Lexicology is from the greek word lexicology

The
term «lexicology» is of Greek origin / from «lexis» — «word»
and «logos» — «science»/ . Lexicology is the part of linguistics
which deals with the vocabulary and characteristic features of words
and word-groups.

The
term «vocabulary» is used to denote the system of words and
word-groups that the language possesses.

The
term «word» denotes the main lexical unit of a language resulting
from the association of a group of sounds with a meaning. This unit
is used in grammatical functions characteristic of it. It is the
smallest unit of a language which can stand alone as a complete
utterance.

The
term «word-group» denotes a group of words which exists in the
language as a ready-made unit, has the unity of meaning, the unity of
syntactical function, e.g. the word-group «as loose as a goose»
means «clumsy» and is used in a sentence as a predicative / He is
as loose as a goose/.

Lexicology
can study the development of the vocabulary, the origin of words and
word-groups, their semantic relations and the development of their
sound form and meaning. In this case it is called historical
lexicology.

Another
branch of lexicology is called descriptive and studies the vocabulary
at a definite stage of its development.

Language units

The
main unit of the lexical system of a language resulting from the
association of a group of sounds with a meaning is a
word.
This unit is used in grammatical functions characteristic of it. It
is the smallest language unit which can stand alone as a complete
utterance.

A
word, however, can be divided into smaller sense units — morphemes.
The morpheme is the smallest meaningful language unit. The morpheme
consists of a class of variants, allomorphs, which are either
phonologically or morphologically conditioned, e.g. please,
pleasant, pleasure.

Morphemes
are divided into two large groups: lexical
morphemes
and grammatical
(functional) morphemes.
Both lexical and grammatical morphemes can be free and bound. Free
lexical morphemes
are roots of words which express the lexical meaning of the word,
they coincide with the stem of simple words. Free grammatical
morphemes are function words: articles, conjunctions and prepositions
( the, with, and).

Bound
lexical morphemes
are affixes: prefixes (dis-), suffixes (-ish) and also blocked
(unique) root morphemes (e.g. Fri-day, cran-berry). Bound grammatical
morphemes are inflexions (endings), e.g. -s for the Plural of nouns,
-ed for the Past Indefinite of regular verbs, -ing for the Present
Participle, -er for the Comparative degree of adjectives.

In
the second half of the twentieth century the English wordbuilding
system was enriched by creating so called splinters
which scientists include in the affixation stock of the Modern
English wordbuilding system. Splinters are the result of clipping
the end or the beginning of a word and producing a number of new
words on the analogy with the primary word-group. For example, there
are many words formed with the help of the splinter mini- (apocopy
produced by clipping the word «miniature»), such as «miniplane»,
«minijet», «minicycle», «minicar», «miniradio» and many
others. All of these words denote obects of smaller than normal
dimensions.

On
the analogy with «mini-» there appeared the splinter «maxi»-
(apocopy produced by clipping the word «maximum»), such words as
«maxi-series», «maxi-sculpture», «maxi-taxi» and many others
appeared in the language.

When
European economic community was organized quite a number of
neologisms with the splinter Euro- (apocopy produced by clipping the
word «European») were coined, such as: «Euratom» «Eurocard»,
«Euromarket», «Europlug», «Eurotunnel» and many others. These
splinters are treated sometimes as prefixes in Modern English.

There
are also splinters which are formed by means of apheresis, that is
clipping the beginning of a word. The origin of such splinters can be
variable, e.g. the splinter «burger» appeared in English as the
result of clipping the German borrowing «Hamburger» where the
morphological structure was the stem «Hamburg» and the suffix -er.
However in English the beginning of the word «Hamburger» was
associated with the English word «ham», and the end of the word
«burger» got the meaning «a bun cut into two parts». On the
analogy with the word «hamburger» quite a number of new words were
coined, such as: «baconburger», «beefburger», «cheeseburger»,
«fishburger» etc.

The
splinter «cade» developed by clipping the beginning of the word
«cavalcade» which is of Latin origin. In Latin the verb with the
meaning «to ride a horse» is «cabalicare» and by means of the
inflexion -ata the corresponding Participle is formed. So the element
«cade» is a combination of the final letter of the stem and the
inflexion. The splinter «cade» serves to form nouns with the
meaning «connected with the procession of vehicles denoted by the
first component», e.g. «aircade» — «a group of airplanes
accompanying the plane of a VIP» , «autocade» — «a group of
automobiles escorting the automobile of a VIP», «musicade» — «an
orchestra participating in a procession».

In
the seventieths of the twentieth century there was a political
scandal in the hotel «Watergate» where the Democratic Party of the
USA had its pre-election headquarters. Republicans managed to install
bugs there and when they were discovered there was a scandal and the
ruling American government had to resign. The name «Watergate»
acquired the meaning «a political scandal», «corruption». On
the analogy with this word quite a number of other words were formed
by using the splinter «gate» (apheresis of the word «Watergate»),
such as: «Irangate», »Westlandgate», »shuttlegate»,
»milliongate» etc. The splinter «gate» is added mainly to Proper
names: names of people with whom the scandal is connected or a
geographical name denoting the place where the scandal occurred.

The
splinter «mobile» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word
«automobile» and is used to denote special types of automobiles,
such as: «artmobile», «bookmobile», «snowmobile»,
«tourmobile» etc.

The
splinter «napper» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word
«kidnapper» and is used to denote different types of crimesters,
such as : «busnapper», «babynapper», «dognapper» etc. From
such nouns the corresponding verbs are formed by means of
backformation, e.g. «to busnap», «to babynap», «to dognap».

The
splinter «omat» was formed by clipping the beginning of the word
«automat» (a cafe in which meals are provided in slot-machines).
The meaning «self-service» is used in such words as «laundromat»,
«cashomat» etc.

Another
splinter «eteria» with the meaning «self-service» was formed by
clipping the beginning of the word «cafeteria». By means of the
splinter «eteria» the following words were formed: «groceteria»,
«booketeria», «booteteria» and many others.

The
splinter «quake» is used to form new words with the meaning of
«shaking», «agitation». This splinter was formed by clipping
the beginning of the word «earthquake». Ther following words were
formed with the help of this splinter: «Marsquake», «Moonquake»,
«youthquake» etc.

The
splinter «rama(ama)» is a clipping of the word «panorama» of
Greek origin where «pan» means «all» and «horama» means
«view». In Modern English the meaning «view» was lost and the
splinter «rama» is used in advertisements to denote objects of
supreme quality, e.g. «autorama» means «exhibition-sale of
expensive cars», «trouserama» means «sale of trousers of supreme
quality» etc.

The
splinter «scape» is a clipping of the word «landscape» and it is
used to form words denoting different types of landscapes, such as:
«moonscape», «streetscape», «townscape», «seascape» etc.

Another
case of splinters is «tel» which is the result of clipping the
beginning of the word «hotel». It serves to form words denoting
different types of hotels, such as: «motel» (motor-car hotel),
«boatel» (boat hotel), «floatel» (a hotel on water, floating),
«airtel» (airport hotel) etc.

The
splinter «theque» is the result of clipping the beginning of the
word «apotheque» of Greek origin which means in Greek «a store
house». In Russian words: «библиотека», «картотека»,
«фильмотека» the element «тека» corresponding to
the English «theque» preserves the meaning of storing something
which is expressed by the first component of the word. In English the
splinter «theque» is used to denote a place for dancing, such as:
«discotheque», «jazzotheque».

The
splinter «thon» is the result of clipping the beginning of the word
«marathon». «Marathon» primarily was the name of a battle-field
in Greece, forty miles from Athens, where there was a battle
between the Greek and the Persian. When the Greek won a victory a
Greek runner was sent to Athens to tell people about the victory.
Later on the word «Marathon» was used to denote long-distance
competitions in running. The splinter «thon(athon)» denotes
«something continuing for a long time», «competition in endurance»
e.g. «dancathon», «telethon», «speakathon», «readathon»,
«walkathon», «moviethon», «swimathon», «talkathon»,
«swearthon» etc.

Splinters
can be the result of clipping adjectives or substantivized
adjectives. The splinter «aholic» (holic) was formed by clipping
the beginning of the word «alcoholic» of Arabian origin where
«al» denoted «the», «koh’l» — «powder for staining lids».
The splinter «(a)holic» means «infatuated by the object
expressed by the stem of the word» , e.g. «bookaholic»,
«computerholic», «coffeeholic», «cheesaholic», «workaholic»
and many others.

The
splinter «genic» formed by clipping the beginning of the word
«photogenic» denotes the notion «suitable for something denoted
by the stem», e.g. «allergenic», «cardiogenic», «mediagenic»,
«telegenic» etc.

As
far as verbs are concerned it is not typical of them to be clipped
that is why there is only one splinter to be used for forming new
verbs in this way. It is the splinter «cast» formed by clipping
the beginning of the verb «broadcast». This splinter was used to
form the verbs «telecast» and «abroadcast».

