 |
АвтоАвтоматизацияАрхитектураАстрономияАудитБиологияБухгалтерияВоенное делоГенетикаГеографияГеологияГосударствоДомДругоеЖурналистика и СМИИзобретательствоИностранные языкиИнформатикаИскусствоИсторияКомпьютерыКулинарияКультураЛексикологияЛитератураЛогикаМаркетингМатематикаМашиностроениеМедицинаМенеджментМеталлы и СваркаМеханикаМузыкаНаселениеОбразованиеОхрана безопасности жизниОхрана ТрудаПедагогикаПолитикаПравоПриборостроениеПрограммированиеПроизводствоПромышленностьПсихологияРадиоРегилияСвязьСоциологияСпортСтандартизацияСтроительствоТехнологииТорговляТуризмФизикаФизиологияФилософияФинансыХимияХозяйствоЦеннообразованиеЧерчениеЭкологияЭконометрикаЭкономикаЭлектроникаЮриспунденкция
Word meaning
ll. Semantics/Semaaiologv. 1 етлеа! semanticsl
The term 'meaning' is the most difficult term to define. Everybody seems to ип4егя1ап4 it but nobody has defined it satisfactorily. In their famous book "The Meaning of Meaning" (1923) С.К. Ogden and I.А. Richards mentioned about 20 definitions of this term, and they were not quite satisfied with any of them.
Meaning of а linguistic unit, or linguistic meaning is studied by semantics (from Gk. semanttcos 'significant*). The necessity for this particular linguistic study was pointed out in 1897 by М. Breal who also coined the name for it Breal 1964/. Semantics ы егу close to the philosophy of language and semiotics and widely uses their complex notions and terminology.
Semasiology (from Gk. semasia 'meaning' + logos 'learning') is а synonym for 'semantics' coined ноте time earlier in Germany by Ch. К. Reisig (his works were published posthumously in 1839), who added а third component to prevailing then studies of etymology and syntax — the study of word meaning. In воте countries this term is still more preferable than 'semantics'.
There are different theories оП|прцв1|е meaning and difFerent schools of semantics.
Meaning тау be understood as conditions of truth. The proponents of logical semantics work out formulae for conditions in which sentences describing unreal situations like The present king of Ггапсе is bald may be considered true and thus meaningful.
Meaning тау be understood as lnteiition — what the hearer (Н) rationally determines the speaker (S) intends her/hts meaning to convey, or as Leonard Bloomfield suggested in 1933, the situation with the speaker s stimulus and the hearer 's response (bebavioristlc, or S — R theory) /Bloomfield 1933:139/. This theory, however, is пюре relevant to pragmatics and psychology.
The ostensional theory states that meaning is nstension, because people all over the world teach and learn meaning ostensively — by pointing to something and uttering the пате. Though ostension plays an important role in teaching and learning а language, it is not crucial to language acquisition. Ludwig Wittg
аде~ of а language in order to understand ostensive definition" /Wittgenstein 1953:33/. sother difficulty with this theory is that we cannot point to many things that language names for. The ostensive theory works better when the referent is а physical object or physical property, but it is much more problematic for abstract entities, events or ocesses, like idea, war, or rhink. It also fails to answer the question why the same object iy be called totally different names which do not have the same meaning. For example, apple on the table may be referred to as apple, /гид, thing, or ir which is clear proof it words with the same ostension, the same referent, may have totally different..ад~пу. And then, teaching or learning meaning ostensively is not identical to defining;адing, Ostension tells us nothing about what meaning is, it explains nothing about the
ture of meaning.
sguistic meaning may be defined differently in various branches of semantics that study 'ferent types of linguistic units: syntactical semantics, semantics of text, and!ехка1 nantics.
~у overview of the rich variety of approaches to defining linguistic meaning will be zplistic, and we shall mention only some of them here that are most relevant to lexical nantics — а branch of lexicology and general semantics that considers the meaning of rds and other lexical units.
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
Поиск по сайту: