic approach to meaning treating it only as a concept expressed by a word oversimplifies the problem because it takes into consideration only the referential function of words. Actually, however, all the pragmatic functions of language -- communicative, emotive, evaluative, phatic, esthetic, etc., are also relevant and have to be accounted for in semasiology, because they show the attitude of the speaker to the thing spoken of, to his interlocutor and to the situation in which the act of communication takes place.

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, Word-meaning, §1. Referential Approach to Meaning, §2. Meaning in the Referential Approach, §3. Functional Approach to Meaning, §4. Relation between the Two Approaches [pp. 13-18]

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 isthan 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.

It should be pointed out that among the adherents of the referential approach thereare 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 thereferent 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 aslove orhate, 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, whereas 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.

In recent years a new and entirely different approach to meaning known as thefunctional approach has begun to take shape in linguistics and especially in structural linguistics. The functional approach maintains that the meaningof a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to other linguistic units and not through its relation either to 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 wordsmove andmovement 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 wordmovement 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 areentitled to the conclusion that not only do they belong to different classes of words, but that their meanings are different too.

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 wordtake if we examine its functions in different linguistic contexts, take the tram (the taxi, the cab, etc.) as opposed toto 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.

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. 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.

I.V. Zykova, A Practical Course in English Lexicology, Meaning as a Linguistic Notion, [pp. 11-15]

There are three main categories of definitions of meaning which may be referred to as

referential or analytical definitions of meaning;

functional or contextual definitions of meaning;

operational or information-oriented definitions of meaning.

The essential characteristic of the referential approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning:

1)the sound-form of the linguistic sign;

2)the concept underlying this sound-form;

3)the referent, i.e. the part or aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers.

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

The referential definitions of meaning are usually criticized on the ground that: 1) they cannot be applied to sentences; 2) they cannot account for certain semantic additions emerging in the process of communication; 3) they fail to account for the fact that one word may denote different objects and phenomena (polysemy) while one and the same object may be denoted by different words (synonymy).

The functional approach to meaning maintains that the meaning of a linguistic unit can be studied only through its relation to other linguistic units. According to the given approach the meanings of the words to move and movement are different because these words function in speech differently, i.e. occupy different positions in relation to other words. To move can be followed by a noun (to move a chair) and preceded bya pronoun (we moue). Movement may be followed by a preposition (movement of a car) and preceded by an adjective (slow movement). The position of a word in relation to other words is called distribution of the word. As the distribution of the words to move and movement is different they belong to different classes of words and their meanings are different.

The same is true of different meanings of one and the same word. Analyzing the function of a word in linguistic contexts and comparing these contexts, we conclude that meanings are different. For example, we can observe the difference of meanings of the verb to take if we examine its functions in different linguistic contexts, to take a seat ('to sit down') as opposed to to take to smb. ('to begin to like someone'). The term 'context' is defined as the minimum stretch of speech necessary and sufficient to determine which of the possible meanings of a polysemantic word is used.

The functional approach is sometimes described as contextual as it is based on the analysis of various contexts. In the functional approach which is typical of structural linguistics semantic investigation is confined to the analysis of the difference or sameness of meaning: meaning is understood as the function of a linguistic unit.

The operational or information-oriented definitions of meaning are centered on defining meaning through its role in the process of communication. Thus, this approach studies words in action and is more interested in how meaning works than in what it is. The information- oriented approach began to take shape with the growing interest of linguistics in the communicative aspect of the language when the object of study was shifted to relations between the language we use and the situations within which it is used, thus exploring the capacity of human beings to use the language appropriately.

Within the framework of the trend described meaning is defined as information conveyed from the speaker to the listener in the process of communication. This definition is applicable both to words and sentences and thus overcomes one of the alleged drawbacks of the referential approach. The problem is that it is more applicable to sentences than to words and even as such fails to draw a clear distinguishing line between the direct meaning and implication (additional information).

