Seminar 2

Semasiology Meaning as a Linguistic Notion. Approaches to Meaning Study

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

Semasiology. Diachronic and synchronic approaches

The main objects of semasiology

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

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.

Meaning

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 language system. The definition stresses that semantics studies only such meanings that can be expressed, that is concepts bound by signs.

Criticism of mentalistic approach

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.

Two approaches to meaning

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 is than with how it works.

Referential approach

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.

[…]

Approaches within referential approach

It should be pointed out that among the adherents of the referential approach there are 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 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 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.

Meaning as the inner facet

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 approach

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.

Functional approach

In recent years a new and entirely different approach to meaning known as the functional approach has begun to take shape in linguistics and especially in structural linguistics. The functional approach maintains that the meaning of 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 words move and movement 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 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 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.

Functional investigation

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.

Correlation between the two approaches

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]

Three categories of definitions of meaning

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.

Referential approach

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).

Functional approach

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 by a 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.

Context

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.

Operational approach

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.

Meaning within operational approach

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).

Criticism of operational approach

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 so important 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.