Types of Word Meaning. (course paper)

Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University

Humanities Faculty

The Theory and Practice of the English Language and Intercultural Communication Department

 

Khisametdinova Guldzhakhan

HLE 2-08

 

 

Types of Word Meaning.

(course paper)

 

 

 

                                

 

                       Scientific tutor: Anarbek Begimai

 

 

Bishkek 2010  

                 

Contents

 

Introduction

 

Chapter  I. What is Word and What is Word Meaning……………………5

1. What is Word…………………………………………………………….5
2. What is  Word Meaning………………………………………………….9

 

Chapter II. The Classification of Word Meaning (Types of Word meaning)………………………………………………………………………13

2.1 Denotative Meaning………………………………………………………13

2.2 Lexical Meaning…………………………………………………………..16

2.3 Connotational Meaning…………………………………………………...19

2.4 Grammatical Meaning…………………………………………………….22

 

Chapter III. The Analysis of Types of Word Meaning………………………………………………………………………..26

 

Conclusion

 

Reference

 

 

Introduction

We are going to start our investigation of types of word meaning. And first we are going to start with definition of word and word meaning, because it is important to put a firm foundation of our theme investigation. It is a start point of our investigation to identify the role of types of word meaning in Lexicology and in Linguistics in general.

The topicality of our investigation. During the development of human culture and civilization people have always been interested in the secrets of language and speech as a sign of logical perception of current events and appearing phenomena. And identification and giving a meaning to the words, in order to express the main needs, ideas, wishes, opinions, a will and desires was the first and the main task of researches of all previous and modern scholars in the sphere of not Lexicology only, but also in Grammar, Etymology, Semantics and linguistics, but in the sphere of Logics, Philosophy, and even in the sphere of Psychology.

The task of our investigation is to research the word meaning and its classification (types of word meanings) in the sphere of lexicology and linguistics. To give logical explanation of things and phenomena, which make our surroundings- it is a process of mind activity. The result of this process is a word.

The new approach of our investigation is to find out the condition of usage of types of meaning in emphasizing the links between the connotative (denotative), lexical, grammatical meaning and its connection.

The structure of the work – in introduction we set a topicality, a task and mention about the approach we are going to use in our work; in Chapter I we investigate the notion of a word and it’s meaning; in Chapter II we describe the types of word meaning; in Chapter III we make the analysis of connection of types of word meaning; in conclusion we summarize the results of our work; in bibliography we give the list of used literature.

 

Chapter I. What Is Word and What Is Word Meaning.

1.1 What Is Word.

These famous lines reflect one of the fundamental problems of linguistic research: what is a word? Is there any direct connection between a word and the object it represents? Could a rose have been called by "any other name" as Juliet says? How had all these names appeared in languages?

Current research in semantics is largely based on the assumption that one of the more promising methods of investigating the semantic structure of a word is by studying the word's linear relationships with other words in typical contexts, i. e. its combinability. Scholars have established that the semantics of words characterised by common occurrences (i. e. words which regularly appear in common contexts) are correlated and, therefore, one of the words within such a pair can be studied through the other.

Thus, if one intends to investigate the semantic structure of an adjective, one would best consider the adjective in its most typical syntactical patterns A + N -adjective + noun) and N + l + A (noun + link verb +kick. n. -- 1 thrill, pleasurable excitement (inform.); 2. a blow with the foot adjective) and make a thorough study of the meanings of nouns with which the adjective is frequently used.

For instance, a study of typical contexts of the adjective bright in the first pattern will give us the following sets: a) bright colour (flower, dress, silk, etc.). b) bright metal (gold, jewels, armour, etc.), c) bright student (pupil, boy, fellow, etc.), d) bright face (smile, eyes, etc.) and some others. These sets will lead us to singling out the meanings of the adjective related to each set of combinations: a) intensive in colour, b) shining, c) capable, d) gay, etc. For a transitive verb, on the other hand, the recommended pattern would be V + N (verb + direct object expressed by a noun). If, for instance, our object of investigation are the verbs to produce, to create, to compose, the correct procedure would be to consider the semantics of the nouns that are used in the pattern with each of these verbs: what is it that is produced or composed?

There is an interesting hypothesis that the semantics of words regularly used in common contexts (e. g. bright colours, to build a house, to create a work of art, etc.) are so intimately correlated that each of them casts, as it were, a kind of permanent reflection on the meaning of its neighbour. If the verb to compose is frequently used with the object music, isn't it natural to expect that certain musical associations linger in the meaning of the verb to compose?

We should see how closely the negative evaluative connotation of the adjective notorious is linked with the negative connotation of the nouns with which it is regularly associated: a notorious criminal, thief, gangster, gambler, gossip, liar, miser, etc. All this leads us to the conclusion that context is a good and reliable key to the meaning of the word. It is a sphere of word semantic structure realization. Yet, even the jokes given above show how misleading this key can prove in some cases. And here we are faced with two dangers. The first is that of sheer misunderstanding, when the speaker means one thing and the listener takes the word in its other meaning.

The second danger has nothing to do with the process of communication but with research work in the field of semantics. A common error with the inexperienced research worker is to see a different meaning in every new set of combinations. Here is a puzzling question to illustrate what we mean - an angry man, an angry letter. Is the adjective angry used in the same meaning in both these contexts or in two different meanings? Some people will say "two" and argue that, on the one hand, the combinability is different (man — name of person; letter — name of object) and, on the other hand, a letter cannot experience anger. True, it cannot; but it can very well convey the anger of the person who wrote it. As to the combinability, the main point is that a word can realise the same meaning in different sets of combinability. For instance, in the pairs merry children, merry laughter, merry faces, merry songs the adjective merry conveys the same concept of high spirits whether they are directly experienced by the children (in the first phrase) or indirectly expressed through the merry faces, the laughter and the songs of the other word groups.

The task of distinguishing between the different meanings of a word and the different variations of combinability (or, in a traditional terminology, different usages of the word) is actually a question of singling out the different denotations within the semantic structure of the word.

For example: 1) a sad woman,

2. a sad voice,
3. a sad story,
4. a sad scoundrel (= an incorrigible scoundrel)
5. a sad night (= a dark, black night, arch, poet.) [2.48]

Semantically, English words are interesting, but complicated, to study. This article discusses word-meaning in English including grammatical and lexical meaning of the word (lexeme). Categorial meaning of a lexeme is part of its grammatical meaning while its lexical meaning is made up of denotation and sense as descriptive meaning, connotation as non-descriptive meaning. The author also deals with polysemy of English words.

As the world’s global language, English has played a very important role in bringing people from different countries closer and closer, thus yielding great mutual understanding. The author argues that the mastering of the grammatical features of English words together with that of their semantic structures helps to make the communication in English successful. The study on English words in terms of grammar and semantics is, therefore, hoped to be of great value to teachers and learners of English as well as translators into and out of English, because it is important to know all possible meanings of a word, especially when it is a polysemantic word with some quite resonating notions.

Every word has two aspects: the outer aspect (its sound form) and the inner aspect (its meaning) . Sound and meaning do not always constitute a constant unit even in the same language. E.g. the word temple may denote a part of a human head and a large church. In such cases we have homonyms. One and the same word in different syntactical relations can develop different meanings, e.g. the verb treat in sentences:

a) He treated my words as a joke.

b) The book treats of poetry.

c) They treated me to sweets.

d) He treats his son cruelly.

In all these sentences the verb «treat» has different meanings and we can speak about polysemy. On the other hand, one and the same meaning can be expressed by different sound forms, e.g. «pilot» , and «airman», «horror» and «terror». In such cases we have synonyms. Both the meaning and the sound can develop in the course of time independently. E.g. the Old English /luvian/ is pronounced /luv / in Modern English. On the other hand, «board» primariliy means « a piece of wood sawn thin» It has developed the meanings: a table, a board of a ship, a stage, a council etc. [4, 97]

1.2 What Is Word Meaning.

There have been many discussions about the meanings of meaning, the theories of meaning and its kinds found in the literature. It is a concept and a notion of a word. Word-meaning is treated as the meaning of a lexeme – any unit of the vocabulary of a language, listed, defined in a dictionary and realized by their word-forms. Grammatical and lexical meaning also lie in English lexemes. Denotative and connotative meanings lie in semantic structure of a word. [5, 20] The lexemes belonging to the open-classes of the major parts of speech such as nouns, adjectives, verbs and adverbs have full word-forms with both grammatical and lexical meaning. As those belonging to the closed-classes of articles, conjunctions, interjections, prepositions and certain pronouns and adverbs have empty word-forms. [18]

Meaning – the reverberation in the human consciousness of an object, a quality of extralinguistic reality (a phenomenon, a relationship, a quality, a process), which becomes a fact of language because of its constant indissoluble association with a definite linguistic and logical expression. Meaning conveyed by a speaker is the speaker's communicative intent in using an expression, even if that use departs from the expression's meaning. Accordingly, any discussion of meaning should distinguish speaker's meaning from linguistic meaning. [21]

An exact definition of any basic term is no easy task altogether. In the case of lexical meaning it becomes especially difficult due to the complexity of the process by which language and human conscience serve to reflect outward reality and to adapt it to human needs. The definition has been attempted more than once in accordance with the main principles of different linguistic schools. The disciples of Saussure consider meaning to be the relation between the object or notion named, and the name itself. Descriptive linguistics of the Bloomfieldian trend defines the meaning as the situation in which the word is uttered. There are broadly speaking two schools to Meaning of thought in present-day linguistics representing the main lines of contemporary thinking on the problem: the referential approach, which seeks to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing the interdependence between words and the things or concepts they denote, and the functional approach, which studies the functions of a word in speech and is less concerned with what meaning is than with how it works.