Splinters
can be called pseudomorphemes because they are neither roots nor
affixes, they are more or less artificial. In English there are
words which consist of two splinters, e.g. «telethon», therefore it
is more logical to call words with splinters in their structure
«compound-shortened
words consisting of two clippings of words».

Splinters
have only one function in English: they serve to change the lexical
meaning of the same part of speech, whereas prefixes and suffixes can
also change the part-of-speech meaning , e.g. the prefix «en-»
and its allomorph «em» can form verbs from noun and adjective stems
(«embody», «enable», «endanger»), «be-» can form verbs from
noun and adjective stems («becloud», «benumb»), «post-» and
«pre-» can form adjectives from noun stems («pre-election
campaign», «post-war events»). The main function of suffixes is
to form one part of speech from another part of speech, e.g. «-er»,
«-ing», «-ment» form nouns from verbal stems («teacher»,
«dancing», «movement»), «-ness», «-ity» are used to form
nouns from adjective stems («clannishnes», «marginality»).

According
to the nature and the number of morphemes constituting a word there
are different structural
types of words in
English: simple, derived, compound, compound-derived.

Simple
words
consist of one root morpheme and an inflexion (in many cases the
inflexion is zero), e.g. «seldom», «chairs», «longer»,
«asked».

Derived
words
consist of one root morpheme, one or several affixes and an inlexion,
e.g. «deristricted», «unemployed».

Compound
words
consist of two or more root morphemes and an inflexion, e.g.
«baby-moons», «wait-and-see (policy)».

Compound-derived
words
consist of two or more root morphemes, one or more affixes and an
inflexion, e.g. «middle-of-the-roaders», «job-hopper».

When
speaking about the structure of words stems
also should be mentioned. The stem is the part of the word which
remains unchanged throughout the paradigm of the word, e.g. the stem
«hop» can be found in the words: «hop», «hops», «hopped»,
«hopping». The stem «hippie» can be found in the words:
«hippie», «hippies», «hippie’s», «hippies’». The stem
«job-hop» can be found in the words : «job-hop», «job-hops»,
«job-hopped», «job-hopping».

So
stems, the same as words, can be simple, derived, compound and
compound-derived. Stems have not only the lexical meaning but also
grammatical (part-of-speech) meaning, they can be noun stems («girl»
in the adjective «girlish»), adjective stems («girlish» in the
noun «girlishness»), verb stems («expell» in the noun
«expellee») etc. They differ from words by the absence of
inflexions in their structure, they can be used only in the
structure of words.

Sometimes
it is rather difficult to distinguish between simple and derived
words, especially in the cases of phonetic borrowings from other
languages and of native words with blocked (unique) root morphemes,
e.g. «perestroika», «cranberry», «absence» etc.

As
far as words with splinters are concerned it is difficult to
distinguish between derived words and compound-shortened words. If a
splinter is treated as an affix (or a semi-affix) the word can be
called derived , e.g.-, «telescreen», «maxi-taxi» ,
«shuttlegate», «cheeseburger». But if the splinter is treated as
a lexical shortening of one of the stems , the word can be called
compound-shortened word formed from a word combination where one of
the components was shortened, e.g. «busnapper» was formed from «
bus kidnapper», «minijet» from «miniature jet».

In
the English language of the second half of the twentieth century
there developed so called block
compounds,
that is compound words which have a uniting stress but a split
spelling, such as «chat show», «pinguin suit» etc. Such
compound words can be easily mixed up with word-groups of the type
«stone wall», so called nominative
binomials.
Such linguistic units serve to denote a notion which is more specific
than the notion expressed by the second component and consists of two
nouns, the first of which is an attribute to the second one. If we
compare a nominative binomial with a compound noun with the structure
N+N we shall see that a nominative binomial has no unity of stress.
The change of the order of its components will change its lexical
meaning, e.g. «vid kid» is «a kid who is a video fan» while
«kid vid» means «a video-film for kids» or else «lamp oil»
means «oil for lamps» and «oil lamp» means «a lamp which
uses oil for burning».

Among
language units we can also point out word combinations of different
structural
types of idiomatic and non-idiomatic character,
such as «the first fiddle», «old salt» and «round table»,
«high road». There are also sentences which are studied by
grammarians.

Thus,
we can draw the conclusion that in Modern English the following
language units can be mentioned: morphemes, splinters, words,
nominative binomials, non-idiomatic and idiomatic word-combinations,
sentences.

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]

• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #
• #

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lexicology is the branch of linguistics that analyzes the lexicon of a specific language. A word is the smallest meaningful unit of a language that can stand on its own, and is made up of small components called morphemes and even smaller elements known as phonemes, or distinguishing sounds. Lexicology examines every feature of a word – including formation, spelling, origin, usage, and definition.^[1]

Lexicology also considers the relationships that exist between words. In linguistics, the lexicon of a language is composed of lexemes, which are abstract units of meaning that correspond to a set of related forms of a word. Lexicology looks at how words can be broken down as well as identifies common patterns they follow.^[2]

Lexicology is associated with lexicography, which is the practice of compiling dictionaries.^[3]

Etymology[edit]

The term lexicology derives from the Greek word λεξικόν lexicon (neuter of λεξικός lexikos, «of or for words»,^[4] from λέξις lexis, «speech» or «word»^[5]) and -λογία -logia, «the study of» (a suffix derived from λόγος logos, amongst others meaning «learning, reasoning, explanation, subject-matter»).^[6]
Etymology as a science is actually a focus of lexicology. Since lexicology studies the meaning of words and their semantic relations, it often explores the history and development of a word. Etymologists analyze related languages using the comparative method, which is a set of techniques that allow linguists to recover the ancestral phonological, morphological, syntactic, etc., components of modern languages by comparing their cognate material.^[7] This means many word roots from different branches of the Indo-European language family can be traced back to single words from the Proto-Indo-European language. The English language, for instance, contains more borrowed words (or loan words) in its vocabulary than native words.^[8] Examples include parkour from French, karaoke from Japanese, coconut from Portuguese, mango from Hindi, etc. A lot of music terminology, like piano, solo, and opera, is borrowed from Italian. These words can be further classified according to the linguistic element that is borrowed: phonemes, morphemes, and semantics.^[7]

Approach[edit]

General lexicology is the broad study of words regardless of a language’s specific properties. It is concerned with linguistic features that are common among all languages, such as phonemes and morphemes. Special lexicology, on the other hand, looks at what a particular language contributes to its vocabulary, such as grammars.^[2] Altogether lexicological studies can be approached two ways:

1. Diachronic or historical lexicology is devoted to the evolution of words and word-formation over time. It investigates the origins of a word and the ways in which its structure, meaning, and usage have since changed.^[9]
2. Synchronic or descriptive lexicology examines the words of a language within a certain time frame. This could be a period during the language’s early stages of development, its current state, or any given interval in between.^[10]

These complementary perspectives were proposed by Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure.^[10] Lexicology can have both comparative and contrastive methodologies. Comparative lexicology searches for similar features that are shared among two or more languages. Contrastive lexicology identifies the linguistic characteristics which distinguish between related and unrelated languages.^[9]

Semantics[edit]

The subfield of semantics that pertains especially to lexicological work is called lexical semantics. In brief, lexical semantics contemplates the significance of words and their meanings through several lenses, including synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, and polysemy, among others. Semantic analysis of lexical material may involve both the contextualization of the word(s) and syntactic ambiguity. Semasiology and onomasiology are relevant linguistic disciplines associated with lexical semantics.^[9]

A word can have two kinds of meaning: grammatical and lexical. Grammatical meaning refers to a word’s function in a language, such as tense or plurality, which can be deduced from affixes. Lexical meaning is not limited to a single form of a word, but rather what the word denotes as a base word. For example, the verb to walk can become walks, walked, and walking – each word has a different grammatical meaning, but the same lexical meaning («to move one’s feet at a regular pace»).^[11]

Phraseology[edit]

Another focus of lexicology is phraseology, which studies multi-word expressions, or idioms, like ‘raining cats and dogs.’ The meaning of the phrase as a whole has a different meaning than each word does on its own and is often unpredictable when considering its components individually. Phraseology examines how and why such meanings exist, and analyzes the laws that govern these word combinations.^[12]

Idioms and other phraseological units can be classified according to content and/ or meaning. They are difficult to translate word-for-word from one language to another.^[13]

Lexicography[edit]

Lexicologists[edit]

• Dámaso Alonso (October 22, 1898 — January 25, 1990): Spanish poet, literary critic, and philologist
• Roland Barthes (November 12, 1915 — March 25, 1980): French writer, critic, and semiotician
• Ghil’ad Zuckermann (born June 1, 1971): Israeli linguist and language revivalist

See also[edit]

• Calque
• Computational lexicology
• Lexicostatistics
• Lexical semantics
• Lexical analysis
• English lexicology and lexicography
• List of lexicographers
• List of linguists
• Lexical Markup Framework

References[edit]

External links[edit]

Societies[edit]

• Association for Automatic Language Processing (ATALA), Paris, France
• International Society for Historical Lexicography and Lexicology, University of Leicester

Theory[edit]

• Lexicology vs. lexicography – an explanation
• Lexicography, lexicology, lexicon theory

Glossary[edit]

• ‘L’ entries (from lexeme to lexicon) at SIL (Summer Institute of Linguistics)’s glossary of linguistic terms

Teaching material[edit]

• English and General Historical Lexicology (by Joachim Grzega and Marion Schöner

Journals[edit]

• Lexis, E-Journal in English Lexicology (by Denis Jamet)

Asked by: Ila Kilback

Score: 5/5
(33 votes)

The term lexicology derives from the Greek word λεξικόν lexicon (neuter of λεξικός lexikos, «of or for words», from λέξις lexis, «speech» or «word») and -λογία -logia, «the study of» (a suffix derived from λόγος logos, amongst others meaning «learning, reasoning, explanation, subject-matter»).

What does the word lexicology mean?

Working Definitions of Principal Concepts. Lexicology is a branch of linguistics, the science of language. The term. Lexi c o l o g y is composed of two Greek morphemes: lexis meaning ‘word, phrase’ and logos which denotes ‘learning, a department of knowledge’.

What is the meaning of lexicology and lexicography?

Lexicology is the science of the study of word whereas lexicography is the writing of the word in some concrete form i.e. in the form of dictionary. … A word has a particular meaning, it has a particular group of sounds, and a particular grammatical function. As such it is a semantic, phonological and grammatical unit.

What is the difference between lexicology and etymology?

In context|countable|lang=en terms the difference between lexicology and etymology. is that lexicology is (countable) a specific theory concerning the lexicon while etymology is (countable) an account of the origin and historical development of a word.

What branch of linguistics is lexicology?

sciences. Lexicology (from Gr lexis “word” and logos “learning”) is a part of linguistics dealing with the vocabulary of a language and the properties of words as the main units of the language. It also studies all kinds of semantic grouping and semantic relations: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, semantic fields, etc.

41 related questions found

1. Lexicology is the part of linguistics which studies words, their nature(?) and meaning, words’ elements(?), relations between words (semantical relations), word groups and the whole lexicon.

The word «lexicology» derives from the Greek «λεξικόν» (lexicon), neut. of «λεξικός» (lexikos), «of or for words»,[1] from «λέξις» (lexis), «speech», «word»,[2] (in turn from «λέγω» lego «to say», «to speak»[3]) + «-λογία», (-logia), «the study of», a suffix derived from «λόγος» (logos), amongst others meaning «speech, oration, discourse, quote, study, calculation, reason»,[4] it turn also from «λέγω».

The term first appeared in the 1820s, though there were lexicologists in essence before the term was coined.

1. General — the general study of words, irrespective of the specific features of any particular language

Special — the description of the vocabulary of a given language

Historical — the study of the evolution of a vocabulary as well as of its elements. This branch discusses the origin of words, their change and development.

Descriptive — deals with the description of the vocabulary of a given language at a given stage of its development.

1. English vocabulary as a system

   Modern English Lexicology aims at giving a systematic description of the word-stock of Modern English. It treats the following basic problems:

  — Basic problems

  — Semasiology;

  — Word-Structure;

  — Word-Formation;

  — Etymology of the English Word-Stock;

  — Word-Groups and Phraseological Units;

  — Variants, dialects of the E. Language;

  — English Lexicography.

   System is a set of competing possibilities in language, together with the rules for choosing them.

   Structuralism recognized that a language is best viewed as a system of elements, with each element being chiefly defined by its place within the system, by the way it is related to other elements.

   Language systems:

  — speech

  — syntactic

  — lexical

  — morphological

  — phonetical

   Modern approaches to the problem of study of a language system are characterised by two different levels of study: syntagmatic and paradigmatic. 

   Paradigmatic relations are the relation between set of linguistic items, which in some sense, constitute choices, so that only one of them may be present at a time in a given position. On the paradigmatic level, the word is studied in its relationships with other words in the vocabulary system.

   So, a word may be studied in comparison with other words of similar meaning (e. g. work, n. — labour, n.; to refuse, v. — to reject v. — to decline, v.), of opposite meaning (e. g. busy, adj. — idle, adj.; to accept, v, — to reject, v.), of different stylistic characteristics (e. g. man, n. — chap, n. — bloke, n. — guy, n.).

   Consequently, the main problems of paradigmatic studies of vocabulary are:

  — synonymy

  — hyponymy

  — antonymy

  — functional styles

   Syntagmatic relations 

   On the syntagmatic level, the semantic structure of the word is analysed in its linear relationships with neighbouring words in connected speech. In other words, the semantic characteristics of the word are observed, described and studied on the basis of its typical contexts, in speech:

  — phrases

  — collocations

   Some collocations are totally predictable, such as spick with span, others are much less so: letter collocates with a wide range of lexemes, such as alphabet and spelling, and (in another sense) box, post, and write.

   Collocations differ greatly between languages, and provide a major difficulty in mastering foreign languages. In English, we ‘face’ problems and ‘interpret’ dreams; but in modern Hebrew, we have to ‘stand in front of problems and ‘solve’ dreams.

   The more fixed a collocation is, the more we think of it as an ‘idiom’ — a pattern to be learned as a whole, and not as the ‘sum of its parts’.

   Combination of paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations in lexical system determines vocabulary as a system. 

1. One of the earliest and most obvious non-semantic grouping is the alphabetical organization of the word-stock, which is represented in most dictionaries. It is of great practical value in the search for the necessary word, but its theoretical value is almost null, because no other property of the word can be predicted from the letter or letters the word begins with.

Morphological groupings.

On the morphological level words are divided into four groups according to their morphological structure:

1)   root or morpheme words (dog, hand);

2)   derivatives, which contain no less than two morphemes (dogged (ynpямый), doggedly; handy, handful);

3)   compound words consisting of not less than two free morphemes (dog-cheap-«very cheap», dog-days — «hottest part of the year»; handbook, handball)

4)   compound derivatives (dog-legged — «crooked or bent like a dog’s hind leg», left-handed).

This grouping is considered to be the basis for lexicology.

Another type of traditional lexicological grouping as known as word-families such as: hand, handy, handicraft, handbag, handball, handful, hand-made,handsome, etc.

A very important type of non-semantic grouping for isolated lexical units is based on a statistical analysis of their frequency. Frequency counts carried out for practical purposes of lexicology, language teaching and shorthand show important correlations between quantative and qualitative characteristics of lexical units, the most frequent words being polysemantic and stylistically neutral. The frequency analysis singles out two classes:

1) notional words;

2) form (or functional) words.

Notional words constitute the bulk of the existing word-stock, according to the recent counts given for the first 1000 most frequently occurring words they make up 93% of the total number.

All notional lexical units are traditionally subdivided into parts of speech: nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs. Nouns numerically make the largest class — about 39% of all notional words; verbs come second — 25% of words; they are followed by adjectives — 17% and adverbs — 12%.

Form or functional words — the remaining 7% of the total vocabulary — are prepositions, articles, conjunctions, which primarily denote various relations between notional words. Their grammatical meaning dominates over their lexical meaning. They make a specific group of about 150 units.

Lexico-grammatical grouping.

By a lexico-grammatical group we understand a class of words which have a common lexico-grammatical meaning, a common paradigm, the same substituting elements and possibly a characteristic set of suffixes rendering the lexico-grammatical meaning.

Lexico-grammatical groups should not be confused with parts of speech. For instance, audience and honesty belong to the same part of speech but to different lexico-grammatical groups because their lexico-grammatical meaning is different.

Common Denominator of Meaning, Semantic Fields.

Words may also be classified according to the concepts underlying their meaning. This classification is closely connected with the theory of semantic fields. By the term «semantic fields» we understand closely knit sectors of vocabulary each characterized by a common concept. The words blue, red, yellow, black, etc. may be described as making up the semantic field of colours, the words mother, father, sister, cousin, etc. — as members of the semantic field of kinship terms, the words joy, happiness, gaiety, enjoyment, etc. as belonging to the field of pleasurable emotions, and so on.

The members of the semantic fields are not synonymous but all of them are joined together by some common semantic component — the concept of colours or the concept of kinship, etc. This semantic component common to all members of the field is sometimes described as the common denominator of meaning. All members of the field are semantically interdependent as each member helps to delimit and determine the meaning of its neighbours and is semantically delimited and determined by them. It follows that the word meaning is to a great extent determined by the place it occupies in its semantic field.

