Unit 2. Modern Language Theories . Lessons 1 - 3. Semantics
1. Semantic approach to word meaning. 2. 2. Meaning and concept in accordance with semantic approach. 3. Grammatical meaning. 4. Field structure of the word meaning. 5. The transference of denomination.
1. SEMANTIC APPROACH TO WORD MEANING
The issue of word meaning has interested the scientists for a long time. The science offers an immense amount of definitions of meaning (above 1500), but none of these can be regarded as generally recognized. The recent years have witnessed a broadening of the conception according to which the meaning is a reproduction of the world’s picture, a reflection of objects, features and events in the people’s consciousness, that constitutes the inner content of a word-sign. In the light of this conception, definitions of the lexical meaning have been proposed by V. V. Vinogradov, O. I. Smirnitsky, A. A. Ufimtseva, D. M. Shmelyov and other scientists. Let us quote the definition formulated by D. M. Shmelyov: “Meaning of a word is the reflection of one or another phenomenon of reality within a word” (53, p. 58).
The conception of reproduction has provided the basis for the theory of component-wise formation of a lexical meaning. According to this theory, one can distinguish atomic particles within the word meaning – the so-called semes, which represent different kinds of information about the real object denoted by a word. Thus, within the meaning of the word pine-tree, we can mark out such semes as “tree”, “conifer”, “long-needled”; within the meaning of go – such as “move”, “push oneself using legs”, “push off the ground”. Semes that are common for the meanings of several words are termed integral semes. For example, the meanings of words “river”, “sea” and “swimming-pool” have the integral seme of “water reservoir”. Semes that demarcate the meanings of two or more words are referred to as differential. The meanings of above-cited words are differentiated by such semes as “size”, “presence of a river-bed”, “natural-artificial”. Being microcomponents of a meaning, the semes can be united into blocks, depending on the information represented by them. Semes that reflect information about identification marks of a real object, as well as about the corresponding notion, jointly create a denotative-significative macrocomponent (D-S). Among the significative semes, there exist generic (for the word pine – “plant”, “tree”) and specific ones (for the word pine – “conifer”, “long-needled”). A significative component is interpreted by the scientists as the intensional part of a meaning, its conceptual basis. In the opinion of Y. S. Stepanov, “the signification is generally the same as the notion itself” (45, p. 297). The author attributes discrepancies between the above terms to the fact that they belong to different sciences: the former to linguistics, and the latter to logic.
The concept of a denotation and, consequently, the denotative component of a meaning is explained by the linguists in various ways. Y. S. Stepanov defines it as an object of reality which intercorrelates with the word (45). A. A. Ufimtseva distinguishes two modifications of a denotation: “a typified idea of a unique or serial object as an integral entity” and “a real object that corresponds to a certain meaning and performs the function of its specific exponent within an equally specific utterance in the language, i.e. the referent of a word in the language” (48, p. 93). The author emphasizes that the denotative and significative components of meaning act as “interdependent and interconnected levels of familiarization with the subject sphere, forming a single dialectic unit” (48, p. 109). Due to this very reason, it is advisable to characterize the macrocomponent representing information about logical and subject-related peculiarities of real objects as a denotative-significative one: the aforesaid term accentuates, firstly, the integrity of denotative and significative components of the meaning, and secondly, the necessity of their demarcation.
Denotative and significative components can correlate within both language and speech in different ways. In the language, significative semes of the word meaning are intensified, which enables to distinguish the concept in question, to separate it from others. When we find, for instance, a word like “birch-tree” in the dictionary, we familiarize ourselves with the information that allows to delimit the said meaning from the meanings of such words as cedar, spruce etc., i.e. demarcate the concepts, the significations of respective words. Denotative semes are present in the meanings of all above-listed words; however, they are weakened as though they had the status of potential ones.
