Word-meaning. Meaning and motivation
3.1.The object of semasiology. Two approaches to the study of meaning.
3.2.Types of meaning.
3.3.Meaning and motivation.
3.1. The branch of lexicology which studies meaning is called "semasiology". Sometimes the term "semantics" is used as a synonym to semasiology, but it is ambiguous as it can stand as well for (1) the expressive aspect of language in general and (2) the meaning of one particular word.
Meaning is certainly the most important property of the word but what is "meaning''?
Meaning is one of the most controversial terms in lexicology. At present there is no generally accepted definition of meaning. Prof. Smirnitsky defines meaning as "a certain reflection in the 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". Generally speaking, meaning can be described as a component of the word through which a concept is communicated, enabling the word to denote objects in the real world.
There are two approaches to the study of meaning: the referential approach and the functional approach. The former tries to define meaning in terms of relations between the word (sound form), concept (notion, thought) and referent (object which the word denotes). They are closely connected and the relationship between them is represented by "the semiotic triangle" ( = the basic triangle) of Ogden and Richards (in the book "The Meaning of Meaning" (1923) by O.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards).
concept
 |
symbol referent
(sound form)
This view denies a direct link between words and things, arguing that the relationship can be made only through the use of our minds. Meaning is related to a sound form, concept and referent but not identical with them: meaning is a linguistic phenomenon while neither concept nor referent is.
The main criticism of this approach is the difficulty of identifying "concepts": they are mental phenomena and purely subjective, existing in the minds of individuals. The strongest point of this approach is that it connects meaning and the process of nomination.
The functional approach to meaning is less concerned with what meaning is than with how it works. It is argued, to say that "words have meanings" means only that they are used in a certain way in a sentence. There is no meaning beyond that. Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), in particular, stressed the importance of this approach in his dictum: "The meaning of the word is its use in the language". So meaning is studied by making detailed analyses of the way words are used in contexts, through their relations to other words in speech, and not through their relations to concepts or referents.
Actually, the functional approach is basically confined to the analysis of sameness or difference of meaning. For example, we can say that in "take the bottle" and "take to the bottle" take has different meaning as it is used differently, but it does not explain what the meaning of the verb is. So the functional approach should be used not as the theoretical basis for the study of meaning, but only as complementary to the referential approach.
3.2. Word meaning is made up of different components, commonly known as types of meaning. The two main types of meaning are grammatical meaning and lexical meaning.
Grammatical meaning belongs to sets of word-forms and is common to all words of the given part of speech,
e.g. girls, boys, classes, children, mice express the meaning of "plurality".
Lexical meaning belongs to an individual word in all its forms. It comprises several components. The two main ones are the denotational component and the connotational component.
The denotational ( = denotative) component, also called "referential meaning" or "cognitive meaning", expresses the conceptual (notional) content of a word; broadly, it is some information, or knowledge, of the real-world object that the word denotes. Basically, this is the component that makes communication possible.
e.g. notorious "widely-known", celebrated "known widely".
The connotational (connotative) component expresses the attitude of the speaker to what he is saying, to the object denoted by the word. This component consists of emotive connotation and evaluative connotation.
1) Emotive connotation ( = "affective meaning", or an emotive charge),
e.g. In "a single tree" single states that there is only one tree, but "a lonely tree" besides giving the same information, also renders (conveys) the feeling of sadness.
We shouldn't confuse emotive connotations and emotive denotative meanings in which some emotion is named, e.g. horror, love, fear, etc.
2) Evaluative connotation labels the referent as "good" or "bad",
e.g. notorious has a negative evaluative connotation, while celebrated a positive one. Cf.: a notorious criminal/liar/ coward, etc. and a celebrated singer/ scholar/ artist, etc.
It should be noted that emotive and evaluative connotations are not individual, they are common to all speakers of the language. But emotive implications are individual (or common to a group of speakers), subjective, depend on personal experience.
e.g. The word "hospital" may evoke all kinds of emotions in different people (an architect, a doctor, an invalid, etc.)
Stylistic connotation, or stylistic reference, another component of word meaning, stands somewhat apart from emotive and evaluative connotations. Indeed, it does not characterize a referent, but rather states how a word should be used by referring it to a certain functional style of the language peculiar to a specific sphere of communication. It shows in what social context, in what communicative situations the word can be used.
Stylistically, words can be roughly classified into literary, or formal (e.g. commence, discharge, parent), neutral (e.g. father, begin, dismiss) and non-literary, or informal (e.g. dad, sack, set off).
3.3. The term "motivation" is used to denote the relationship between the form of the word, i.e. its sound form, morphemic composition and structural pattern, and its meaning.
There are three main types of motivation: phonetic,morphological and semantic.
