Components of the Content Structure of the Word 9783110900538, 9789027933645

Table of contents :
FOREWORD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD
2. THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE
3. ASPECTS OF THE WORD
4. THE CONNOTATION OF WORD CONTENT
CONCLUSION
BIBLIOGRAPHY. IN RUSSIAN
BIBLIOGRAPHY. IN FOREIGN LANGUAGES
NAME INDEX
SUBJECT INDEX

Citation preview

JANUA LINGUARUM STUDIA MEMORIAE NICOLAI VAN WIJK DEDICATA edenda curat C. H. V A N SCHOONEVELD Indiana University

Series Minor,

138

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

by

N. G. KOMLEV

1976

MOUTON THE HAGUE · PARIS

© Copyright 1976 Mouton & Co. B.V., Publishers, The Hague No part of this book may be translated or reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publishers

ISBN 90 279 3364 2 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 74-80542

Printed in The Netherlands

Printed in accordance with a resolution of the Editorial and Publishing Council of Moscow University

This book throws light on the nature of the basic semantic components of the word — the sign, the lexical concept, and the denotatum — and gives an analysis of their interaction in different words and under different conditions of use of the latter. The work presents the history of opinions concerning the meaning of the word; it describes most of the possible components of the content structure of the word (using examples from various languages). Such a complex presentation of the semantics of the word is achieved here for the first time in the literature of linguistics. It will be of interest to philology students, teachers of their native language and of foreign languages, methodologists, translators, and philosophers. The Publisher

FOREWORD

This book analyzes the semantic content of the word as a unit of language and gives a description of the components of this content. Linguistic science has accumulated a rather large amount of knowledge and facts concerning this problem. For this reason the study of the content of the word long ago became a discipline in its own right in the science of language. Nevertheless, in the realm of semantics there still remains much that is uncertain. Some of the facts discovered at times contradict other facts. The content of the word thus requires further study and systematization of the facts already discovered and described. The component parts of the semantics of the word are not always given and are often segmented as a result of linguistic analysis. At any rate linguists do not have a single point of view with regard to the content structure of the word. Therefore in this book which is now being offered for the readers' consideration, we have devised a method for distinguishing the component elements of the content of the word. For this purpose we employ the principle of so-called semantic aspectation, the principle of a multilateral approach to the language unit and to language as a whole. Semantic aspectation makes possible a simultaneous and systematized consideration of elements of the content of the word which are different in their function or in their nature. In order to really know a subject, "it is necessary to comprehend and study all its aspects, all its connections and 'interrelations'. We shall never attain this completely, but the requirement of comprehensiveness

8

FOREWORD

will put us on our guard against mistakes and against insensitivity."1 The author is aware of the fact that a great many complex linguistic problems are concentrated in the semantic content of the word. Hence it follows, first of all, that its complete explication would require the coordination of the efforts of many investigators. In view of this, the result of the present work will depend to no small degree on how well the author has succeeded in confining himself only to the systematization of the components of the content of the word. Secondly, the unsettled nature of some of these problems in linguistics or the insufficient competence of the investigator with regard to some of these problems naturally leads to an incomplete descriptive picture of the linguistic material. The author of this book expresses his profound gratitude to his colleagues, who have made a great many valuable comments and methodological suggestions: R. A. Budagov, A. G. Volkov, D. P. Gorskij, P. N. Denisov, G. V. KolSanskij, T. P. Lomtev, V. P. Murat, Ju. S. Stepanov, N. S. Cemodanov.

1

V. I. Lenin, Socinenija [Works],

vol. 32, p. 72.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

7

1. Approaching the meaning of the word 1.1. The meaning of meaning 1.2. Basic conceptions of meaning 1.3. Preliminary conclusions

11 11 16 32

2. The aspects of language 2.1. Principles of aspectation 2.2. Language in aspects

35 35 43

3. Aspects of the word 3.1. General propositions 3.2. Sign 3.3. Lexical concept 3.4. Denotatum 3.5. Sense

66 66 74 89 97 108

4. The 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7.

125 125 129 133 136 139 142 144

connotation of word content What is connotation? Idea Feeling Cultural component Fields Meaning and knowledge Weltanschauung and meaning

10

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Conclusion

152

Bibliography (in Russian)

154

Bibliography (in foreign languages)

186

Name index

211

Subject index

222

1 APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

1.1. THE MEANING OF MEANING

The range of problems arising from the study of the semantic content of the word, the functions of the word, the mechanisms for the generation and perception of the word is concentrated in the problem of the MEANING of the word. This problem cannot be avoided by linguists in any branch of linguistics. Their attitude toward understanding the meaning of the word is reflected directly or indirectly in the results of their research, whatever aspect of language they may study. Generally speaking, two approaches to language, and two complexes of methods of analysis of its elements, are now prevalent in linguistics. The FIRST one is based on the following idea: Most or even all parts of language are in a structural relation, having value only in a given structure, and therefore they ought to be studied only in this relation. The SECOND school is based on the idea that linguistic contents (meanings) constitute the principal wealth of language, are the most important areas of research in linguistics, and to a certain extent can exist in isolation from their sounds-as-carriers.1 The first school, as we know, is called structuralism, and it is most prevalent in the Anglo-Saxon, Romance, and Scandinavian 1 See H. Glinz, Sprache und Welt, p. 12. Here and elsewhere in the notes works will be cited in abbreviated form only. A detailed description of them is given in the bibliography.