Thus, the sentence John came at 6 o'clock besides the direct meaning may imply that John 'was two hours late; failed to keep his promise; came though he did not want to; was punctual as usual, etc'. In each case the implication would depend on the concrete situation of communication and discussing meaning as information conveyed would amount to the discussion of an almost infinite set of possible communication situations. The distinction between the two layers in the information conveyed is soimportant that two different terms may be used to denote them. The direct information conveyed by the units constituting the sentence may be referred to as meaning while the information added to the extralinguistic situation may be called sense.

Questions:

What is semasiology?

What are objects of semasiology?

What is meaning in the common sense?

What are the two main approaches to the definition of meaning?

What is the notion of meaning in referential approach?

How does meaning correlate with sound-form, notion and referent within referential approach?

Criticise referential approach.

What is functional approach?

Give example of investigating the meaning of a word within functional approach.

How do the two approaches correlate?

What is operational approach? Give example, criticise it.

The Semantic Triangle. The Interrelation of Meaning with Sound-form, Referent and Concept.

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §2.2. Semantic Triangle, §3.2. The Lexical Meaning versus Notion [pp. 31-33, 42-47]

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 limy he represented by a triangle (see Fig. 1).



Here, according to F. de Saussure, only the relationship shown by the 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 Gotlieb 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 morelinguistic 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, followingC.K. Ogdenand 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.

[…] 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 generalized 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 theconcept that is put into the apex, then the meaning cannot be identified with any of the three points of the triangle.

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.

The termnotion (concept) is introduced into linguistics from logic and psychology. It denotes the reflection in the mind of real objects and phenomena in their essential features and relations. Each notion is characterized by its scope and content.The scope of the notion is determined by all the objects it refers to. The content of the notion is made up of all the features that distinguish it from other notions. The distinction between the scope and the content of a notion lies at the basis of such terms as the identifying (demonstrative) and significativefunctions of the word […]. The identifying function may be interpreted as denoting the objects covered by the scope of the notion expressed in the word, and the significative function is the function of expressing the content of the respective notion. The function of rendering an emotion or an attitude is termed the expressive function.

The relationship between the linguistic lexical meaning and the logical notion deserves special attention not only because they are apt to be confused but also because in comparing and contrasting them it is possible to achieve a better insight into the essence of both. In what follows this opposition will be treated in some detail.

I. The first essential point is thatthe relationship between notion and meaning varies. A word may have anotion for its referent.In the example A good laugh is sunshine in the house (Thackeray) every word evokes a general idea, a notion, without directly referring to any particular element of reality. The scope of the significative meaning and that of the notion coincide; on different levels they cover the same area. But aword may also have, and quite often has a particular individual subject for its referent as in "Do you remember what the young lady did with the telegram?" (Christie)

The problem of proper names is particularly complicated. It has been often taken for granted that they do not convey any generalized notion at all, that they only name human beings, countries, cities, animals, rivers, stars, etc. And yet, names like Moscow, the Thames, Italy, Byron evoke notions. Moreover, the notions called forth are particularly rich. The clue, as St. Ullmann convincingly argues, lies in the specific function of proper names which is identification, and not signifying.

Pronouns possess the demonstrative function almost to a complete exclusion of the significative function, i.e. they only point out, they do not impart any information about the object pointed out except for its relation to the speaker.

To sum up this first point: the logical notion is the referent of lexical meaning quite often but not always, because there may be other referents such as the real objects.

II. Secondly, notions are always emotionally neutral as they are a category of thoughts. Language, however, expresses all possible aspects of human consciousness. Therefore the meaning of many words not only conveys some reflection of objective reality but also connotations revealing the speaker's state of mind and his attitude to what he is speaking about. The following passage yields a good example: “Vile bug of a coward,” said Lypiatt, “why don't you defend yourself like a man?” (Huxley) Due to the unpleasant connotations the name bug acquires a negative emotional tone. The word man, on the contrary, has a positive connotation implying courage and firmness. When used in emotionally coloured situations emphatic syntactic structures and contexts, as in our example from Huxley, words accumulate emotional associations that finally blur their exact denotative meaning.

The content of the emotional component of meaning varies considerably. Emotionally charged words can cover the whole scale of both positive and negative emotions: admiration, respect, tenderness and other positive feelings, on the one hand, and scorn, irony, loathing, etc., on the other. Two or more words having the same denotative meaning may differ in emotional tone. In such oppositions as brat : : baby and kid : : child the denotative force of the right- and left-hand terms is the same but the left-hand terms are emotional whereas those on the right are neutral.

