ТЕМА 1 ( 2): the notion of Lexical system

There has been much discussion of the systematic nature of a language vocabulary. As it is now generally agreed, the vocabulary of a language is not just a collection of words, but a collection of elements which are related and interconnected in different ways.

The interdependence of elements within words is revealed when the components of the lexical system are viewed as complex morphological and semantic structures.

Basic lexical units comprise words, word-forming morphemes and word-groups.

Even the simpliest one-syllable word is a complex unit in which different aspects of the language interact. The word has a sound form (a certain arrangement of phonemes) and a fixed morphological structure (a certain arrangement of morphemes). A word has a definite paradigm (a set of word-forms) and, last but not least, a definite meaning.

The precise linguistic definition of a word is not easy to state. In the course of the development of Lexicology as a science many scholars have attempted to define the word as a linguistic phenomenon. None of the definitions can be considered totally satisfactory in all aspects.

The word has been defined syntactically as “the minimum sentence” by H. Sweet and “a minimum free form” or the minimum independent unit of utterance by L. Bloomfield, phonologically by Ch. Hockett and S. Potter. The latter defined a word as a conventional and arbitrary segment of utterance (but in fact Potter adopts Bloomfield’s definition for the purpose of linguistic analysis). A purely semantic treatment is revealed in S. Ullmann’s explanation of connected discourse which “will fall into a certain number of meaningful segments which are ultimate ly composed of meaningful units. These meaningful units are termed words.”

The word has been defined by combining various approaches by E. Sapir (syntactic and semantic approaches), J. Lyons (syntactic and semantic approaches), A.H. Gardiner (semantic and phonological approaches), and many other linguists. E. Sapir points out a very important characteristic of the word, its indivisibility. J. Lyons points out the criteria of “positional mobility” and “interruptibility”. A.H. Gardiner defines the word as “an articulate sound form in its aspect of denoting something which is spoken about.” A. Meillet combines the semantic, phonological and grammatical criteria: “A word is defined by the association of a particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment.” According to I.V. Arnold the latter formula can be accepted if we add that a word is characterised by positional mobility within a sentence and indivisibility, and that the word is the smallest significant unit of a given language, capable of functioning alone.

The weak point of all the above definitions is that they do not establish the relationship between language and thought. No exhaustive definition of the word has been given by linguistics so far. Most Russian linguists hold that for a comprehensive word theory a description seems more appropriate than a definition. The description of the word based on the results of investigations carried out in this country by eminent scholars such as V.V. Vingradov, A.I. Smirnitsky, O.S. Achmanova, L.V. Scherba, M.D. Stepanova, etc. may be summarised as follows:

1. the word is a two-facet unit possessing both form and content (soundform and meaning);

2. the word is the basic unit of language system, the largest on the morphemic and the smallest on the syntactic plane of linguistic analysis;

3. the word is a structural and semantic entity within the language system, i.e. it exists within the latter as a system and unity of all its forms and variants.

Morphemes (from Greek morph e — form + suffix - eme adopted to denote the smallest unit or the minimum distinctive feature) are language units that form words. By definition, the morpheme is the smallest two-facet unit possessing both form and meaning but it cannot be functioning alone. It is studied on the morphological level of analysis.

Word-groups are the largest two-facet lexical units comprising more than one word observed on the syntagmatic level of analysis.

When a word is 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 detrimental to communication. This brings us to the problem of motivation which is one of the crucial problems of the theory of the word (it is treated in the next block of lectures).

The relationships existing between language units are classified into syntagmatic and paradigmatic.

Syntagmatic relations are based on the linear character of speech and manifest themselves through context, e.g. green fields and green years; the head of the table and his head ached, etc. The term context is defined as the minimum stretch of speech necessary and sufficient to determine meaning. Syntagmatic relations are studied by means of contexual, valency, distributional, transformational and some other types of analysis.

Paradigmatic (associative, non-simulataneous) relations are based on the interdependence of words within the vocabulary system and manifest themselves in the morphemic composition of the word (all its word-forms) and in various possible groupings of words (word-families, synonymic groups, hyponymic groups, stylistically marked:: stylistically non-marked words; new words:: obsolete and archaic words, etc.). These groupings are formed on some common feature with respect to which words may be regarded as equivalent. Word-families, for example, have as their basis common root, synonymic series – a common denotational meaning (cf: to refuse - to reject - to decline), stylistic layers – a common sphere of usage (compare different stylistic characteristics in man - chap - bloke - guy), thematic groups – a common sphere of reference.

Each language is distinguished by its own system of interrelations.

The reflection of objective reality is selective. This is the reason why vocabulary systems covering the same field of objective reality and human experience do not always coincide in different languages, cf. нога – foot, leg; палец – finger, toe; мизинец – little finger; большой палец – thumb.

Diachronically the interdependence of words within the lexical subsystems may be seen by observing shifts in the meaning of existing words that occur when a new word is introduced into their semantic sphere. After the Roman word autumne > autumn was borrowed, the native OE word hærfest (MnE harvest) lost the meaning ‘the season for reaping’.

The monosyllabic phonological type of the English word, for example, enhances homonymy. Cf. miss v ‘to fail to hit’ and miss n — a title for a girl or unmarried woman.

The influence of morphology (the loss of endings) caused the development of non-affixed word-formation, e.g. finger n and finger v ‘to feel with one’s fingers’.

The description of the interdependence of lexical elements is not exhaustive but gives some general idea of the relationship in question.