12

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

countries, and also to a considerable degree among us here in the U.S.S.R. The second school is found in all countries and finds its extreme expression in the so-called inhaltbezogene Sprachforschung (the semantic method of language study) in Leo Weisgerber's version. 2 Even from this it is evident that in relations between representatives of the semantic school and those of structural linguistics another disputed question is meaning. 3 There is no doubt that so-called structuralism has created for linguistics "a new and firmer foundation". 4 It is supposed that its merits consist in the following: (1) The subject of linguistics is now considered to be not individual speech events but the language system (in the West beginning with De Saussure). (2) One should not impose on the systems of one language the systems of another language (for example, Latin); one must find the categories immanent for these languages. (3) Within the language system elements or signs are of secondary importance; the main thing is the distinction between signs. (4) "Mentalistic" terms such as "thought", "idea", "consciousness", should be avoided, inasmuch as psychological phenomena, unless they are interpreted as an overt expression, can be determined only subjectively (through introspection) and not objectively, i.e., scientifically. The objections of the nonstructuralists amount to the following. The structuralists ignore the aspect of content, although it is well known that: 2

L. Weisgerber, "Die Erforschung der Sprachzugriffe"; also his Inhaltbezogene Grammatik. 3 Μ. Black, Studies in Language and Philosophy; E. Brandt, Der theoretische Bedeutungsbegriff; Ν. Chomsky, "The Current Scene in Linguistics: Present Directions"; L. J. Cohen, The Diversity of Meaning; H. Güntert and A. Scherer, Grundlagen der Sprachwissenschaft; P. Hartmann, Zur Theorie der Sprachwissenschaft; A. Scherer, "Der Stand der indogermanischen Sprachwissenschaft"; F. Stroh, Handbuch der germanischen Philologie; Z, Telegdi, "Übei die jüngere Entwicklung der Sprachwissenschaft", also his "Über die Entzweiung der Sprachwissenschaft". 4 E. Leisi, Der Wortinhalt, 110.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

13

(1) A linguistic sign has both expression and content; the content aspect also belongs to language, just as the expression aspect does. (2) The structuralists' basic concept — the phoneme — is defined as a distinguisher; hence it presupposes the feature of meaning, of content, of the units being distinguished. (3) Other categories recognized by the structuralists, for example, the morpheme, also have meaning (znacenie, Bedeutung). Ε. Leisi, describing the conflict between structuralists and nonstructuralists, proposes that we "reconcile" the opposed schools by creating a new semantics which will investigate the system and not individual acts; describe the elements that pertain to language and not remain outside it; define the concept of "meaning" or "content" so that it can be studied objectively, scientifically, and not mentalistically.5 As R. A. Budagov has convincingly shown, 6 the division of linguists into two "camps" is a great oversimplification. Yet the fact that the boundary between different schools of linguistics is indeed most often revealed in the interpretation of the meaning of the word, cannot be denied. What exactly is "meaning"? Recently the German linguist W. Mues answered this question as follows: "We do not know. We only know that meaning 'is', 'exists'. We cannot give it any definition whatever. Yet all linguists assume the existence of meaning and work with it. For otherwise why should language exist if not to convey meanings?" 7 The term "meaning" was borrowed from the spoken language, arose spontaneously, and has retained its extraordinarily broad and therefore diffuse and polysemantic content. Is it expedient to give a detailed description of the content of the word "meaning"? Does it make scientific sense to enumerate, inventory, and system6

E. Leisi, Der Wortinhalt, 112. R. A. Budagov, "Princip i metody izuöenija sravnitel'noj semasiologii rodstvennyx jazykov" [The Principle and Methods of Studying the Comparative Semasiology of Cognate Languages], in the book: R. A. Budagov, SravrtiteVnosemasiologiöeskie issledovanija [Comparative-Semasiological Investigations], 3-7. 7 W. Mues, Vom Laut zum Satz, 12. β

14

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

atize the possibilities of its use and all its semantic variants? It appears to us that this process is necessary.8 If we admit this polysemantic term in our theory, we are obliged to indicate in which of these numerous variants it is admissible. We can use language as a means of communication in science only if, at least practically speaking, we arrive at an effective solution to the problem. 9 Concerning the word "meaning" N. Chomsky cautions us that: "Part of the difficulty with the theory of meaning is that 'meaning' tends to be used as a catch-all term to include every aspect of language that we know very little about." 1 0 B. Whorf puts it even more bluntly: "Linguistics is essentially the quest of meaning." 11 The complexity of the problem of meaning was amply demonstrated in their own time by the two English linguists Ogden and Richards in their book The Meaning of Meaning.12 The authors noted that previous explanations of a mystic and mythological nature regarding the "inner power peculiar to the word" ought to be rejected, and that the investigation of these attitudes lies within the scope of all the sciences which properly study the phenomenon of the human spirit. Ogden and Richards, in inquiring into the content of meaning, distinguish sixteen sense groups of this word, 13 individual sense groups having accessory meanings besides. They 8

A. W. Read, "The Term 'Meaning* in Linguistics"; concerning the term "meaning" see, in addition, in the collection by K. Ajdukiewicz: "J^zyk i znaczenie" [Language and Meaning]; E. GrodzMski, Znaczenie slowa w jqzyku naturalnym [The Meaning of the Word in a Natural Language]; J. Seidel-Slotty, Die Bedeutung der Wörter. 9 Ο. S. Axmanova and V. V. Veselitskij, "Ο sovremennoj lingvistifceskoj terminologji" [On Modern Linguistic Terminology], 167-68; I. A. Kuznecov, "O lingvistiieskoj terminologii i lingvistiöeskix formulirovkax" [On Linguistic Terminology and Linguistic Formulations]; W. E. Flood, Scientific Words: Their Structure and Meaning; E. Wüster, "Die terminologische Sprachbehandlung", 214-19. 10 Ν. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures, 104; V. BudoviCovd, "PfedmSt lingvistickej semantiky" [The Object of Linguistic Semantics], 123-39. 11 Quoted from Novoe ν lingvistike, Issue 1, 201. 12 C. K. Ogden and J. A. Richards, The Meaning of Meaning. 13 · Such a diffuseness of meaning is not the prerogative of this word alone. Unfortunately, a dangerous vagueness of content is found in other areas as well.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

