practically identical distributional patterns . As distributional patterns
are in a number of cases polysemantic transformational procedures are of
help not only in the analysis of semantic sameness / difference of the
lexical units but also in the analysis of the factors that account for
their polysemy . Word-groups of identical distributional structure when
repatterned show that the semantic relations between words & consequently
the meaning may be different .e. g. A pattern “possessive pronoun
”+”noun”(his car , his failure , his arrest, his kindness ). According to
transformational analysis the meaning of each word-group may be represented
as : he has a car , he failed , he was arrested , he is kind. In each of
the cases different meaning is revealed : possession , action , passive
action , quality .The rules of transformation are rather strict & shouldn’t
be identified with paraphrasing in the usual sense of the term .There are
many restrictions both on syntactic & lexical levels . These are :
Permutation – the repatterning on condition that the basic subordinative
relationships between words & word-stems of the lexical units are not
changed .e. g. “His work is excellent “ may be transformed into “ his
excellent work , the excellence of his work , he works excellently “.In
the example given the relationships between lexical units & the stems of
the notional words are essentially the same .
Replacement – the substitution of a component of the distributional
structure by a member of a certain strictly defined set of lexical units
.e. g. Replacement of a notional verb by an auxiliary or link verb (he will
make a bad mistake & he will make a good teacher ). The sentences have
identical distributional structure but only in the second one the verb “to
make “ can be substituted by “ become “ or “ be “ . The fact of
impossibility of identical transformations of distributionally identical
structures is a formal proof of the difference in their meaning .
Addition ( or expansion ) may be illustrated by the application of the
procedure of addition to the classification of adjectives into two groups-
adjectives denoting inherent & non-inherent qualities .
e. g. John is happy .
John is tall .
We add a word-group “ in Moscow “. We shall see that “ John is happy in
Moscow .” has meaning while the second one is senseless . That is accounted
by the difference in the meaning of adjectives denoting inherent (tall) &
non-inherent(happy) qualities .
Deletion – a procedure which shows whether one of the words semantically
subordinated to the other . e. g. The word-group “red flowers” may be
deleted & transformed into “flowers” without making the sentence senseless
: I like red flowers or I like flowers . The other word-group “red tape “
can’t be deleted & transformed either into “ I hate tape “ or “I hate red “
because in both transformed sentences the meaning of the phrase “red tape”
means “bureaucracy” & it can’t be divided into two parts .
Componental analysis .
In this analysis linguists proceed from the assumption that the smallest
units of meaning are sememes or semes . e. g. In the lexical item “woman”
several sememes may be singled out , such as human , not an animal , female
, adult . The analysis of the word “girl” will show the following sememes :
human , female , young . The last component of the two words differentiates
them & makes impossible to mix up the words in the process of communication
. It is classical form of revealing the work of componental analysis to
apply them to the so called closed systems of vocabulary , for example ,
colour terms . The analysis as a rule was formalized only as far as the
symbolic representation of meaning components it is concerned with .Each
sememe in the terms of colours acquires or is given a certain letter ( A ,
B , C , D … ) & the meaning of the terms may be given in a formalized form
. e. g. Red & scarlet will differ only in one component & that is intensity
of colour & by the letter it may be illustrated as
A B C
A B C Under the letter C the intensity is meant .
The formalized representation of meaning helps to find out different
semantic components which influence collocability of words (during the day
but not during the stairs, down the stairs but not down the day ).
Componental analysis is practically always combined with transformational
procedures or statistical analysis .The combination makes it possible to
find out which of the meanings should be represented first of all in the
dictionaries of different types & how the words should be combined in order
to make your speech sensible .
Method of semantic differential .
A word has not only one meaning & even one word usually implies some
additional information which differentiates one word from another .
e. g. to like , to love , to adore , to warship . All the words denote
positive feelings , characteristic of a human being . But each of them
gives additional information on the so-called strength of feeling .
This is the connotational aspect which was singled out by the semantic
differential – the method which was worked out by a group of American
psycholinguists . Their technique requires the subjects to judge – a series
of concepts with respect to a set of antonymic adjective scale .
e. g. A horse can be :
good – bad
fast – slow
strong – weak
hard – soft
happy – sad
The meaning of the divisions is that each of the quality may be gradated
representing extremely good , very good , neither good nor bad ,slightly
bad , extremely bad & these grades can be marked by a plus .And the horse
may be very good , not bad , etc .
The revealed gradations showing some portion of quality helps to singled
out such words which are usually referred to as neutral, expressive ,
archaic & new words proper – neologisms . All the methods of analysis are
applied in one & the same sphere of investigation . If you are interested
in meaning you shouldn’t pay much attention to the structure , if you are
interested in collocation of words you shouldn’t pay much attention what
parts of words represent the distributional structure . The combination of
different methods of analysis helps to classify the vocabulary as a whole &
each lexical unit taken separately . It should be said that practically no
procedures function independently & separately from each other . It is only
for study aims that we separate one procedure from another . In fact ,
being a two-faced unit a lexical item provides to be an indivisible unit of
form & content . That is why you cannot investigate one side of the item
paying no attention to the other one .
Semasiology . Lexical
meaning & its aspects .
