Semasiology (Greek semasia ‘meaning’ ) is a branch of lexicology investigating meaning of language units. It is universally accepted that language units having meanings are morphemes (the smallest meaningful units), words (lexemes), word combinations (phrases), sentences. The problem of phonetic meaning is controversial [Журавлев 1974]. There is also the term semantics which refers to the content of language and speech units. It is used in the following word combinations: semantics of the word, semantics of the sentence, semantics of the text, etc. Also this term refers to logical semantics.
As it was mentioned above, meaning is the inner facet of the word as a linguistic sign, its content. The very function of the word as a unit of communication is made possible by its possessing a meaning. Besides, meaning is a linking element between the objects of extra-linguistic reality (also qualities, processes) and the sound sequences which are the names of the objects.
Therefore, meaning is the most important property of the word.
The problem of meaning has a long tradition in linguistics. Philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome were interested in relations between the name and the thing named and what role meaning plays in these relations.
There are two main approaches to the problem of meaning in modern linguistics: referential and functional.
The referential approach (or theory) has a long tradition. It proceeds from the assumption that the word as a name is related to a thing (object) it names, which is called a referent (denotatum). The word ‘referent’ allows twofold interpretation. It denotes either a certain object, quality, process (real or imaginary) in actual situations of speech as in sentences: ‘ The pen is on the table’ or ‘ The book is interesting’, or a class of objects as pen (a class of pens)different from pencil (a class of pencils)or table different from chair, etc. It means that the word has a generating function.
The classes of things having names are distinguished by certain features, or properties, inherent in them. These features make up the concept of the object in our minds. The generating function of the word is most obvious in such contexts as The dog is a domestic animal, where the objects named refer to a class.
In order to give a name to an object, one should form the notion, or concept of it, i.e. one must know the salient features of the object which differentiate it from other objects. Hence there is interrelation between word (its outer facet - a sound or graphic form), concept and referent which is represented by the so-called semantic triangle offered by the British linguists C.K.Ogden and I.A.Richards [Ogden, Richards 1946]:
By ‘linguistic symbol’ here is meant the sound or graphic form of the word.
The dotted line suggests that there is no immediate relation between word and referent: it is established only through context.
Hence, meaning in referential approach is a component of the word through which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with the ability of denoting objects, qualities, phenomena, actions and abstract notions. One should bear in mind that though meaning is related both to referent and concept, it is not identical to either of them.
Meaning is not identical to referent (denotatum) as the latter, be it a single object referred to, or a class of objects belongs to extra-linguistic reality while meaning is a linguistic category. One and the same object can be named by different words, having different meanings. A woman can be called mother, sister, lady, doctor, etc. Not every word is related to really existing objects, some of the referents are fantastic or imaginary ones (e.g. dragon, devil).
Meaning is neither identical to concept as the latter is a category of cognition, i.e. it is a mental but not a linguistic phenomenon. Concepts reflect general and prominent features of objects and phenomena while meanings mostly fix features differentiating objects. Concepts are more or less identical for peoples speaking different languages, but meanings may be different. For example, the concept of house is identical for people speaking English and Russian languages as it is ‘a place for human habitation’,but the Russian word дом has a wider volume of meaning than the English word house as it embraces meanings of both the words house and home.
Synonyms more often than not reflect one and the same concept but differ in components of meaning. Thus the concept which refers to the initial phase of certain activities is reflected in the meanings of synonymous lexemes to begin (to start, take the first step), to start (to begin to do sth., begin an action), to commence (formal – begin, start), to initiate (set a scheme, etc working ), to inaugurate (introduce a new official at a special ceremony). Each of these synonyms has its own meaning which brings to light a certain aspect of the underlying concept.
The above-mentioned correlation of word, concept and referent underlies certain definitions of meaning. Though the users of the language freely operate with the notion of meaning, giving a satisfying definition to meaning is no less easy matter than giving a definition to the word due to complexity of both notions. Definitions based on relations of the word and the referent are called ostensive, or referential. Such definitions are illustrative. In fact an ostensive definition is pointing at the corresponding referent and this method of defining words is widely used in teaching languages.
Ostensive definitions, however, are not free of shortcomings. Mere pointing at the object is not enough to give a satisfying definition of the word. Besides, the meanings of such abstract nouns as, for example, beauty, idea, verbs and adjectives as think, interesting, conjunctions, etc. are impossible to define by pointing at their referents. Thus ostensive definitions are applicable only to a relatively limited number of words, the so-called denotative, or identifying words, i.e. the words referring to material objects. The so-called predicative, or characterizing names, referring to properties and manifestations of objects or relations between the objects, cannot be defined ostensively [Харитончик 1992: 31]
A number of conceptual definitions of meaning based on interrelations between the word and the concept were put forward by linguists. For instance V.V.Vinogradov defines “lexical meaning of the word as its conceptual content, which is formed according to grammatical norms of the given language and is an element of the lexico-semantic system of the language” [Виноградов 1953].