It is argued that we cannot possibly know the exact meaning of the word if we do not know the structure of the semantic field to which the word belongs, the number of the members and the concepts covered by them, etc. The meaning of the word captain, e.g. cannot be properly understood until we know the semantic field in which this term operates — the army, the navy, or the merchant service. It follows that the meaning of the word captain is determined by the place it occupies among the terms of the relevant rank system. In other words we know what captain means only if we know whether his subordinate is called mate or first officer (merchant service), commander (navy) or lieutenant (army).

Semantic dependence of the word on the structure of me field may be also illustrated by comparing members of analogous conceptual fields in different languages. Comparing, e.g. kinship terms in Russian and in English we observe that the meaning of the English term mother-in-law is different from either the Russian тёща or свекровь, as the English term covers the whole area which in Russian is divided between the two words. The same is true of the members of the semantic field of colours (cf. blue — синий, голубой), of human body (cf. hand, arm — рука) and others.

The theory of semantic field is severely criticized by Soviet linguists mainly on philosophical grounds as some of the proponents of the semantic-field theory hold the idealistic view that language is a kind of self-contained entity standing between man and the world of reality (Zwischenwelt). The followers of this theory argue that semantic fields reveal the fact that human experience is analysed and elaborated in a unique way, differing from one language to another. Broadly speaking they assert that people speaking different languages actually have different concepts, as it is through language that we see the real world around us. In short, they deny the primacy of matter forgetting that our concepts are formed not only through linguistic experience, but primarily through our actual contact with the real world. We know what hot means not only because we know the word hot, but also because we burn our fingers when we touch something very hot. A detailed critical analysis of the theory of semantic fields is the subject-matter of general linguists. Here we are concerned with the theory only as a means of semantic classification of vocabulary items.

Two more points should be discussed in this connection. Firstly, semantic groups may be very extensive and may cover big conceptual areas, e.g. man-universe, etc. There may be, however, comparatively small lexical groups of words linked by a common denominator of meaning. The words bread, cheese, milk, meat, etc. make up the semantic field with the concept of food as the common denominator of meaning. Such smaller lexical groups seem to play a very important role in determining individual meanings of polysemantic words in lexical contexts. Analysing polysemantic verbs we see that the verb take, e.g. in combination with the lexical group denoting means of transportation is synonymous with the verb go (take the tram, the bus, etc.). When combined with members of another lexical group possessing another semantic denominator, the same verb is synonymous with to drink (to take tea, coffee, etc.). Such word-groups are often used not only in scientific lexicological analysis, but also in practical class-room teaching. In a number of textbooks we find words with some common denominator of meaning listed under the headings Flower, Fruit, Domestic Animals, and so on.

In other words lexical or semantic field is the organization of related words and expressions into a system which shows their relationship to one another.

For example, kinship terms such as father, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt belong to a lexical field whose relevant features include generation, sex, membership of the father’s or mother’s side of the family, etc.

The absence of a word in a particular place in a lexical field of a language is called a lexical gap.

For example, in English there is no singular noun that covers both cow and bull as hoarse covers stallion and mare.

Common Contextual Associations. Thematic Groups.

Another type of classification almost universally used in practical class-room teaching is known as thematic grouping. Classification of vocabulary items into thematic groups is based on the co-occurrence of words in certain repeatedly used contexts.

In linguistic contexts co-occurrence may be observed on different levels. On the level of word-groups the word question, e.g., is often found in collocation with the verbs raise, put forward, discuss, etc., with the adjectives urgent, vital, disputable and so on. The verb accept occurs in numerous contexts together with the nouns proposal, invitation, plan and others.

As a rule, thematic groups deal with contexts on the level of the sentence (or utterance). Words in thematic groups are joined together by common contextual associations within the framework of the sentence and reflect the interlinking words, e.g. tree-grow-green; journey-train-taxi-bags-ticket or sun-shine-brightly-blue-sky, is due to the regular co-occurrence of these words in similar sentences. Unlike members of synonymic sets or semantic fields, words making up a thematic group belong to different parts of speech and do not possess any common denominator of meaning.

Contextual associations formed by the speaker of a language are usually conditioned by the context of situation which necessitates the use of certain words. When watching a play, e.g., we naturally speak of the actors who act the main parts, of good (or bad) staging of the play, of the wonderful scenery and so on. When we go shopping it is usual to speak of the prices, of the goods we buy, of the shops, etc. (In practical language learning thematic groups are often listed under various headings, e.g. At the Theatre, At School, Shopping, and are often found in text-books and courses of conversational English).

Thematic and ideographic organization of a vocabulary.

It is a further subdivision within the lexico-grammatical grouping. The basis of grouping is not only linguistic but also extra-linguistic. The words are associated because the things they name occur together and are closely connected in reality, e.g., terms of kinship. Names of parts of the human body, colour terms, etc.

The ideographic groupings are independent of classification into parts of speech, as grammatical meaning is not taken into consideration. Words and expressions are here classed not according to their lexico-grammatical meaning but strictly according to their signification, i.e. to their system of logical notions. These subgroups may compare nouns, verbs adjectives and adverbs together, provided they refer to the same notion. Under alphabetical order the words which in the human mind go close together (father, brother, uncle, etc.) are placed in various parts of a dictionary. So, some lexicographers place such groups of lexical units in the company they usually keep in every day life, in our minds. These dictionaries are called ideographical or ideological.

Synonymic grouping is a special case of lexico-grammatical grouping based on semantic proximity of words belonging to the same part of speech. Taking up similarity of meaning and contrasts of phonetic shape we observe that every language in its vocabulary has a variety of words kindred (родственный) or similar in meaning but distinct in morphemic composition, phonetic shape and usage. These words express the most delicate shades of thought, feelings and are explained in the dictionaries of synonyms.

Antonyms have been traditionally defined as words of opposite meaning. Their distinction from synonyms is semantic polarity. The English language is rich in synonyms and antonyms, their study reveals the systematic character of the English vocabulary.

Special terminology.

Sharply defined extensive semantic fields are found in terminological systems. Terminology constitutes the greatest part of every language vocabulary. A term is a word or word-group used to name a notion characteristic of some special field of knowledge, e.g., linguistics, cybernetics, industry, culture, informatics. Almost every system of terms is nowadays fixed and analyzed in numerous special dictionaries of the English language. ?

Hyponymy (включение).

Another type of paradigmatic relation is hyponymy. The notion of hyponymy is traditional enough; it has been long recognized as one of the main-principles in the organization of the vocabulary off all languages. For instance, animal is a generic term as compared to the specific names: wolf, dog, mouse. Dog, in its tern, may serve as a generic term for different breeds such as bull-dog, collie, poodle.

In other words, this type of relationship means the «inclusion» of a more specific term in a more general term, which has been established by some scientists in terms of logic of classes*. For example, the meaning of tulips is said to be included in the meaning of «flower», and so on.

So, the word-stock is not only a sum total of all the words of a language, but a very complicated set of various relationships between different groupings, layers, between the vocabulary as a whole and isolated individual lexical units.

1. The importance of English lexicology is based not on the size of its vocabulary, however big it is, but on the fact that at present it is the world’s most widely used language. One of the most fundamental works on the English language of the present — «A Grammar of Contemporary English” by R. Quirk, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech and J. Svartvik (1978) — gives the following data: it is spoken as a native language by nearly three hundred million people in Britain, the United States, Ireland, Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa and some other countries. The knowledge of English is widely spread geographically — it is in fact used in all continents. It is also spoken in many countries as a second language and used in official and business activities there. This is the case in India, Pakistan and many other former British colonies. English is also one of the working languages of the United Nations and the universal language of international aviation. More than a half world’s scientific literature is published in English and 60% of the world’s radio broadcasts are in English. For all these reasons it is widely studied all over the world as a foreign language. The theoretical value of lexicology becomes obvious if we realise that it forms the study of one of the three main aspects of language, i.e. its vocabulary, the other two being its grammar and sound system. The theory of meaning was originally developed within the limits of philosophical science. The relationship between the name and the thing named has in the course of history constituted one of the key questions in gnostic theories and therefore in the struggle of materialistic and idealistic trends. The idealistic point of view assumes that the earlier forms of words disclose their real correct meaning, and that originally language was created by some superior reason so that later changes of any kind are looked upon as distortions and corruption. The materialistic approach considers the origin, development and current use of words as depending upon the needs of social communication. The dialectics of its growth is determined by its interaction with the development of human practice and mind. In the light of V. I. Lenin’s theory of reflection we know that the meanings of words reflect objective reality. Words serve as names for things, actions, qualities, etc. and by their modification become better adapted to the needs of the speakers. This proves the fallacy of one of the characteristic trends in modern idealistic linguistics, the so-called Sapir-Whorf thesis according to which the linguistic system of one’s native language not only expresses one’s thoughts but also determines them. This view is incorrect, because our mind reflects the surrounding world not only through language but also directly. Lexicology came into being to meet the demands of many different branches of applied linguistics, namely of lexicography, standardisation of terminology, information retrieval, literary criticism and especially of foreign language teaching. Its importance in training a would-be teacher of languages is of a quite special character and cannot be overestimated as it helps to stimulate a systematic approach to the facts of vocabulary and an organised comparison of the foreign and native language. It is particularly useful in building up the learner’s vocabulary by an effective selection, grouping and analysis of new words. New words are better remembered if they are given not at random but organised in thematic groups, word-families, synonymic series, etc. A good knowledge of the system of word-formation furnishes a tool helping the student to guess and retain in his memory the meaning of new words on the basis of their motivation and by comparing and contrasting them with the previously learned elements and patterns. The knowledge, for instance, of the meaning of negative, reversative and pejorative prefixes and patterns of derivation may be helpful in understanding new words. For example such words as immovable a, deforestation n and miscalculate v will be readily understood as ‘that cannot be moved’, ‘clearing land from forests’ and ‘to calculate wrongly’. By drawing his pupils’ attention to the combining characteristics of words the teacher will prevent many mistakes.1 It will be word-groups falling into patterns, instead of lists of unrelated items, that will be presented in the classroom. A working knowledge and understanding of functional styles and stylistic synonyms is indispensable when literary texts are used as a basis for acquiring oral skills, for analytical reading, discussing fiction and translation. Lexicology not only gives a systematic description of the present make-up of the vocabulary, but also helps students to master the literary standards of word usage. The correct use of words is an important counterpart of expressive and effective speech. An exact knowledge of the vocabulary system is also necessary in connection with technical teaching means. Lexicology plays a prominent part in the general linguistic training of every philologist by summing up the knowledge acquired during all his years at the foreign language faculty. It also imparts the necessary skills of using different kinds of dictionaries and reference books, and prepares for future independent work on increasing and improving one’s vocabulary.

