Word as a central nominative unit

   The important point to remember about definitions is that they should indicate the most essential characteristic features of the notion expressed by the term under discussion, the features by which this notion is distinguished from other similar notions [2, 27].

   The word may be described as the basic unit of language. Uniting meaning and form, it is composed of one or more morphemes, each consisting of one or more spoken sounds or their written representation. Morphemes as we have already said are also meaningful units but they cannot be used independently, they are always parts of words whereas words can be used as a complete utterance (e. g. Listen!). The combinations of morphemes within words are subject to certain linking conditions. When a derivational affix is added a new word is formed, thus, listen and listener are different words. In fulfilling different grammatical functions words may take functional affixes: listen and listened are different forms of the same word. Different forms of the same word can be also built analytically with the help of auxiliaries. E.g.: The world should listen then as I am listening now (Shelley).

   When used in sentences together with other words they are syntactically organised. Their freedom of entering into syntactic constructions is limited by many factors, rules and constraints (e. g.: They told me this story but not *They spoke me this story) [2, 27].

   The definition of every basic notion is a very hard task: the definition of a word is one of the most difficult in linguistics because the simplest word has many different aspects. It has a sound form because it is a certain arrangement of phonemes; it has its morphological structure, being also a certain arrangement of morphemes; when used in actual speech, it may occur in different word forms, different syntactic functions and signal various meanings. Being the central element of any language system, the word is a sort of focus for the problems of phonology, lexicology, syntax, morphology and also for some other sciences that have to deal with language and speech, such as philosophy and psychology, and probably quite a few other branches of knowledge. All attempts to characterise the word are necessarily specific for each domain of science and are therefore considered one-sided by the representatives of all the other domains and criticised for incompleteness [2, 28].

   Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), one of the great English philosophers, revealed a materialistic approach to the problem of nomination when he wrote that words are not mere sounds but names of matter. Three centuries later the great Russian physiologist I.P. Pavlov (1849-1936) examined the word in connection with his studies of the second signal system, and defined it as a universal signal that can substitute any other signal from the environment in evoking a response in a human organism. One of the latest developments of science and engineering is machine translation. It also deals with words and requires a rigorous definition for them. It runs as follows: a word is a sequence of graphemes which can occur between spaces, or the representation of such a sequence on morphemic level.

   Within the scope of linguistics the word has been defined syntactically, semantically, phonologically and by combining various approaches.

   It has been syntactically defined for instance as “the minimum sentence” by H. Sweet and much later by L. Bloomfield as “a minimum free form”. This last definition, although structural in orientation, may be said to be, to a certain degree, equivalent to Sweet’s, as practically it amounts to the same thing: free forms are later defined as “forms which occur as sentences” [2, 28].

   Another structural aspect of the word is its unity. The word possesses both external (or formal) unity and semantic unity. Formal unity of the word is sometimes inaccurately interpreted as indivisibility. The example of post-impressionists has already shown that the word is not, strictly speaking, indivisible. Yet, its component morphemes are permanently linked together in opposition to word-groups, both free and with fixed contexts, whose components possess a certain structural freedom, e. g. bright light, to take for granted [1, 8].

   The essence of indivisibility will be clear from a comparison of the article a and the prefix a- in a lion and alive. A lion is a word-group because we can separate its elements and insert other words between them: a living lion, a dead lion. Alive is a word: it is indivisible, i.e. structurally impermeable: nothing can be inserted between its elements. The morpheme a- is not free, is not a word. The situation becomes more complicated if we cannot be guided by solid spelling. “The Oxford English Dictionary", for instance, does not include the reciprocal pronouns each other and one another under separate headings, although they should certainly be analysed as word-units, not as word-groups since they have become indivisible: we now say with each other and with one another instead of the older forms one with another or each with the other [2, 28].

   When discussing the internal cohesion of the word the English linguist John Lyons points out that it should be discussed in terms of two criteria “positional mobility” and “uninterruptability”. To illustrate the first he segments into morphemes the following sentence:

   the - boy - s - walk - ed - slow - ly - up - the - hill

   The sentence may be regarded as a sequence of ten morphemes, which occur in a particular order relative to one another. There are several possible changes in this order which yield an acceptable English sentence:

   slow - ly - the - boy - s - walk - ed - up - the - hill up - the - hill - slow - ly - walk - ed - the - boy - s

   Yet under all the permutations certain groups of morphemes behave as ‘blocks’ — they occur always together, and in the same order relative to one another. There is no possibility of the sequence s - the - boy, ly - slow, ed - walk. “One of the characteristics of the word is that it tends to be internally stable (in terms of the order of the component morphemes), but positionally mobile (permutable with other words in the same sentence)”.

   A purely semantic treatment will be found in Stephen Ullmann’s explanation: with him connected discourse, if analysed from the semantic point of view, “will fall into a certain number of meaningful segments which are ultimately composed of meaningful units. These meaningful units are called words" [5, 30].

