Lecture 2.
Word as a basic unit of language
What is word?
The word is the basic unit of language, uniting meaning and form (signifier and
signified) and is composed of one or more morphemes.
Examples of one morpheme words: ball, play, joke, joy, night, day, girl
A wоrd as an autonomous unit of language in which a particular meaning is
associated with a particular sound complex and which is capable of a particular
grammatical employment and able to form a sentence by itself (Autumn.; Listen!).
Words are the central elements of language system, they face both ways: they are the
biggest units of morphology and the smallest of syntax", and what is more, they
embody the main structural properties and functions of the language.
Morphemes are the smallest meaningful units: for example -er (semantically
denotes doer), anti- (). But unlike a word morphemes are not autonomous and
cannot be used independently, although a word may consist of a single morpheme.
Unlike words, morphemes cannot be divided into smaller meaningful units and are
functioning in speech only as constituent parts of words. When a derivational affix
is added a new word is formed, thus, listen and listener are different words. In
fulfilling different grammatical functions words may take functional affixes: listen
and listened are different forms of the same word.
Words can represent a concept, feeling or action or as having a single referent. The
meaning of morphemes is more abstract and more general than that of words and at
the same time they are less autonomous.
Being the central element of any language system, the word is on the focus of
research of many linguistic subjects such as phonology, lexicology, syntax,
morphology, semantics, etc.
From syntactical positions it was defined for instance as “the minimum sentence”
(H. Sweet); “a minimum free form”, “forms which occur as sentences”. (L.
Bloomfield).
E. Sapir takes into consideration the syntactic and semantic aspects when he calls
the word “one of the smallest completely satisfying bits of isolated ‘meaning’, into
which the sentence resolves itself”. Sapir also points out one more, very important
characteristic of the word, its indivisibility. The essence of indivisibility will be
clear from a comparison of the article a and the prefix a- in a lion and alive. A lion
is a word-group because we can separate its elements and insert other words
between them: a living lion, a dead lion. Alive is a word: it is indivisible, i.e.
structurally impermeable: nothing can be inserted between its elements. The
morpheme a- is not free, is not a word.
The semantic-phonological approach may be illustrated by A.H.Gardiner’s
definition: “A word is an articulate sound-symbol in its aspect of denoting
something which is spoken about."
Thus, the word is the smallest significant unit of a given language capable of
functioning alone and characterised by positional mobility within a sentence,
morphological indivisibility and semantic integrity.
The word is the fundamental unit of language. It is a dialectical unity of form and
content. Its content or meaning is not identical to notion, but it may reflect human
notions, and in this sense may be considered as the form of their existence.
Concepts fixed in the meaning of words are formed as generalised and
approximately correct reflections of reality, therefore in signifying them words
reflect reality in their content.
SEMANTIC TRIANGLE
Referential approach
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
referent?
The account of meaning given by Ferdinand de Saussure implies the definition
of a word as a linguistic sign. He calls it ‘signifiant’ (signifier) and what it refers
to — ‘signifie’ (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
concerns linguistics and the sign is not a unity of form and meaning as we
understand it now, but only sound form.
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 is 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.
We reproduce it for the third time 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.
The 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 we have to understand that 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.1
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.
Functional approach
The notion of lexical system
The term lexical s y s t e m denotes a set of elements associated and
functioning together according to certain laws. It is a coherent homogeneous
whole, constituted by interdependent elements of the same order related in certain
specific ways. The vocabulary of a language is moreover an a d a p t i v e
s y s t e m constantly adjusting itself to the changing requirements and conditions
of human communications and cultural surroundings. Even though its elements are
concrete and can be observed as such, a system is always abstract, and so is the
vocabulary system or, as Academician V.V. Vinogradov has called it, the lexico-
semantic system.
Syntagmatic and paradigmatic relationships
Both syntagmatic relationship and paradigmatic relationship, are concepts in
linguistics that showcase the types of relationship, that exists between words.
Syntagmatic relationship is a type of relationship between words that focuses on
the possibilities of co-occurrence. That is, it is a relationship that determines which
words can exist side by side, in a phrase or larger linguistic unit. Syntagmatic
relation illustrates the linear relationship / position between the words in a
sentence. The syntagmatic relation occurs on the horizontal axis.
Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) argued that:
Words in a sentence are meaningfully related to each other. Saussure called this
relationship syntagmatic, and the combinations of two or more words that create
the chain of words are called syntagms. When a single word or element of the
chain is altered, the overall meaning is also changed. This chain concept is the
basis of syntagmatic relations. Syntagmatic relation defines the relationship
between words that co-occur in the same sentence. It focuses on two main parts:
how the position and the word order affect the meaning of a sentence. Let's look at
an example:
↤ Syntagmatic relations ↦
Paul is roasting a chicken
The syntagmatic relation in this sentence explains:
The word position and order: Paul + is roasting + a chicken
The relationship between words gives a particular meaning to the sentence:
It is a chicken that Paul is roasting, not something else.
It is Paul who is roasting a chicken, not someone else.
Thus, the syntagmatic relation refers to a word's ability to combine with other
words, and the syntagmatic dimension (syntagm) always refers to the horizontal
axis or linear aspect of a sentence.
The syntagmatic relation can also explain why specific words are often paired
together (collocations), such as have + a party in 'We had a party on Saturday'. If
you hear someone say, 'We made a party on Saturday', you'll probably cringe
because make + a party doesn't sound right.
From these sentences, the syntagmatic relations are all the relationships between
words within the same sentence. That means there is a syntagmatic relation in:
The beautiful woman + buys + some brioche (sentence level).
The + beautiful + woman (phrase level).
The handsome man + sold + some cake; and the + handsome + man.
The tall boy + is eating + a hotdog; and the + tall + boy.
Additionally, in all three sentences above, each grammatical function (ie, subject,
verb, and object) is at the same level. But in some cases, if you change the order of
the sentence structure, it can change the meaning completely. For example:
The tall boy is eating a hotdog.
A hotdog is eating the tall boy.
The two sentences use the same words (syntagms) but differ in order (syntagmatic
relationship), which changes the meaning of the sentence.
Furthermore, the linear relationship also occurs at phrase-level: it is 'handsome +
man', not 'handsome + woman' (collocation).
The opposite of syntagmatic relation is paradigmatic relation. Paradigmatic
relation refers to the relationship between words that can be substituted within the
same word class (on the vertical axis).
Paradigmatic relation describes the relationship between words that can be
substituted for words with the same word class (eg replacing a noun with another
noun). A paradigm in this sense refers to the vertical axis of word selection. This
explains why paradigmatic relation is the opposite of syntagmatic relation.
Now that we have covered the paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations, we can
say that:
Paradigmatic relation describes a substitution relationship between words of the
same word class. The substitution occurs on the vertical axis.
Let's take 'The beautiful woman buys some brioche'.
The beautiful woman can choose to buy: some bread or chicken instead of
brioche.
Brioche, bread, and chicken are parts of a paradigm of food that the beautiful
woman can buy.
All the items in the paradigm share some kind of function (in this example: the
object of the sentence) and this paradigm represents the category they belong to
(in this example: food).
Some words from the sentence can also be substituted vertically: 'An
unattractive (antonym) lady (synonymy) buys some bread (hyponymy)'.
Syntagmatic relation:
Let's take 'That handsome man ate some chicken'.
Paradigmatic relation is about word substitution which occurs on the vertical axis.
Syntagmatic relation is about word position and a relationship between words
which occurs on the horizontal ax
Syntagmatic relation and paradigmatic relation are introduced by Saussure (1974)
to distinguish two kinds of signifiers: one concerns positioning (syntagmatic) and
the other concerns substitution (paradigmatic).