1. The treatment of words in lexicology cannot be divorced from the study of all the other elements in the language system to which words belong. It should be always borne in mind that in reality, in the actual process of communication, all these elements are interdependent and stand in definite relations to one another. We separate them for convenience of study, and yet to separate them for analysis is pointless, unless we are afterwards able to put them back together to achieve a synthesis and see their interdependence and development in the language system as a whole. The word, as it has already been stated, is studied in several branches of linguistics and not in lexicology only, and the latter, in its turn, is closely connected with general linguistics, the history of the language, phonetics, stylistics, grammar and such new branches of our science as sociolinguistics, paralinguistics, pragmalinguistics and some others.1 The importance of the connection between lexicology and phonetics stands explained if we remember that a word is an association of a given group of sounds with a given meaning, so that top is one word, and tip is another. Phonemes have no meaning of their own but they serve to distinguish between meanings. Their function is building up morphemes, and it is on the level of morphemes that the form-meaning unity is introduced into language. We may say therefore that phonemes participate in signification. Word-unity is conditioned by a number of phonological features. Phonemes follow each other in a fixed sequence so that [pit] is different from [tip]. The importance of the phonemic make-up may be revealed by the substitution test which isolates the central phoneme of hope by setting it against hop, hoop, heap or hip. An accidental or jocular transposition of the initial sounds of two or more words, the so-called spoonerisms illustrate the same point. Cf. our queer old dean for our dear old queen, sin twister for twin sister, May I sew you to a sheet? for May I show you to a seat?, a half-warmed fish for a half-formed wish, etc.1 Discrimination between the words may be based upon stress: the word ‘import is recognised as a noun and distinguished from the verb im’port due to the position of stress. Stress also distinguishes compounds from otherwise homonymous word-groups: ‘blackbird : : ‘black ‘bird. Each language also possesses certain phonological features marking word-limits. Historical phonetics and historical phonology can be of great use in the diachronic study of synonyms, homonyms and polysemy. When sound changes loosen the ties between members of the same word-family, this is an important factor in facilitating semantic changes. The words whole, heal, hail, for instance, are etymologically related.2 The word whole originally meant ‘unharmed’, ;unwounded’. The early verb whole meant 4to make whole’, hence ‘heal’. Its sense of ‘healthy’ led to its use as a salutation, as in hail! Having in the course of historical development lost their phonetic similarity, these words cannot now exercise any restrictive influence upon one another’s semantic development. Thus, hail occurs now in the meaning of ‘call’, even with the purpose to stop and arrest (used by sentinels). Meaning in its turn is indispensable to phonemic analysis because to establish the phonemic difference between [ou] and [o] it is sufficient to know that [houp] means something different from [hop]. All these considerations are not meant to be in any way exhaustive, they can only give a general idea of the possible interdependence of the two branches of linguistics. Stylistics, although from a different angle, studies many problems treated in lexicology. These are the problems of meaning, connotations, synonymy, functional differentiation of vocabulary according to the sphere of communication and some other issues. For a reader without some awareness of the connotations and history of words, the images hidden in their root and their stylistic properties, a substantial part of the meaning of a literary text, whether prosaic or poetic, may be lost. Thus, for instance, the mood of despair in O. Wilde’s poem «Taedium Vitae” (Weariness of Life) is felt due to an accumulation of epithets expressed by words with negative, derogatory connotations, such as: desperate, paltry, gaudy, base, lackeyed, slanderous, lowliest, meanest. An awareness of all the characteristic features of words is not only rewarded because one can feel the effect of hidden connotations and imagery, but because without it one cannot grasp the whole essence of the message the poem has to convey. The difference and interconnection between grammar and lexicology is one of the important controversial issues in linguistics and as it is basic to the problems under discussion in this book, it is necessary to dwell upon it a little more than has been done for phonetics and stylistics. A close connection between lexicology and grammar is conditioned by the manifold and inseverable ties between the objects of their study. Even isolated words as presented in a dictionary bear a definite relation to the grammatical system of the language because they belong to some part of speech and conform to some lexico-grammatical characteristics of the word class to which they belong. Words seldom occur in isolation. They are arranged in certain patterns conveying the relations between the things for which they stand, therefore alongside with their lexical meaning they possess some grammatical meaning. Сf. head of the committee and to head a committee. The two kinds of meaning are often interdependent. That is to say, certain grammatical functions and meanings are possible only for the words whose lexical meaning makes them fit for these functions, and, on the other hand, some lexical meanings in some words occur only in definite grammatical functions and forms and in definite grammatical patterns. For example, the functions of a link verb with a predicative expressed by an adjective cannot be fulfilled by every intransitive verb but are often taken up by verbs of motion: come true, fall ill, go wrong, turn red, run dry and other similar combinations all render the meaning of ‘become sth’. The function is of long standing in English and can be illustrated by a line from A. Pope who, protesting against blank verse, wrote: It is not poetry, but prose run mad.1 On the other hand the grammatical form and function of the word affect its lexical meaning. A well-known example is the same verb go when in the continuous tenses, followed by to and an infinitive (except go and come), it serves to express an action in the near and immediate future, or an intention of future action: You’re not going to sit there saying nothing all the evening, both of you, are you? (Simpson) Participle II of the same verb following the link verb be denotes absence: The house is gone. In subordinate clauses after as the verb go implies comparison with the average: … how a novel that has now had a fairly long life, as novels go, has come to be written (Maugham). The subject of the verb go in this construction is as a rule an inanimate noun. The adjective hard followed by the infinitive of any verb means ‘difficult’: One of the hardest things to remember is that a man’s merit in one sphere is no guarantee of his merit in another. Lexical meanings in the above cases are said to be grammatically conditioned, and their indicating context is called syntactic or mixed. The point has attracted the attention of many authors.1 The number of words in each language being very great, any lexical meaning has a much lower probability of occurrence than grammatical meanings and therefore carries the greatest amount of information in any discourse determining what the sentence is about. W. Chafe, whose influence in the present-day semantic syntax is quite considerable, points out the many constraints which limit the co-occurrence of words. He considers the verb as of paramount importance in sentence semantic structure, and argues that it is the verb that dictates the presence and character of the noun as its subject or object. Thus, the verbs frighten, amuse and awaken can have only animate nouns as their objects. The constraint is even narrower if we take the verbs say, talk or think for which only animate human subjects are possible. It is obvious that not all animate nouns are human. This view is, however, if not mistaken, at least one-sided, because the opposite is also true: it may happen that the same verb changes its meaning, when used with personal (human) names and with names of objects. Compare: The new girl gave him a strange smile (she smiled at him) and The new teeth gave him a strange smile. These are by no means the only relations of vocabulary and grammar. We shall not attempt to enumerate all the possible problems. Let us turn now to another point of interest, namely the survival of two grammatically equivalent forms of the same word when they help to distinguish between its lexical meanings. Some nouns, for instance, have two separate plurals, one keeping the etymological plural form, and the other with the usual English ending -s. For example, the form brothers is used to express the family relationship, whereas the old form brethren survives in ecclesiastical usage or serves to indicate the members of some club or society; the scientific plural of index, is usually indices, in more general senses the plural is indexes. The plural of genius meaning a person of exceptional intellect is geniuses, genius in the sense of evil or good spirit has the plural form genii. It may also happen that a form that originally expressed grammatical meaning, for example, the plural of nouns, becomes a basis for a new grammatically conditioned lexical meaning. In this new meaning it is isolated from the paradigm, so that a new word comes into being. Arms, the plural of the noun arm, for instance, has come to mean ‘weapon’. E.g. to take arms against a sea of troubles (Shakespeare). The grammatical form is lexicalised; the new word shows itself capable of further development, a new grammatically conditioned meaning appears, namely, with the verb in the singular arms metonymically denotes the military profession. The abstract noun authority becomes a collective in the term authorities and denotes ‘a group of persons having the right to control and govern’. Compare also colours, customs, looks, manners, pictures, works which are the best known examples of this isolation, or, as it is also called, lexicalisation of a grammatical form. In all these words the suffix -s signals a new word with a new meaning. It is also worthy of note that grammar and vocabulary make use of the same technique, i.e. the formal distinctive features of some derivational oppositions between different words are the same as those of oppositions contrasting different grammatical forms (in affixation, juxtaposition of stems and sound interchange). Compare, for example, the oppositions occurring in the lexical system, such as work :: worker, power :: will-power, food :: feed with grammatical oppositions: work (Inf.) :: worked (Past Ind.), pour (Inf.) :: will pour (Put. Ind.), feed (Inf.) :: fed (Past Ind.). Not only are the methods and patterns similar, but the very morphemes are often homonymous. For example, alongside the derivational suffixes -en, one of which occurs in adjectives (wooden), and the other in verbs (strengthen), there are two functional suffixes, one for Participle II (written), the other for the archaic plural form (oxen). Furthermore, one and the same word may in some of its meanings function as a notional word, while in others it may be a form word, i.e. it may serve to indicate the relationships and functions of other words. Compare, for instance, the notional and the auxiliary do in the following: What you do’s nothing to do with me, it doesn’t interest me. Last but not least all grammatical meanings have a lexical counterpart that expresses the same concept. The concept of futurity may be lexically expressed in the words future, tomorrow, by and by, time to come, hereafter or grammatically in the verbal forms shall come and will come. Also plurality may be described by plural forms of various words: houses, boys, books or lexically by the words: crowd, party, company, group, set, etc. The ties between lexicology and grammar are particularly strong in the sphere of word-formation which before lexicology became a separate branch of linguistics had even been considered as part of grammar. The characteristic features of English word-building, the morphological structure of the English word are dependent upon the peculiarity of the English grammatical system. The analytical character of the language is largely responsible for the wide spread of conversion1 and for the remarkable flexibility of the vocabulary manifest in the ease with which many nonce-words2 are formed on the spur of the moment. This brief account of the interdependence between the two important parts of linguistics must suffice for the present. In future we shall have to return to the problem and treat some parts of it more extensively.