15

discovered a total of twenty-three different meanings for the word "meaning". Nor does this list exhaust the meanings of the term. W. P. Pillsbury was not mistaken when he wrote as early as 1908: "We come then to the conclusion that meaning is practically everything. We always see the meaning as we look, think in meanings as we think, act in terms of meaning when we act. Apparently we are never distinctly conscious of anything but meanings." 14 A third of a century later Korzybski observed the same thing: " 'Meaning' must be considered as a multiordinal term, as it applies to all levels of abstractions, and so has no general content. We can only speak legitimately of 'meanings' in the plural. Perhaps, we can speak of the meanings of meanings, although ... the latter would represent ... the affective, personal raw material, out of which our ordinary meanings are built." 15 On becoming acquainted with the literature of semantics, one is struck by the multiplicity of views with regard to meaning. 16 Meaning is studied in almost all branches of philosophy (formal logic, mathematical logic, ethics, esthetics), in literary criticism, psychology, and other social disciplines. Each independent school of linguistics has its own conception. Naturalism, mechanicism, sociologism, estheticism, structuralism, behaviorism, psycholinguistics, have different points of view on meaning, and even in each of these schools there are many theoretical differences on matters of principle. 17 14

W. P. Pillsbury, "Meaning and Image", 156. A. Korzybski, Science and Sanity, 22. 14 K. Baldinger, Die Semasiologie; The Importance of Language, ed. by M. Black; F. G. Lounsbury, Meanings of "Meaning". Psycholinguistics: S. P. Potter, Language in the Modern World; A. Nehring, "Die Glossematik. Ein kritischer Versuch"; J. Τ. Waterman, Perspectives in Linguistics. 17 Indications of these differences can be found in the following works: R. A. Budagov, "K kritike reljativistskix teorij slova" [Toward a Criticism of Relativist Theories of the Word]; also by him, Oierki po jazykoznaniju [Essays on Linguistics]; also by him, SravniteVno-semasiologiieskie issledovanija [Comparative-Semasiological Investigations]; V. A. Zvegincev, Semasiologija [Semasiology]; also by him, Ocerkipo obSöemu jazykoznaniju [Essays on General Linguistics]; Ju. S. Stepanov, "K obäiej lingvistiCeskoj teorii znafcenija" [Toward a General Linguistic Theory of Meaning]; also by him, Osnovy 15

16

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

Here, of course, it is impossible to set forth all points of view; 18 we shall examine only the most widely held views and those that are most significant for our subsequent discussion.

1.2. BASIC CONCEPTIONS OF MEANING

In speaking of the meaning of meaning, we enter the realm of the science of semantics. Semantics as a scientific discipline has at present become so complex, and its very name has acquired so many meanings, that in order to avoid inaccuracies the term "semantics" itself should also undergo an extensive semantic analysis. But here we shall confine ourselves merely to the systematization of the conceptions of meaning. As a point of departure we shall use the following outline. 19 Meaning is: (1) the object named; (2) the idea of the object (or the ideal object); (3) the concept; (4) the relation: (a) between sign and object; (b) between the sign and the idea of the object (or the ideal object); (c) between sign and concept; (d) between the sign and human activity; (e) between signs; (5) the function of the word-as-sign;

jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Linguistics]; H. Arens, Sprachwissenschaft. Der Gang ihrer Entwicklung von der Antike bis zur Gegenwart; W. Doroszewski, ''jQzykoznawstwo a pogl^d na äwiat" [Linguistics and Weltanschauung], 160; R. H. Robins, Ancient and Mediaeval Grammatical Theory in Europe; also by him, General Linguistics. An Introductory Survey; R. Lord, Comparative Linguistics, 201-59; H. Sperber, Einführung in die Bedeutungslehre. 18 Moreover, we are confining ourselves only to the meaning of the WORD. But it is well known that there are viewpoints according to which the word can be correlated with some content only by means of the sentence. E. Buyssens, "Speaking and Thinking From the Linguistic Standpoint". 19 See N. G. Komlev, Komponenty soderzanija slova [Components of the Content of the Word], 3-4. See also: A. Saff, Vvedenie ν semantiku [A. Schaff, Introduction to Semantics], 232.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

17

(6) the invariant of information; (7) the reflection (representation) of reality. Let us expound these views. MEANING = OBJECT. The old idea that to every name there corresponds an object to which that name pertains, is not accurate. "For many people language in its fundamental essence is nomenclature, i.e., a list of terms corresponding to the same number of things ... Such an idea may be subjected to criticism in many respects." 20 Such an objectivist, antipsychological view is arrived at through the simple fact that most of the words-as-units of a language are in some manner projected on nonlinguistic reality and do not function for themselves, but reflect with varying degrees of accuracy this nonlinguistic reality. B. Russell writes: "When I say 'the sun is shining', I do not mean that this is one of a number of sentences between which there is no contradiction; I mean something which is not verbal, and for the sake of which such words as 'sun' and 'shining' were invented. The purpose of words ... is to deal with matters other than words." 21 Russell is quite right when he speaks of the primacy of extralinguistic nature. But the term "objects", as we shall see below, cannot be understood literally as material objects. What objects do we in fact have in mind when we use the words theory, January, nothing, ah, because, etc.?