Within the language, the linguistic meaning can be realized on the whole, leaving the correlation of denotative and significative semes unaltered: Ukr. Символічним українським деревом є калина, російським – береза, англійським – дуб. (The symbolic tree of Ukraine is guelder rose (kalyna), that of Russia – birch (beryoza), and that of England – oak). At the same time, a redistribution of importance can take place among the semes, enhancing the denotative semes and attenuating the significative ones: Ukr. На березі, що росла в нашому дворі, розпустилися бруньки. (The birch-tree growing in our yard sprouted buds). In the above-cited example, the significative semes have been weakened; primary concernment is given to information that distinguishes the mentioned birch-tree from other birch-trees, and not from other trees in general. Variation of denotative and significative semes is formally expressed only in the English language, where enhancement of significative semes is achieved by means of the indefinite article (a/an), and that of denotative ones – by means of the: A guelder-rose (kalyna) is the symbol tree of Ukraine, a birch (beryoza) – that of Russia, an oak – that of England. The oak-tree in our yard is fine.
Information on emotional-expressive, evaluative, associative, national-cultural and other features of a real object that do not belong to the logical and subject-related sphere is represented by the connotative macrocomponent of the meaning. The science is lacking a unified approach toward the definition of content of connotative semes. There exist scientists who relate connotation to either associative or emotive semes only. Others offer a wider interpretation of the idea of “connotation” and include also evaluative, emotive and associative semes into the connotative class. According to the third group of scientists, the composition of a connotative macrocomponent embraces all the information beyond the limits of logical and subject-related sphere. The latter position appears to be the most convincing, since the narrow approach toward the notion of “connotative seme” dictates the necessity of searching for new terms to denote the blocks of semes that reflect various types of information. Reasoning from the wide interpretation of the term “connotative macrocomponent”, we shall enumerate the basic varieties of semes involved in its formation.
1. Semes of emotional evaluation – semes representing information as to the person’s positive or negative attitude toward the real object denoted by a word (kindness +; scrounger –).
2. Semes of rational (or intellectual) evaluation – semes reflecting information as to the social acknowledgement of a real object as being positive or negative. For example, the seme of rational evaluation for the word illness is “bad”, and for the word health it is “good”. The semes of emotional and rational evaluation can never concur within the same meaning. Thus, the meaning of the Russian word толстячок (fatty fellow) contains a rational evaluation of “bad” (everybody knows that overweight is unhealthy), whereas the seme of its emotional evaluation is “positive attitude”, “+”. In the figurative sense of the word бык (bull, also referred to a fat man) the semes of rational and emotional evaluation coincide – both are negative.
3. Emotive semes offer information about the speaker’s feelings and emotions connected with the respective real object; for example “ласкаве” (Ukr.) for expressing the meaning of гарненький (pretty), rudeness in one’s attitude toward an object, denoted with such words as морда (mug) or свиня (pig) referring to a person, contempt in one’s attitude toward a person given such names as осел (donkey, in the figurative sense – “very stupid and stubborn man”) or козел (he-goat, in the figurative sense – “rotten man”), scornful attitude and desire to insult the person called such a name as одноклітинне (unicellular creature) etc.
4. Associative semes – semes that represent information as to associations evoked by the real object that the word signifies. An example is the word сосна (pine-tree), which in Ukrainian can also mean “New Year”, “pine forest” etc.
5. National-cultural semes – semes that represent information about national and cultural peculiarities of the real object signified by a word. For example, Eng. kilt contains the seme of “typical of Scots”, Ukr. гуцул (inhabitant of a mountain region in Western Ukraine) has the seme of “Western part of Ukraine”, Rus. сарафан (long sleeveless attire worn by Russian rural women) stands for “Russian, national”.
Many scientists combine the above-listed groups of semes into the pragmatic component of meaning, which reveals information about the speaker’s viewpoint in a concrete situation. Indeed, the quoted information in the characterized components of meaning is represented as potential, i.e. the connotative component correlates with the word’s pragmatic possibilities. However, attention must be paid to the fact that the concept of pragmatics is much broader than that of the connotative component of meaning; it oversteps the bounds of specific words’ meanings and correlates with the characteristic of a communicative situation on the whole: physical, psychological and social features of the dialogue participants, their relationship, plans, communicative purposes, surroundings etc.