All major works on semantic theory have so far been based on referential concepts of meaning. The essential feature of this approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning: the sound-form of the linguistic sign, the concept underlying this sound-form, and the actual referent, i.e. that part or that aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers.

It should be pointed out that among the adherents of the referential approach there are some who hold 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 love or hate? That is why it is also the question of noun ranks – the question of connotative meaning and so – called semantic cases. We must admit that the actual extent of human knowledge makes it impossible to define word-meanings accurately, due to the concept of surround reality. 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). 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 move and movement is 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 (move the chair), preceded by a pronoun (we move), etc. The position occupied by the word movement is different: it may be followed by a preposition (movement of something), preceded by an adjective (slow movement), and so on. As the distribution of the 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 take if 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.

When comparing the two approaches described above in terms of methods of linguistic analysis we see that the functional approach should not be considered an alternative, but rather a valuable complement to the referential theory. It is only natural that linguistic investigation must start by collecting an adequate number of samples of contexts. On examination the meaning or meanings of linguistic units will emerge from the contexts themselves. Once this phase had been completed it seems but logical to pass on to the referential phase and try to formulate the meaning thus identified. 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. [11, 58]

We had examined a word and its meaning and we can conclude that it is quite perplexing task to identify the meaning of a meaning (in this way we have a great deal of homonyms and polysemantic words, the semantic structure of which can include even more than 20 meanings) and a reason and cause of name appearing in a language. Due to the word’s syntagmatical function and it’s semantic structure, that with the help of semantic elements create the semantic community, we have a way to distinguish an outer aspect and an inner aspect – the sound form (a name) and it’s meaning.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter II. The Classification of Word Meaning (Types of Word meaning)

2.1 Denotative Meaning.

By the denotation of a word is meant the relationship that holds between that word and persons, things, places, properties, processes and activities external to the language-system. A lexeme, in general, denoted a class of entities in the world. For example, the lexeme shirt denotes a class of pieces of clothing worn on the upper part of the body; the lexeme student denotes all the students in the world; and the lexeme happy denotes the property of being happy. Denotation, thus, is invariant and context-independent.

But there is a distinction between denotation and reference. Reference it is a relationship that holds between a language expression such as this shirt or that student and what that expression refers to particular occasions of its utterance. The expression this shirt may refer to one shirt or another depending on who utters the expression. Reference is, consequently, utterance-dependent. Lexemes do not have reference, but may be used as components of referring expressions in particular contexts of utterance. Some authors, however, do not distinguish denotation and reference. They consider the denotation and reference of a language expression are the same. Allan (quoted in Bright 1995: 410) argues that “the denotation of a language expression is what a speaker or writer uses it to mean on the world evoked by a text in which the word appears”. For example, the denotation or reference of my car and yesterday in the sentence:  

  I totaled my car yesterday

The denotation or reference of my car and yesterday depends on who makes the utterance (which distinguishes his or her car) and when (which dates yesterday). Unlike denotation, sense is defined to hold between the words and expressions of a single language. The sense of a lexeme is a set or a network of the relations between that lexeme and other lexemes or expressions of the same language. Such relations are called sense-relations, which is wholly internal to the language-system. Denotation and sense are related to each other: we would not know the one without having some knowledge of the other.  [17]

Denotation and sense can be applied to a lexeme or a larger expression. The denotation and sense of a composite expression is a compositional function of the denotation and sense of its component parts. For example, the lexeme shirt, apart from its denotation, is also related, in various ways, to other lexemes: clothing, clothes, blouse, etc.; and the composite expression  a yellow shirt has its denotation and sense, which combines the denotation and sense of yellow and shirt. Denotation, reference and sense are closely related to one another. The denotation and sense of a lexeme are of important value in making up of its descriptive meaning. [18]

The term denotatum or referent means either a notion or an actually existing individual thing to which reference is made. The emotional content of the word is its capacity to evoke or directly express emotion. It is rendered by the emotional or expressive counterpart of meaning, also called emotive charge. In this connection it should be borne in mind that for a notion to arise there must be a word to convey it: notions cannot exist without wards. The reverse is not necessarily true: there are words that do not convey any notion, and nevertheless they all have meaning. Interjections oh! ah! alas! hear, hear!, for instance, express emotions, not notions, while some other words render both (e. g. the words ass, brute or pig applied to human beings). The expressive counterpart of meaning is optional, and even when it is present, its proportion with respect to the logical counterpart may vary within limits. [9, 167]