The principles of communicative approach to lexical meaning

Contrastive lexicology 2nd year students Lesson 4

The branch of linguistics concerned with the meaning of words and word equivalents is called semasiology.

The main objects of semasiological study are:

1) Types of lexical meaning;

2) Polysemy and semantic structure of words;

3) Semantic development of words;

4) The main tendencies of the change of word-meanings;

5) Semantic grouping in the vocabulary system, i.e. synonyms, antonyms, semantic fields, thematic groups etc.

The problem is not new. M. Bréal, for instance, devoted much attention to a semasiological treatment of grammar. A German philologist H. Hatzfeld held that semasiology should include syntax, and that many of its chapters need historical and cultural comments.

The problem has recently acquired certain urgency and a revival of interest in semantic syntax is reflected in a large number of publications by Moscow, Leningrad and Kiev scholars.

Translation analysis presupposes through understanding of the lexical meaning of language units in specific communicative acts. The word in the communicative aspect is viewed as a unit, fulfilling certain communicative functions. Thus what is important is not so much the factors of realization of one of the meanings of a polysemantic word in the context, but the adaptation of the semantic structure of a separate meaning to the conditions of a specific communicative act as well as to the communicative objective of an utterance.

The communicative description of the word meaning is possible only as the listing of the components, constituting the meaning, and for this purpose it is necessary to know the whole set of these components in a system (system VS structure).

The wordas a unit of language is characterized by two aspects: in the language it functions both as a nominative and communicative unit. As a nominative unit – it functions in respect to the object of nomination, (to sit down, a table); as a communicative unit - in respect to the communicative act (Sit down at the table). The semantic competence of the individual is formed by means of both perceiving the word in communicative acts (This is a table; this object is called a table) and the cognition of the object of nomination in social practice (Take the table out of this room; On this factory tables are made). Thus the semantic potential of the word is very broad: the meaning of the word has much a larger scope than the fixed cases of usage. Not all the components of the meaning of the word as a nominative unit are relevant for communication – the meaning in the communicative act includes only the components, necessary for the objective of communication (to gaze: They were gazing at the beautiful birds; The children gazed back in bewilderment).

There are few approaches to the meaning of word.

1) Referential approach to meaning. The common feature of any referential approach is that the meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent (object of reality denoted by the word). The meaning is formulated by establishing the interdependence between words and objects of reality they denote. So the meaning is often understood as an object or phenomenon in the outside world that is referred to by a word.

It should be pointed out that among the adherents of the referential approach there are some who hold that the meaning of a linguistic sign is the concept underlying it, and consequently they substitute meaning for concept in the basic triangle. Others identify meaning with the referent. They argue that unless we have a scientifically accurate knowledge of the referent we cannot give a scientifically accurate definition of the meaning of a word. According to them the English word salt,e.g., means ’sodium chloride (NaCl)’. But how are we to define precisely the meanings of such words as loveor hate,etc.? We must admit that the actual extent of human knowledge makes it impossible to define word meanings accurately. It logically follows that any study of meanings in linguistics along these lines must be given up as impossible.

Here we have sought to show that meaning is closely connected but not identical with sound-form, concept or referent. Yet even those who accept this view disagree as to the nature of meaning. Some linguists regard meaning as the interrelation of the three points of the triangle within the framework of the given language, i.e. as the interrelation of the sound-form, concept and referent, but not as an objectively existing part of the linguistic sign. Others and among them some outstanding Soviet linguists, proceed from the basic assumption of the objectivity of language and meaning and understand the linguistic sign as a two-facet unit. They view meaning as “a certain reflection in our 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.” The outer facet of the linguistic sign is indispensable to meaning and intercommunication. Meaning is to be found in all linguistic units and together with their sound-form constitutes the linguistic signs studied by linguistic science.

The criticism of the referential theories of meaning may be briefly summarised as follows:

Meaning, as understood in the referential approach, comprises the interrelation of linguistic signs with categories and phenomena outside the scope of language. As neither referents (i.e. actual things, phenomena, etc.) nor concepts belong to language, the analysis of meaning is confined either to the study of the interrelation of the linguistic sign and referent or that of the linguistic sign and concept, all of which, properly speaking, is not the object of linguistic study.

