- •Lecture 5. The meaning structure of a word.
- •The objectives and tasks of the lecture:
- •The material of the lecture:
- •§5. The essential features of a metaphor manifest themselves in other stylistic devices which are very close to a metaphor proper:
- •Topics for comprehension check and class discussion:
Lecture 5. The meaning structure of a word.
The content of the lecture: In this lecture to the attention of the students are presented the main theoretical views in a sphere of semantics. There are laid the main principles of the meaning structure, its peculiarities in paradigmatic and syntagmatic aspects. Also is suggested the mechanism of the meaning actualization in speech acts including stylistic effect.
The key terms of the lecture: intralinguistic function; extralinguistic function; semantic function; denotative meaning; significative meaning; implicative meaning; pragmatic meaning; primary meaning; generalized meaning; surrogationalism in semantic theories;
the principle of conventionality.
The objectives and tasks of the lecture:
After completing your work over the material of this lecture you are to be able to speak on the following problems:
The close interrelationship of language and meaning;
L.Vygotsky and the essence of his theoretical stand;
The correlation of intralingustic and extralinguistic function in actualization of the word meaning according to F. de Saussure;
G.Frege and his semantic triangle;
Reference and sense;
The two criteria for distinguishing a semantic load of a word;
The lexical meaning proper;
The essence of a nominative processes;
Vocabulary and the two ways of its realization;
Stylistically charged vocabulary as a result of a semantic shift.
The material of the lecture:
§ 1.The problem of meaning continuously had been discussed in all periods of linguistic studies. As it was put by Arutyunova N. the notion of language is to a certain degree a notion of meaning and every theory which ignores the semantic aspect of language cannot be a theory of language. Attention to semantic ( Greek ‘semantikos’ information) aspect of language had always been characteristic of linguistic studies in evident or latent form
1.1. According to L. Vygotsky, an outstanding Russian scientist, the meaning is “ the unity of generalization, communication and thinking”, i.e. a logical category. This viewpoint corresponds to the conceptual idea of the meaning structure which means that behind any linguistic unit stands a fragment of reality, fixed in a human mind as its meaning. The structured character of meaning is explained by the fact that no object or phenomenon appear to be isolated imprints of reality. They are first reflected in a human mind in an infinite multitude of forms and states making the whole – the nominative meaning of a word, i.e. the real meaning which stands behind the name in a speech act. Either generalized or concrete meaning is actualized in speech acts and this depends on that semantic function which a given lexical unit fulfils in speech acts. Accordingly these are intralinguistic functions presented in any of three semantic functions - denotative, significative and implicative, and pragmatic, extralinguistic function actualized depending on a situation and individual task.
§ 2. Almost all semantic theories start from the scheme of G. Frege /semantic triangle/, according to which we say of the relations between 1/the object of reality, 2/the meaning as a conceptual reality and 3/a linguistic sign as a bearer of the information in every separate act of speech. The first posion means our reference to the real things as the extralinguistic entities in the world irrespective of their either material or spiritual essence; the second position - the reflection of these referents in a conceptual sphere of a human mind and the third position - the registration of these, now conceptual entities with the help of linguistic signs – names, nominative units.
In our real life all our experiences are tailed with the perceptions of objective and subjective order which are, in their turn, reflected in a potential meaning structure / linguistic meaning/ of this or that linguistic sign. What is to be concluded here is that in every particular speech situation a nominative unit may be realized in its first, primary, denotative meaning or actualize one of its more generalized meanings / speaker’s meaning/ which all the same make the potential of its contensive structure. In this connection it is justified to distinguish the following notions reference and sense.
2.1. Sense is the way words are related ( semantic connections) to each other within the language system and here take the foreground various aspects of its potential meaning structure, in other words, the thought they express.
Reference is the way linguistic expressions refer to the external world as extralinguistic reality, i.e. refer to the special facts of the world: She bought a car.: reference of expression = the object / phenomenon/ that it represents.
In Saussure’s understanding the meaning of linguistic expressions derives from two sources; a/ language that they are a part of; b/ the world that they describe where a/ is the conceptual sphere and b/ the referential sphere.
§3. Now it is common to distinguish the semantic load of a lexical unit.using the two criteria [3]: 1/ internal/paradigmatic taking into account all lexico–semantic paradigm: (D+S+I) where denotative, significative and implicative components make lexical – potential- meaning , i.e. content proper and 2/ external/ syntagmatic criterium which exposes conditions (context, distribution) and character of semantic explication: either D or S or I plus pragmatic factor in the course of a communicative act. By other words every new meaning takes shape on the basis of a historically developed meaning assigned to a given unit as an imprint of some fragment of reality.
3.1.The lexical meaning proper potentially reflects all possible aspects of using a linguistic sign in question including all attributive and concomitant characteristics disposed in the implicative sphere which makes some prognostic zone for possible acts of nomination and thus makes a semantic paradigm of a word.
3.2. The process of nomination representing the two spheres of language activity is exactly the step taking part in creating some new – nominative meaning involving all extralinguistic factors into the mechanism of labeling the real facts of life including all the objects of introspection (emotions, feelings, evaluation of reality, etc.). The reflection of the whole objective world in every new nomination makes possible.
The aura of associations accompanies every lexical unit being implied if not strictly defined. When the relation between sign and referent is clear and unambiguous we can say that the one denotes the other, i.e. denotative component of meaning has been realized. When, however, the sign evokes in addition various associations(psychological, social) the connotative components (significative and implicative in fact) take their foreground.