Similar to this view in its idea is that of V. V. Vinogradov: "By the lexical meaning of a word we usually mean its material content, which is overtly marked according to the grammar laws of the given language and is an element of the overall semantic system of that language." 22 (italics ours — N.K.). 80

F. de Sossjur, Kurs obiiej lingvistiki [F. de Saussure, Cours de linguistique genirale], 77. Criticism of this view can also be found in the article by A. I. Smirnickij, "Znaöenie slova" [Word Meaning], 80-83. 21 B. Russell, An Inquiry into Meaning and Truth, 148. Cf. also: Gellner, Slova i vesöi [Ε. Gellner, Words and Things], 36. 22 V. V. Vinogradov, "Osnovnye tipy leksiceskix znacenij slova" [Basic Types of Lexical Meanings of the Word], 10. Cf. also: G. Suxardt, "Slova i veSCi"

18

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

According to this point of view the word is not associated directly with the object, but associated with the idea of it. Meaning can exist without an object of denotation. In his dictionary J. Marouzeau gives this definition of meaning: "The meaning of a word can be regarded ... as the sum total of the ideas which can be evoked by uttering that word." 2 3 MEANING = CONCEPT. Scholars have for a long time been attempting to prove the difference between, or the identity of, the terms meaning and concept. 24 In the worldwide literature of linguistics the first point of view is more prevalent. But at the same time many consider it erroneous. The critics of this viewpoint2 5 are of the opinion that it is based on mystification. They think that such formulas as "the word expresses the concept", "the word realizes the concept", "the concept is the basis of meaning", "concept and meaning are associated with each other but do not coincide", etc., are antiscientific. These critics maintain that such a division is speculation and is by no means corroborated in the sciences that inquire into the respective processes of thinking and of language; it is a contribution to the myths of Platonism and nominalism. This contribution is often made even by those philosophers who themselves call for a struggle against the idealistic mythologization of the problem. On these grounds the following conclusions are reached: (1) It is impossible to agree with the view that concept and meaning are different categories with different contents. (2) Concept and meaning are identical in their content, and the MEANING = IDEA.

[H. Schuchardt, "Words and Things"], in Izbrannye stafi po jazykoznaniju [Selected Articles on Linguistics], 201. 23 2 . Maruzo, Slovar' lingvisticeskix terminov [J. Marouzeau, Lexique de la terminologie linguistique], 112. 24 P. S. Popov, "Znacenie slova i ponjatie" [Word Meaning and Concept]; F. Travniöek, "Nekotorye zame£anija ο znaSenii slova i ponjatii" [Some Remarks on Word Meaning and Concept]. 25 Cf. G. V. Kolsanskij, Logika i struktura jazyka [Logic and Language Structure].

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

19

distinction between them is based only on the fact that we evaluate the same cognitive process from different directions: in the one case, from the point of view of the thought process, and in the other from that of the linguistic process. 26 (3) The difference in content supposedly existing between meaning and concept is in fact merely a difference between the scientific and the everyday concept. (4) In order to avoid logical inaccuracies one ought to distinguish between integral mental acts, which include, along with cognitive features, emotional features as well; the terminological and the colloquial use of the words "concept" and "meaning". 27 This view is held by other modern logicians as well, for example, R. Carnap ("The meaning of a word (predicator or functor) is the concept"), 28 G. Klaus ("The concept is the meaning of the word or syntagma"), 29 E. Grodzmski, and others. The latter is of the opinion that "the meaning of a word in a given language is the thought of the person speaking that language". And by thought he means "the unperceived, uncontemplated cognitive experience. Thoughts are thus concepts as the meanings of words, as well as judgments as the meanings of sentences" 30 (italics ours — N.K.). An interesting viewpoint is that offered by Ju. S. Stepanov. For Stepanov "the word expresses the concept" (italics ours — N.K), but "concepts ... are by no means elaborated by man's cognition for all the phenomena of reality denoted by means of words. The appearance of concepts is bound up with the scientific cognition of reality; as for words, they denote all that is important in both the scientific and the everyday life of people." Thus, according to Ju. S. Stepanov, "meaning is closest to concept. In some cases (in 26

See G. V. Koläanskij, "Κ probleme ponjatija i znafcenija slova" [Toward the Problem of the Concept and Meaning of the Word]. 27 Cf. also D. P. Gorskij, Problemy obs£ej metodologii ... [Problems of the General Methodology...], 174. 28 R. Carnap, Meaning and Necessity, 6. 29 G. Klaus, Sila slova [Die Macht des Wortes], 15. In this same book one can also find another interpretation of meaning. See below for this. 80 E. Grodzinski, Znaczeme stowa w jgzyku naturalnym [The Meaning of the Word in a Natural Language], 7-8.

