The lexical meaning vs. Notion

⇐ ПредыдущаяСтр 2 из 23Следующая ⇒

The term notion ( concept ) is introduced into linguistics from logic and psychology. It denotes the reflection in the mind of real objects and phenomena in their essential features and relations. Each notion is characterised by its scope and content. The scope of the notion is determined by all the objects it refers to. The content of the notion is made up of all the features that distinguish it from other notions. The distinction between the scope and the content of a notion lies at the basis of such terms as the identifying (demonstrative) and significative functions of the word that have been discussed above. The identifying function may be interpreted as denoting the objects covered by the scope of the notion expressed in the word, and the significative function is the function of expressing the content of the respective notion. The function of rendering an emotion or an attitude is termed the expressive function.

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.

§ I. The first essential point is that the relationship between notion and meaning varies. A word may have a notion for its referent. In the example A good laugh is sunshine in the house (Thackeray) every word evokes a general idea, a notion, without directly referring to any particular element of reality. The scope of the significative meaning and that of the notion coincide; on different levels they cover the same area. But a word may also have, and quite often has a particular individual object for its referent as in “Do you remember what the young lady did with the telegram? ” (Christie) The problem of proper names is particularly complicated. It has been often taken for granted that they do not convey any generalised notion at all, that they only name human beings, countries, cities, animals, rivers, stars, etc. The clue, as St. Ullmann convincingly argues, lies in the specific function of proper names which is identification, and not signifying. Pronouns possess the demonstrative function almost to a complete exclusion of the significative function, i.e. they only point out, they do not impart any information about the object pointed out except for its relation to the speaker. To sum up this first point: the logical notion is the referent of lexical meaning quite often but not always, because there may be other referents such as the real objects.

§ II. Secondly, notions are always emotionally neutral as they are a category of thought. Language, however, expresses all possible aspects of human consciousness. Therefore the meaning of many words not only conveys some reflection of objective reality but also connotations revealing the speaker’s state of mind and his attitude to what he is speaking about.

§ III. Thirdly, the absence not only of identity, but even of regular one-to-one correspondence between meaning and notion is clearly seen in words belonging to some specific stylistic level. This purely linguistic factor is relevant not for the content of the message but for the personality of the speaker, his background and his relations with his audience. The stylistic colouring should not be mixed with emotional tone although here they coincide. A word may have a definite stylistic characteristic and be completely devoid of any emotional colouring.

§ IV. The linguistic nature of lexical meaning has very important consequences. Expressing a notion, a word does so in a way determined by the peculiarities of the lexical and grammatical systems of each particular language and by the various structural ties of the word in speech. Every word may be said to have paradigmatic ties relating it to other words and forms, and giving it a differential quality. The lexical meaning of every word depends upon the part of speech to which the word belongs. Every word may be used in a limited set of syntactical functions, and with a definite valency. It has a definite set of grammatical meanings, and a definite set of forms. In summing up this fourth point, we note that the complexity of the notion is determined by the relationships of the extra-linguistic reality reflected in human consciousness. The structure of every separate meaning depends on the linguistic syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships because meaning is an inherent component of language. The complexity of each word meaning is due to the fact that it combines lexical meaning with lexico-grammatical meaning and sometimes with emotional colouring, stylistic peculiarities and connotations born from previous usage.

§ V. The foregoing deals with separate meanings as realised in speech. If we turn to the meaning of words as they exist in language we shall observe that frequently used words are polysemantic. Morphological derivation also plays a very important part in determining possible meaning combinations. Thus, for instance, nouns derived from verbs very often name not only the action itself but its result as well, e. g. show n ‘the act of showing’, ‘an exhibition’.

§ VI. Last but not least, the difference between notion and meaning is based upon the fact that notions are mostly international, especially for nations with the same level of cultural development, whereas meaning may be nationally determined and limited.

Summing up all the points of difference between the thing meant, the notion and the meaning, 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 of the language.

Проблема определения слова и его основные характеристики

Nobody doubts that word is a basic unit of lexicology, alongside with morphemes and phraseological units. Each word is a small unit within a vast, efficient and well-balanced system. It is immediately understood by every native speaker. A word is a dialectical unity of form and content. The definition of the word is one of the most difficult in linguistics because the simplest word is a multi-aspect unit possessing a sound form (a certain arrangement of phonemes). Besides, it has morphological structure (a certain arrangement of morphemes). When it is used in actual speech, it may occur in different word forms and signal different meanings. The word is a sort of focus for the problems of phonology, lexicology, syntax, morphology and also for some other sciences dealing with the language and speech. Each of these sciences suggests its own definition of the word but in fact none of these definitions can be considered totally satisfactory in all aspects.

If we try to divorce two facets of the word (form and content), the word will lose its identity. The word is further complicated by the existence of variants and word forms. ‘Write - writing - has been writing - wrote - written’ - these are word forms. They are lexically identical but have different grammatical meaning. These forms constitute the word paradigm. Variants appear when slight modifications in the morphemic or phonemic structure of the word are related with any modification in the content or changes in the plane of expression are linked with the change in the plane of content (‘open’ - ‘opened’). Lexical semantic variants appear if we observe the change of meaning without modification of the form: ‘open face - open sound - open window’.

All these considerations show that any attempt to give a definition of the word faces a lot of difficulties. There are a lot of linguistic definitions of the word. It can be defined syntactically (a minimal sentence; a minimal free form which occur in sentences), as a minimal meaningful unit of speech. It can be considered on purely phonetic criterion as a part of the sentence singled out with full stops. Some linguists claim that word is means of nominating any element of extralinguistic reality.

There are some characteristics of the word which scientists mention:

§ its indivisibility showing that words cannot be divided without a disturbance of meaning. It means that you cannot insert anything into the middle of the word without breaking its internal indivisibility. C.f.: ‘to stay alone’ - ‘to stay a quite lone’ - ‘a lone star’.

§ some linguists also prove that words possess ininterruptibility. C.f.: ‘the boy-s slow-ly walk-ed up the hill’

Words in sentences may change their position, but they should behave as blocks. They occur always together, they are positionally mobile, but indivisible. Prof. Smirnitsky singles out grammatical cohesion as the main criterion of the word. He tries to prove that word combinations are different from words because they lack structural cohesion and are divisible, cf.: “a black bird” - “a blackbird”. The latter is characterized by unity and it possesses a single grammatical framing (“blackbirds”). The first component (black) cannot have any grammatical changes. On the contrary, each component of “a black bird” may have its own grammatical framing, e.g. “the blackest birds”. Besides, if we take a word combination, we can insert other words between the components of it - “a black night bird”, but that is impossible with a single word. The word “blackbird” conveys only one concept - the type of the bird. As for the word combination, it conveys the two meanings - the color and the type of the animal.

⇐ Предыдущая 123 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Следующая ⇒