   The semantic-phonological approach may be illustrated by A.H.Gardiner’s definition: “A word is an articulate sound-symbol in its aspect of denoting something which is spoken about" [4, 355].

   This definition does not permit us to distinguish words from phrases because not only child, but a pretty child as well are combinations of a particular group of sounds with a particular meaning capable of a particular grammatical employment.

   We can, nevertheless, accept this formula with some modifications, adding that a word is the smallest significant unit of a given language capable of functioning alone and characterised by positional mobility within a sentence, morphological uninterruptability and semantic integrity. All these criteria are necessary because they permit us to create a basis for the oppositions between the word and the phrase, the word and the phoneme, and the word and the morpheme: their common feature is that they are all units of the language, their difference lies in the fact that the phoneme is not significant, and a morpheme cannot be used as a complete utterance [2, 30].

   Summing up review of different definitions, we come to the conclusion that they are bound to be strongly dependent upon the line of approach, the aim the scholar has in view. For a comprehensive word theory, therefore, a description seems more appropriate than a definition.

   The problem of creating a word theory based upon the materialistic understanding of the relationship between word and thought on the one hand, and language and society, on the other, has been one of the most discussed for many years. The efforts of many eminent scholars such as V.V. Vinogradov, A. I. Smirnitsky, O.S. Akhmanova, M.D. Stepanova, A.A. Ufimtseva — to name but a few, resulted in throwing light on this problem and achieved a clear presentation of the word as a basic unit of the language [2, 30].

   The acoustic aspect of the word serves to name objects of reality, not to reflect them. In this sense the word may be regarded as a sign. This sign, however, is not arbitrary but motivated by the whole process of its development. That is to say, when a word first comes into existence it is built out of the elements already available in the language and according to the existing patterns.

 

    2.2 Semantic triangle 

   Semantic triangle shows the relation of words to the world of things, events and relations outside of language to which they refer and word connection with its referent.

   The account of meaning given by Ferdinand de Saussure implies the definition of a word as a linguistic sign. He calls it ‘signifiant’ (signifier) and what it refers to — ‘signifie’ (that which is signified). By the latter term he understands not the phenomena of the real world but the ‘concept’ in the speaker’s and listener’s mind. The situation may be represented by a triangle.

   

   Here, according to F. de Saussure, only the relationship shown by a solid line concerns linguistics and the sign is not a unity of form and meaning as we understand it now, but only sound form.

   Originally this triangular scheme was suggested by the German mathematician and philosopher Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925).

   Well-known English scholars C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards adopted this three-cornered pattern with considerable modifications. With them a sign is a two-facet unit comprising form (phonetical and orthographic), regarded as a linguistic symbol, and reference which is more linguistic than just a concept. This approach may be called referential because it implies that linguistic meaning is connected with the referent. It is graphically shown by there being only one dotted line. A solid line between reference and referent shows that the relationship between them is linguistically relevant, that the nature of what is named influences the meaning. This connection should not be taken too literally, it does not mean that the sound form has to have any similarity with the meaning or the object itself. The connection is conventional [2, 31].

   Several generations of writers, following C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, have in their turn taken up and modified this diagram. It is known under several names: the semantic triangle, triangle of signification, Frege semiotic triangle, Ogden and Richards basic triangle or simply basic triangle.

   

   It can show the main features of the referential approach in its present form. All the lines are now solid, implying that it is not only the form of the linguistic sign but also its meaning and what it refers to that are relevant for linguistics. The scheme is given as it is applied to the naming of cats.

   

   The scheme is still over-simplified and several things are left out. It is very important, for instance, to remember that the word is represented by the left-hand side of the diagram — it is a sign comprising the name and the meaning, and these invariably evoke one another. So we have to assume that the word takes two apexes of the triangle and the line connecting them. In some versions of the triangle it is not the meaning but the concept that is placed in the apex. This reflects the approach to the problem as formulated by medieval grammarians; it remained traditional for many centuries [2, 32].

   The diagram represents the simplest possible case of reference because the word here is supposed to have only one meaning and one form of fixation. Simplification, is, however, inherent to all models and the popularity of the semantic triangle proves how many authors find it helpful in showing the essence of the referential approach.

 

   

   2.3 Types of meaning according to Vinogradov 

   Meaning – the reverberation in the human consciousness of an object, a quality of extralinguistic reality (a phenomenon, a relation, a quality, a process), which becomes a fact of language because of its constant indissoluble association with the definite linguistic 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 for linguistic meaning.

   There exist a number of definitions of meaning:

• a reciprocal relation between name and sense, which enables them to call up one another (St. Ullmann);
• function in a context. Meaning, then, we use the whole complex of functions which a linguistic form may have (J.R.Firth);
• a function of the descriptions at all levels (M.A.K.Halliday) and many others.

