Functional Approach to Meaning

The functional 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 either concept or referent.

e.g.: We know that the meaning of the two words a step and to step is different because they function in speech differently. To step may be followed by an adverb, a step cannot, but it may be proceeded by an adjective.

The same is true of the different meanings of 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): to take a tram, taxi as opposed to to take to somebody. Hence, meaning can be viewed as the function of distribution.

When comparing the two approaches described above we see that the functional approach should not be considered as alternative, but rather a valuable complement to the referential theory. 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.

Types Of Meaning.

The two main types of meaning are the grammatical and lexical meanings.

Grammatical Meaning

We notice, for example, that word-forms such as tables, chairs, bushes though denoting widely different objects of reality have something in common. This common element is the grammatical meaning of plurality.

Thus, grammatical meaning may be defined as the component of meaning recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of different words. e.g.: the tense meaning in the word-forms of verbs (asked, spoke) or the case meaning in the word-forms of various nouns (the girl’s, the night’s).

In modern linguistic science it is commonly held that some elements of grammatical meaning can be identified by their distribution. The word-forms asks, speaks have the same grammatical meaning as they can all be found in identical distribution (e.g. only after the pronouns he, she but before such adverbs and phrases as yesterday, last month, etc.). It follows that a certain component of the meaning of a word is described when you identify it as a part of speech, since different parts of speech are distributionally different. The part-of-speech meaning of the words that possesses but one form, as prepositions, is observed only in their distribution (cf: to come in (here) and in (on, under) the table.

Lexical Meaning

Unlike the grammatical meaning this component of meaning is identical in all the forms of the word. e.g.: the words write – writes – wrote – written possess different grammatical meanings of tense, person but in each of these forms we find the same semantic component denoting the process of putting words on the paper. This is the lexical meaning of the word which may be described as a linguistic unit recurrent in all the forms of the word and in all possible distributions of these forms.

The difference between the lexical and the grammatical component of meaning is not to be sought in the difference of the concepts underlying the two types of meaning rather in the way they are conveyed. The concept of plurality, for example, may be expressed by the lexical meaning of the word plurality. It may also be expressed in the forms of different words irrespective of their lexical meaning (girls, boards).

The interrelation of the lexical and the grammatical meaning and the role played by each varies in different word classes and even in different groups of words within one and the same class. In some parts of speech the prevailing component is the grammatical type of meaning. The lexical meaning of prepositions is, as a rule, relatively vague (to think of somebody, independent of somebody, some of the students). The lexical meaning of some prepositions is however comparatively distinct (in, on, under the table).

The lexical meaning of the word can be of two types: denotational and connotational.

One of the functions of the words is to denote things, concepts, etc. Users of a language cannot have any knowledge or thought of the objects or phenomena of the real world around them unless this knowledge is ultimately embodied in words which have essentially the same meaning for all speakers of that language. This is the denotational meaning, i.e. that component of the lexical meaning which makes communication possible. There is no doubt that a doctor knows more about pneumonia than a dancer does but they use the word and understand each other.

The second component of the lexical meaning is the connotational component which has some stylistic value of the word, the emotive charge.

Words contain an element of emotive evaluation as part of the connotational meaning. The word hovel denotes a small house or cottage and besides implies that it is a miserable dwelling place, dirty, in bad repair and unpleasant to live in.

Many connotations associated with names of animals, birds, insects are universally understood and used.

e.g.: calf (теля)– a young inexperienced person;

donkey (осел)– a foolish person;

monkey (мавпа)– a mischievous child;

serpent (змія)– a treacherous, malicious person.

But it should be mentioned here that different peoples structure the world differently. E.g.: the word bug has such figurative meanings in the English language as a crazy, foolish person and an enthusiast, the word shark means a swindler. In the Ukrainian language the words жук and акула do not have such meanings. Sometimes words in different languages can have different meanings. E.g.: the word gull means a fool, a swindler, in the Ukrainian language the word чайка can be applied to a woman or a girl. The word hawk possesses a negative meaning in the English language (a deceiver), the word сокіл is applied to a handsome and strong young man.

Metals possess well-established connotations, derived from their individual qualities. The word gold is associated with great worth. Iron and steel connote strength, brass - audacity, lead – sluggishness or weight.

Words may also contain an element of emotive force as part of the connotational meaning. This is in fact one of the objective semantic features proper to some words as linguistic units and forming part of the connotative value. Such are, for example, stylistically coloured words synonymous with their neutral counterparts: child – kid – kiddie; girl – lass – girlie – lassie.

In interjections this meaning is known to prevail.

We must naturally distinguish between the emotive element as inherent in some words forming part of the connotation and the subjective use of words that are not otherwise emotionally coloured.

In actual speech expressive nuances may be obtained in different ways. In various contexts, linguistic or situational, words devoid of any emotive element may be endowed with a distinct expressive function depending on the speaker’s attitude towards his interlocutor or to the thing spoken about.

There are some other types of lexical meaning. They are abstract and concrete (hope, love - window, book); primary and secondary (wall of the room - wall of misunderstanding); bookish and colloquial (young man - chap, lad).