Professor A.I.Smirnitsky proceeded from the basic assumption of the objectivity of language and meaning, and understanding the linguistic sign as a two-facet unit. He defined meaning as “a certain reflection in our mind of objects, phenomena or relations (or imaginary constructions as mermaid, goblin, witch) that makes part of the linguistic sign – its so-called inner facet, whereas the sound form functions as its outer facet, its material shape...” [Смирницкий 1956: 152].
O.N.Sеliverstova defines meaning as information contained in the word [Селиверстова 1975].
Conceptual definitions were subject to criticism on the grounds that they are not purely linguistic and to a certain extent subjective. Besides some linguists claim that despite the obvious interrelation between the word meaning, the referent and the concept, it is not sufficient to elucidate the linguistic essence of the word meaning.
The functional approach aims at giving a purely linguistic definition of meaning thus overcoming the shortcomings of the above-mentioned definitions. According to this approach “meaning of the word is its functioning in speech” (Witgenstein) [Витгенштейн 1985].
This approach is based on the assumption that the meaning of a linguistic unit should be investigated in actual speech through its relations to other linguistic units and not through its relation to either concept or referent. For instance, the word black has different meanings in contexts: a black hat, black sorrow, Black Death.
The functional approach helps us determine meanings of words in different contexts. However, it would be erroneous to fully identify the meaning and function of the word. Contexts indicate the meaningful differences of word meanings, but words have meanings outside contexts and it is not always possible to determine word meaning without correlating the word with its referent no matter how many contexts of its usage might be produced [Харитончик 1992: 34].
The referential and functional approaches should not be opposed to one another. The best way to have better understanding of meaning would be using both approaches in combination. They supplement each other and will provide a deeper understanding of such a complex linguistic phenomenon as meaning.
At present one more trend in semantic theory initiated by foreign linguists W.Chafe, Ch.Fillmore, J.Lakoff, R.Jackendoff, R.Langacker and others is being developed within the cognitive linguistic theory which got the name of theory of prototypes. It proceeds from the cognitive function of the language. Language is a very important instrument of human cognition with the help of which people get knowledge of the world and fix the new facts they learn in the language. Linguistic categories are conceptual categories of cognition. The interpretation of semantic phenomena is based on the sense underlying the word meaning which comes to light in the course of human experience and is important for distinguishing one object from another.
The word meaning in the cognitive approach is treated as the prototype of the object it refers to. This understanding of word meaning proceeds from human experience and perception of the reality and tends to reflect the peculiarities of human cognition of the world. The prototype of the object is formed in the course of observations and experiments when a human being discovers certain cognitive, or prototypical features of objects which distinguish this object from others and make up its prototype. For example, in order to distinguish fish from other living creatures one must know that the fish are animals living in water having gills and fins, etc. – these are the prototypical features of the object which got the name of fish. This theory differs from other semantic theories inasmuch as it takes into account the human factor in the processes of cognition and the language.
Types of Meaning
Word meaning is not homogeneous but is made of various components, the combination and interrelation of which determine to a great extent the inner facet of the word. These components are described as types of meaning. The two main types of meaning are lexical and grammatical. In actual speech words impart simultaneously two main types of information: the information of the referent or concept the word relates to, and the information relevant for the word’s proper functioning in speech. The word cats, for instance, used in the sentence They have two cats expresses two kinds of meaning - the lexical one, denoting a certain kind of animal, and the grammatical one, denoting plurality.
The component of meaning proper to the word as a linguistic unit, recurrent in all the forms of this word is described as its lexical meaning. This meaning serves to differentiate lexemes and it remains unchanged throughout the paradigm of the word (e.g. cat, cat’s, cats, cats’).
The grammatical meaning is defined as the component of meaning recurrent in identical sets of individual forms of different words [Ginzburg 1979:18]. Grammatical meaning is the meaning proper to grammatical classes or categories of words which embrace sets of word-forms common to all words of a certain class. For instance, the grammatical meaning of plurality can be expressed in the forms of various words irrespective of their lexical meaning: boys, books, cats, children, etc.; the tense meaning by asked, thought, walked, etc.
