Lexicology

Lecture I
Lexicology as a branch of Linguistics. The problem of the definition of the word
as a linguistic phenomenon. External and internal structure of a word. The
problem of formal unity and semantic unity of a word. Syntagmatic and
paradigmatic levels of the study of semantic structure of a word.

Lexicology is a Greek term. ‘Lexis’ means a word; ‘lexicos’ having to do with words
and ‘logos’ a department of knowledge. Thus, if we ask a question: ‘’what does
lexicology deal with?’ – the answer can be simple: lexicology, a branch of linguistics, is
the study of words. But such a simple answer doesn’t embrace all the problems that
come within its realm.
Major goal of today’s lecture is to answer the following questions: ‘What is a word?’
‘What is Lexicology?
Let us remember the famous words of Juliet from ‘Romeo and Juliet’:
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet... (W.Shakespeare. Romeo and Juliet, Act II,
sc.2).
These famous lines reflect one of the fundamental problems of linguistic research in
general: what is in a name, in a word? Is there any direct connection between a word
and the object it represents? Could a rose have been called by ”any other name”?
These and similar questions are answered by lexicological research.
We can once again repeat the above statement that lexicology is the study of
words.
It is significant that many scholars have attempted to define the word as a
linguistic phenomenon. Yet none of the definitions can be considered totally satisfactory
in all aspects. It is equally surprising that, despite all the achievements of modern
science, certain essential aspects of the nature of word still escape us. Nor do we fully
understand the phenomenon called “language”, of which the word is a fundamental unit.
 We do not know much about the origin of language, and, consequently, of the origin
of words. It is true that there are several hypothesis, some of the no less fantastic than
the theory of the divine origin of language and so many languages that humankind has.
Probably, all of us heard what the Bible says in Genesis:
“And the whole earth was one language, and of one speech ... And they said, Go to, let
us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a
name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And the Lord came
down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord
said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to
do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go
to, let go down and there confound their language, that they may not understand one
another’s speech. so the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all
the earth: and they left off to build the city. Thefore is the name of it called Babel;
because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did
the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth” (Genesis 11).
We know nothing - it would be more precise to say – almost nothing about the
mechanism by which a speaker’s mental process is converted into sound groups called
“word” nor about the reverse process whereby a listener’s brain converts the acoustic
phenomena into concepts and ideas, thus establishing a two-way process of
communication.
We know very little about the nature of relations between the word and the referent
(i.e.object, phenomenon, quality, action, etc. denoted by the word). If we assume that
there is a direct relation between the word and the referent - which seems logical – it
gives rise to another question: how should we explain the fact that the same referent is
designated by quite different sound groups in different languages.
However, we are not likely to be desperate not to know so many things. One thing is
clear – there is nothing accidental about the vocabulary of the language (as well as
there is nothing accidental in life). By the vocabulary of language is understood the total
stock of words; that each word is a small unit within a vast, efficient and perfectly
balanced system.
 The list of unknowns can be extended, but it is probably high time to look at the
brighter side and register some of the things we do know about the nature of the word.
First, we do know that the word is a unit of speech which, as such, serves the
purpose of communication. Thus the word can be defined as a unit of communication.
Secondly, the word can be perceived as the total of the sounds which comprise it.
Third, the word, viewed structurally, possesses several characteristics.
The modern approach to word studies is based on distinguishing between the
external and internal structures of the word.
By external structure of the word we mean its morphological structure. For example,
in the word post-impressionists the following morphemes can be distinguished: the
prefixes post-, im-, the root press, the noun-forming suffixes –ion, -ist, and the
grammatical suffix of plurality -s. All these morphemes constitute the external structure
of the word post-impressionists.
The internal structure of word, or its meaning, is nowadays commonly referred to as
the word’s semantic structure. This is certainly the word’s main aspect, hence words
serve the purposes of human communication solely due to their meanings. The area of
lexicology specializing in the semantic studies of the word is called semantics. More
than hundred years ago, in 1883 the French philologist Michel Breal published an article