III. Thirdly, the absence not only of identity, but even of regular one-to-one correspondence between meaning and notion is clearly seen in words belonging to some specific stylistic level. This purely linguistic factor is relevant not for the content of the message but for the personality of the speaker, his background and his relations with his audience. The wording of the following example can serve to illustrate the point: "Well," said Kanga, "Fancy that! Fancy my making a mistake like that." (Milne) Fancy when used in exclamatory sentences not only expresses surprise but has a definite colloquial character and shows that the speaker and those who hear him are on familiar terms.

Summing up the second and the third points, one may say that owing to its linguistic nature the lexical meaning of many words cannot be divorced from the typical sphere where these wordare used and the typical contexts, and so bears traces of both, whereas anotion belongs to abstract logic and so has no ties with any stylistic sphere and does notcontain any emotive components.

IV. The linguistic nature of lexical meaning has very important consequences. Expressing a notion, a word does so in a way determined by the peculiarities of the lexical and grammatical systems of each particular language and by the various structural ties of the word in speech. Every word may be said to have paradigmatic ties relating it to other words and forms, and giving it a differential quality. These are its relations to other elements of the same thematic group, to synonymous and antonymous words, phraseological restrictions on its use and the type of words which may be derived from it. On the other hand, each word has syntagmatic ties characterizing the ordered linear arrangement of speech elements.

The lexical meaning of every word depends upon the part of speech to which the word belongs. Every word may be used in a limited set of syntactical functions, and with a definite valency. It has a definite set of grammatical meanings, and a definite set of forms.

In the lexical meaning of every separate word the lexico-grammatical meaning common to all the words of the class to which this word belongs is enriched by additional features and becomes particularized.

The meaning of a specific property in such words as bright, clear, good, quick, steady, thin is a particular realization of the lexico-grammatical meaning of qualitative adjectives. These adjectives always denote the properties of things capable of being compared and so have degrees of comparison. They refer to qualities that vary along a continuous scale and are called gradable. The scope of the notion rendered by the lexico-grammatical meaning of the class is much larger than the scope of the notion rendered by the lexical meaning of each individual word. The reverse also holds good: the content of the notion expressed by the lexico-grammatical meaning of the class is smaller, poorer in features than the content of the notion expressed by the lexical meaning of a word.

In summing up this fourth point, we note that the complexity of the notion is determined by the relationships of the extra-linguistic reality reflected in human consciousness. The structure of every separate meaning depends on the linguistic syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships because meaning is an inherent component of language. The complexity of each word meaning isdue to the fact that it combines lexical meaning with lexico-grammatical meaning and sometimes with emotional colouring, stylistic peculiarities and connotations born from previous usage.

V. The foregoing deals with separate meanings as realized in speech. If we turn to the meaning of words as they exist in language we shall observe that frequently used words are polysemantic.

In every language the combinatorial possibility of meanings in one word is specific. Thus, it is characteristic of English nouns to combine individual and collective, countable and uncountable variants in one phonetic complex. In verbs we observe different meanings based on the transitive and intransitive lexico-semantic variants of the same verb, as illustrated by the following examples: burn vt 'destroy by fire', vi 'be in flames'; hold vt 'contain, keep fast', vi 'be true'. See also different meanings of the verbs fire, fly, run, shake, turn, walk, warm, worry, etc.

Morphological derivation also plays a very important part in determining possible meaning combinations. Thus, for instance, nouns derived from verbs very often name not only the action itself but its result as well, e. g. show n 'the act of showing', 'an exhibition'.

All these examples are sufficient to prove the fifth point, namely, that the grouping of meanings is different from the grouping of notions.

VI. Last but not least, the difference between notion and meaning is based upon the fact that notions are mostly international, especially for nations with the same level of cultural development, whereas meaning may be nationally determined and limited. The grouping of meanings in the semantic structure of a word is determined by the whole system of every language, by its grammar and vocabulary, by the peculiar history both of the language in question and the people who speak it. These factors influence not only the mere presence and absence of this or that meaning in the semantic system of words that may be considered equivalent in different languages, but also their respective place and importance. Equivalent words may be defined as words of two different languages, the main lexical variants of which express or name the same notion, emotion or object. Their respective semantic structures (in the case of polysemantic words) show a marked parallelism, but this similarity is not absolute. Its degree may vary.

