CC BY
10THE INTERRELATION OF BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OF MEANING
OF THE WORD
Jumanazar Matyoqubov
Associate professor of Uzbekistan State World Language University
ABSTRACT
The meaning of the word played a somewhat limited role in early modern linguistic philosophy, which was primarily concerned with the structural features of sentence meaning and showed less interest in the nature of discovery-meaning. It is now well established that the study of word meaning is crucial for the study of the basic features of human language. This article provides an overview of how to explore issues related to word meaning in analytical philosophy and a summary of relevant research on the topic in neighboring scientific fields. While the focus is on philosophical issues, the contributions of linguistics, psychology, neurology, and artificial intelligence are also considered because research is of intersocial importance.
Keywords: word, word meaning, sematic theory, concept, sound form, referent.
The notions of word and word meaning are problematic to pin down, and this is reflected in the difficulties one encounters in defining the basic terminology of lexical semantics. In part, this depends on the fact that the term 'word' itself is highly polysemous. For example, in ordinary parlance 'word' is ambiguous between a type -level reading, an occurrence-level reading, and a token-level reading. Before proceeding further, let us then elucidate the notion of word in more detail and lay out the key questions that will guide our discussion of word meaning in the rest of the entry.
Words have often been called slippery customers, and many scholars have been distressed by their tendency to shift their meanings and slide out from under any simple definition. A goal of some clear thinkers has been to use words in more precise ways. But though this is an excellent and necessary step for technical jargon, it is a self-defeating program when applied to ordinary words. It is not only that words are shifters; the objects to which they must be applied shift with even greater rapidity.
This article addresses the nature of the knowledge people possess about word meanings, and how this knowledge is acquired and used in reading comprehension. Drawing on philosophy, linguistics, and psychology as well as education, this article attempts to describe gaps in knowledge and controversies as well as to marshal the reasoning and evidence for what can be accepted as truths. Although we have incorporated some original thinking of our own, and have been contentious about some issues, our fundamental purpose has been to present a state-of-the-art synthesis.
We can distinguish two fundamental approaches to the notion of word. On one side, we have linguistic approaches, which characterize the notion of word by reflecting on its explanatory role in linguistic research. These approaches often end up splitting the notion of word into a number of more fine-grained and theoretically manageable notions, but still tend to regard 'word' as a term that zeroes in on a scientifically respectable concept. For example, words are the primary locus of stress and tone assignment, the basic domain of morphological conditions on affixation, clitization, compounding, and the theme of phonological and morphological processes of assimilation, vowel shift, metathesis, and reduplication.
On the other side, we have metaphysical approaches, which attempt to pin down the notion of word by inquiring into the metaphysical nature of words. These approaches typically deal with such questions as "what are words?", "how should words be individuated?", and "on what conditions two utterances count as utterances of the same word?". For example, Kaplan has proposed to replace the orthodox type-token account of the relation between words and word tokens with a "common currency" view on which words relate to their tokens as continuants relate to stages in four-dimensionalist metaphysics.
For the purposes of this entry, we can rely on the following stipulation. Every natural language has a lexicon organized into lexical entries, which contain information about word types or lexemes. These are the smallest linguistic expressions that are conventionally associated with a non-compositional meaning and can be articulated in isolation to convey semantic content. Word types relate to word tokens and occurrences just like phonemes relate to phones in phonological theory. To understand the parallelism, think of the variations in the place of articulation of the phoneme /n/, which is pronounced as the voiced bilabial nasal [m] in "ten bags" and as the voiced velar nasal [q] in "ten gates". Just as phonemes are abstract representations of sets of phones, lexemes can be defined as abstract representations of sets of words. Thus, 'do', 'does', 'done' and 'doing' are morphologically and graphically marked realizations of the same abstract word type do. To wrap everything into a single formula, we can say that the lexical entries listed in a lexicon set the parameters defining the instantiation potential of word types in sentences, utterances and inscriptions. In what follows, unless otherwise indicated, our talk of "word meaning" should be understood as talk of "word type meaning" or "lexeme meaning", in the sense we just illustrated.
As with general theories of meaning, two kinds of theory of word meaning can be distinguished. The first kind, which we can label a semantic theory of word meaning, is a theory interested in clarifying what meaning-determining information is encoded by the words of a natural language. A framework establishing that the word 'bachelor' encodes the lexical concept adult unmarried male would be an example of a semantic theory of word meaning. The second kind, which we can label a foundational theory of
word meaning, is a theory interested in elucidating the facts in virtue of which words come to have the semantic properties they have for their users. A framework investigating the dynamics of semantic change and social coordination in virtue of which the word 'bachelor' is assigned the function of expressing the lexical concept adult unmarried male would be an example of a foundational theory of word meaning. Likewise, it would be the job of a foundational theory of word meaning to determine whether words have the semantic properties they have in virtue of social conventions, or whether social conventions do not provide explanatory purchase on the facts that ground word meaning.
