CONTENT

INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………........................2

CHAPTER I GENERAL PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF THE WORD.......3

1. The problem of isolation and identity of a word……………………………3

Word boundaries in spoken language……………………………………….5

2. The connection between words and objects of reality………………………6

CHAPTER II MOTIVATION……………………………………………………..9

BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………………………...................14

1

INTRODUCTION

Since the beginning of lexicological study, the concept of the word has been

considered to be of central importance. But since we do not fully understand the

phenomenon called «language», of which word is a fundamental unit, there are, of

course, some uncertainties about a word theory.

To begin with, there a several ways of defining words, and these are not

equivalent, therefore we need to examine the several definitions, and to understand

the differences among them. Otherwise, we will have no chance of providing

sensible answers to such questions as the following: How many words are there in

English? Are English “dog” and “dogs” the same word or different words?

We also know very little about the nature of the word-referent relations. What

connection there is between the word and the object, quality or phenomenon it

denotes?

Moreover, when studying the vocabulary of the language, a problem of motivation

appears. Sometimes it’s hard to say why each word possesses these or those

meanings or why it has acquired them.

In this premises we can define some general problems of the theory of the word:

1) problem of defining the word; 2) the connection between words and objects of

reality; 3) motivation of a word; 4) the problem of separateness of a word

(отдельность слова[1] ); 5) the problem of identity of a word (тождество слова[1]).

2

CHAPTER I

GENERAL PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF THE WORD

1. The problem of isolation and identity of a word

One of the tenets of Russian linguistics has always been the assumption that it is

the word which is the basic unit of language. The theory of the word was created

by V.V. Vinogradov, L.V. Scerba, A.I. Smirnitsky and other Soviet linguists in the

1940s and was based mainly on the written form of language. [2]

To figure out what is a word as a language unit, it is necessary to clarify the

question and to properly divide it.

According to Professor Alexander Smirnitskiy [1], some more specific issues

related to the objective definition of the word as a unit of language, lie in the plane

of one of the following two problems: (1) isolation of a word and (2) identity of a

word.

In the most general form these problems can be formulated as follows: (1) what is

one single word in each case of its use in connected speech, (2) what is the same

word in different cases of its use.

The difference between these problems can be shown by the example: «This boy

took another boy’s candy cane». The first problem – problem of separateness of a

word examines whether there are 6 or 7 (if candy cane is considered to be one

word) words in this sentence. But, on the other hand, boy and boy’s are perceived

as a form of the same word. Whether these two units are the same word is a

specific question, relating to the second problem – problem of the identity of a

word.

The problem of separateness of a word, in turn, is divided into two main questions:

(a) the question of separability -- distinguishing words from its parts (part of a

compound word, suffix, etc.), and (b) the question of integrity of a word –

difference between words and word-groups.3

Professor Smirnitskiy describes different criteria of a word:

Phonetic criteria (can’t be principal)

For example, the lack of stress on the notional unit having substantive value

(not pronominal character) in the Germanic languages is usually an

indication that we are dealing with only part of the word

e.g. to distinguish the English blàckboard and blàck bòard

Whole-formedness

If we compare shipwreck and (the) wreck of (a) ship, which includes the

same root elements, then it is easy to see that they denote the same

phenomenon of objective reality and not significantly differing in meaning,

essentially differ in relation to the grammatical structure, by the way they

are formed. This difference lies in the fact that in the first formation - the

word - both components are formed once: cf. ship - wreck - (), ship - wreck -

s, etc. (same as in the corresponding verb (to) shipwreck: ship - wreck - (),

ship - wreck - ed, ship - wreck - ing, etc.), whereas in the second formation –

word-group - there is an independent grammatical processing for each

component: (the) wreck-s of (the) ship-s, (the) wreck of (the) ship-s and t.

g.). In other words, shipwreck is whole-formed and (the) wreck of (a) ship –

separately-formed. So as contrasted to a word-group the word is

semantically and grammatically indivisible. It is grammatically shaped as

one unit and whatever changes it undergoes it functions as an indivisible

whole.

Indivisibility/Inseparability

Nothing can come between the parts of a word while the structure of a

wordgroup admits of the insertion of other units between the parts, cf. the

word account and the word-group a correct / incorrect account, or the word

arrange and the word-group a wide / narrow range. [3]

Lexico-grammatical criteria

When used in actual speech the word undergoes certain modification and

functions in one of its forms.4

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

lexical meaning оf а word is the same throughout the paradigm, i.e. all the

word-forms of one and the same word are lexically identical. The

grammatical meaning varies from one form to another (cf. to take, takes,

took, taking or singer, singer’s, singers, singers’). Therefore, when we

speak of the word singer or the word take as used in actual utterances we

use the term w o r d conventionally, because what is manifested in the

speech event is not the word as a whole but one of its forms which is

identified as belonging to one definite paradigm. [4]

The paradigm is exactly characterizes any word as the word, as a whole unit,

which preserves its identity in a variety of word-forms representing it. That

is why from a lexical point of view it is not the difference between

individual grammatical morphemes involved in the formation of the certain

word-forms which is important, but what is common to them: how they

equally belong to the same paradigm and the related definition of the word

they form as a word of a certain grammatical class and of a certain

grammatical category.