The meaning of every word forms part of the semantic system of each particular language and thus is always determined by the peculiarities of its vocabulary, namely the existence of synonyms, or words near in meaning, by the typical usage, set expressions and also by the words' grammatical characteristics depending on the grammatical system of each language.

A good illustration is given by the verb go. Its Russian equivalent is uдmu. The main meaning `move or pass from place to place' is common to both languages, as well as the meaning `extend' (e. g.: This road goes to London --Эma дорогаидетвЛондон); and so is the meaning `work' (Is your watch going? -- Идутливашичасы?). There is, however, quite a considerable number of meanings that do not coincide. This is partly due to the existence in the English vocabulary of the words come and walk that point out the direction and character of the movement. Cf.Вот, онидет! -- Here he comes! On the other hand the Russian language makes a distinction betweenидти andехать. So that the English go by train, go by bus cannot be translated as *идтинапоездеor *идтинаавтобусе.

There is quite a number of meanings that are realized only under certain specific structural conditions, such as: go fishing (skating, boating, skiing, mountain-climbing); go running (flying, screaming); go limp (pale, bad, blind); be going to... that have no parallel in Russian.

Summing up all the points of difference between the thing meant, the notion and the meaning, we can say that the lexical meaning of the word may be defined as the realization or naming of a notion, emotion or object by means of a definite language system subject to the influence of grammar and vocabulary peculiarities of that language. Words that express notions may also have some emotional or stylistic colouring or express connotations suggestive of the contexts in which they often appear. All the specific features that distinguish the lexical meaning from the notion are due to its linguistic nature. Expressing the notion is one of the word's functions but not the only one, as there are words that do not name any notion; their meaning is constituted by other functions. The development of the lexical meaning is influenced by thewhole complicated network of ties and relations between the words in a given vocabulary and between the vocabulary and other aspects of the language.

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §1. Referential Approach to Meaning [pp.14-16]

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:

As can be seen from the diagram the sound-form of the linguistic sign, e.g. [d?v], is connected with our concept of the bird which it denotes and through it with the referent, i.e. the actual bird. 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 -- designatum -- denotatum 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. [d?v] is the sound-form used to denote a peal-grey bird. There is no inherent connection, however, between this particular sound-cluster and the meaning of the worddove. 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 [d?v], Russian [golub'], German [taube] and so on. It can also be proved by comparing almost identical sound-forms that possess different meaning in different languages. The sound-cluster [k?t], 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'.

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 wordseal [si:l], e.g., means `a piece of wax, lead'', etc. stamped with a design; its homonymseal [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. wordlufian [luvian] has udergone great changes, and has been transformed intolove [l?v], 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 thatsingles 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 arid different semantic structures in different languages. The concept of `a building for human habitation' is expressed in English by the wordhouse, in Russian by the wordдом, but the meaning of the English word is not identical with that of the Russian as house does not possess the meaning of `fixedresidence of family or household' which is one of the meanings of the Russian wordдом; it is expressed by another English polysemantic word, namelyhome which possesses a number of other meanings not to be found in the Russian wordдом.

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 conceptsix can be expressed by `three plus three', `five plus one', or `ten minus four', etc. Obviously, the meaning of the wordsix 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 denotedbythe wordsapple, 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 wordwater cannot be regarded as identical with its chemical formula H20 aswater 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 orphoenix. 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.

Questions:

What are the three apexes of the semantic triangle? How are they connected?

Prove that meaning does not coincide with sound-form.

Prove that meaning does not coincide with referent.

Prove that the relationship between meaning and concept varies.

Prove that meaning does not coincide with concept because concept is emotionally neutral.

Prove that meaning does not coincide with concept because concept has no ties with any stylistic sphere.

Prove that meaning does not coincide with concept because concept is not of linguistic nature.

Prove that concepts are grouped differently than meanings.