2) Functional approach to meaning. In recent years a new and entirely different approach to meaning known as the functional approach has begun to take shape in linguistics and especially in structural linguistics. The functional approach maintains that the meaning of a linguistic unit may be studied only through its relation to other linguistic-units and not through its relation to either concept or referent. In a very simplified form this view may be illustrated by the following: we know, for instance, that the meaning of the two words moveand movementis different because they function in speech differently. Comparing the contexts in which we find these words we cannot fail to observe that they occupy different positions in relation to other words. (To) move,e.g., can be followed by a noun (movethe chair), preceded by a pronoun (we move),etc. The position occupied by the word movementis different: it may be followed by a preposition (movementof smth),preceded by an adjective (slow movement),and so on. As the distribution ^l ofthe two words is different, we are entitled to the conclusion that not only do they belong to different classes of words, but that their meanings are different too.

The same is true of the different meanings of one and 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) and this fact can be proved by an objective investigation of linguistic data. For example we can observe the difference of the meanings of the word takeif we examine its functions in different linguistic contexts, take the tram (the taxi, the cab,,etc.) as opposed to to take to somebody.

It follows that in the functional approach (1) semantic investigation is confined to the analysis of the difference or sameness of meaning; (2) meaning is understood essentially as the function of the use of linguistic units. As a matter of fact, this line of semantic investigation is the primary concern, implied or expressed, of all structural linguists.

3) According to the differential approach, meaning is constituted by a certain amount of semes, on the basis of which words are opposed to each other in lexical semantic groups or paradigms (colours; family relations, cooking terms). This approach, however, is not valid explaining many cases of the communicative behavior of the word (attention, world, substance). The integral concept of meaning is broader, and according to its lexical meaning both differential and non-differential (semantic) component. The meaning is not limited, and has its specific scope. However, it cannot be described in a limited set of semantic components and it does not have distinct borders. There are different levels of the depth and adequacy of describing the meaning. Different dictionaries require different depth and scope of the description of meaning, thus they display different stages of adequacy of the description to the real meaning.

The reasons for the fact that it is impossible to draw the distinct limit of meaning are as follows:

· Many objects of reality cannot be distinctly differentiated (sense, meaning, Bachelor: is Pope a bachelor?);

· The change of reality results in the change of its reflection in the consciousness of human beings (queen, leader, tyrant, unnecessary institution), robot – fantastic creatures and everyday helpers.

· The knowledge of the notions is always increasing (earth [flat and round], world [in Greece, in Middle Ages, and now], crazy [possessed and mentally ill], liver [the centre of feelings and blood regenerating part];

· There are differences in cognition of various people, etc. (black: the colour of the night, coal, pitch; snow- in Africa, Europe, North).

Generally speaking, meaning can be more or less described as a component of the word through which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with the ability of denoting real objects, qualities, actions and abstract notions.

The branch of linguistics which specializes in the study of meaning is called semantics.

The modern approach to semantics is based on the assumption that the inner form of the word presents a structure which is called the semantic structure of the word.

Within grammatical and lexical aspects of a language grammatical and lexical meanings are distinguished.

Grammatical meaning is defined as the expression in speech of relationships between words. The grammatical meaning is more abstract and more generalized than the lexical meaning.

Lexical meaning is the realization of concept or emotion by means of a definite language system.

Denotative meaning or the denotative macrocomponent of the semantic component expresses the conceptual content of a word. To denote means to serve as a linguistic expression for a concept or as a name for the individual object. Denotative meaning enables the communication.

Meaning:

1) Denotational renders significative and communicative functions.

2) Connotational expressive and pragmatic functions.

There are:

· Stylistic connotation – speaker’s attitude to the social circumstances and the appropriate functional style (slay/ kill);

· Emotinal connotation – conveys the speaker’s emotions (mommy/mother);

· Evaluative connotation – may show approval or disapproval of the object spoken of (clique/ group);

· Expressive/intensifying connotation – convey the degree of intensity (adore/ love).

3) Implicational.

Researcher Sternin claims that there is also an empirical component of meaning but it concerns only some exceptional semantic categories.