Word boundaries in spoken language

The task of defining what constitutes a "word" involves determining where one

word ends and another word begins—in other words, identifying word boundaries.

There are several ways to determine where the word boundaries of spoken

language should be placed.

Potential pause. A speaker is told to repeat a given sentence slowly, allowing for

pauses. The speaker will tend to insert pauses at the word boundaries. However,

this method is not foolproof: the speaker could easily break up polysyllabic words,

or fail to separate two or more closely related words.

5

Indivisibility. A speaker is told to say a sentence out loud, and then is told to say

the sentence again with extra words added to it. Thus, I have lived in this village

for ten years might become My family and I have lived in this little village for

about ten or so years. These extra words will tend to be added in the word

boundaries of the original sentence. However, some languages have infixes, which

are put inside a word. Similarly, some have separable affixes; in the German

sentence "Ich komme gut zu Hause an", the verb ankommen is separated.

Phonetic boundaries. Some languages have particular rules of pronunciation that

make it easy to spot where a word boundary should be. For example, in a language

that regularly stresses the last syllable of a word, a word boundary is likely to fall

after each stressed syllable. Another example can be seen in a language that has

vowel harmony (like Turkish): the vowels within a given word share the same

quality, so a word boundary is likely to occur whenever the vowel quality changes.

Nevertheless, not all languages have such convenient phonetic rules, and even

those that do present the occasional exceptions. [5]

2. The connection between words and objects of reality.

Another question related to the theory of the word: what is the relation of words

to the world of things, events and relations outside of language to which they

refer? How is the word connected with its r e f e r e n t ?

The account of meaning given by Ferdinand de Saussure [6] implies the

definition of a word as a linguistic sign. He calls it ‘signifiant’ (signifier) and what

it refers to — ‘signifie’ (that which is signified). By the latter term he understands

not the phenomena of the real world but the ‘concept’ in the speaker’s and

listener’s mind. The situation may be represented by a triangle (see Fig. 1).

Here, according to F. de Saussure, only the relationship shown by a solid line

6

concerns linguistics and the sign is not a unity of form and meaning as we

understand it now, but only sound form.

Originally this triangular scheme was suggested by the German mathematician

and philosopher Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925).

Well-known English scholars C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards adopted this three-

cornered pattern with considerable modifications. With them a sign is a two-facet

unit comprising form (phonetical and orthographic), regarded as a linguistic

symbol, and reference which is more linguistic than just a concept. This approach

may be called referential because it implies that linguistic meaning is connected

with the referent. It is graphically shown by there being only one dotted line. A

solid line between reference and referent shows that the relationship between them

is linguistically relevant, that the nature of what is named influences the meaning.

This connection should not be taken too literally, it does not mean that the sound

form has to have any similarity with the meaning or the object itself. The

connection is conventional.

Several generations of writers, following C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, have in

their turn taken up and modified this diagram. It is known under several names: the

s e m a n t i c t r i a n g l e , triangle of signification, Frege semiotic triangle,

Ogden and Richards basic triangle or simply basic triangle.

It should be used again to illustrate how it can show the main features of the

referential approach in its present form. All the lines are now solid, implying that

it is not only the form of the linguistic sign but also its meaning and what it refers

to that are relevant for linguistics. The scheme is given as it is applied to the

naming of cats.

7

This scheme is still over-simplified and several things are left out. It is very

important, for instance, to remember that the word is represented by the left-hand

side of the diagram — it is a sign comprising the name and the meaning, and these

invariably evoke one another. So we have to assume that the word takes two

apexes of the triangle and the line connecting them. In some versions of the

triangle it is not the meaning but the concept that is placed in the apex. This

reflects the approach to the problem as formulated by medieval grammarians; it

remained traditional for many centuries.

In the modification of the triangle given here the referent belongs to extra-

linguistic reality, it is reflected in our mind in several stages (not shown on the

diagram): first it is perceived, then many perceptions are generalised into a

concept, which in its turn is reflected in the meaning with certain linguistic

constraints conditioned by paradigmatic influence within the vocabulary. When it

is the concept that is put into the apex, then the meaning cannot be identified with

any of the three points of the triangle.

The diagram represents the simplest possible case of reference because the

word here is supposed to have only one meaning and one form of fixation.

Simplification, is, however, inherent to all models and the popularity of the

semantic triangle proves how many authors find it helpful in showing the essence

of the referential approach. [7]

CHAPTER II

MOTIVATION

8

When a word is at first introduced into a language it is always composed out of

elements, which already exist in the language and follows certain word-building

patterns of the language. Otherwise it would be not only useless but also

detrimental to communication. This brings us to the problem of motivation, which

is one the crucial problems of the theory of the word.

Motivation is the connection between the form of the word (its phonetic

composition, its morphological composition and its structural pattern) and its

meaning.A word may be motivated either phonetically or morphologically or

semanticcally.[3]

When there is a certain similarity between the sounds that make up the word and

those referred to by the sense, the motivation is phonetical. Examples are: bang,

buzz, cuckoo, giggle, purr, etc. Here the sounds of a word are imitative of sounds

in nature because what is referred to is a sound or at least, produces a characteristic

sound (cuckoo). Although there exists a certain arbitrary element in the resulting

phonemic shape of the word, one can see that this type of motivation is determined

by the phonological system of each language as shown by the difference of echo-

words for the same concept in different languages. St. Ullmann[8] stresses that

phonetic motivation is not a perfect replica of any acoustic structure but only a

rough approximation. This accounts for the variability of echo-words within one

language and between different languages. E.g. cuckoo (Engl), Kuckuck (Germ),

кукушка (Russ). Within the English vocabulary there are different words, all

sound imitative, meaning ‘quick, foolish, indistinct talk’: babble, chatter, gabble,

prattle. In this last group echoic creations combine phonological and

morphological motivation because they contain verbal suffixes -le and -er forming

frequentative verbs. We see therefore that one word may combine different types

of motivation.

Words denoting noises produced by animals are mostly sound imitative. In English

they are motivated only phonetically so that nouns and verbs are exactly the same.

In Russian the motivation combines phonetical and morphological motivation. The 9

Russian words блеять v and блеяние n are equally represented in English by bleat.

Also: purr (of a cat), moo (of a cow), crow (of a cock), bark (of a dog), neigh (of a

horse) and their Russian equivalents.

The morphological motivation may be quite regular. Thus, the prefix ex- means

‘former’ when added to human nouns: ex-filmstar, ex-president, ex-wife.

Alongside with these cases there is a more general use of ex-: in borrowed words it

is unstressed and motivation is faded (expect, export, etc.).

The derived word re-think is motivated inasmuch as its morphological structure

suggests the idea of thinking again. Re- is one of the most common prefixes of the

English language, it means ‘again’ and ‘back’ and is added to verbal stems or

abstract deverbal noun stems, as in rebuild, reclaim, resell, resettlement. Here

again these newer formations should be compared with older borrowings from

Latin and French where re- is now unstressed, and the motivation faded. Compare

re-cover ‘cover again’ and recover ‘get better’. In short: morphological motivation

is especially obvious in newly coined words, or at least words created in the

present century. Сf. detainee, manoeuvrable, prefabricated, racialist, self-

propelling, vitaminise, etc. In older words, root words and morphemes motivation

is established etymologically, if at all.

From the examples given above it is clear that motivation is the way in which a

given meaning is represented in the word. It reflects the type of nomination process

chosen by the creator of the new word. Some scholars of the past used to call the

phenomenon the inner word form.

In deciding whether a word of long standing in the language is morphologically

motivated according to present-day patterns or not, one should be very careful.

Similarity in sound form does not always correspond to similarity in

morphological pattern. Agential suffix -er is affixable to any verb, so that V+-er

means ‘one who V-s’ or ‘something that V-s’: writer, receiver, bomber, rocker,

knocker. Yet, although the verb numb exists in English, number is not ‘one who

10

numbs’ but is derived from OFr nombre borrowed into English and completely

assimilated.

The third type of motivation is called semantic motivation. It is based on the co-

existence of direct and figurative meanings of the same word within the same

synchronous system. Mouth continues to denote a part of the human face, and at

the same time it can metaphorically apply to any opening or outlet: the mouth of a

river, of a cave, of a furnace. Jacket is a short coat and also a protective cover for a

book, a phonograph record or an electric wire. Ermine is not only the name of a

small animal, but also of its fur, and the office and rank of an English judge

because in England ermine was worn by judges in court. In their direct meaning

neither mouth nor ermine is motivated.