20

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

some words) meaning and concept merge." 31 And in other lexical units concepts are totally lacking (there are only meanings), so the problem of the connection between meaning and concept is also absent. MEANING = RELATION BETWEEN SIGN AND OBJECT. The appearance of this view apparently dates back to the seventeenth century. The substance of it can be expressed in the following diagram:

Fig. 1

This conception can even be found in John Locke's book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding,32 This idea of Locke's concerning the relations between the elements of meaning prevails in the views of our contemporaries 33 as well. Locke, like his followers, combined these elements merely mechanically, apparently without discovering the incompatibility of heteromorphic phenomena (sound — object). Meaning as the relation between sign and object was the principal idea arrived at by Ogden and Richards (referred to above) as a result of studying many different points of view and analyzing linguistic material. Ogden and Richards think that meaning is the relation of the symbol (as word) to the referent (as object):

t

Meaning Fig. 2 31 Ju. S. Stepanov, Osnovy jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Linguistics], 149-51. 32 D. Lokk, Opyt ο ieloveieskom razume [J. Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding], 399-400. 33 See, for example: M. N. Zaxarova, "Ob otnoienii slova k predmetu i ponjatiju" [On the Relation of the Word to the Object and the Concept], 39-45.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

21

A similar point of view, but even more clearly stated, is that of A. Cikobava: "The meaning of a word is in fact its relation to an object of true reality. Meaning connects a word (a sound cluster) with an object of reality and not with an idea." 3 4 Yet the relation to an object which is included in the process of speech and thinking is uncertain (identity, causality, similarity?). Some authors use, instead of the term "relation", analogous but more definite expressions, for example: "The meaning of a word is its reference to objects and phenomena of the real world." 3 5 "Lexical meaning should be understood as the interrelation and connections of the totality of sound with the object, process, quality, etc., which it denotes." 3 6 MEANING = RELATION BETWEEN SIGN A N D IDEA. In Russian linguistics this point of view was developed by Ν. V. Krusevskij. Krusevskij considered meaning to be the relation between the word and the idea of the thing; yet he regarded the word within the limits of this relation not as its concrete actualization, but as a SIGN, as a lexeme, irrespective of the concrete actualization. "A word is an aggregate of human sounds with which a certain more or less definite idea is associated." 37 And then in another work: "But we must never lose sight of the fundamental nature of language: a word is the sign of a thing. The idea of the thing and the idea of the word that denotes this thing are linked by the law of association as an inseparable pair ... Words must be classified in our minds into the same groups as the things they denote." 3 8 The "association" referred to by Krusevskij was destined to form the basis of a great school of the theory of meaning — associationism. 34

A. S. Cikobava, Problema jazyka kak predmeta jazykoznanija [The Problem of Language As the Subject of Linguistics], 120. 35 V. A. Artemov, Psixologija obucenija inostrannym jazykam [The Psychology of Foreign-Language Instruction], 216 (italics ours — N.K.). 36 Ε. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, et al., Sovremennyj russkijjazyk [Modern Russian], 16 (italics ours — N.K.). 37 Ν. V. KruSevskij, supplement to the book Ocerki po jazykoznaniju. Antropofonika. [Essays on Linguistics. The Physiology of Speech Sounds], 42. 38 Ν. V. KruSevskij, 06erknaukiojazyke[ An Essay on the Science of Language], 67.

22

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

Proponents of the theory of associations offer a number of their definitions of meaning, according to which the content of the word is a mental phenomenon uniting the most diverse objects, including even heteromorphic and heterogeneous ones. Here is what the well-known Polish linguist S. Szober, a representative of the socalled psychological school of linguistics, writes about meaning: "The real meaning of a word is the union, established through inner experience, of a linguistic idea with an extralinguistic idea reconstructed in minute detail." 3 9 The theory of associationism, which became especially widespread at the end of the last century in philosophy and linguistics, according to the evidence of the Polish philosopher K. Ajdukiewicz — who has criticized this conception — is now more often found among linguists, though it is also advocated by some philosophers. 40 It is characterized by the rather widely held view of the cognitive role of language according to which language is only a suggestive feature that helps to secure the thought and enables it to be communicated; "thinking occurs at the same time as speaking and remains with it solely in an associative bond, i.e., such that one process suggests the other". 41 The associative bond between the word-as-sign and its meaning is emphatically rejected by L. S. Vygotskij. If we accept this point of view, he writes, then "the meaning of a word, once fixed, can neither develop nor change at all. The association linking the word with the meaning may become stronger or weaker, may enrich itself with a number of bonds with yet other objects of the same kind, may be extended by resemblance or contiguity to a wider range of objects or, on the contrary, may undergo a number of quantitative and outward changes, but it cannot change its inner

39

S. Szober, Zarys jgzykoznawstwa ogolnego [An Outline ofGeneral Linguistics]. In this connection L. Zawadowski writes: "In linguistics these views have endured considerably longer than in psychology itself." L. Zawadowski, "Glöwne cechy j^zykoznawstwa funkcjonalnego" [The Basic Features of Functional Linguistics], 13. 41 K. Ajdukiewicz, "J^zyk i znaczenie" [Language and Meaning], 109. 40

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

23

psychological nature, since for that it would have to cease being what it is, i.e., an association." 42 The objections of Vygotskij and other authors appear insufficiently grounded. Why is the association of a sign with changing and different objects impossible? Critics of the associationist view of the content of the word ascribe to the proponents of this conception the opinion that the word teacher, for example, must be associated not with the idea of a man teaching in an educational institution but with a blackboard or some other object in the classroom (Ajdukiewicz), and an overcoat must supposedly be associated only with a human being (Vygotskij). "The complex of ideas", writes E. Grodzmski, "associated with the words 'thunder' and 'lightning' is approximately the same, from which it would follow that the meaning of these words must be — in accordance with the associationist definition — the same, whereas we know that these words have different meanings." 43 The critics' perplexity is based on their having insufficiently understood or underestimated the fact that it is a question here of a special kind of association, the association of components of länguage units, the association of certain LINGUISTIC ideas with others. The so-called laws of association in the old associationist psychology, one of whose founders was David Hume, really did not withstand criticism. 44 These laws accounted for the process of recording and recalling impressions only on the basis of similarity and contrast, of the spatial and temporal sequence of phenomena. Such an understanding sprang from a mechanistic interpretation of the mental processes; moreover, it did not touch upon the nature of the content structure of the word, the interaction of objects as elements of its content. Modern critics also forget that association as coherence can differ in intensity, in strength. At one pole it is very weak; strenuous 42 43 44

L, S. Vygotskij, "Myslenie i rec' " [Thinking and Speech], 323. E. Grodzinski, Znaczenie, 238. E. Erlebach, et al., Einführung in die Psychologie, 83.

24

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

intellectual efforts are required until the contiguous idea appears. Sometimes there are very unstable, diffused, and quite unexpected associations. And at the other pole the ideas are so closely coupled that one idea quickly, instantaneously, evokes only one other idea, 4 5 as usually happens in associating the sign with the lexical concept. Bordering upon Krusevskij's conception is Hughes' view. He interprets meaning as a conceivable phenomenon running parallel to the word and to the main thought. 4 6 Here we can include S. Reiss' conception, in which meaning is likewise represented as the relation between sign and idea (ideal object). S. Reiss' book 4 7 is one of the few works in the literature of linguistics which shows the complex picture of the psychological harmony of semantic word groups. Reiss' conclusion is interesting: "The language creating process, i.e. the creation of words plus their meanings, is the product of an intense, though predominantly unconscious, idea-associating activity, which is of course purely mental in character; without this activity the phenomenon of language creation is unthinkable." 4 8 Reiss repeatedly emphasizes the fact that thought is not the result of man's ability to utter sounds, but on the contrary, the ability to use sounds to convey meaning is a product of the human way of thinking. In Reiss' opinion, there exist such entities as "ideas", considered APART FROM any language that people use for formulating or conveying them. "These ideas", writes the author, "therefore are purely psychological, that is, mental, and in no sense identifiable with the physical language with which they are associated." 49 Reiss is aware that the conception of idea or meaning which he is

45 T. Czezowski, Glowne zasady nauk filozoficznych [Basic Principles of the Philosophical Sciences], 55. 46 J. P. Hughes, The Science of Language, 78. Cf. also: D . E. Berlyne, Structure and Direction in Thinking, 1-30. 47 S. Reiss, Language and Psychology. 48 Reiss, Language, 262. 49 Reiss, Language, 262.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

25

elaborating is not the prevailing view at present. As the "general spirit of the times", as Reiss himself expresses it, the positivist Weltanschauung is prevalent in the West. The positivist philosophy, according to Reiss' evidence, identifies meaning with the symbol. "The problem of meaning, however, which is inevitably encountered in every science and every art, is precisely the one which is itself not amenable to a positivist treatment." 5 0 MEANING = RELATION BETWEEN SIGN AND CONCEPT. The complex of the relation "the form of the sign — the content of the sign" is formed in the logical and psychological process in the human mind. On these grounds S. Ullmann infers the definition of meaning as a relative givenness, asserting that "every sign has ... a 'name' and a 'sense', which are capable of calling up one another; this reciprocal relation between name and sense constitutes the 'meaning' of the word". 5 1 By sense Ullmann means concept in the traditional use of the word. The name, interacting associatively with the sense, enters into "bipolar relations" with the concept. The same conclusions are arrived at by Ε. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, who considers meaning the relation between sign and concept: "The lexical meaning in the word is the connection established by a body of speakers between the sound cluster and certain phenomena of reality (for example, the sound cluster made up of the six sounds rjabina 'rowan tree' is associated in Russian with the concept of a tree of a special type)." 5 2 She does not identify concept and meaning, emphasizing that the concept is a logical category while meaning is a linguistic one. 5 3 MEANING = RELATION BETWEEN SIGN AND ACTIVITY. This view is closely associated with behaviorism, the school of psychology and linguistics which does not recognize the qualitative originality of the psyche, which denies the fact of consciousness, and which 50 51 52

Reiss, Language, 264. S. Ullmann, "Descriptive Semantics and Linguistic Typology", 228. Ε. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, et al., Sovremennyj russkij jazyk [Modern Russian],

47. 53

Ε. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, Znacenie i ponjatie

[Meaning and Concept], 82.

26

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

studies human behavior as the mechanical actions of a living organism. Behaviorists, as we know, believe that "thinking ... is a constituent part of every adjustment process. It is not different in essence from tennis-playing, swimming or any other overt activity". 5 4 According to behaviorist theory, the word-as-sign corresponds to a pattern of human behavior which represents meaning proper. The word in the speech event imposes on the hearer a definite pattern of behavior. Behaviorism is introduced by the neopositivist L. Wittgenstein in his book Philosophical Investigations.5 5 This theory is rejected by many investigators, by G. Klaus, for example. "It is out of the question", he writes, "that man can supposedly be 'controlled' by external stimuli. The brain and the higher organisms are cybernetic systems with an inner model of the outer world. Their behavior is by no means merely a function of external stimuli." 56 In this connection we are not interested in behaviorism as a version of pragmatism. We are interpreting only that part of the doctrine which gives its interpretation of the meaning of the word. One variety of behaviorism is called OPERATIONALISM. The operationalists think that meaning is the sum of the operations, the actions, corresponding to a given term; in other words, the meaning of a term should be sought in what a person does when he says something, and not in what he SAYS.57 Meaning as such exists if we can indicate the operations leading to its discovery (semantic regularity). 5 8 54

D z . Uotson, Psixologija kak nauka ο povedenii [J. Watson, Psychology From the Standpoint of a Behaviorist], 303; C. Cofer, Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior; B. F. Skinner, Verbal Behavior. See also: D z . Miller, E. Galanter, Κ. Pribram, Plany i struktura povedenija [G. Miller, E. Galanter, Κ. Pribram, The Levels and Structure of Behavior]. 55 L. Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations. See also: K. L. Pike, Language in Relation to a Unified Theory .... 25-36. 56 G. Klaus, Sila slova [Die Macht des Wortes], 26. 57 Here we have in mind the words of P. Bridgman: "Of course the true meaning of a term is to be found by observing what a man does with it, not by what he says about it", P. W. Bridgman, The Logic of Modern Physics, 7. 58 P. Ziff, Semantic Analysis.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

27

Approximately the same point of view is taken by C. Fries. He thinks that "for linguists, the 'meanings' of an utterance consist of the correlating, regularly recurrent sames of the stimulus-situation features". 5 9 These propositions are a very close approximation of Peirce's viewpoint 6 0 and neopositivism. MEANING = RELATION BETWEEN SIGNS. From what has been said it is clear that human activity in the broad sense under certain conditions includes language activity as well. Under these conditions meaning is interpreted as the relation between the sign forming and the signless activity. Quite a different interpretation is given to meaning when it is identified with the linear interrelation of the sign-forming acts of activity or of the signs of a certain grammatical (syntagmatic and paradigmatic) order. The supporters of this view, for the most part descriptivists and structuralists, conclude that, properly speaking, distribution in the broad sense constitutes lexical meaning. Linguistic utterances can be accurately analyzed only from the point of view of form; any definition based on the meaning of the word as something falling outside the sphere of formal analysis is not scientific. Suffice it to say that two forms differ in their meaning; it is not essential, though, how they differ in meaning and what exactly they mean. And meaning as such (in the previous sense mentioned above) is excluded from consideration only because for methodological reasons it has failed to be precisely defined. 6 1 E. Nida, for example, writes: "The only way to 'define' the meaning of charge is to describe (usually by illustrative phrases or sentences) the distribution of the w o r d . " 6 2 The investigation of distribution is a fruitful approach to the study of language; however, as often happens with the introduction of new methods, for example, with the introduction of the concept of the semantic field (see below, p. 139), investigators often overstep 59

81 62

C. Fries, "Meaning and Linguistic Analysis", 65. C. S. Peirce, "Logic and Semiotic", 98-119. Cf. K. Hansen, "Ziele und Wege des Strukturalismus". Ε. A. Nida, "Analysis of Meaning and Dictionary Making", 282.

28

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

the limits of the express purpose of their method. Proponents of the distributive interpretation of meaning fail to take into account the fact that there exist some mental, nonverbal objects of which it cannot be said without reservation that they represent distribution. After all, we know that an object denoted by one word can be interpreted more or less adequately by means of another word (or words). There is nothing that has been named that cannot somehow be explained with other words. 6 3 MEANING = FUNCTION OF WORD-AS-SIGN. A widely held view is that of meaning as function. The concept of function is borrowed from mathematics. We know that in mathematical logic the term function is used to determine various kinds of meaning. When in 1931 K. Ajdukiewicz carried out a detailed analysis of meaning, in particular an analysis of the word "meaning" in Polish, he indicated four meanings for this word. At the same time, he proposed that instead of "meaning" the term "semantic function" be used, so long as the latter included "any property of language expressions as such, apart from their external aspect". 6 4 Function in the form in which we distinguish it in our classification of views must not be identified with function as the opposite of form, with function as the role, which, for example, a member of a sentence plays in the grammatical structure of an utterance (the function of the subject, of the direct object, etc.). Function in this sense is not relation either. 65 Similarly, neither is a function of the signs on the phonological level (for example, the distinctive or the emphatic function) the equivalent of the lexical meaning of the word. The supporters of this conception hold that the function of

83

Cf. D. I. Ramisvili, "K psixologiceskoj probleme znacenija slova" [Toward the Psychological Problem of Word Meaning], 94-95. 64 K. Ajdukiewicz, Jqzyk a poznanie [Language and Cognition], 104. 65 Cf. the criticism by American linguists of the glossematic term "function", which Hjelmslev has used to denote the relationships of glossemes and their elements. "To call a relationship a 'function' ... seems more calculated to confuse than to enlighten", E. Haugen, "Directions in Modern Linguistics", 215.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

29

the word-as-sign or the set of these functions (aims, purposes) is in fact meaning proper. 6 6 The use of the term function in its usual meanings in linguistics, 67 as well as the expression "the functionality of modern linguistics", 6 8 do not give rise to objections. Yet the function of the word-as-sign and its meaning are not identical. The number of functions and the number of meanings of a word may not coincide. For example, some word-as-sign may have one lexical meaning and several functions, or no meaning but several functions (see below: ASPECTS OF THE WORD). MEANING = INVARIANT OF INFORMATION. In connection with the introduction of precise mathematical methods into linguistics, there have appeared in the literature many attempts to define meaning in terms of cybernetics, in which the fundamental term is "information". Such a view as a sort of premise has been expressed by I. S. Narskij, for example: "We shall proceed from the fact that meaning is the invariant of information carried by the sign, i.e., that which remains stable in the variations of information, meaning being only where the sign is, and vice versa." Narskij emphasizes that this is not a definition, but "merely an intuitive premise from which we approach the problem of meaning (the nature of the connection between information and the sign remains for the moment uncertain)". 6 9 Information-theory linguistics, as we know, studies (calculates) the amount of information carried by the sign. In everyday language information means the same thing as a communication, a