Syntagmatic relation is a type of sematic relations between words that co-occur in
the same sentence or text(Asher, 1994). Paradigmatic relation is a different type of
sematic relations between words that can be substituted with another word in the
same categories (Hj⊘rland, 2014).
There has been an agreement that syntagmatic relation concerns positioning and
paradigmatic relation concerns substitution.
Paradigmatic and syntagmatic studies of meaning are f u n c t i o n al because
the meaning of the lexical unit is studied first not through its relation to referent
but through its functions in relation to other units.
Functional approach is contrasted to referential or
onoma s i o l o g i c a l approach, otherwise called t h e o r y of nomi n a t i o n ,
in which meaning is studied as the interdependence between words and their
referents, that is things or concepts they name, i.e. various names given to the
same sense.
Syntagmatic relationships being based on the linear character of speech are
studied by means of contextual, valency, distributional, transformational and some
other types of analysis.
Paradigmatic linguistic relationships determining the vocabulary system are
based on the interdependence of words within the vocabulary (synonymy,
antonymy, hyponymy, etc.).
It may also happen that a form that originally expressed grammatical meaning, for
example, the plural of nouns, becomes a basis for a new grammatically conditioned
lexical meaning. In this new meaning it is isolated from the paradigm, so that a
new word comes into being. Arms, the plural of the noun arm, for instance, has
come to mean ‘weapon’. The grammatical form is lexicalised; the new word shows
itself capable of further development, a new grammatically conditioned meaning
appears, namely, with the verb in the singular arms metonymically denotes the
military profession. The abstract noun authority becomes a collective in the term
authorities and denotes ‘a group of persons having the right to control and govern’.
Last but not least all grammatical meanings have a lexical counterpart that
expresses the same concept. The concept of futurity may be lexically expressed in
the words future, tomorrow, by and by, time to come, hereafter or grammatically
in the verbal forms shall come and will come. Also plurality may be described by
plural forms of various words: houses, boys, books or lexically by the words: crowd,
party, company, group, set, etc.
TYPES OF LEXICAL UNITS
Words
S e t e x p r e s s i o n s are word groups consisting of two or more words whose
combination is integrated so that they are introduced in speech, so to say, ready-
made as units with a specialised meaning of the whole that is not understood as a
mere sum total of the meanings of the elements.
O r t h o g r a p h i c w o r d s are written as a sequence of letters bounded by
spaces on a page. Yet, there exist in the English vocabulary lexical units that are
not identical with orthographic words but e q u i v a l e n t to them. Almost any
part of speech contains units indivisible either syntactically or in terms of meaning,
or both, but graphically divided. A good example is furnished by complex
prepositions: along with, as far as, in spite of, except for, due to, by means of, for
the sake of, etc.
The same point may be illustrated by phrasal verbs, so numerous in English:
bring up ‘to educate’, call on ‘to visit’, make up ‘to apply cosmetics’, ‘to reconcile
after a disagreement’ and some other meanings, put off “to postpone’. The
semantic unity of these verbs is manifest in the possibility to substitute them by
orthographically single-word verbs. Though formally broken up, they function like
words and they are integrated semantically so that their meaning cannot be
inferred from their constituent elements. The same is true about phrasal verbs
consisting of the verbs give, make, take and some others used with a noun instead
of its homonymous verb alone: give a smile, make a promise, take a walk (cf. to
smile, to promise, to walk).
Some further examples are furnished by compound nouns. Sometimes they are
not joined by solid spelling or hyphenation but written separately, although in all
other respects they do not differ from similar one-word nominations. By way of
example let us take some terms for military ranks. The terms lieutenant-
commander and lieutenant-colonel are hyphenated, whereas wing commander and
flight lieutenant are written separately. Compare also such inconsistencies as all
right and altogether, never mind and nevertheless.
All these are, if not words, then at least word equivalents because they are
indivisible and fulfil the nominative, significative, communicative and pragmatic
functions just as words do.