where he argued that alongside of phonetics and morphology, the study of the formal
elements of human speech, there ought also to be a science of meaning, which he
proposed to call “la semantique,” by a word derived from the Greek “sign.” The branch
of study advocated in this article was not entirely new, but it was the first time when
semantics as a discipline in its own right was established. Semantics is the study of
meanings.
Another structural aspect of the word is its unity. The word possesses both external
(formal) unity and semantic unity. Formal unity of the word is sometimes inaccurately
interpreted as indivisibility. The example of post-impressionists has already shown that
the word is not, strictly speaking, indivisible. Yet, its component morphemes are
permanently linked together in opposition to word-groups, both free and with fixed
contexts, whose components possess a certain structural freedom, e.g. bright light, to
take for granted.
 The formal unity of a word can be best illustrated by comparing a word and a word
group comprising identical constituents. The difference between a blackbird and a black
bird is best explained by their relationship with grammatical system of the language.
The word blackbird, which is characterized by unity, possesses a single grammatical
framing: backbird\s. The first constituent black is not subject to any grammatical
changes. In the word-group a black bird each constituent can acquire grammatical
forms of its own: the blackest bird I’ve ever seen. Other words can be inserted between
the components which is impossible so far as the word is concerned as it would violate
its unity: a black night bird.
Now let us explain what can be meant by semantic unity. The same example may
be used to illustrate what we mean by semantic unity.
In the word-group a black bird each of the meaningful words conveys a separate
concept: bird – a kind of living creature; black – a colour.
The word blackbird conveys only one concept: the type of bird. This is one of the
main features of any word: it always conveys one concept, no matter how many
component morphemes it may have in its external structure.
A further structural feature of the word is its susceptibility to grammatical
employment. In speech most words can be used in different grammatical forms in
which their interrelations are realized.
So far we have only underlined the word’s major peculiarities. All that we have said
about the word can be summed up as follows:
The word is a speech unit used for the purposes of human communication,
materially representing a group of sounds, possessing a meaning, susceptible to
grammatical employment and characterized by formal and semantic unity.
Modern approaches to the problem of studying the meaning are characterized by two
different levels of study: syntagmatic and paradigmatic.
On the syntagmatic level, the semantic structure of the word is analyzed 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.
 On the paradigmatic level, the word is studied in its relationships with other words in
the vocabulay 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 to reject, v.), of different
stylistic characteristics (e.g. man, n. – chap, n. – bloke, n. – guy, n.). Consequently, the
main problems of paradigmatic studies are for instance, synonymy and antonymy.
One further important objective of lexicological studies is the study of the vocabulary
of a language as a system. The vocabulary can be studied synchronically, that is, at a
given stage of its development, or diachronically, that is, in the context of the processes
through which it grew, developed and acquired its modern form. The opposition of the
two approaches accepted in modern linguistics is nevertheless disputable as the
vocabulary, as well as the word, which is its fundamental unit, is not only what it is now,
at this particular stage of the language’s development, but, also, what it was centuries
ago and has been throughout its history.
We have already mentioned that the internal structure of word, or its meaning, is
nowadays commonly referred to as the word’s semantic structure. This is certainly the
word’s main aspect, hence words serve the purposes of human communication solely
due to their meanings. The area of lexicology specializing in the semantic studies of the
word, as we have mentioned is called semantics.
Today we are going to answer, from a certain point of view, a very simple question:
“what is meaning? “ The question posed by us is one of those questions which are
easier to ask than answer. The linguistic science at present is not able to put forward a
definition of meaning which is conclusive.
However, there are certain facts of which we can be reasonably sure, and one of
them is that the very function of the word as a unit of communication is made possible
by its possessing a meaning. Therefore, among the word’s various characteristics,
meaning is certainly the most important.
Generally speaking, meaning can be more or less described as a component of the
word through which a concept is communicated, in this way endowing the word with the
ability of denoting real objects, qualities, actions and abstract notions. The complex and
somewhat mysterious relationships between referent (object, phenomenon, etc.
denoted by the word), concept and word are traditionally represented by the following
triangle:

Thought or Reference

Symbol ------------------------- Referent

By the symbol here is meant the word; thought or reference is concept. There is no
immediate relation between word and referent: it is established only through the
concept.
On the other hand there is hypothesis that concepts can only find their realization
through words. It seems that thought is dormant till the word wakens it up. It is only
when we hear a spoken word or read a printed word that the corresponding concept
springs into mind.
The mechanism by which concepts (i.e. mental phenomena) are converted into
words (i.e. linguistic phenomena) and the reverse process by which a heard or a printed
word is converted into a kind of mental picture are not yet understood or described.
Probably that is the reason why the process of communication through words, if one
gives it some thought, seems nothing short of miracle. It’s really amazing that the mere
vibrations of a speaker’s vocal chords should be taken up by a listener’s brain and
converted into vivid pictures. It is truly miracle, but we are so used to this miracle that
we do not realize its almost supernatural qualities.
As we have already mentioned the branch of linguistics specializing in the study of
meaning is called semantics. As with many terms, the term “semantics” is ambiguous
for it can stand, as well, for the expressive aspect of language in general and for the
meaning of one particular word in all its varied aspects and nuances.
 As Mario Pei puts it in the Study of language, “Semantics is “language” in its
broadest, most inclusive aspect. Sounds, words, grammatical forms, syntactical
constructions are the tools of language. Semantics is language’s avowed purpose”.
The modern approach to semantics is based on the assumption that the inner form
of the word (i.e. its meaning) presents a structure which is called the semantic
structure of a word.
Yet, before going deeper into the problem, it is necessary to make a brief survey of
another semantic phenomenon which is closely connected with it. It is the problem of
polysemy, about which we are going to speak.
The semantic structure of a word does not present an indissoluble unity (that is,
actually, why it is referred to as “structure”), nor does it necessarily stand for one
concept. It is generally known that most words convey several concepts and thus
possess the corresponding number of meanings. A word having several meanings is
called polysemantic, and the ability of words to have more than one meaning is
described by the term polysemy.
Two somewhat naïve but at the same time frequently asked questions may arise in
connection with polysemy:
1. Is polysemy an anomaly or a general rule in English vocabulary?
2. Is polysemy an advantage or disadvantage so far as communication is
concerned?
Let us deal with both these questions together.
Polysemy is certainly not an anomaly. Most English words are polysemantic. It
should be noted that the wealth of expressive resources of a language largely depends
on the degree to which polysemy has developed in the language. Sometimes people
who are not very well informed in linguistic matters claim that a language is lacking in
words if the need arises for the same word to be applied to several different
phenomena. In actual fact, it is exactly the opposite: if each word is found to be capable
of conveying, let us say, at least two concepts instead of one, the expressive potential
of the whole vocabulary increases twofold. Therefore, a well-developed polysemy is not
a drawback but a great advantage for a language.
 On the other hand, it should be pointed that the number of sound combinations
that human speech organs produce is limited. Therefore at a certain stage of language
develpoment the production of new words by morphological means becomes limited,
and polysemy becomes increasingly important in providing the means for enriching the
vocabulary. From this, it should be clear that the process of enriching the vocabulary
does not consist merely in adding new words to it, but, also, in the constant
development of polysemy.
The system of meanings of any polysemantic word develops gradually, mostly over
centuries, as more and more new meanings are either added to the old ones, or oust
some of them. So the complicated processes of development involve both the
appearance of new meanings and the loss of old ones. Yet, the general tendency with
English vocabulary at the modern stage of its history is to increase the total number of
its meanings and in this way to provide for a quantitative and qualitative growth of the
language’s expressive resourses.
Without polysemy the alternative is unthinkable: it would mean that we would have
to store in our brains a tremendous stock of words, with separate names for any
possible subject we might wish to talk about; it would also mean that there would be no
metaphors and the language would thus be robbed of much of its exprssiveness and
flexibility.
The frequency of polysemy in different languages is a variable depending on a
number of factors. The progress of civilization will make it necessary not only to form
new words but to add fresh meanings to old ones. It would be interesting to explore over
a wider field the relation between polysemy and cultural progress. Meanwhile, the
frequency of polysemy also depends on purely linguistic factors. It is worth mentionig
that Languages where derivation and composition are sparingly used will tend to fill
gaps in vocabulary by adding new meanings to existing terms. Similarly, polysemy will
arise more often in generic words whose meaning varies according to context, than in
specific terms whose sense is less subject to variation.
Lecture I
Exercises for Seminars and Independent Work
I. Consider your answers to the following

1. What is lexicology? What does the term “lexicology” stand for? What are the main
problems of lexicology?
2. Speak about the problem of the definition of the word as a linguistic phenomenon.
3. What are the structural aspects of a word?
4.What is the external structure of the word irresistible? What is the internal structure of
this word?
5.Speak about the formal unity of a word. Why is it not quite correct to say that a word
is indivisible?
6.Explain why the word blackboard can be considered a unity and why the combination
of words a black board does not possess such a unity.
7.What is understood by the semantic unity of a word? Which of the following
possesses semantic unity – a bluebell or a blue bell.
8. Give a brief account of the main characteristics of a word.
9. What are the main differences between studying words syntagmatically and
paradigmatically?
10. What is understood by “semantics”?
11.Explain the term “polysemy”.
12.Define polysemy as a linguistic phenomenon. Illustrate your answer with your own
examples.

II. Define the meanings of the words in the following sentences. Say how many
meanings of the same word are associated one with another.

1. I walked into Hyde Park, fell flat upon the grass and almost immediately fell asleep.
2.a) ‘Hello”, I said, and thrust my hand through the bars, whereon the dog became
silent and licked me.
 b)At the end of the long bar, leaning against the long counter was a slim, pale
individual wearing a red bow-tie.
3.a) I began to search the flat, looking in boxes to see if I could find a key.
b)I tumbled with a sort of splash upon the keys of a ghostly piano.
c)Now the orchestra is playing yellow cocktail music and the opera of voices pitches
a key higher.
d)The authority of his voice set the key for the newspaper report next morning.
4.a) Her mouth opened crookedly and she shot a few words at one like pebbles.
b)Would you like me to come to the mouth of the river with you?
5.a)I sat down fer a few minutes with my head in my hands, until I heard the phone
taken up inside.
b)The minute hand of the electric clock jumped on to figure twelve.
6.a)My head felt as if it were on a string and someone were trying to pull it off.
b)He possessed more power than many heads of the state.

III. Explain the different meanings and different usages, giving reasons for your
answers.

smart, adj.
smart clothes, a smart answer, a smart house, a smart garden, a smart officer, a smart
blow, a smart punishment
stubborn, adj.
a stubborn child, a stubborn look, a stubborn horse, a stubborn resistance, a stubborn
fighting, a stubborn cough, stubborn depression
sound, adj
sound lungs, a sound scholar, a sound tennis-player, sound views, sound advice,
sound criticism, a sound whipping
root, n.
edible roots, the root of the tooth, the root of the matter, the root of all evil
perform, v.
to perform one’s duty to perform an operation, to perform a dance, to perform a play
kick, v.
to kick the ball, to kick the dog, to kick off one’s slippers, to kick smb downstairs