Сomparing lexical and grammatical meanings one cannot fail to notice that the lexical meaning is concrete and individual, sometimes it is called the material meaning of the word, while the grammatical meaning is much more abstract and generalized. The grammatical classes of words are singled out not only on the basis of the grammatical meaning but also certain formal features, e.g. the inflection - s for the plural of nouns, - ed for the Past Indefinite Tense. That’s why it is also called formal, or structural. However, it is not quite correct to say that the lexical meaning is only concrete and individual. The word through its lexical meaning also performs a generalizing function, as it nominates not only a particular individual object when used in a speech situation, but a class of objects as in the above-mentioned example, the word house in its lexical meaning ‘a place for human habitation’ is generalization from any particular building where people live. However, this generalization is of lower level compared with the generalizing power of the grammatical meaning which embraces not one class of objects.
Both the lexical and the grammatical meanings make up the word meaning as neither can exist without the other. Both of these meanings are formed simultaneously in the process of nomination. The object not only gets its name in the process of nomination but also is referred to a certain grammatical class. For example, a relatively new word computer imparts the information of the individual meaning of the word ‘ electronic machine which calculates and keeps information automatically’ but also the meaning of substantivity, ‘thingness’ which refers the word to the class of nouns.
Lexemes are classified into major (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs) and minor (articles, prepositions, conjunctions, particles) word classes known as parts of speech. Classes of lexemes possess the part-of-speech meaning which includes lexical and grammatical components of meaning. A lexical component of part-of-speech meaning is very abstract and it is the component of meaning common to all the lexemes of the given part of speech. For instance, the part-of-speech meaning of nouns is ‘thingness’ or ‘substantivity’, adjectives - ‘quality’, verbs - ‘processes’. The grammatical aspect of the part-of-speech meaning is conveyed by a set of forms. If the lexeme is a noun, it is bound to possess a set of forms expressing the grammatical meaning of number (joy-joys), case (boy, boy's). A verb possesses grammatical meanings of tense, aspect, etc.
The interrelation of the grammatical and lexical meanings and the role each of them plays varies in different word classes and even in different groups of words within the same class. In minor word classes (articles, pronouns, conjunctions, etc.) grammatical meaning is prominent. The lexical meaning of prepositions may be comparatively distinct (in, on, under the table). In verbs the lexical meaning usually comes to the fore, although in some of them (to be, to have) the grammatical meaning of a linking element prevails.
Lexical meaning is not homogeneous. It is characterized by complexity which is stipulated by the complexity of the nomination processes and the multifarious character of communication.
The basis of the lexical meaning is the word’s reference, the ability of the word to be used for denoting the objects and phenomena of reality and also the objects and phenomena of cognition (thinking) [Беляевская 1987: 45]. The word’s reference forms its material content. The content of the word includes the denotational (denotative)and significativeaspects (components) of meaning. Distinguishing of these aspects proceeds from understanding the word as a linguistic sign in the referential approach to meaning.
The word possesses the denotational aspect of meaning as it denotes things, phenomena, etc. It points at the word’s connection with the object or phenomenon of the reality. The denotational meaning makes communication possible. People understand each other’s speech because they know what words denote, i.e. their denotational meanings. The denotational component of meaning in most cases underlies dictionary definitions of words. For example, the denotational aspect of the word table reflects the features of the object of a certain type and having certain functions. The referent of the word table represents a particular class of objects. The prominent features and functions of the object are reflected in its definition: ‘piece of furniture consisting of a flat top with (usu. four) supports (called legs)’ (ALD).
The significative aspect of the lexical meaning of the word is the conceptual content of the word, its ability to reflect the corresponding concept underlying the word’s meaning. While investigating the lexical meaning which is formed in the process of nomination, it is important to determine the correlation between denotation and signification. The investigation of language material proves that here there are certain possibilities: the denotatum might come close to the concept, embracing the most significant features of the class of the objects or be much narrower than the concept [Беляевская 1987: 46]. There is an opposition between what the word signifies and what it denotes. “Signifying”, the word reflects the most common features (the concept) of the object named; “denoting”, the word fixes certain particular features of the object and it is related to the referent through denotation.
For instance, the English verb to sit is related to the concept of occupying a certain position in space (the significativeaspect of the lexical meaning) but it denotes the position occupied only by people and some animals (the denotational aspect of meaning), unlike the Russian сидеть. Cf. Rus.: Пчела сидит на ветке. Пирог сидит в печи, which is rendered in English by the verb to be: The bee is on a twig. The pie is in the oven.
Along with the denotational and significative aspects of lexical meaning some words possess connotational and pragmatic aspects. Connotation is an additional component of meaning which contains information of the speaker’s emotional-evaluative attitude to things and phenomena (the emotive charge). The connotational component may be found in certain words along with the denotational one.
The emotive charge is one of the objective semantic features proper to words. There exist words containing positive or negative emotive evaluation. Comparing synonyms well-known – famous – notorious we observe that the word famous possesses a positive connotation, meaning someone who is ‘well-known for some good deeds or achievement’, while the word notorious ‘well known for doing sth. bad’ is marked by negative emotional-evaluative connotation. Thus, these three words have one and the same denotational component of meaning but differ in their connotations.
The connotational component of meaning includes such parameters as emotiveness, evaluation, intensity which in actual use are closely interwoven.
Emotiveness as a component of the connotational meaning presents the information of the emotional attitude to things or phenomena fixed up in the word meaning. Besides the above example of the synonyms, the emotive component can be found in the meanings of the words garish, showy. The denotational component of the lexical meaning of garish is ‘bright’. However, brightness implied by the word garish is unpleasant to eye, and this emotive connotation is fixed in the word’s dictionary definition ‘unpleasantly bright’, e.g. garish light, garish colours ‘over-coloured’, garish clothes ‘over-coloured or over-decorated’. Hence, the meaning of the word garish besides its denotational component contains a negative connotation. The word striking is marked by the positive emotive charge and is defined as ‘arousing great interest, drawing the attention, esp. because of being attractive or unusual’.
The evaluative component of connotation fixes in the lexical meaning of the word the information of positive or negative attitude (approval or disapproval) to objects or phenomena. Evaluation is subdivided into intellectual (logical) and emotional.
Positive intellectual evaluation is found in such words as hero, prodigy, to succeed etc. For example, in the definition of the word prodigy ‘person who has unusual or remarkable abilities or who is a remarkable example of sth.’ the italicized words are the components of meaning which express the positive intellectual evaluation. Negative intellectual evaluation is contained in the words like thief, liar, to deceive, to intrude, etc. For example, to deceive – cause (sb.) to believe sth. that is false.
Emotional evaluation also expresses positive or negative attitude to the object but in this case, however, the attitude is based not on the logical categories but emotions which are caused by the object, process or phenomenon which the word denotes. Emotional evaluation is contained in the meanings of the words to whine ‘make a high sad sound’, a smirk ‘ silly proud smile’, to beam ‘(fig) smile happily, cheerfully ’.
The emotive and evaluative components are so closely interwoven that sometimes it is rather difficult to differentiate them, so in most cases they are referred to as emotive-evaluative components.
By the same token the emotive and evaluative components are closely interwoven with the component of intensity which is another component of the connotational meaning. Intensity can be defined as the connotational component which denotes the measure of size, strength or depth of certain qualities of the object. It is present, for instance, in the words enormous, gigantic, huge as compared to words big, large where we observe different intensity of the quality ‘large’. Also comparing small and little with tiny and minute we observe different intensity of smallness. The interrelations of emotiveness and intensity can be traced in the set of words: to like, to love, to adore, to worship.
The pragmatic value of the word contains information of the participants and conditions of the speech situation which is also an additional component to the denotational meaning. For instance, the lexical meaning of the word contains information of whether the word belongs to neutral, formal, informal registers or styles of the language; also to slang, jargon, poetic, archaic words – that is the stylistic reference of the word. Compare words child (neutral), kid (informal), infant (formal). The status of participants of a speech situation is identified by the words they use. Certain words used by the speaker might point to his/her territorial appurtenance. For instance, if someone uses words subway, candy, elevator, he/she uses words belonging to American English and might be an American, contrary to British English underground, sweets, lift used by the British. Here also belong dialectal words, e.g. bonny ‘ pretty ’, wee ‘ small ’, lass ‘ girl ’ used by those speaking the Scotch dialect.
The pragmatic aspect of the lexical meaning includes information of the role a speaker plays in particular speech situations which occur in the course of various contacts and interrelations of the communicators, such as friendly, informal, formal, the relations which reflect attitudes of people to each other: respect, politeness, subordination, etc. For instance, hi and hello belong to the formal register and signalize of friendly relations between the communicators.
The information of the communicators relating to the pragmatic aspect of the word meaning may also concern the so-called stratificational status of the communicators: age (a little child would call his mother mummy; a teenager mum, mom), gender (e.g. the exclamations Lovely! Terrific! Admirable! are more often used by women), education, social status.
And finally, one more constituent of the pragmatic aspect points to the professional sphere the speaker belongs to. If he uses such words as e.g. larceny ‘an act of stealing’, to indict ‘to accuse’, he might be a lawyer, or the one using words like neutron, positron, etc. might be a physicist.
The components of the pragmatic aspect are also closely related as is the case of other components of the connotational meaning, and in the majority of cases combinations of various pragmatic factors are observed in the meaning of one and the same lexeme. All the aspects of the lexical meaning of the word are interconnected and might be singled out only for descriptive purposes. They make up a single structure, which determines the systematic and functional properties of the word.