   According to Vinogradov, meaning of a word can be:

1. Nominative.
2. Nominative-derivative.
3. Collegationally and collocationally conditioned.
4. Phraseologically bound.

   Nominative is the basic meaning of a word, which refers to object of extra linguistic reality in a direct way and reflects their actual relations.

   Nominative-derivative meaning comes into being when the word is “stretched out” semantically to cover new facts and extra linguistic phenomena.

   When the speaker uses the word metaphorically he extends its content. The metaphorical use is based on certain similarities observed by the speaker. Different meaning – the identity of the word remains intact, because the difference in meaning is not great enough to split the word into 2 different units. When the speaker observes similarities between the objects, the semantic content of the word is made elastic to be stretched out and cover new bits of reality. Such metaphorical meanings are poetically present in the semantic structure of the word.

   If nominative meaning is a direct meaning, nominative-derivative meaning is  a transferred meaning.

   Collegationally and collocationally conditioned meanings are not free, but bound.

   a. Collegationally conditioned meaning is determined by morphosyntactic combinability of words.

   Some meanings are realized only without a given morphosyntactic pattern (colligation).

   to tell – сказати, розказати

   In passive constructions means to order/to direct: You must do what you’re told.

   to carry – нести

   In passive construction – to accept: The amendment to the bill was carried.

   b. Collocationally conditioned meaning is determined by lexical-phraseological combinality of words.

   There are meanings which depend on the word associations with other words (collocation): a herd of cows, a flock of sheep.

   Collocation is used here as a typical behavior of a word in speech.

   Phraseologically bound meaning.

   Collocations should be distinguished from idioms and phraseological units. Idioms and phraseological units are devoid of referential meanings. The meanings of the individual words can’t be summed together to produce the meaning of the idiomatic expression. The word combination is literal in meaning, because its degree of idiomatic is low, it’s called phraseological unit [7].

   Summing up all the points, we can say that the lexical meaning of the word may be defined as the realisation or naming of a notion, emotion or object by means of a definite language system subject to the influence of grammar and vocabulary peculiarities of that language. Words that express notions may also have some emotional or stylistic colouring or express connotations suggestive of the contexts in which they often appear. All the specific features that distinguish the lexical meaning from the notion are due to its linguistic nature. Expressing the notion is one of the word’s functions but not the only one, as there are words that do not name any notion; their meaning is constituted by other functions. The development of the lexical meaning is influenced by the whole complicated network of ties and relations between the words in a given vocabulary and between the vocabulary and other aspects of the language.

 

CONCLUSION 

   The word is the fundamental unit of language. It is a dialectical unity of form and content. Its content or meaning is not identical to notion, but it may reflect human notions, and in this sense may be considered as the form of their existence. Concepts fixed in the meaning of words are formed as generalised and approximately correct reflections of reality, therefore in signifying them words reflect reality in their content.

   When working on the topic we tried to study as much literature sources and of course we worked with the dictionaries we used a method of system analysis, description and a problem solving method. As a result we managed to learn all the lexicology terms that concern our theme, show the most significant characteristics of word with a lot of examples and give meaning classification according to Vinogradov.

   In the modification of the triangle given in this work we have to understand that the referent belongs to extra-linguistic reality, it is reflected in our mind in several stages (not shown on the diagram): first it is perceived, then many perceptions are generalised into a concept, which in its turn is reflected in the meaning with certain linguistic constraints conditioned by paradigmatic influence within the vocabulary. When it is the concept that is put into the apex, then the meaning cannot be identified with any of the three points of the triangle.

   The relationship between the linguistic lexical meaning and the logical notion deserves special attention not only because they are apt to be confused but also because in comparing and contrasting them it is possible to achieve a better insight into the essence of both.

   To draw a conclusion we must say that the aim of our work has been achieved and all the problems that are put in the beginning of the work are solved.

 

   LITERATURE SOURCES:

1. Антрушина Г. Б., Афанасьева О. В., Морозова Н. Н. Лексикология английского языка: Учеб. пособие для студентов. — М.: Дрофа, 1999. — 288с.
2. Арнольд И. В. Лексикология современного английского языка: Учеб. для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. — 3-е изд., перераб. и доп. — М.: Высш. шк., 1986. — 295с.
3. Гинзбург Р.3., Хидекель С.С., Князева Г.Ю. и Санкин А.А. Лексикология английского языка: Учебник для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. — 2-е изд., испр. и доп. — М.: Высш. школа, 1979. — 269с.
4. Gardiner A.H. The Definition of the Word and the Sentence // The British Journal of Psychology. 1922. XII. P. 355.
5. Ullmann St. The Principles of Semantics. Glasgow, 1957. P. 30.
6. Дубунец Э.М. Курс лекций и планы семинарских занятий по лексикологии английского языка. // http://roman.by/r-39157.html
7. Theory of meaning. Types of meaning according Vinogradov. // http://article.ranez.ru/id/369
8. The Free Dictionary - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/lexicology
9. Wikipedia. The free encyclopedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexicology