IVord mccuina: dilfcrcst cpproschesl

descriptive linguistics word meaning is understood mainly as an object of study ernalized by dictionary definition and associated with the physical phonetic or/and lied form of а word. This abstraction is useful for many important goals such as cribing а given language, teaching, or contrastive studies. But it is rather useless for lerstanding what meaning is, or reconstruction of language ability and other endeavors.

present the most important approaches to defining а word meaning are ideational (or iceptual), referential and functional.

ь ideational theory can be considered the earliest theory of meaning. It states that ming originates in the mind in the form of ideas and words are just symbols of them. s tradition goes back to Aristotle and even further.

' British empiricist philosopher John Locke in his "Essay Concerning Human 1егМапйпд" (1690) echoes Aristotle. Не writes: "Words in their primary or immediate aification stand for nothing, but the Ideas in the Mind...." Не points out that ideas are 'ate and individual, th

ough the largest component of meaning derives from common :eptions of the world in which we live and our abilities to reason. God acts as а rantor of sameness of meaning /Locke 1977:2/. Locke assumes that individual ideas :xist their linguistic expression.

А difficulty with the ideational theory that John Locke proposed is that it is not clear w~ communication and understanding are possible if linguistic expressions stand г individual personal ideas. The reference to God as mediator is not helpful enough. Neith

it is satisfactory (from а linguist's point of view) to define meaning in terms pf unstructured 'ideas'.

Yet, ideational theory is deeply rooted in modern semantics: the question whether language or thought exists prior to the other, and the relationship between them is яг|11 debated Ъу scholars. Currently, the view that meaning as а mental experience conveyed by linguistic expression is influential.

Many linguists, especially those interested ш the study of language as а human cognitive ability view meaning mainly as а psychological entity that exists in our minds, as a concept with specific structure (see, for example, works on conceptual semantics by 11,

t Jackendoff, semantic primitives by А. Wierzbicka, et al.). The difference between мщ1 | meaning and concept, however, is that not all concepts are lexicalized, so word meaning

I may be regarded as а lexicalized concept.

Understanding meaning as concept seems quite promising because only the direct association of the word with the ever changing and active concept gives the word its generative character, provides its variation and use in different contexts.

Yet, some important questions remain unanswered within this 6amework. И the meaning of а word is а concept, then do people speaking different languages have different conceptual systems? Or, vice versa, if people speaking diflerent languages have the зале conceptual systems how does it happen that identical concepts are expressed by correlative words having different lexical шеапш8я? (Cf.: finger 'one of 10 movable parts of joints at the end of each human hand, or one of 8 such parts as opposed to the thumbs' and палец 'подвижная конечная часть кисти руки, стопы ноги или лапы животного'.) If а word's meaning is something different from the concept, then what is it and how is it related to the concept and the referent in the real world?

In some contemporary linguistic theories а distinction is made between lexical knowledge and encyclopedic knowledge, between semantic and conceptual levels of information, between word meaning and concept.

There are, however, lots of arguments both for and against this distinction, and it is a

ma

tter of hot linguistic debate. One should also take into account the fact that ййегевг

words are different in the character of their meaning. Meanings of коте words, especially of verbs denoting such actions as want, give, take or go do not include encyclopedic knowledge while meanings of обжег words, especially nouns denoting scientific terms like calorie or confirmation are predominantly based on encyclopedic knowledge.

Another influential theory of а word meaning is known as referential. Early гейгепг|а1 theory developed by Plato equated meaning with physical objects. This theory is rejected

(с1'.: the ostensive theory). Referential word meaning theory is тоге ; а1ед now, and it defines as reiationships between things, their concepts and

,сои started with а famous 'triangle of reference' presented by the German satician and philosopher Gottlob Frege (1848-1925).

Thought

Symbol Referent

rm 'referent' in this theory is а philosophically neutral word understood as ing to which the word refers. 'Referent' is used for any physical object, quality, r action in the material world.

er, referent is not meaning, and semantics, according to modern referential theory, not be concentrated on the description of referents. Rather, it is the subject matter tees.

this theory, meaning is not identical to thought, or concept, either, though is very associated with it. Many different words having different meanings тау be used ess the same concept as it is, for example, in the саяе with the concept of dying ьзз uwuy, kick the bucket оуэн the maj ority).

~ is meaning identical to а physical form of а word, or а symbol used to convey ig, as many theories of sound symbolism suggest. The American linguist, Morris й /1934/, for example, drew attention to the use of [1]-type sound in many аея to express nearness: this, it, here, near (cf. близко, низко) and [а], [u]-type to express distance: that, there, fur (cf.: далеко, глубоко, высоко). А specific |яЫр also can be observed between close sounds, like [i], and the concept of rss teeny, little, slim, bit or мелкий (but big) and open sounds, like [а], [о), and icept of largeness: large, broud, vust, grand or больгио~ огромный (but small). s just а tendency with numerous exceptions.

in all languages there are onomatopoeic words, restricted to naturally produced such as whisper 'исептать', whistle 'свистеть'ог roar 'реветь', etc., that

э portray the underlying concept. But even these words obey language rules, and 1опе1|с portrait' of the concept turns out to be different in different language я (c f.: cock-а-doodle-do and кукареку)

So, the evidence for direct relationships between symbol and referent is limited and ц ~

well justified. Existence of different languages using different forms to denote the ца~ concept (/аЫе, стол) shows that there is а con~entional, arbitrary relationship between symbol and а referent, and this arbitrariness is expressed by the broken base line in ц1, 'triangle of reference'.

1п order to answer the question what meaning is, linguistics, according to F. de Saussure should understand а linguistic sign as the relation between а concept and а symbol.

Within the referential frame, word meaning is understood as the interrelation of аll //ц~ components of the semantic triangle: symbol, concept and referent, though meaning ыц>1 equivalent to any of them.

Referential theory makes important observations about the nature of word meaning and it is valid in many respects. Yet, it is not adequate to account for many specific features involved ш word meaning. To improve referential theory, коте linguists include one more component — the relation of the word to опыт conceptually related words, Tp understand the meaning of the word сир, for example, one should Knou its relation to the words glass and mug. Thus, the semantic triangle changes into а semantic square.

The third, most well known theory of meaning is functionaL Functionalists (Ч. Mathesius, R. Jacobson, J.R. Firth et al.) believe that "the phonological, grammatical and semantic structures of а language are determined by the functions they have to perform in the societies in which they operate" /Lyons 1981:224/. Instead of trying to answer the question of what these structures, including meaning, are, functionalists study how they are used in specific contexts in order to determine their properties.

1 Functionalism is а fruitful theory that did а lot to systematic description of а language. Functionalists study word meaning by making а detailed analysis of the way the word is used in certain contexts. But defining meaning as the function of а unit in certain contexts lacks formality and exactness. In modern linguistics many scholars do not agree with Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), а philosopher and а linguist, who stressed that the meaning of а word и its use in language /Wittgenstein 1953: 43/ because word' meaning may be formulated in а definition before the word is used. It is rather а word" s meaning that determines its usts and the use will det

ermine whether the definition that previously has been formulated stands or falls.

l3. Aspects and types of word meaning

Word meaning typologies are very diverse.

Taking into account the aspect of relation of а word as а linguistic sign to the сотроа~а~' of the situation where it is used, scholars distinguish its referential meaning, which is

determined by the relation of а linguistic sign to the referent in the material ®о~1~

ative meaning, which is determined by the relation of а linguistic sign to а or а class of referents, pragmatic meaning, which is determined by the relation iguistic sign to its user, the speaker' s intention, and differential, or systemic g, which is determined by the relation of the given linguistic sign to оthет signs in a language system or speech.

. typology is based on the conception of word meaning as а specific structure. It is ] that the word includes such components, or types of meaning as the most

part of speech, or functional meaning (nouns, for example, usually denote :ss", adjectives — qualities and states), grammatical, which is recurrent in 1 sets of different words (she goeslworksfreads, etc.), and lexical, which is highly а! and recurs in all the grammatical forms of words (for example, the meaning of > to work 'to engage in physical or mental activity' that reveals in all its forms: «ork worked, working, will work).

tpes of meaning, however, are related. For example, the grammatical meaning of ( may be expressed not only by means of grammatical affixes as in chicken- s, but lexically, too (cf. such collective nouns as poultry, people, police), and vice :xical meaning may be supported by its grammatical forms as in the сазе of the le noun chicken that becomes uncountable when it is used in the meaning of 'its food',

meaning, which is most important for lexicological goals, is not homogenous

t includes denotational and connotational types.

Iional lexical meaning provides correct reference of а word or other lexical unit to tatum — an individual object or а concept. Denotational meaning of а word renders t important part of the related conceptual content and thus makes communication . Denotational meaning is explicitly revealed in the dictionary definition (chair 'а one person typically having four legs and а back').

ational lexical meaning includes ideas or emotions than tend to be aroused by а с term. Some connotations are very personal and easily changeable, characteristic on's individual experience (for example, уош. personal associations with the term igy') — they are emotional implications and are mainly studied by pragmatics. 1е connotations, like emotive charge and stylistic reference, are stable and ~ arise in mind of all members of а specific language community, and they are the natter оПех|со1оау.

, charge, both positive and negative, may be inherent in word meaning (like in

е, repuls

ive) or may be created Ъу prefixes and suffixes (like in piggy, useful,

Dictionaries express it by special remarks preceding definitions, like diminutive ning, or by highly evaluative words used in definitions themselves, like in r 'arousing aversion от disgust'.

Stylistic reference is also part of а word meaning, it refers the word to а сегта|п

'Й register. Words with по particular stylistic reference make up the group of neutral ч,

that are opposed to colloquial ап4 bookish, or literary words that are usually ргеве„т with corresponding notes in а dictionary. There are different subclassifications for „

neutral words. Colloquial words are usually subdivided into common colloquial, вт „

ng professional, jargon and dialectal words. Bookish words may be subdivided into т,~п „„т

literary, sctentiJic, poetic and archaisms, barbarisms and jorеign words.

l4 Metbodeof ooslysie of word meaniosl

The denotational component of word meaning can be seen as а complex cluster of вата|| units — semantic components, or semes organized in а componential structure. Яоат authors also speak about semantic features, or semantic markers. The ййетепе between these terms is that 'semantic components' single out atoms of meaning in actual lexical items, while 'semantic features' do that from the point of view of the overall structure of language in abstraction. So, the semantic structure of а whole language rnay be spoken of as having а pattern of semantic features.

For example, the structure of any language contains the semantic feature [ANIMATE], This semantic feature, like any обжег, may have а positive or negative 'value'. The word table, for example, may be characterized as having а negative value of this feature ап4 he graphically presented as [ — ANIMATE] but the word cat has а positive value of that feature: [+ANIMATE].

The procedure of 'atomization' of meaning is known as componential analysis. This чету important method of linguistic investigation, which appeared in the middle of the 50's and was developed in the 60's and 70's, can be illustrated by words denoting human beings — ттытт, wotnan, boy and girl. All these words may be described with а positive value of the semantic feature [+HUMAN] and some words have more features with different values: [MALE] and [ADULT]. The word tnan can be described as [+НБМАХ] [+ADULT] [+MALE], the word boy as [+HUMAN] [ — ADULT] [+MALE], woman as [+HUMAN) [+ADULT] [ — МАМЕ] and girl as [+HUMAN] [ — АЙШЕТ] and [— MALE].

In these words denoting human beings some обжег features may be singled out, for example, [ANIMATE] or [ORGANIC] that are more general and abstract than the [HUMAN] mentioned above. Yet, in componential analysis only the co

mmon component which is lowest in the hierarchy is taken into consideration, and this principle is known ав the redundancy rule.

Componential analysis in many varieties turned out to be very efficient in studies of word meaning even though separating word meaning into semantic components во far does not allow us to sort out the smallest semantic building blocks (semantic universals) whos~ different assemblinu is believe tn л| .....|"н.

;xplain many things about word meaning, such as instability, change of meaning, iy, typical and non typical representatives of а class. Scholars have proven that : components, as they are presented in the above examples, form only а small part еап|пя that words possess.

ys, пипу scholars in the new frame of cognitive semantics which is part of а e science believe that meanings are not fixed in our mind as fixed semantic ents. They rather prefer to speak about word's semantic properties that merge , another. What is called, for example, а bowl in one situation, may be called а another. Humans understand each олег not by learning а structure of semantic ents or definitions or any other form but by working with typical examples, pes, and those that have sufficient semantic properties can be regarded as в of the same category. А prototypical bird, for example, like а robin, has wings, ail, а beak, and can fly. An ostrich, however, is good at running but cannot fly, it has feathers, wings and а beak, and that is why it may still qualify as а bird, not а prototypical one. А kiwi which доев not have visible wings is still less 1 for being called а bird though due to воле of its properties we still call it а bird.

mding meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties (а prototype approach) has 's, especially in explaning language-cross differences in meanings of correlative Differen language communities choose different samples as prototypes and this I to differences in meaning among correlative words that may be explicated in the ns (though not always), or may be revealed in differences of frequency of their typical bird for Englishmen is и robirt, while for Russians it is а sparrow or а 'а robin' is far more frequently used in English than in Russian. According to у definitions а typical house for English speaking people is 'а building that living quarters for one т а /еи /ать!!ев ', а typical house in Russian does not semantic property 'for one or а few families', it is just 'а building for living (or in) and people living in it'. 'жилое [или для учреждения] здание, а также

ивущие в нем'.

totype approach to word meaning has its limitations, however. For some words, bachelor or bird, there is а high level of agreement on which prototypical :s constitute the essential part of their meaning. For many others, like ideN, small there is по such agreement, and linguistic description of them on the basis of es becomes as problematic as on the basis of

componential analysis. And then, ~е view of word meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties seems to be more , it loses а lot in the heuristic power of the rigid methods used in structural ies to word meaning.

~ecial methods are worked out to study connotational meaning, too. 1п 1957 iod and his collegues proposed а method of measuring meaning affections — а с evaluative component of word meaning, and they called it the method of : 41йегепйа!. Studying the reactions of subjects to а number of questions like 'Is

;xplain many things about word meaning, such as instability, change of meaning, iy, typical and non typical representatives of а class. Scholars have proven that : components, as they are presented in the above examples, form only а small part еап|пя that words possess.

ys, пипу scholars in the new frame of cognitive semantics which is part of а e science believe that meanings are not fixed in our mind as fixed semantic ents. They rather prefer to speak about word's semantic properties that merge , another. What is called, for example, а bowl in one situation, may be called а another. Humans understand each олег not by learning а structure of semantic ents or definitions or any other form but by working with typical examples, pes, and those that have sufficient semantic properties can be regarded as в of the same category. А prototypical bird, for example, like а robin, has wings, ail, а beak, and can fly. An ostrich, however, is good at running but cannot fly, it has feathers, wings and а beak, and that is why it may still qualify as а bird, not а prototypical one. А kiwi which доев not have visible wings is still less 1 for being called а bird though due to воле of its properties we still call it а bird.

mding meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties (а prototype approach) has 's, especially in explaning language-cross differences in meanings of correlative Differen language communities choose different samples as prototypes and this I to differences in meaning among correlative words that may be explicated in the ns (though not always), or may be revealed in differences of frequency of their typical bird for Englishmen is и robirt, while for Russians it is а sparrow or а 'а robin' is far more frequently used in English than in Russian. According to у definitions а typical house for English speaking people is 'а building that living quarters for one т а /еи /ать!!ев ', а typical house in Russian does not semantic property 'for one or а few families', it is just 'а building for living (or in) and people living in it'. 'жилое [или для учреждения] здание, а также

ивущие в нем'.

totype approach to word meaning has its limitations, however. For some words, bachelor or bird, there is а high level of agreement on which prototypical :s constitute the essential part of their meaning. For many others, like ideN, small there is по such agreement, and linguistic description of them on the basis of es becomes as problematic as on the basis of

componential analysis. And then, ~е view of word meaning as а fuzzy set of semantic properties seems to be more , it loses а lot in the heuristic power of the rigid methods used in structural ies to word meaning.

~ecial methods are worked out to study connotational meaning, too. 1п 1957 iod and his collegues proposed а method of measuring meaning affections — а с evaluative component of word meaning, and they called it the method of : 41йегепйа!. Studying the reactions of subjects to а number of questions like 'Is

it good or bad? Pleasant or unpleasant? Small or large? ~Ге/ or йу? ' and registering ф~ answers on а seven point scale, like: good — — — — — — — bad,

pleasant — — — — — — — «пр!еаза М,

small — — — — — — — large,

they tried to locate the concept of а word in semantic space. The word bread, for example, will be closer to good and pleasant but somewhere between small and large. This simple but illuminating method can hardly be used to study denotational meaning of а word but may be widely used to investigate its connotational component, or rather pragmatic emotional associations. It is of special value in contrastive studies because different language communities may have different affective associations with correlative words.

The functional approach to the study of word meaning has developed а 6ruitful cuntextual method of analysis. Word meaning is observed in certain contexts and environments, not in dictionaries. А large corpus of recorded material with а certain word, for example, make, is analyzed. The contexts of this word are subdivided into grammatical contexts that demonstrate different syntactic patterns оГ the word under сопядегайоп (make + п as in make shoes, make + п/pm + v as in make somebody do something) and lexical contexts that show combinability of the word make with олег lexical items within the same grammatical pattern make+ n: make shoes, make decisions, make тЬййек

The analysis of lexical and grammatical contexts is especially widely used to determine individual meanings of а polysemantic word. The results of this method cannot be overestimated for lexicography.