§4. If to follow the characteristic features of a meaning structure we may see that the stylistic properties of lexicon may manifest in two ways: 1) paradigmatically, and here we deal with the set of word classified as stylistically – charged vocabulary. There we refer to such strata of lexicon as ‘slang’, ‘dialect’ colloquial’, ‘popular’, ‘scientific’, etc. These groups of words are fixed in vocabulary as forms of speech of separate social or professional groups. There may be borderline usages as it takes place in the districts the people of which are the bearers of different languages. Alongside these cases in paradigmatic sphere of lexicon we may find or induce many archaic or new words.
The second way of stylistic realization of the vocabulary is that which works syntagmatically, only in the course of communication with all the palette of semantic nuances arising due to extralinguistic factors of objective and subjective type.
The first are conditioned by such phenomenon which took a name of a situation constraint, while the second involve the pragmatic factor, appealing to the feelings so as to the linguistic experience and social position of interlocutors.
In some linguistic works this aspect is distinguished as perlocutionary force of speech acts (Searle, Austin).
4.1. In stylistic research the second way in realization of semantic properties of the lexicon makes a deserved interest. Among them the following figures of speech:
4.1.1. Metonymy, which, on losing its originality, becomes instrumental in enriching the language vocabulary and is based on association on contiguity.
If to keep in mind a semantic paradigm of a lexical unit, we can observe a shift to the implicative component of meaning which reflects the extralinguistic information of a unit in question. That all the concomitant events count in actualizing the stylistic relevance of a unit is seen from examples:
Из рук моих /Ветхий Данте выпадает…
Янтарь в устах его дымился …
The pavements were all eyes and thick jostling bodies…
As a separate case of metonymy follows synecdoche with the semantic structure in which ‘the whole’ is presented through ‘the part’, ‘big’ through ‘small’ .
Все флаги в гости к нам.
Since I left you my eye is in my mind…
Synecdoche in a sentence functions as a subject or object.
- I like Goya. New Ford is better than that I had before.
4.1.2. The metaphorical use is based on certain similarities observed by the speaker, so the metaphor as a unit of secondary nomination is based on association of resemblance. In a semantic structure of a unit qualified as a metaphor we can observe a semantic shift: sweet not only taste, but pleasant, attractive - sweet face, voice, little baby. If to compare the metonymy and metaphor it is possible to observe that the metaphor operates on a linguistic basis (inner form of a word) while the metonymy rests solely on the extralinguistic factors characterizing phenomena denoted by the words when the great role belongs to realization of the implicative component of meaning.
The metaphor is a purely technical method to give new names to a class of objects by extracting a new name from the old section. This stylistic device is presented with four types stylistic effect of each being different.
a/ The first type is presented with the nominative metaphor and, making the resource of nomination, doesn’t give some stylistic nuances of meaning. It appeals not to the intuition but gives indication, that is why its stylistic effect is rather low if: яблоко, стрелять в яблоко; ушная раковина, ручка (чашки), the leg of the table, the apple of the eye, the arm of the chair, the foot the hill; hand - рука, стрелка часов; face - лицо, циферблат часов (of a clock); foot - нога, подножие горы; leg - нога, ножка стула; tongue–язык-tongues of flame. b/ Some adjectives are characterized by broad meaningness, it allows them to develop new meanings. cool, chilly, frozen, hot eyes were frozen with terror. This is a predicative or attributive metaphor which lies in acquiring some ‘alien’ features: острый (ая, ое) ум, зрение, нужда, заболевание, критики, взгляд, кризис, black night, water, heat, linen, despair, deed, curse, book, heat, sin, frost, look, lie, moment. This type may be taken out of the simile: pастаял (как сахар в чае), ветер воет (как волк), время лечит the time flow (as water) the day had died, his mind wrestled heavily with the problem the river ran, between the miles; the idea came to his mind, English comes easy to him, to take one’s attention, etc. Semantic shift is observed from D to S (from concrete to more generalized).
c/ One more type of a metaphor is widely known in commercial activity advertisement business the artificial character of which is unfavorable for the stylistic device and its value is not very high. It is known as a generalizing metaphor.
d/ The most stylistically important is a figurative metaphor when the search for a new image takes place. Associations here are very high and get realized on the highest level of abstraction. The metaphors, depending on their semantic peculiarities, fall into two classes – language metaphors as obsolete, stale, hackneyed and speech metaphors as original ones. Though rigid demarcation of the whole stock of figurative metaphors is hardly possible to draw. Some scholars think that the original metaphors tend to polysemy admitting a lot of interpretations as in green cheese, green years, black deed, while such as ‘an awful bore’, ‘to fish for the compliments’ or ‘These girls are an awful responsibility’ – tend to synonymy.
The speech metaphor relies upon the concrete text and is always connected with it because the connotative features work only in the framework of a given lexical set. Such connotations reflect not usual, collective vision of the outside world but individual experience, subjective or occasional .
The differences between the two types of a metaphor are realized in mind by intuition and revival of a stale metaphor in a text also may make some peculiar stylistic effect. In Ф. Кривин there is a linguistic joke (В мире животных).
Вдали темнели берега,
Ершился лес на склоне
И кот, окрысясь на щенка,
Мышонка проворонил,
Слонялся черный таракан,
Карась с лeщом судачил,
И, как всегда ослил баран,
Что конь весь день ишачил.