Polysemy of Words.

A word that has more than one meaning in the language is called polysemantic. Its meanings form its semantic structure. It is an organised set of recurrent variants and shades of meaning a given sound complex can assume in different contexts, together with their emotional colouring, stylistic peculiarities and other typical connotations, if any. The semantic structure of the word is a fact of language, not of speech. It is developed and fixed in the course of the history of the language.

Since the number of lexical units is not necessarily increased with the appearance of new ideas and objects it is usually achieved by making an already existing word do this work. Change of meaning is a commonplace and indeed it would appear to be fundamental in the living language.

Examples to illustrate the statement are not far to seek. When watches were invented no new words were invented to denote this object and its parts. The word face meaning front part of a human head was made to serve as the name of the front part of the watch where all the changes of time were shown; the word hand meaning part of a human body used to work and indicate things with was made to serve as the name of the indicator.

Or the Ukrainian word лінія – вузька смужка, що тягнеться на якій-небудь поверхні. Closely connected with it are the following meanings: уявна смужка (лінія горизонту), шлях (трамвайна лінія), послідовний ряд кровно споріднених осіб (по материнській лінії), спосіб дії (лінія поведінки).

Thus words develop plurality of meanings, or, in other words, become polysemantic.

In polysemantic words we are faced not with the problem of the analysis of different meanings but primarily with the problem of interrelation and interdependence of the various meanings in the semantic structure of the same word.

Some questions can arise in this connection.

- Are all meanings equally representative of the semantic structure of the word?

- Is the order in which the meanings are enumerated in dictionaries purely arbitrary or does it reflect the comparative value of individual meanings, the place they occupy in the semantic structure of the word?

The most objective criterion of the comparative value of individual meanings seems to be the frequency of their occurrence in speech.

Of great importance is the stylistic stratification of meanings of a polysemantic word as not only words but individual meanings too may differ in their stylistic reference. The stylistic status of monosemantic words is easily perceived.

e.g.: daddy can be referred to the colloquial stylistic layer, the word parent – to bookish.

Polysemantic words as a rule cannot be given any much restrictive labels. There is nothing colloquial or slangy about the word jerk in the meaning of a sudden movement or stopping of movement. But when jerk is used in the meaning of an odd person it is slangy.

Stylistically neutral words are more frequent.

It should be mentioned that some meanings are representative of the word in isolation, i.e. they invariably occur to us when we hear the word or see it written. Other meanings come to the fore only when the word is used in certain contexts. The meaning or meanings representative of the semantic structure of the word and least dependent on context are described as free or denominative meanings.

By the word context we understand the minimal stretch of speech determining each individual meaning of the word.

The meaning or meanings of polysemantic words observed only in certain contexts may be viewed as determined either by linguistic (lexical and grammatical or verbal) or extra-linguistic (non-verbal) contexts.

In lexical contexts of primary importance are the lexical groups combined with the polysemantic word under consideration.

e.g.: The verb to take in isolation has the meaning to lay hold of with the hands, grasp, seize. When combined with the lexical group of words denoting some means of transportation (to take a bus, a train) it acquires the meaning synonymous with the meaning of the verb to go. The meanings determined by lexical contexts are sometimes referred to as lexically or phraseologically bound meanings which implies that such meanings are to be found only in certain lexical contexts.

In grammatical contexts it is the grammatical (mainly the syntactic) structure of the context that serves to determine various individual meanings of a polysemantic word.

e.g.: One of the meanings of the verb to make (to force, to induce) is found only in the grammatical context possessing the structure make + N+Infinitive ( to make somebody do something). Another meaning to become is observed when make is followed by an adjective or noun (to make a good teacher) . Such meanings are sometimes described as grammatically or structurally bound meanings.

In a number of contexts, however, we find that both the lexical and the grammatical aspect should be taken into consideration. If, for example, we compare the contexts of different grammatical structures (to take+N and to take to+N) we can assume that they represent different meanings of the verb to take, but it is only when we specify the lexical context, i.e. the lexical group with which the verb is combined in the structure to take+N (to take tea, books, a bus) that we can say that the context determines the meaning.

The same pattern to take+N may represent different meanings of the verb to take dependent mainly on the lexical group of the nouns with which it is combined.

There are cases when the meaning of the word is ultimately determined not by linguistic factors but by the actual speech situation in which this word is used. The meaning of the phrase I’ve got it is determined not only by the grammatical or lexical context but by the actual speech situation. To get may mean to possess or to understand.

Monosemantic words are comparatively rare in the English language. These are pronouns and numerals. The greatest number of monosemantic words can be found among terms, the very nature of which requires precision. But even here we must mention that terms are monosemantic only within one branch of science.

e.g.: to dress – to bandage a wound (medical terminology);

to dress – to prepare the earth for sowing (terminology of agriculture);

to dress – to decorate with flags (naval terminology).

Words belonging to the most active, vitally important and widely used part of the English vocabulary are generally polysemantic.