Obviously, the endorsement of a given semantic theory is bound to place important constraints on the claims one might propose about the foundational attributes of word meaning, and vice versa. Semantic and foundational concerns are often interdependent, and it is difficult to find theories of word meaning which are either purely semantic or purely foundational. According to Ludlow, for example, the fact that word meaning is systematically underdetermined (a semantic matter) can be explained in part by looking at the processes of linguistic negotiation whereby discourse partners converge on the assignment of shared meanings to the words of their language. However, semantic and foundational theories remain in principle different and designed to answer partly non-overlapping sets of questions.
Our focus in this entry will be on semantic theories of word meaning, i.e., on theories that try to provide an answer to such questions as "what is the nature of word meaning?", "what do we know when we know the meaning of a word?", and "what (kind of) information must a speaker associate to the words of a language in order to be a competent user of its lexicon?". However, we will engage in foundational considerations whenever necessary to clarify how a given framework addresses issues in the domain of a semantic theory of word meaning.
By definition Lexicology deals with words, word-forming morphemes (derivational affixes) and word-groups or phrases. All these linguistic units may be said to have meaning of some kind: they are all significant and therefore must be investigated both as to form and meaning.
It ought to make pointed out that in the same way that lexicology is starting should absorb the major and only the deliberations of semantic researchers semasiology will be advancing of the fore similarly as those focal issue for semantic examination of at levels for dialect structure. It may be suggester that semasiology need to its liable -matter not just the consider of lexicon, as well as about morphology, grammar About sentential semantics. Words, however, assume such a critical a piece in the structure of dialect that when we talk from claiming semasiology without qualification, we normally allude of the examiner for word-meaning proper, in spite of the fact that it may be truth be told precise normal with investigate those semantics for other elements, for example,
such that suffixes, prefixes, and so on.
Implying is a standout amongst those majority dubious terms in the hypothesis of dialect. Note the seeing for this expression appears should exhibit no challenge in the least — it may be uninhibitedly utilized within teaching, translating and interpretation. The exploratory definition from claiming implying then again in the same way that those definition for some other fundamental semantic terms, for example, such that expression. Since there will be no universally acknowledged definition of importance we should keep ourselves to a short overview of the issue concerning illustration it is seen to present day etymology both in our nation about circuit.
All major works on semantic theory have so far been based on referential concepts of meaning. The essential feature of this approach is that it distinguishes between the three components closely connected with meaning: the sound-form of the linguistic sign, the concept underlying this sound-form, and the actual referent, i.e. that part or that aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers. The best known referential model of meaning is the so-called "basic triangle" which, with some variations, underlies the semantic systems of all the adherents of this school of thought. In a simplified form the triangle may be represented as shown below:
Referential Approach There are broadly speaking two schools to Meaning of thought in present-day linguistics representing the main lines of contemporary thinking on the problem: the referential approach, which seeks to formulate the essence of meaning by establishing the interdependence between words and the things or concepts they denote, and the functional approach, which studies the functions of a word in speech and is less concerned with what meaning is than with how it works.
As can be seen from the diagram the sound-form of the linguistic sign, e.g. [dAv], is connected with our concept of the bird which it denotes and through it with the referent, i.e. the actual bird.1 The common feature of any referential approach is the implication that meaning is in some form or other connected with the referent. Give us currently analyze those put from claiming implying in this model. It may be
:As terminological confusion has caused much misunderstanding and often makes it difficult to grasp the semantic concept
of different linguists we find it necessary to mention the most widespread terms used in modern linguistics to denote the
three components described above:
sound-form — concept — referent
symbol — thought or reference — referent
sign — meaning — thing meant
sign — designatum— denotatum
concept
undoubtedly watched that the sound-form of the saying is not indistinguishable twin with its meaning, e.g. [dAv] will be those sound-form used to mean An peal-grey winged animal. There may be no inalienable connection, however, between this specific sound-cluster and the importance of the expression bird. The association is routine About discretionary. This can be effectively demonstrated by analyzings those sound -forms for different dialects passing on you quit offering on that one and the same meaning, e.g. English [dAv], Russian [golub'], German [taube] et cetera. It can additionally make demonstrated contrasting very nearly indistinguishable twin sound -forms that have diverse intending in distinctive dialects. The sound-cluster [kot], e.g. In the English dialect intends 'a small, normally swinging cot to An child', Be that in the Russian dialect basically those same sound-cluster possesses the significance 'male cat'.
For additional persuading proof of the traditional About discretionary nature of the association between sound-form significance the sum we must would will be will side of the point of the homonyms. Those expression seal [si:l], e.g. , methods 'a bit of wax, lead', and so forth. Stamped with An design; its homonym seal [si:l] possessing those same sound-form means 'a ocean animal'.
When we inspect expression we view that its significance if nearly associated with those underlying idea alternately ideas is not indistinguishable twin for them. With start with, particular idea will be a class for human discernment. Idea will be those considered perfect those object that singles crazy its vital offers. Our ideas theoretical and reflect the majority regular and commonplace features of the different questions phenomena of the planet. Constantly those outcome about reflection generalization every one "concepts would along these lines inalienably very nearly the same for the entire about humankind in one and the same time from claiming its authentic advancement. Those implications of expressions Notwithstanding need aid separate in distinctive dialects. That is should say, expressions expressing indistinguishable twin ideas might need different implications distinctive semantic structures in distinctive dialects. The idea for 'a building to human habitation' will be communicated clinched alongside English those saying house, done Russian saying дом, yet the significance of the English expression may be not indistinguishable twin with that of the Russian similarly as house doesn't have those significance for 'fixed home of gang or household' which will be a standout amongst those implications of the Russian expressions дом; it is communicated toward an additional English polysemantic word, in particular home which possesses a number for different implications not should make found in the Russian statement дом.
Those distinction the middle of implying idea might additionally make watched by contrasting synonymous expressions word-groups expressing basically those same ideas at possessing semantic importance which may be felt concerning illustration different On every of the units under consideration, e.g. Big, large; to, die, on
pasquinade away, to kick the bucket, will join the majority; child, baby, babe, newborn child.
We can indicate person and the same item more than one expression of a separate significance. To instance, before, a discourse circumstances an fruit might make indicated by those expressions apple, fruit, something, this, and so on. As every last bit from claiming these expressions might need the same referent. Thus, significance may be not to make recognized for any of the three focuses of the triangle. Conclusion
What we have mainly done in this article is take a close look at the standard theory of word meanings. We have concluded that every element of the theory is open to serious challenge. No one has yet been able to specify a set of semantic features that are atomic, sense-based, and universal in application, that provide an exhaustive and satisfying analysis of word meanings, or that give a firm foundation for sentence semantics; nor is there good reason to hope that these goals are even achievable. In its very attempt to provide a parsimonious, general account of semantics, standard theory falls woefully short of a linguistically adequate and psychologically realistic characterization of meaning.
There is general dissatisfaction with standard theory among semantic theorists. Yet this article is, we submit, more than an exercise in beating dead horses. Versions of the standard theory do have currentday proponents among scholars concerned with language, notably among information processing psychologists trying to account for the speed and fluency with which people process language. More important, considering the primary audience of this article, something resembling standard theory seems to characterize the conventional wisdom about word meanings in the field of reading education.
Standard semantic theory seems to provide the tacit foundation for several common practices in vocabulary instruction. To the extent that the foundation is weak, the practices may be of dubious value. We hope that exposing the assumptions of prevailing semantic theory to close scrutiny will make some contribution to raising the level of consciousness of the field, informing debate, refocusing research, and informing practice.
REFERENCES
1. Aitchison J. Words in the mind: an introduction to the mental lexicon. London. 2012.
2. Allan K. The Oxford handbook of the history of linguistics. Oxford. 2013.
3. Asher N. Lexical meaning in context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge university press. 2011.
4. Blutner R. Lexical semantics and pragmatics. London. 2002.
5. Cruse A.D. Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1986.
6. Gordon W.T. A history of semantics. Amsterdam. 1982.
7. Grandy R. Some remarks about logical form. London. 1974.
8. Ginzburg. A course in Modern English lexicology. Moscow. 1976.-P.278.
9. Kucera H, Francis, W. N. Computational analysis of present-day American English. University Press of New England. 1967.
10. Leonard Bloomfield. Language. New York. 1933.
11. Marchand H. Studies in Syntax and Word-Formation. Munich. 1974.-P.347
12. Mednikova E. M. Seminars in English lexicology. Moscow. 1978.-P.298.
13. Noam Avram Chomsky. Syntactic Structures. Berlin. 1957.-P.471.
14. N.M. Raevskaya. English lexicology. Kiev. 1957.-P.231.