1) Phonetic motivation is a direct connection between the sound form of a word and its meaning. There are two types of phonetic motivation: sound imitation and sound symbolism.
a) Sound imitation, or onomatopoeia: phonetically motivated words are a direct imitation of the sounds they denote (or the sounds produced by actions or objects they denote),
e.g. buzz, swish, bang, thud, cuckoo.
b) Sound symbolism. It's argued by some linguists that the sounds that make up a word may reflect or symbolise the properties of the object which the word refers to, i.e. they may suggest size, shape, speed, colour, etc.
e.g. back vowels suggest big size, heavy weight, dark colour, front vowels suggest lightness, smallness, etc.
Many words beginning with sl- are slippery in some way: slide, slip, slither, sludge, etc. or pejorative: slut, slattern, sly, sloppy, slovenly; words that end in -ump almost all refer to some kind of roundish mass: plump, chump, rump, hump, stump.
Certainly, not every word with these phonetic characteristics will have the meaning suggested. This is, perhaps, one of the reasons why sound symbolism is not universally recognized in linguistics.
2) Morphological motivation is a direct connection between the lexical meaning of the component morphemes, the pattern of their arrangement and the meaning of the word.
Morphologically motivated words are those whose meaning is determined by the meaning of their components,
e.g. re-write "write again", ex-wife "former wife".
The degree of morphological motivation may be different. Words may be fully motivated (then they are transparent), partially motivated and non-motivated (idiomatic, or opaque).
a) If the meaning of the word is determined by the meaning of the components and the structural pattern, it is fully motivated: e.g. hatless.
b) If the connection between the morphemic composition of a word and its meaning is arbitrary, the word is non-motivated, e.g. buttercup "yellow-flowered plant".
c) In hammer -er shows that it is an instrument, but what is "hamming"? "Ham" has no lexical meaning in this word, thus the word is partially motivated. Cf. also cranberry.
Motivation may be lost in the course of time,
e.g. in OE wīfman was motivated morphologically: wīf + man "wife of a man"; now it is opaque; its motivation is said to be faded (woman).
3) Semantic motivation is based on co-existence of direct and figurative meanings of the same word,
e.g. butterfly – 1) insect; 2) showy and frivolous person.( = metaphorical extension of the direct meaning).
CHANGE OF MEANING
4.1.Three aspects of semantic change.
4.2.Causes of semantic change.
4.3.Nature of semantic change. Metaphor and metonymy.
4.4.Results of semantic change.
4.1. Word meanings are liable to change in the process of historical development of the language. The semantic structure of a word is never static. The number of meanings may change, with new meanings being added and some meaning dropping out; the existing meanings may be rearranged in the semantic structure.
When speaking about semantic change, we must distinguish between:
2) the causes of semantic change, i.e. the factors bringing it about; we try to find out why the word has changed its meaning;
3) the nature of semantic change; we describe the process of the change and try to answer the question how it has been brought about;
4) the results of semantic change; we try to state what has been changed.
These are three different but closely connected aspects of the same problem.
4.2. The causes, or factors, that bring about semantic changes are classified into linguistic and extralinguistic. By extralinguistic causes we mean various changes in the life of a speech community; changes in social life, culture, science, technology, economy, etc. as reflected in word meanings,
e.g. mill originally was borrowed from Latin in the 1st c. B.C. in the meaning "a building in which corn is ground into flour". When the first textile factories appeared in Great Britain it acquired a new meaning - "a textile factory". The cause of this semantic change is scientific and technological progress.
Linguistic causes are factors that operate within the language system. They are:
1) Ellipsis. In a phrase made up of two words one of them is omitted and its meaning is transferred to the other one,
e.g. In OE sterven (MnE to starve) meant “to die, perish". It was often used in the phrase "sterven of hunger", the second word was omitted and the verb acquired the new meaning n die of hunger".
2) Discrimination of synonyms,
e.g. In OE land had two meanings: "1. solid part of Earth's surface; 2. the territory of a nation". In ME the word country was borrowed as a synonym to land. Then the second meaning of land came to be expressed by country and the semantic structure of land changed.
3) Linguistic analogy. If one member of a synonymic set takes on a new meaning, other members of the same set may acquire this meaning, too,
e.g. to catch acquired the meaning "understand"; its synonyms to get, to qrasp also acquired the same meaning.
4.3A necessary condition of anу semantic change is some connection or association between the old, existing meaning and the new one. There are two main types of association:
1) Similarity of meaning or metaphor,
2) Contiguity of meaning or metonymy, i.e. contact, proximity in place or time.
Metaphor is the semantic process of associating two referents, one of which in some way resembles the other. Metaphors may be based on similarity of shape, size, position, function, etc.
In various languages metaphoric meanings of words denoting parts of the human body are most frequent,
e.g. the eye of a needle "hole in the end of a needle", the neck of a bottle, the heart of a cabbage - the metaphoric meaning has developed through similarity of the shape of two objects; the foot of the hill - this metaphoric change is based on the similarity of position; the hand of the clock, the Head of the school - the metaphoric meaning is based on similarity of function.
A special group of metaphors comprises proper nouns that have become common nouns,
e.g. a Don Juan - "a lady-killer" , a vandal - "one who destroys property, works of art" (originally "Germanic tribe that in the 4th-5th c. ravaged Gaul, Spain, N. Africa, and Rome, destroying many books and works of art").
Metonymy is a semantic process of associating two referents which are somehow connected or linked in time or space. They may be connected because they often appear in the same situation,
e.g. bench has developed the meaning "judges" because it was on benches that judges used to sit,
or the association may be of material and an object made of it, etc.,
e.g. silver – 1) certain .precious metal; 2) silver coins; 3) cutlery; 4) silver medal,
or they may be associated because one makes part of the other,
e.g. factory/farm hands "workers" (because strong, skillful hands are the most important part of a person engaged in physical labour).
Common nouns may be derived from proper names through metonymic transference,
e.g. Wellingtons "high boots covering knees in front" (from the 1st Duke of Wellington, Br. general and statesman, who introduced them in fashion).
4.4. Results of semantic change may be observed in the changes of the denotative component and the connotative component of word meaning.
1) Changes of the denotative component are of two types:
(a) broadening (or generalization, = widening, = extension) of meaning, i.e. the range of the new meaning is broader, the word is applied to a wider range of referents,
e.g. to arrive, borrowed from French, originally meant "to come to shore, to land". In MnE it has developed a broader meaning "to come". Yankee – 1) a native of New England (originally); 2) a citizen of the USA (now).
(b) narrowing (or specialization, = restriction) of meaning.
The word comes to denote a more limited range of referents, fewer types of them,
e.g. meat in OE meant "any food", now it means "flesh of animals used as food" (i.e. some special food); in OE hound meant "a dog", now it is "a dog of special breed used in chasing foxes".
As a special group, we can mention proper names derived from common nouns,
e.g. the Border - between Scotland and England,
the Tower - the museum in London.
2) Changes in the connotative component of meaning are also of two types:
(a) degeneration (or degradation, = deterioration) of meaning, i.e. a word develops a meaning with a negative evaluative connotation which was absent in the first meaning,
e.g. silly "happy" (originally) - "foolish" (now);
(b) elevation (or amelioration) of meaning, i.e. the first meaning has a negative connotation and the new one has not,
e.g. nice originally "foolish" - now "fine, good".
In other cases the new meaning acquires positive connotation absent in the original meaning,
e.g. knight "manservant" (originally) - "noble, courageous man" (now)
The terms elevation and degeneration of meaning are inaccurate as we actually deal not with elevation or degradation of meanings but of referents.
POLYSEMY
5.1. Polysemantic and monosemantic words. Classification
5.2. Diachronic approach to polysemy.
5.3. Synchronic approach to polysemy.
5.4. The semantic structure of correlated words in English and Russian.
5.5. The national character of the semantic structure.
5.1. Polysemy is the ability of words to have more than one meaning. A word with several meanings is called polysemantic. Monosemantic words, which have only one meaning, are comparatively few; they are mainly scientific terms (e.g. hydrogen) or rare words (e.g. flamingo).
The bulk of English words are polysemantic. All the meanings of a polysemantic word make up a system which is called the semantic structure of the word.
e.g. The word TABLE has the semantic structure made up of at least 9 meanings:
1) piece of furniture;
2) the persons seated at a table;
3) (sing.) food put on the table;
4) a thin flat piece of stone, metal, wood, etc.;
5) (pl.) slabs of stone;
6) words cut into them or written on them (the Ten Tables);
7) an orderly arrangement of facts, figures, etc.;
8) part of a machine tool on which work is put;
9) a level area, a plateau.
5.2. Polysemy can be viewed diachronically and synchronically.
The system of meanings of a polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over centuries, as new meanings are added to old ones or oust some of them. As a result, the total number of meanings grows, and the vocabulary is enriched.
Thus, polysemy viewed diachronically is a historic change in the semantic structure of a word that results in disappearance of some meanings and appearance of new meanings, and also in the rearrangement of the meanings in the semantic structure.
Diachronically, we distinguish between the primary meaning and secondary meanings of a word.
The primary meaning is the oldest meaning of the word, its original meaning with which the word first appeared in the language,
e.g. the primary meaning of TABLE is "slabs of stone": O.E. tabule f. Lat tabula.
All the other meanings appeared later than the primary meaning.
When we describe a meaning as secondary we imply that it can't have appeared before the primary meaning; when we say a meaning is derived we imply not only that but also that it is dependent on another meaning and subordinate to it,
e.g. TABLE 1,2,3 are secondary, appeared later than TABLE 5;
TABLE 2, 3 are derived from TABLE 1.
The main source of polysemy is semantic derivation (radiation of meanings; adding new meanings to the existing ones).
Polysemy may also result from homonymy. When two words coincide in sound-form, their meanings come to be felt as making up one semantic structure.
e.g. the human EAR (f. Lat auris) and the EAR of corn (f. Lat acus, aceris) diachronically are homonyms. Synchronically, however, they are perceived as two meanings of one polysemantic word ear. The ear of corn is felt to be a metaphoric meaning (Of.: the eye of a needle, the foot of the mountain) and thus, as a derived meaning of the word. Cases of this type are comparatively rare.
5.3. Viewed synchronically, polysemy is understood as co-existence of several meanings of the same word and their arrangement in the semantic structure.
The status of individual meanings is not the same. We distinguish between the central (=basic, major) meaning and minor meanings.
How do we determine which meaning is the basic one?
(1) The basic meaning occurs in various and widely different contexts. It is representative of the word taken in isolation, i.e. it occurs to us when we hear/see the word in isolation; that is why it is called a free meaning.
e.g. the central meaning of TABLE is "a piece of furniture" Minor meanings occur only in specific contexts, e.g. to keep the table amused (TABLE 2) or the table of contents (TABLE 7).
(2) The basic meaning has the highest frequency in speech,
e.g. TABLE 1 has the highest frequency value and makes up 52% of all the uses of the word; TABLE 7 accounts for 35%; all the other meanings between them make up just 13% of all the uses.
(3) The basic meaning is usually stylistically neutral and minor meanings are as a rule stylistically coloured,
e.g. YELLOW 1) coloured like egg yoke or gold (neutral),
2) sensational (Am slang),
3) cowardly (coll).
Synchronically, we also distinguish between direct meanings and figurative (transferred) meanings,
e.g. YELLOW 4) (fig) (of looks, mood, feelings, etc.) jealous, envious, suspicious.
We should note that a word may have two or more central meanings,
e.g. GET "obtain" and "arrive" are equally central in the semantic structure.
As the semantic structure of a word is never static, the status (type) of its meanings may change in the course of time. The primary meaning may become a minor one; a secondary meaning may become the central meaning of a word.
e.g. The primary meaning of QUICK is "living"; it is still retained in the semantic structure but has become a minor meaning which occurs only in some expressions: to touch/ wound to the quick, the quick and the dead; "rapid, fast" has become the central meaning.
5.4. Words of different languages are said to be correlated when their central meanings coincide,
e.g. table – cтол "piece of furniture".
But there is practically no one-to-one correspondence between the semantic structures of correlated polysemantic words of different languages. The relations between correlated words are quite complicated, and we may single out the following cases (and show them graphically).
The semantic structures of two correlated words may coincide; usually they are monosemantic words,
e.g. flamingo.
We can show this relationship like this: two overlapping circles.
If the number of meanings is different, the semantic structure of one word may include that of its correlate it is the relationship of inclusion,
e.g. MEETING 1) a gathering of people for a purpose
2) the people in such a gathering
3) the coming together of two or more people, by chance or arrangement
МИТИНГ a (political) gathering of a number of people".
Some meanings of two correlated words may coincide and the others don’t. This is the relationship of intersection.
e.g. BOY МАЛЬЧИК
1) male child 1) male child,
2) young man 2) apprentice (obs.),
3) male native servant,
4) junior sailor.
5.5. All lexical meanings of a polysemantic word are interconnected. The relations beween them are based on various logical and psychological associations. Some of these relations are common to all or to many languages; others are peculiar to a particular language. Thus, a semantic structure has a national character (some specific characteristics).
Relations that are common to all/most languages are:
1) metaphorical relations,
e.g ass 1 "animal" - осёл 1 "animal",
ass 2 (fig) "stupid person" - осёл2 "person".
2) metonymic relations,
e.g. table 1 "piece of furniture" - стол 1 "piece of furniture",
table 3 "food" – стол 3 "food put on (1) ".
Relations typical of English, but not of Russian are:
1. One and the same English verb may have both transitive and intransitive meanings in its semantic structure,
e.g. Paper burns easily. (intr) Cf.: гореть,
She burnt his letters, (tr) жечь.
2. One word has countable and uncountable, concrete and abstract meanings,
e.g. his love of painting Сf.:живопись - the paintings on the wall картина,
coal - a coal, hair - a hair.
3. In the same semantic structure we find individual and collective meanings,
e.g. YOUTH 1) young people collectively Сf.: молодежь,
2) a young man – юноша,
3) the state of being young - юность.