ВУЗ: Не указан
Категория: Не указан
Дисциплина: Не указана
Добавлен: 06.04.2021
Просмотров: 4678
Скачиваний: 79
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 proper-
ties of the referent, e.g. the meaning of the word
water
cannot be regarded
as identical with its chemical formula
H
2
O
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.
T h u s , m e a n i n g i s n o t t o b e i d e n t i f i e d w i t h a n y o f t h e
three points of the triangle.
It should be pointed out that among the ad-
herents of the referential approach there are
some who hold that the meaning of a linguis-
tic 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 knowl-
edge 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 ac-
tual extent of human knowledge makes it impossible to define word-
meanings accurately.
1
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 re-
lations that makes part of the linguistic sign — its so-called inner facet,
whereas the sound-form functions as its outer facet.”
2
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
summarised 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,
1
See, e. g.,
L. Bloomfield.
Language. N. Y., 1933, p. 139.
2
А. И. Смирницкий.
Значение слова. — Вопр. языкознания, 1955, № 2. See also
С.
И. Ожегов.
Лексикология, лексикография, культура речи. М., 1974, с. 197.
16
§ 2. Meaning in
the Referential Approach
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 al-
ways been that they operate with subjective and intangible mental proc-
esses. The results of semantic investigation therefore depend to a certain
extent on “the feel of the language” and cannot be verified by another in-
vestigator analysing the same linguistic data. It follows that semasiology
has to rely too much on linguistic intuition and unlike other fields of lin-
guistic inquiry (e.g. phonetics, history of language) does not possess ob-
jective 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 the functional
approach has begun to take shape in linguis-
tics and especially in structural linguistics. The functional approach main-
tains 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 con-
cept 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 differ-
ently. 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),
pre-
ceded by an adjective (slow
movement),
and so on. As the distribution
l
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.
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 the 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.
1
By the term d i s t r i b u t i o n we understand the position of a linguistic unit in
relation to other linguistic units.
17
§ 3. Functional Approach to
Meaning
When comparing the two approaches de-
scribed above in terms of methods of linguis-
tic 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 ade-
quate number of samples of contexts.
1
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 han-
dles its own side of the problem and neither is complete without the other.
TYPES OF MEANING
It is more or less universally recognised that word-meaning is not ho-
mogeneous 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 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 distinc-
tion between lexical and grammatical meaning are, in fact, making a dis-
tinction 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 identical distribution, e.g. only after the pro-
nouns
he, she, it
and before adverbs like
well, badly, to-day,
etc.
1
It is of interest to note that the functional approach is sometimes described as contex-
tual, as it is based on the analysis of various contexts. See, e. g.,
St. Ullmann.
Semantics.
Oxford, 1962, pp. 64-67.
18
§ 4. Relation between
the Two Approaches
§ 5. Grammatical Meaning
It follows that a certain component of the meaning of a word is de-
scribed when you identify it as a part of speech, since different parts of
speech are distributionally different (cf. my work and I work).
1
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-forms
go, 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 denot-
ing 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 they are conveyed. The
concept of plurality, e.g., may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the
world
plurality;
it may also be expressed in the forms of various words
irrespective of their lexical meaning, e.g.
boys, girls, joys,
etc. The con-
cept of relation may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the word
rela-
tion
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 gram-
matical meaning we designate the meaning proper to sets of word-forms
common to all words of a certain class. Both the lexical and the grammati-
cal 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 word
сведения
is not se-
mantically identical with the English equivalent
information
because
unlike the Russian
сведения
the English word does not possess the gram-
matical 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 ad-
verbs) 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 com-
ponent of part-of-speech meaning. For example, the meaning of ‘thing-
ness’ 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 de-
scribe the word as a noun we mean to say that it is bound to possess
1
For a more detailed discussion of the interrelation of the lexical and grammatical
meaning in words see § 7 and also
А. И. Смирницкий.
Лексикология английского языка.
М., 1956, с. 21 — 26.
19
§ 6. Lexical Meaning
§ 7. Parf-of-Speech Meaning
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 pos-
sess 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)
and
in (on, under)
the table).
One of the levels at which grammatical meaning operates is that of mi-
nor 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
(inde-
pendent 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 verb
to be,
e.g., the grammatical
meaning of a linking element prevails (cf.
he works as a teacher
and
he is
a teacher).
Proceeding with the semantic analysis we
observe that lexical meaning is not homoge-
nous either and may be analysed as including denotational and connota-
tional components.
As was mentioned above one of the functions of words is to denote
things, concepts and so on. Users of a language cannot have any knowl-
edge or thought of the objects or phenomena of the real world around them
unless this knowledge is ultimately embodied in words which have essen-
tially the same meaning for all speakers of that language. This is the d e -
n o t a t i o n a l m e a n i n g , i.e. that component of the lexical mean-
ing which makes communication possible. There is no doubt that
a
physi-
cist knows more about the atom than a singer does, or that an arctic ex-
plorer possesses a much deeper knowledge of what arctic ice is like than a
man who has never been in the North. Nevertheless they use the words
atom, Arctic,
etc. and understand each other.
The second component of the lexical meaning is the c o n n o t a -
t i o n a l c o m p o n e n t , i.e. the emotive charge and the stylistic
value of the word.
20
§ 8. Denotational
and Connotational Meaning