Questions

1 Lexicology as a science. Branches of lexicology.

2 Two approaches to language study, varieties of words.

3 Methods of investigation.

4 Contrastive analysis.

5 Statistical analysis.

6 Immediate constituents analysis.

7 Distributional analysis.

8 Transformational analysis.

9 Componental analysis.

10 Method of semantic differential.

11 Analytical (referential) definition of meaning.

12 Functional (contextual) definition of meaning.

13 Operational (information-oriented) definition of meaning.

14 Naming. The nominative approach to meaning.

15 The formation of concepts. Meaning and concept.

16 The ways of forming sound forms of words.

17 Aspects of lexical meaning.

18 Sources and types of meaning variability.

19 The semantic structure of a word.

20 Semantic relations of words.

21 Word-structure. Types of morphemes.

22 The method of immediate and ultimate constituents.

23 The derivational structure. Derivational bases. Types of stems .

24 Derivational patterns.

25 Word-formation. Basic ways of coining words.

26 Minor types of coining words.

27 Affixes. Polysemy. Homonymy. Synonymy.

28 Conversion.

Lexicology as a science.

Its basic units and methods.

Lexicology is a branch of linguistics – the science of language. The term “lexicology” is composed of two Greek morphemes “lexic” – word, phrase & “logos” which denotes learning a department of knowledge. Thus the literal meaning of the term “lexicology” is “the science of the word”. Lexicology as a branch of linguistics has its own aims & methods of scientific research. Its basic task – being a study & systematic description of vocabulary in respect to its origin, development & its current use. Lexicology is concerned with words, variable word-groups, phraseological units & morphemes which make up words.

Distinction is made between GENERAL LEXICOLOGY & SPECIAL LEXICOLOGY. General lexicology is a part of General linguistics . It is concerned with the study of vocabulary irrespective of the specific features of any particular language . Special lexicology is the lexicology of a particular language ( Russian , German , French , etc. ).

Lexicology is closely connected with other branches of linguistics : phonetics , for example , investigates the phonetic structure of language & is concerned with the study of the outer sound-form of the word . Grammar is the study of the grammatical structure of language . It is concerned with the various means of expressing grammatical relations between words as well as with patterns after which words are combined into word-groups & sentences . There is also a close relationship between lexicology & stylistics which is concerned with a study of a nature , functions & styles of languages .

Two approaches to language study.

Varieties of words.

There are two principle approaches in linguistic science to the study of language material : synchronic & diachronic . With regard to Special lexicology the synchronic approach is concerned with the vocabulary of a language as it exists at a given time . It’s Special Descriptive lexicology that deals with the vocabulary & vocabulary units of a particular language at a certain time .

The diachronic approach in terms of Special lexicology deals with the changes & the development of vocabulary in the coarse of time . It is Special Historical lexicology that deals with the evaluation of the vocabulary units of a language as the time goes by .

The two approaches shouldn’t be set one against the other . In fact , they are interconnected & interrelated because every linguistic structure & system exists in a state of constant development so that the synchronic state of a language system is a result of a long process of linguistic evaluation , of its historical development . Closely connected with the Historical lexicology is Contrastive & Comparative lexicology whose aims are to study the correlation between the vocabularies of two or more languages & find out the correspondences between the vocabulary units of the languages under comparison .

Lexicology studies various lexical units . They are : morphemes , words , variable word-groups & phraseological units . We proceed from the assumption that the word is the basic unit of the language system , the largest on morphological & the smallest on syntactic plane of linguistic analyses . The word is a structural & semantic entity within the language system . The word as well as any linguistic sign is a two-faced unit possessing both form & content or , to be more exact , sound-form & meaning .

e. g. boy – бой

When used in actual speech the word undergoes certain modification & functions in one of its forms .

The system showing a word in all its word-forms is called a

paradigm . The lexical meaning of a word is the same throughout the paradigm . The grammatical meaning varies from one form to another . Therefore when we speak on any word as used in actual speech we use the term “word” conventionally because what is manifested in the utterances is not a word as a whole but one of its forms which is identified as belonging to the definite paradigm . Words as a whole are to be found in the dictionary (showing the paradigm n – noun , v – verb , etc).

There are two approaches to the paradigm : as a system of forms of one word revealing the differences & the relationships between them .

e. g. to see – saw — seen – seeing

( different forms have different relations )

In abstraction from concrete words the paradigm is treated as a pattern on which every word of one part of speech models its forms , thus serving to distinguish one part of speech from another .

-s -‘s -s’ -ed -ing

nouns, of-phrases verbs

Besides the grammatical forms of words there are lexical varieties which are called “variants” of words .Words seldom possess only one meaning , but used in speech each word reveals only that meaning which is required .

e. g. to learn at school to make a dress

to learn about smth. ⁄smbd. to make smbd. do smth.

These are lexico-semantic variants .

There are also phonetic & morphological variants .

e. g. “often” can be pronounced in two ways, though the sound-form is slightly changed , the meaning remains unchangeable . We can build the forms of the word “to dream” in different ways :

to dream – dreamt – dreamt

dreamed–dreamed These are morphological variants . The meaning is the same but the model is different .

Like words-forms variants of words are identified in the process of communication as making up one & the same word . Thus , within the language system the word exists as a system & unity of all its forms & variants .

Methods of investigation .

The science is said to be formed when it has at its disposal certain methods of investigation . The process of scientific investigation may be subdivided into several stages :

• Observation is an early & basic phase of all modern scientific investigations including linguistics & is the center of what is called “ the inductive method of inquiry “ . The cardinal role of all inductive procedures is that the statements of fact must be based on observation not on unsupported authority , logical conclusions or personal preferences .

• Another stage of scientific investigation after observation is classification of those facts which were obtained through observation .

e. g. It is observed that in English nouns the suffixal morpheme “-er” is added to verbal stems ( to cook – cooker , to write – writer ) & noun stems ( village – villager , London – Londoner ). The same suffix also occurs in the words such as mother , father . The question is whether the words “ mother , father “ have suffix . They haven’t , thus we can come to the conclusion that “-er” can be found in derived & non-derived words .

• The following stage is usually that of generalization , that is , the collection of data & their classification must eventually lead to the formulation of a hypotheses , rule , or law .

e. g. In the case with “-er” we can formulate the rule that derived words in “-er” may have either verbal or noun stems .The suffix “-er” in combination with adjectival or adverbial stems can’t produce nouns ( bigger , longer , shorter are not nouns ).

• Any linguistic generalization is to be followed by the very fine process – the linguist is required to seek verification of the generalizations that are the result of his inquires . For these aims different methods & procedures are used . They are : contrastive analyses , statistical methods of analyses , immediate constituents analyses , distributional analyses , transformational analyses , componental analyses & method of semantic differentiation .

Contrastive analysis .

Contrastive linguists attempt to find out similarities & differences in both related & non-related languages . Contrastive analysis grew as the result of the practical demands of a language-teaching methodology , where it was empirically shown that the errors which are made by foreign language students can be often traced back to the differences in structure between the target language & the language of the learner . This naturally implies the necessity of a detailed comparison of the structure of a native & a target language . This procedure has been named contrastive analysis . People proceed from the assumption that the categories , elements on the semantic as well as on the syntactic & other levels are valid for both languages .

e. g. Linking verbs can be found in English , French , German , Russian , etc. Linking verbs having the meaning of “change & become” are differently represented in each of the languages . In English , for instance , “ become , come , grow , fall , run , turn “ ; in Russian –“ становиться “ are used . The task is to find out which semantic & syntactic features characterize the English set of linking verbs , the Russian linking verb & how they can be compared , how the English word-groups “ grow thin , get angry , fall ill “ correspond to Russian “похудеть , рассердиться , заболеть “.

Contrastive analysis can be carried out at three linguistic levels : phonology , grammar ( morphology & syntax ) & lexis . Contrastive analysis is applied to reveal the features of sameness & difference in the lexical meaning & the semantic structure of correlated words in different languages . It is commonly assumed by non-linguists that all languages have vocabulary systems in which the words themselves differ in sound-form , but refer to reality in the same way . From this assumption it follows that for every word in the mother tongue there is an exact equivalent in the foreign language . It is a belief which is reinforced by the small bilingual dictionary where single-word translation is often used .Language learning cannot be just a matter of substitution a new set of labels for the familiar ones of the mother tongue .It should be born in mind that though the objective reality exists outside human beings & irrespective of the language they speak , every language classifies reality in its own way by means of vocabulary units .

e. g. In English , for example , the word “foot” is used to denote the extremity of the leg . In Russian there is no exact equivalent for “foot”: “стопа” is a little bit smaller than foot , the word “нога” denotes the whole leg including the foot .

Differences in the lexical meaning of correlated words account for the differences of their collocability in different languages .

e. g. Thus , the English adjective “new” & the Russian adjective”новый” when taken in isolation are felt as correlated words : a new dress , New Year . In collocation with other nouns however the Russian adjective cannot be used in the same meaning in which the English word “new” is currently used : new potatoes , new bread , etc.

Contrastive analysis on the level of the grammatical meaning reveals that co-related words in different languages may differ in grammatical characteristics .

e. g. Russians are liable to say “news are good , the money are on the table , her hair are black” because the Russian words “новости , деньги , волосы” have the grammatical meaning of plurality .

Contrastive analysis brings to light the essence of what is usually described as idiomatic English , idiomatic Russian , i. e. the peculiar way in which every language combines & structures in lexical units various concepts to denote extra-linguistic reality .

e. g. A typical Russian word-group used to describe the way somebody performs an action or to state how a person finds himself has the structure that may be represented by the formula “adjective + a finite form of a verb”(он крепко спит , быстро усваивает ). In English we can also use structurally similar word-groups & say “he learns fast/slowly” . The structure of idiomatic word-group in English is different . The structure is “adjective + deverbal noun”. It is really in English to say “he is a heavy smoker , poor learner early riser”.

Statistical analysis .

Statistical linguistics is nowadays generally recognized as the one of the major branches of linguistics . Statistical inquiries have considerable importance because of their relevance to certain problems of communication engineering & information theory . Statistical approach proved essential in the selection of vocabulary items of a foreign language for teaching purposes . Very few people know more than 10% of the words in their mother tongue . It follows that if we do not wish to waste time on committing to memorize vocabulary items which are never likely to be useful to the learner we have to select only lexical units that are commonly used by a native speaker .

Out of approximately 500 000 words listed in Oxford English dictionary the active vocabulary of an educated Englishman comprises no more than 30 000 words & of these 4 000 — 5 000 are presumed to be amplisufficient for the daily needs of an average member of the English speech community. Thus , it is evident that the problem of selection of teaching vocabulary is of vital importance . Statistical techniques have been successfully applied in the analysis of various linguistic phenomena . Different structural types of words , affixes , the vocabularies of great writers & poets & even in the study of some problems of Historical Lexicology .

Statistical regularities can be observed only if the phenomena under analysis are sufficiently numerous . Thus , the first requirement of any statistic investigation is the size of the sample . It is known that comparatively small group of words makes up the bulk of any text . It was found that approximately 1300 – 1500 most frequent words make up 85% of all words occurring in the text . If however we analyze a sample of 60 words it is hard to predict the number of occurrences of most frequent words .

e. g. If we take the word “room” we can find some meanings of the word : 1) “room”- denoting “space” as in “take less room , not enough room to do smth.”; 2) part of a house as in “sitting-room” ; 3) used in plural = lodgings as in “to get rooms”. Statistical analysis shows that most frequently the word is used in its second meaning – 83% of all occurrences of the word in different texts , 12% of all takes its first meaning – “space”, & only 2% takes the third meaning of the word .

Immediate constituents analysis .

The theory of Immediate Constituents was originally elaborated as an attempt to determine the ways in which lexical units are relevantly related to one another . It was discovered that combinations of units are usually structured into hierarchial sets of binary constructions .

e. g. In the word-group “ a black dress in severe style “ we do not relate the indefinite article “a” to adjective “black” , “black” to “dress” , “dress” to “in” , “in” to “severe” , “severe” to “style” .We set up a structure which may be represented as “a black dress” & “in severe style”.

Thus , the fundamental aim of immediate constituents analysis is to segment a set of lexical units into two maximally independent sequences & these maximally independent sequences are called immediate constituents . The further segmentation of immediate constituents results in ultimate constituents , which means that further segmentation is impossible for no meaning can be found .

e. g. The ultimate constituents of the phrase given are “a” ,”black” , “dress” , “ in” , “severe” , “style” . This method of analysis is extremely fruitful in discovering the derivational structure of words .

Distributional analysis .

Distributional analysis in its various forms is commonly used nowadays. By the term “distribution” we understand the occurrence of a lexical unit relative to another lexical units of the same levels : words to words , morpheme to morphemes . In other words , by this term we understand the position which lexical unit occupies or may occupy in the text or in the flow of speech . It is observed that a certain component of the word-meaning is described when the word is identified distributionally .

e. g. In the sentence

The boy__________ home .

the missing word is easily identified as a verb . It may be “came , ran , went , goes” , but not as an adverb or a noun , or an adjective .

Thus , we see that the component of meaning that is distributionally identified is actually the part-of-speech meaning . It is also observed that in a number of cases words have different lexical meanings in different distributional patterns .

e. g. The verb “to treat” has different lexical meanings in “to treat smbd kindly” & “to treat smbd to ice-cream” .

The interdependence of distribution & meaning can be also observed at the level of word-groups .

e. g. It is only the distribution of completely identical lexical units but arranged on the reverse that differentiates the meaning – water tap & tap water .

Transformational analysis .

Transformational analysis in lexicological investigations may be defined as repatterning ( representing , reorganization ) of various distributional structures in order to discover difference or sameness of meaning of practically identical distributional patterns . As distributional patterns are in a number of cases polysemantic transformational procedures are of help not only in the analysis of semantic sameness / difference of the lexical units but also in the analysis of the factors that account for their polysemy . Word-groups of identical distributional structure when repatterned show that the semantic relations between words & consequently the meaning may be different .e. g. A pattern “possessive pronoun ”+”noun”(his car , his failure , his arrest, his kindness ). According to transformational analysis the meaning of each word-group may be represented as : he has a car , he failed , he was arrested , he is kind. In each of the cases different meaning is revealed : possession , action , passive action , quality .The rules of transformation are rather strict & shouldn’t be identified with paraphrasing in the usual sense of the term .There are many restrictions both on syntactic & lexical levels . These are :

1. Permutation – the repatterning on condition that the basic subordinative relationships between words & word-stems of the lexical units are not changed .e. g. “His work is excellent “ may be transformed into “ his excellent work , the excellence of his work , he works excellently “.In the example given the relationships between lexical units & the stems of the notional words are essentially the same .