Prove that concepts are universal for all humans while meanings are peculiar to each language.

Types of Meaning

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §3.1. Definitions, [pp. 38-40]

The complexity of the word meaning is manifold. The four most important types of semantic complexity may be roughly described as follows:

Firstly, every word combines lexical and grammatical meanings.

E.g.: Father is a personal noun.

Secondly, many words not only refer to some object but have an aura of associations expressing the attitude of the speaker. They have not only denotationalbut connotational meaning as well.

E.g.: Daddy is a colloquial term of endearment.

Thirdly, the denotational meaning is segmented into semantic components orsemes.

E. g.: Father is a male parent.

Fourthly, a word may be polysemantic, that is it may have several meanings, all interconnected and forming its semantic structure

E. g.: Father may mean: 'male parent', 'an ancestor', 'a founder or leader', 'a priest'.

It will be useful to remind the reader that the grammatical meaning is defined as an expression in speech of relationships betweenwordsbased on contrastive features of arrangements in which they occur. The grammatical meaningis more abstract and more generalized than the lexical meaning, it unites words into big groups such as parts of speech or lexico-grammatical classes. It is recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of different words. E. g. parents, books, intentions, whose common element is the grammatical meaning of plurality. Thelexico-grammatical meaning is the commondenominator of all the meanings of words belonging to a lexico-grammatical class of words, it is the feature according to which they are grouped together.Words in which abstraction and generalization are so great that they can be lexical representatives of lexico-grammatical meanings and substitute any word of their class are called generic terms. For example the word matter is a generic term for material nouns, the word group -- for collective nouns, the word person -- for personal nouns.

Words belonging to one lexico-grammatical class are characterized by a common system of forms in which the grammatical categories inherent in them are expressed. They are also substituted by the same prop-words and possess some characteristic formulas of semantic and morphological structure and a characteristic set of derivational affixes. See tables on word-formation in: R. Quirk et al., “A Grammar of Contemporary English”. The common features of semantic structure may be observed in their dictionary definitions:

management -- a group of persons in charge of some enterprise,

chorus -- a group of singers,

team -- a group of persons acting together in work or in a game.

The degree and character of abstraction and generalization in lexico-grammatical meanings and the generic terms that represent them are intermediate between those characteristic of grammatical categories and those observed on the lexical level -- hence the term lexico-grammatical.

R.S. Ginzburg, A Course in Modern English Lexicology, §5. Grammatical Meaning, §6. Lexical Meaning, §7. Part-of-Speech Meaning [pp.18-20]

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.

We notice, e.g., that word-forms, such asgirls, 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- formsspeaks, reads, writes have one and the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in identical distribution, e.g. only after the pronounshe, she, it and before adverbs likewell, badly, to-day, etc.

It follows that a certain component of the meaning of a word is described when you identify it as a part of speech, since different parts of speech are distributionally different (cf.my work andI work).

Comparing word-forms of one and the same word we observe that besides grammatical meaning, there is another component of meaning to be found in them. Unlike the grammatical meaning this component is identical in all the forms of the word. Thus, e.g. the word-formsgo, goes, went, going, gone possess different grammatical meanings of tense, person and so on, but in each of these forms we find one and the same semantic component denoting the process of movement. This is the lexical meaning of the word which may be described as the component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, i.e. recurrent in all the forms of this word.

The difference between the lexical and the grammatical components of meaning is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts underlying the two types of meaning, but rather in the way are conveyed. The concept of plurality, e.g., may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the worldplurality; it may also be expressed in the forms of various words irrespective of their lexical meaning, e.g.boys, girls, joys, etc. The concept of relation may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the wordrelation and also by any of the prepositions, e.g.in, on, behind,etc. (cf.the book is in/on, behind the table).

It follows that by lexical meaning we designate the meaning proper to the given linguistic unit in all its forms and distributions, while by grammatical meaning we designate the meaningproperto sets of word-forms common toall words of a certain class. Both the lexical and the grammatical meaning make up the word-meaning as neither can exist without the other. That can be also observed in the semantic analysis of correlated words in different languages. E.g. the Russian wordсведенияis not semantically identical with the English equivalentinformationbecause unlike the Russianсведения, the English word does not possess the grammatical meaning of plurality which is part of the semantic structure of the Russian word.

