Лекции Л. И. Городнего по лексикологии английского языка
Semasiology
Learning objectives: After you have studied the lecture you should able
to:
1)define the term semasiology;
2) speak about the problem of defining the term
3) explain the essence of
a) the referential approach to the problem of
defining the meaning
b) the functional approach;
4)express your own appreciation of the problem under analysis.
5) give (draw) a basic triangle (E.g.: The shop houses 15-ton crane; A
naked conductor ran along the car).
The brunch of lexicology, that is devoted to the study of meaning is
known as Semasiology.
Semasiology (from Gr . semasia - "signification") deals not with every
kind of linguistic meaning only. This does not mean that we need not pay
attention to the grammatical meaning. On the contrary, grammatical meaning
must be taken into consideration in so far as it bears a specific influence
upon lexical meaning.
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 word, semantic
groupings and connections in the vocabulary system, i.e. synonyms,
antonyms, etc.
Meaning is one of the most controversial terms in the theory of language.
An exact definition of lexical meaning becomes especially difficult due to
complexity of the process, by which language and human consequence serve to
reflect outward reality. Since there is no universally accepted definition
meaning we shall give a brief survey of the problem as it is viewed in
modern linguistics. There are 2 approaches to the problem: 1) the
referential approach, which formulates the essence of meaning as the
interdependence between words and things or concepts they denote; 2) the
functional approach, which studies the functions of a word in speech. This
approach is (sometimes described as contextual) based on the analysis of
various contexts.
The essential feature of the first approach is that in distinguishes
between the three components, connected with meaning:
1) the sound form of the linguistic sign (sign or symbol);
2) the concept underlying this sound form (meaning; thought or
reference).
3 ) the actual referent, i.e. the part or the aspect of reality to which
the linguistic sign refers (thing meant).
The best known referential model of meaning is so-called "basic
triangle", which may be represent in a simplified form:
Concept (meaning, thought, referent)
Sound form referent (thing meant)
(sign, symbol)
As we can see from the diagram, the sound form of the linguistic sign,
for instance [kot] is connected with our concept of a small which it
denotes, and though it with the referent, i.e. the actual thing. The common
feature of the referential approach is the implacation that meaning in
some form or other connected with referent.
Let us examine the interrelation between:
1-Meaning and sound form
The sound-form of the word is not identical with, its
meaning namely [kot] is the sound form, used to denote a bed for a child
There are inherent connections between this sound form, used to denote a
bed for a child. There are inherent connections between this sound form and
the meaning of the word "cot", but they are conventional and arbitrary. We
may prove it by comparing the sound-forms of different languages, conveying
one and the same meaning, cf. English [kot] and Russian [krovatka]. On the
contrary, the sound-cluster [kot] in the English language is almost
identical to the sound form in Russian language possessing the meaning
"male-cat".
2-Meaning and concept
When we examine a word, we see that its meaning, though connected with
the underlying concept is not identical with it. To begin with, concept is
a category of human cognition. Concept is the thought of the object that
singles out its essential features. Our concepts abstracts and reflect the
most common and typical features of the different objects and phenomena of
the world. Being the result of abstraction the concepts are thus almost the
same for the whole of humanity. The meanings of worlds, however, are
different in different languages. In other words, words expressing
identical concepts may have different semantic structures in different
languages. The concept of "a building for human habitation” is expressed in
English by the word house, in Russian by the word дом, but the meaning of
the English word is not identical with that of the Russian as house does
not possess the meaning of "fixed residence of family or household", which
that of the Russian as house does not possess the meaning of the Russia
word дом; it is expressed by another English word, namely home.
The difference between meaning and concept can also be observed by
comparing synonymous words and word-groups expressing the same concepts,
but possessing linguistic meaning, which is felt as different in each of
the units under considerations:
Big - large;
To die - to pass away - kick the bucket - join the majority;
Child - baby-babe-infant;
Daddy - father - governor - etc.
3-Meaning and referent
To distinguish meaning from the referent, i.e. from the thing denoted by
the linguistic sign is of the utmost importance. To begin with, meaning is
a linguistic phenomenon 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 example, an
apple can be denoted by the words apple, fruit, smth, this, etc. So far as
all these words have the same referent.
Thus meaning is not to be identified with either of the
three points of the triangle. It is closely connected, but not
identical with sound-form, concept or referent. Yet even the
linguists, who accepted this view disagree as to the nature of
meaning. Some of them regard meaning as the interrelation of the three
points the triangle within the framework of the given
language, but not as an objectively exiting part of the linguistic sign.
Others and among them the outstanding Russian scholar Smirnitsky A. I.
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 by linguistic science. The linguistic signs studied by
linguistic science.
The great stumbling block in referential theories of meaning has always
been that they operate with subjective and intangible mental processes. The
results of the semantic investigation therefore depend to a certain extent
on "the feeling of language" and cannot be verified by another investigator
analyzing the same linguistic data. So, semasiology has to rely too much on
linguistic intuition and unlike other fields of linguistics (phonetics,
history of language) does not posses objective methods of investigation.
Functional approach to Meaning
In recent years a new and entirely different approach to meaning has
appeared in structural linguistics. This 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 other
linguistic units and not through its relation to either concept or
referent. Thus, the meaning of the 2 words move and movement is different
because they function in speech differently. Really, they occupy different
positions in relation to other words. (To) move 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) preceded by an adjective (slow movement) and
so on. As the distribution ("the position of a linguistic sign in relation
to other linguistic signs) of the 2 words is different they cone to the
conclusion that not only they belong to different classes of words, but
that that not only meanings are different too.
It follows that in the functional approach meaning may be viewed as the
function of distribution: 1) semantic investigation is confined to the
analysis of the different or sameness meaning; 2)meaning is understood
essentially as the function or the use of linguistic signs.
Relation between the 2 approaches
When comparing the two approaches in terms of methods of
linguistic analysis, we may 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 context. 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 is side of the problem and neither is complete without the
other.
