2. The Problem of Word Definition

Despite the central status of the word in the language system and the fact that speakers have no difficulty in identifying words in speech it is very difficult to give a satisfactory definition of the word. Many attempts have been made to this effect but still there is no satisfying and universally accepted word definition. This difficulty is conditioned by word’s complexity, as word is characterized by many aspects and properties, such as phonological, morphological, semantic, syntactic, pragmatic ones.

The attempts to define word proceeded either from one particular criterion or their combinations. Definitions proceeding from a phonological criterion were offered by Ch. Hocket [Hocket 1978: 166] and P.S. Kuznetsov [Кузнецов 1964: 7] who claimed that word is any segment of a sentence (Hocket) or a sequence of sounds (Kuznetsov) which can be separated by pauses of any length. Such definitions point out at the outer form of the word, the possibility to single it out between the pauses in actual speech, but do not disclose its inner faculties, the word’s content – its meaning.

Purely semantic criteria of word definition cannot be considered sufficient as well. For instance St. Ullmann’s definition is based on a semantic criterion: “Words are meaningful segments of connected discourse”. [Ullmann 1959: 30]. Not only words are meaningful units but also morphemes and prosodic components of discourse: pauses, intonation, etc. Word cannot be defined as a unit of the language expressing a particular concept or notion, although word is related to concept which will be pointed out later (chapter 2). Besides, concepts are expressed not only by words but also word combinations, phrases and sentences. Concept is a category of cognition and it is impossible to establish a one-to-one correspondence between word and concept.

A.H.Gardiner based his definition on the semantic-phonological approach: “A word is an articulate sound-system in its aspect of denoting something which is spoken about” [quoted from Arnold 1973: 26]. The word has been syntactically defined as: “A word is the minimum sentence” by H.Sweet and much later by L.Bloomfield as “a minimum free form” [Bloomfield 1933: 187].

There were attempts to combine the semantic, phonological and grammatical criteria: The definitions by the Czech linguist B. Trnk “Word is a minimum unit of meaning realized by a definite sequence of phonemes and capable of mobility within a sentence” [1964: 201] and the eminent French linguist A.Meillet “A word is defined by the association of a particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment” [1926: 30] serve as examples. Despite the fact that the above definitions embrace various aspects of the word, they were objects of criticism because (1) not every word is capable of positional mobility, for instance, articles, prepositions, particles cannot move freely within a sentence; (2) the definitions do not distinguish between a word and a word combination. As I.V.Arnold puts it “not only child, but a pretty child as well are combinations of a particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment” [1973: 26].

The word definitions offered by Soviet/Russian linguists are based on the theory of signs and modern semantic approaches (see ch.2). For instance, the definition offered by O.S.Akhmanova runs as folliows: “Word is the smallest unit of the language functioning within the sentence, which directly corresponds to the object of thought (referent) and is a generalized reverberation of a certain ‘slice’, ‘piece’ of objective reality – and by immediately referring to it names the thing meant”.

In English and other analytical languages there exist the so-called analytical forms of certain parts of speech, such as verbs, e.g. have finished, didn’t go, is reading, etc., comparative and superlative degrees of adjectives: more interesting, most sincerely. Such words possess certain structural separateness.

Summing up our review of different definitions we come to the conclusion that they are bound to be strongly dependent upon the line of approach, the aim the scholar has in view. For a comprehensive word theory a description seems more appropriate than a definition.

All that was said about the word can be summed up as follows. The word is a linguistic sign. It represents a group of sounds possessing a meaning, susceptible to grammatical employment and characterized by formal and semantic unity.