2. Replacement – the substitution of a component of the distributional structure by a member of a certain strictly defined set of lexical units .e. g. Replacement of a notional verb by an auxiliary or link verb (he will make a bad mistake & he will make a good teacher ). The sentences have identical distributional structure but only in the second one the verb “to make “ can be substituted by “ become “ or “ be “ . The fact of impossibility of identical transformations of distributionally identical structures is a formal proof of the difference in their meaning .

1. Addition ( or expansion ) may be illustrated by the application of the procedure of addition to the classification of adjectives into two groups- adjectives denoting inherent & non-inherent qualities .

e. g. John is happy .

John is tall .

We add a word-group “ in Moscow “. We shall see that “ John is happy in Moscow .” has meaning while the second one is senseless . That is accounted by the difference in the meaning of adjectives denoting inherent (tall) & non-inherent(happy) qualities .

1. Deletion – a procedure which shows whether one of the words semantically subordinated to the other . e. g. The word-group “red flowers” may be deleted & transformed into “flowers” without making the sentence senseless : I like red flowers or I like flowers . The other word-group “red tape “ can’t be deleted & transformed either into “ I hate tape “ or “I hate red “ because in both transformed sentences the meaning of the phrase “red tape” means “bureaucracy” & it can’t be divided into two parts .

Componental analysis .

In this analysis linguists proceed from the assumption that the smallest units of meaning are sememes or semes . e. g. In the lexical item “woman” several sememes may be singled out , such as human , not an animal , female , adult . The analysis of the word “girl” will show the following sememes : human , female , young . The last component of the two words differentiates them & makes impossible to mix up the words in the process of communication . It is classical form of revealing the work of componental analysis to apply them to the so called closed systems of vocabulary , for example , colour terms . The analysis as a rule was formalized only as far as the symbolic representation of meaning components it is concerned with .Each sememe in the terms of colours acquires or is given a certain letter ( A , B , C , D … ) & the meaning of the terms may be given in a formalized form . e. g. Red & scarlet will differ only in one component & that is intensity of colour & by the letter it may be illustrated as

A B C

A B C Under the letter C the intensity is meant .

The formalized representation of meaning helps to find out different semantic components which influence collocability of words (during the day but not during the stairs, down the stairs but not down the day ).

Componental analysis is practically always combined with transformational procedures or statistical analysis .The combination makes it possible to find out which of the meanings should be represented first of all in the dictionaries of different types & how the words should be combined in order to make your speech sensible .

Method of semantic differential .

A word has not only one meaning & even one word usually implies some additional information which differentiates one word from another .

e. g. to like , to love , to adore , to warship . All the words denote positive feelings , characteristic of a human being . But each of them gives additional information on the so-called strength of feeling .

This is the connotational aspect which was singled out by the semantic differential – the method which was worked out by a group of American psycholinguists . Their technique requires the subjects to judge – a series of concepts with respect to a set of antonymic adjective scale .

e. g. A horse can be :

good – bad

fast – slow

strong – weak

hard – soft

happy – sad

The meaning of the divisions is that each of the quality may be gradated representing extremely good , very good , neither good nor bad ,slightly bad , extremely bad & these grades can be marked by a plus .And the horse may be very good , not bad , etc .

The revealed gradations showing some portion of quality helps to singled out such words which are usually referred to as neutral, expressive , archaic & new words proper – neologisms . All the methods of analysis are applied in one & the same sphere of investigation . If you are interested in meaning you shouldn’t pay much attention to the structure , if you are interested in collocation of words you shouldn’t pay much attention what parts of words represent the distributional structure . The combination of different methods of analysis helps to classify the vocabulary as a whole & each lexical unit taken separately . It should be said that practically no procedures function independently & separately from each other . It is only for study aims that we separate one procedure from another . In fact , being a two-faced unit a lexical item provides to be an indivisible unit of form & content . That is why you cannot investigate one side of the item paying no attention to the other one .

Semasiology . Lexical

meaning & its aspects .

Semasiology (or semantics ) is a branch of linguistics which studies meaning . Semasiology is singled out as an independent branch of lexicology alongside word-formation , etymology , phraseology & lexicography . And at the same time it is often referred to as the central branch of lexicology . The significance of semasiology may be accounted for by three main considerations :

1. Language is the basic human communication system aimed at ensuring the exchange of information between the communicants which implies that the semantic side forms the backbone of communication .

2. By definition lexicology deals with words , morpheme & word-groups . All those linguistic units are two-faced entities having both form & meaning .

3. Semasiology underlines all other branches of lexicology . Meaning is the object of semasiological study .

However , at present there is no universally accepted definition of meaning or rather a definition reflecting all the basic characteristic features of meaning & being at the same time operational . Thus , linguists state that meaning is “one of the most ambiguous & most controversial terms in the theory of language “(Steven Ullman).Leech states that the majority of definitions turn out to be a dead end not only on practical but on logical grounds . Numerous statements on the complexity of the phenomenon of meaning are found on the Russian tradition as well by such linguists as А.А.Потебня , И.А.Бодуэн де Куртене , Щерба , Виноградов , А.И. Смерницкий & others .

However vague & inadequate , different definitions of meaning help to sum up the general characteristics of the notion comparing various approaches to the description of the content side of the language . There are three main categories of definitions which may be referred to as :

• analytical or referential definition of meaning

• functional or contextual definition of meaning

• operational or information-oriented definition of meaning

Analytical or referential

definition of meaning.

They seek to find the essence of meaning establishing the interdependence between words of the objects or phenomena they denote . The best known analytical model of meaning is the so-called “basic triangle”.

Concept (or our thought)

Sound-form Word-object (referent)

They are connected directly that means that if we hear a sound-form a certain idea arises in our mind & the idea brings out a certain referent that exists in the reality . But the sound-form & the referent are connected indirectly because there are no objects or phenomena in the reality that predict a certain sound-form , that need to be named by a certain sequence of sounds . The strongest point in the approach is an attempt to link the notion of meaning with the process of naming the objects , processes or phenomena of concrete reality . The analytical definitions of meaning are usually criticized on the grounds that they cannot be applied to sentences .

e. g. The sentence “ I like to read long novels “ does not express single notion , it represents composites of notions specifying the relations between them .

The referential definition of meaning can hardly be applied to semantic additions that come to the surface in the process of communication .

e. g. “That’s very clever “ may mean different sorts of things including that it is not clever at all .

It has also been stated that the referential approach fails to account for that fact that one word may denote different objects & phenomena . That is the case of polysemy . On the other hand one & the same object may be denoted by different words & that is the case of synonymy .

Functional or contextual

Definitions of meaning.

Proceeding from the assumptions that the true meaning of a word is to be found by observing what a man does with it not what he says about it , the proponents of functional approach to meaning define it as the use of the word in the language . It has been suggested that the meaning of a word is revealed by substituting different contexts .

e. g. The meaning of the word cat may be singled out of contexts:

____________ catch mice.

I bought fish for my _____.

and similar sentences.

To get a better insight in to the semantics of a word it is necessary to analyze as many contexts in which it is realized as possible. The question arises – when to stop collecting different contexts & what amount of material is sufficient to make a reliable conclusion about the meaning of a word ? In practice a scholar is guided by intuition which amount to the previous knowledge of the notions the given word denotes. Besides , there are contexts which are so infrequent that they can hardly be registered & quite obviously they have never been met by the speakers of the given language. Nevertheless being presented with a context a native speaker proceeds not from a list of possible contexts but from something else. The functional approach to meaning is important because it emphasizes the fact that words are seldom if ever used in isolation & thus the meaning of a word is revealed only when it is realized in a context. But on the whole the functional approach may be described as a complimentary , additional to the referential one.

Operational definition

Of meaning.

They are centered on defining meaning through its role in the process of communication. Just like functional approach information-oriented definitions are part of studying words in action. They are more interested in how the words work , how the meaning works than what the meaning is. The operational approach began to take shape with the growing interest of linguists in the communicative aspect of the language when the object of study was shifted to the relations between the language we use & the situations within which it is used. In this frame-work meaning is defined as information conveyed from the speaker to the listener in the process of communication. The definition is applicable both to words & sentences & thus overcomes one of the drawbacks of the referential approach. The problem is that it is more applicable to sentences than to words & even as such fails to draw a clear distinguishing line between the direct sense (that is meaning) & implication (that is additional information).

e. g. Thus the sentence “John came at 6 o’clock” besides the direct meaning may imply that John was 2 hours late , that he was punctual as usual , that it was a surprise for John to come , that he came earlier , that he was not expected at all & many others.

In each case the implication would depend on the concrete situation of communication. And discussing meaning as the information conveyed would amount to the discussion of an almost endless set of possible communication situations which in the end will bring us back to a modified contextual or functional approach to meaning. The distinction between the two layers in the information conveyed is so important that two different terms may be used to denote them: the direct information conveyed by the units which build up a sentence may be referred to as meaning while the information added to the given extralinguistic situation may be called sense.

20