Semasiology (or semantics ) is a branch of linguistics which studies
meaning . Semasiology is singled out as an independent branch of lexicology
alongside word-formation , etymology , phraseology & lexicography . And at
the same time it is often referred to as the central branch of lexicology .
The significance of semasiology may be accounted for by three main
considerations :
1. Language is the basic human communication system aimed at ensuring the
exchange of information between the communicants which implies that
the semantic side forms the backbone of communication .
2. By definition lexicology deals with words , morpheme & word-groups .
All those linguistic units are two-faced entities having both form &
meaning .
3. Semasiology underlines all other branches of lexicology . Meaning is
the object of semasiological study .
However , at present there is no universally accepted definition of meaning
or rather a definition reflecting all the basic characteristic features of
meaning & being at the same time operational . Thus , linguists state that
meaning is “one of the most ambiguous & most controversial terms in the
theory of language “(Steven Ullman).Leech states that the majority of
definitions turn out to be a dead end not only on practical but on logical
grounds . Numerous statements on the complexity of the phenomenon of
meaning are found on the Russian tradition as well by such linguists as
А.А.Потебня , И.А.Бодуэн де Куртене , Щерба , Виноградов , А.И. Смерницкий
& others .
However vague & inadequate , different definitions of meaning help to sum
up the general characteristics of the notion comparing various approaches
to the description of the content side of the language . There are three
main categories of definitions which may be referred to as :
V analytical or referential definition of meaning
V functional or contextual definition of meaning
V operational or information-oriented definition of meaning
Analytical or referential
definition of meaning.
They seek to find the essence of meaning establishing the interdependence
between words of the objects or phenomena they denote . The best known
analytical model of meaning is the so-called “basic triangle”.
Concept (or our thought)
Sound-form Word-object (referent)
They are connected directly that means that if we hear a sound-form a
certain idea arises in our mind & the idea brings out a certain referent
that exists in the reality . But the sound-form & the referent are
connected indirectly because there are no objects or phenomena in the
reality that predict a certain sound-form , that need to be named by a
certain sequence of sounds . The strongest point in the approach is an
attempt to link the notion of meaning with the process of naming the
objects , processes or phenomena of concrete reality . The analytical
definitions of meaning are usually criticized on the grounds that they
cannot be applied to sentences .
e. g. The sentence “ I like to read long novels “ does not express single
notion , it represents composites of notions specifying the relations
between them .
The referential definition of meaning can hardly be applied to semantic
additions that come to the surface in the process of communication .
e. g. “That’s very clever “ may mean different sorts of things including
that it is not clever at all .
It has also been stated that the referential approach fails to account
for that fact that one word may denote different objects & phenomena . That
is the case of polysemy . On the other hand one & the same object may be
denoted by different words & that is the case of synonymy .
Functional or contextual
Definitions of meaning.
Proceeding from the assumptions that the true meaning of a word is to be
found by observing what a man does with it not what he says about it , the
proponents of functional approach to meaning define it as the use of the
word in the language . It has been suggested that the meaning of a word is
revealed by substituting different contexts .
e. g. The meaning of the word cat may be singled out of contexts:
____________ catch mice.
I bought fish for my _____.
and similar sentences.
To get a better insight in to the semantics of a word it is necessary to
analyze as many contexts in which it is realized as possible. The question
arises – when to stop collecting different contexts & what amount of
material is sufficient to make a reliable conclusion about the meaning of a
word ? In practice a scholar is guided by intuition which amount to the
previous knowledge of the notions the given word denotes. Besides , there
are contexts which are so infrequent that they can hardly be registered &
quite obviously they have never been met by the speakers of the given
language. Nevertheless being presented with a context a native speaker
proceeds not from a list of possible contexts but from something else. The
functional approach to meaning is important because it emphasizes the fact
that words are seldom if ever used in isolation & thus the meaning of a
word is revealed only when it is realized in a context. But on the whole
the functional approach may be described as a complimentary , additional to
the referential one.
Operational definition
Of meaning.
They are centered on defining meaning through its role in the process of
communication. Just like functional approach information-oriented
definitions are part of studying words in action. They are more interested
in how the words work , how the meaning works than what the meaning is. The
operational approach began to take shape with the growing interest of
linguists in the communicative aspect of the language when the object of
study was shifted to the relations between the language we use & the
situations within which it is used. In this frame-work meaning is defined
as information conveyed from the speaker to the listener in the process of
communication. The definition is applicable both to words & sentences &
thus overcomes one of the drawbacks of the referential approach. The
problem is that it is more applicable to sentences than to words & even as
such fails to draw a clear distinguishing line between the direct sense
(that is meaning) & implication (that is additional information).
e. g. Thus the sentence “John came at 6 o’clock” besides the direct
meaning may imply that John was 2 hours late , that he was punctual as
usual , that it was a surprise for John to come , that he came earlier ,
that he was not expected at all & many others.
In each case the implication would depend on the concrete situation of
communication. And discussing meaning as the information conveyed would
amount to the discussion of an almost endless set of possible communication
situations which in the end will bring us back to a modified contextual or
functional approach to meaning. The distinction between the two layers in
the information conveyed is so important that two different terms may be
used to denote them: the direct information conveyed by the units which
build up a sentence may be referred to as meaning while the information
added to the given extralinguistic situation may be called sense.