As to compounds, their motivation is morphological if the meaning of the whole is

based on the direct meaning of the components, and semantic if the combination of

components is used figuratively. Thus, eyewash ‘a lotion for the eyes’ or headache

‘pain in the head’, or watchdog ‘a dog kept for watching property’ are all

morphologically motivated. If, on the other hand, they are used metaphorically as

‘something said or done to deceive a person so that he thinks that what he sees is

good, though in fact it is not’, ‘anything or anyone very annoying’ and ‘a watchful

human guardian’, respectively, then the motivation is semantic.

An interesting example of complex morpho-semantic motivation passing through

several stages in its history is the word teenager ‘a person in his or her teens’. The

motivation may be historically traced as follows: the inflected form of the numeral

ten produced the suffix -teen. The suffix later produces a stem with a metonymical

meaning (semantic motivation), receives the plural ending -s, and then produces a

new noun teens ‘the years of a person’s life of which the numbers end in -teen,

namely from 13 to 19’. In combination with age or aged the adjectives teen-age

and teen-aged are coined, as in teen-age boy, teen-age fashions. A morphologically

motivated noun teenager is then formed with the help of the suffix -er which is

11

often added to compounds or noun phrases producing personal names according to

the pattern ‘one connected with...’.

The pattern is frequent enough. One must keep in mind, however, that not all

words with a similar morphemic composition will have the same derivational

history and denote human beings. E. g. first-nighter and honeymooner are personal

nouns, but two-seater is ‘a car or an aeroplane seating two persons’, back-hander is

‘a back-hand stroke in tennis’ and three-decker ‘a sandwich made of three pieces

of bread with two layers of filling’.

When the connection between the meaning of the word and its form is

conventional that is there is no perceptible reason for the word having this

particular phonemic and morphemic composition, the word is said to be non-

motivated for the present stage of language development.

Every vocabulary is in a state of constant development. Words that seem non-

motivated at present may have lost their motivation. The verb earn does not

suggest at present any necessary connection with agriculture. The connection of

form and meaning seems purely conventional. Historical analysis shows, however,

that it is derived from OE (ze-)earnian ‘to harvest’. In Modern English this

connection no longer exists and earn is now a non-motivated word. Complex

morphological structures tend to unite and become indivisible units, as St.

Ullman[8] demonstrates tracing the history of not which is a reduced form of nought

from OE nowiht <no-wiht ‘nothing’. When some people recognise the motivation,

whereas others do not, motivation is said to be faded.

Sometimes in an attempt to find motivation for a borrowed word the speakers

change its form so as to give it a connection with some well-known word. These

cases of mistaken motivation received the name of folk etymology. The

phenomenon is not very frequent. Two examples will suffice: A nightmare is not

‘a she-horse that appears at night’ but ‘a terrifying dream personified in folklore as

a female monster’. (OE mаrа ‘an evil spirit’.) The international radio-telephone

12

signal may-day corresponding to the telegraphic SOS used by aeroplanes and ships

in distress has nothing to do with the First of May but is a phonetic rendering of

French m'aidez ‘help me’.

Some linguists consider one more type of motivation closely akin to the imitative

forms, namely sound symbolism. Some words are supposed to illustrate the

meaning more immediately than do ordinary words. As the same combinations of

sounds are used in many semantically similar words, they become more closely

associated with the meaning. Examples are: flap, flip, flop, flitter, flimmer, flicker,

flutter, flash, flush, flare; glare, glitter, glow, gloat, glimmer; sleet, slime, slush,

where fl- is associated with quick movement, gl- with light and fire, sl- with mud.

This sound symbolism phenomenon is not studied enough so far, so that it is

difficult to say to what extent it is valid. There are, for example, many English

words, containing the initial fl- but not associated with quick or any other

movement: flat, floor, flour, flower. There is also nothing muddy in the referents of

sleep or slender. [7]

13

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Смирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. М., 1956

2. Людмила Владимировна Минаева. English Lexicology and Lexicogfaphy/

Лексикология и лексикография английского языка. М., 2003

3. О.М.Воевудская, О.В. Ивашенко. Практикум по лексикологии

современного английского языка. Учебно-методическое пособие. ВГУ,

2010

4. Р.З. Гинзбург [и др.] Лексикология английского языка : учебник для

ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. М. : Высшая школа, 1979

5. «What is a word?» Linguistics and English Language working papers.

University of Sussex.

6. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916), "Nature of the Linguistics Sign"

7. Арнольд И. В. Лексикология современного английского языка :

учебник для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. / И.В. Арнольд . - М. : Высшая

школа, 1986

8. Ullmann St. The Principles of Semantics. New York: Philosophical Library.

1957.

9. Антрушина Г.Б. Лексикология английского языка / English lexicology :

учебное пособие для студентов вузов, обучающихся по педагогическим

специальностям. М. : Дрофа, 2001

14