It is usual to classify lexical items into major word-classes (nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs) and minor word-classes (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, etc.).

All members of a major word-class share a distinguishing semantic component which though very abstract may be viewed as the lexical component of part-of-speech meaning. For example, the meaning of 'thingness' or substantiality may be found in all the nouns e.g.table, love, sugar, though they possess different grammatical meanings of number, case, etc. It should be noted, however, that, the grammatical aspect of the part-of-speech meanings is conveyed as a rule by a set of forms. If we describe the word as a noun we mean to say that it is bound to possess a set of forms expressing the grammatical meaning of number (cf.table-- tables), case (cf.boy, boy's) and so on. A verb is understood to possess sets of forms expressing, e.g., tense meaning (worked--works), mood meaning (work!--(I)work), etc.

The part-of-speech meaning of the words that possess only one form, e.g. prepositions, some adverbs, etc., is observed only in their distribution (cf.to come in (here, there) andin (on, under) the table).

One of the levels at which grammatical meaning operates is that of minor word classes like articles, pronouns, etc.

Members of these word classes are generally listed in dictionaries just as other vocabulary items, that belong to major word-classes of lexical items proper (e.g. nouns, verbs, etc.).

One criterion for distinguishing these grammatical items from lexical items is in terms of closed and open sets. Grammatical items form closed sets of units usually of small membership (e.g. the set of modern English pronouns, articles, etc.). New items are practically never added.

Lexical items proper belong to open sets which have indeterminately large membership; new lexical items which are constantly coined to fulfil the needs of the speech community are added to these open sets.

The interrelation of the lexical and the grammatical meaning and the role played by each varies in different word-classes and even in different groups of words within one and the same class. In some parts of speech the prevailing component is the grammatical type of meaning. The lexical meaning of prepositions for example is, as a rule, relatively vague(independent of smb, one of the students, the roof of the house).The lexical meaning of some prepositions, however, may be comparatively distinct (cf.in/on, under the table). In verbs the lexical meaning usually comes to the fore although in some of them, the verbto be, e.g., the grammatical meaning of a linking element prevails (cf.he works as a teacher andhe is a teacher).

Questions:

Prove that word-meaning is not homogeneous.

What is grammatical meaning? How does it manifest?

Describe correlation between lexical and grammatical meaning.

What is lexico-grammatical meaning?

What is part-of-speech meaning?

Describe correlation between lexical and grammatical meaning in different parts of speech.

Semantic Structure of Words. Componential Analysis

I.V. Arnold, The English Word, §3.1. Definitions, §3.6. Componential analysis [pp. 40-42, 57-59]

The conceptual content of a word is expressed in its denotative meaning. To denote is to serve as a linguistic expression fora concept or as a name for an individual object. The denotative meaning may be significative if the referent is a concept, or demonstrative, if it is an individual object.The term referent or denotatum (pi. denotata) is used in both cases. Any text will furnish examples of both types of denotative meaning. The demonstrative meaning is especially characteristic of colloquial speech where words so often serve to identify particular elements of reality. E.g.: "Do you remember what the young lady did with the telegram?" (Christie) Here the connection with reality is direct.

Especially interesting examples of significative meaning may be found in aphorisms, proverbs and other sayings rendering general ideas. E. g.: A good laugh is sunshine in the house (Thackeray) or The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work (Frost) contain words in their significative meanings.

The information communicated by virtue of what the word refers to is often subject to complex associations originating in habitual contexts, verbal or situational, of which the speaker and the listener are aware, they give the word its connotationalmeaning.The interaction of denotative meaning and its pragmatic counterpart -- connotation -- is no less complicated than in the case of lexical and grammatical meaning. The connotativecomponent is optional, and even when it is present its proportion withrespect to the logical counterpart may vary within wide limits.

We shall call connotation what the word conveys about the speaker's attitude to the socialcircumstances and the appropriate functional style (slay vs kill), about his approval or disapproval of the object spoken of(clique vs group), about the speaker's emotions(mummy vs mother), or the degree of intensity(adore vs love).