ββ

Cf. Ε. H. Sturtevant, An Introduction to Linguistic Science, 61; E. Brandt, Der theoretische Bedeutungsbegriff, 95. 67 See Ο. S. Axmanova, Slovar' lingvistiieskix terminov [Dictionary of Linguistic Terms], 506-08. 68 L. Zawadowski in the book: R. Jakobson, Μ. Halle, Podstawy jQzyka [Fundamentals of Language], 15. β9 I. S. Narskij, "Kritika neopozitivistskix koncepcij znaöenija" [Criticism of Neopositivist Conceptions of Meaning], 14. Cf. also: Ο. N. Seliverstova, "Znaöenie slova i informacija" [Word Meaning and Information], 134; F. H. George, Semantics, 133-47.

30

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

piece of news (transmitted orally, in writing, by means of gestures, mimicry, or some other sign) which carries a certain content and is used for mutual understanding among people. In cybernetics this term is associated with the extent of freedom one has in choosing the signal, with the extent of the elimination of uncertainty in making this choice. Information within the limits of information theory is associated "solely with the number of possible signals, as well as the probability of choosing one of them, and is completely removed from the meaning (content) of the signals, which are the important component of information in its everyday meaning (i.e., information as news, communications)". 70 If language in a certain aspect is one of the forms of a code, then it can be investigated with the methods of information theory. But first a formalized model must be constructed, because semantics is not essential to the process of communication in the informationtheory sense. "On account of the peculiarities of mathematical information theory", writes Ε. V. Paduöeva, "the methods of this theory can be used to study only the formal or, to put it more precisely, the code aspects of language. Therefore information theory can be of the greatest significance for the study of the phonological and the 'literal' aspects of language. Furthermore, these aspects are eminently suitable to the application of ideas of information theory because the model which represents the process of creating communication as the 'emission' of one symbol after another in a linear sequence is, for all levels of language except the two mentioned, unproductive." 71 According to M. Bierwisch, attempts to introduce the concept of information as an explication of meaning met with failure more than ten years ago. 7 2 70

W. Meyer-Eppler, Grundlagen und Anwendung der Informationstheorie. Ε. V. Paduöeva, "Vozmoznosti izuöenija jazyka metodami teorii informacii" [Possibilities of Studying Language With Information-Theory Methods], 149. See also, concerning the limited range of use of the concept of entropy and the redundancy of information in language teaching: K. Gabka, "Linguistik und Sprachunterricht", 38. 72 Μ. Bierwisch, "Poetik und Linguistik", 49. 71

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

31

Yet it should be said that information theory, by encompassing already known facts and expressing them in precise formulas, reveals many new interesting regularities of language. 73 Moreover, it must be kept in mind that information-theory linguistics is only in its infancy. Information, beyond any doubt, is contained in the word; yet the invariant of this information (in the information-theory sense) does not exhaust the lexical meaning of the word, just as the concept of a code does not exhaust the entire phenomenon of language. MEANING =

REFLECTION (REPRESENTATION) OF REALITY. A .

I.

Smirnickij defines the meaning of the word as "a certain reflection in one's consciousness of the object, phenomenon, or relation ... which forms part of the structure of the word as its so-called inner aspect, in relation to which the sound of the word appears as the material envelope necessary not only for expressing meaning and for communicating it to other people, but also for its very origin, formation, existence, and development". 74 Ju. S. Stepanov also understands meaning as a special variety of the mental phenomena of the reflection of reality: "Mental phenomena — the reflections in a person's consciousness of the outer world — which are not reinforced by words, are not 'meanings'. It is words that reinforce the mental reflections of reality, turning them into stable 'meaning'-phenomena capable of being transmitted from person to person and from generation to generation." 7 5 No matter how the meaning of the word may be understood, the 73

The literature on this subject is voluminous. We shall merely indicate some works of a general nature: V. V. Ivanov (1962), A. A. Piotrovskaja, P. G. Piotrovskij, K. A. Razzivin (1962), R. I. Poluäkin (1967), R. M. Frumkina (1964), C. Shannon (1963), I. M. Jaglom, P. L. Dobrusin, A. M. Jaglom (1960), Y. Bar-Hillel (1964), Y. Bar-Hiüel, R. Carnap (1953), T. Ekiert, J. Seider (1956), R. M. Fano (1961), D. B. Fry (1953), R. Jakobson (1961), Μ. Jurkowski (1965), C. W. Kilmister (1967), G. Klaus (1963), H. Kucera (1963), K. Küpfmüller (1964), Β. Malmberg (1963), G. Mounin (1964), G. A. Müller (1951), Ε. Β. Newman, Ν. C. Waugh (1960), Μ. Reschke (1965), C. F. Weizsäcker (1959). 74 A. I. Smirnickij, "Znaöenie slova" [Word Meaning], 89. 75 Ju. S. Stepanov, Osnovy jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Linguistics], 148.

32

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

aspect of reflection (representation) cannot be called into question. This proposition corresponds to the fundamental idea of the materialist theory of knowledge, according to which any cognition is an ideal reflection of objective reality in the human consciousness. Inasmuch as language is a component part of the single chain of relations between the human consciousness and objective reality, it reflects both different forms of objective reality and the state of consciousness.76

1.3. PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS

Desiring to offer the reader an illustration of the points of view with regard to meaning, we have grouped them according to a certain similarity of conceptions, the number of which might have been extended further. But even this systematization has already demonstrated the wide variety of approaches to meaning as the object of cognition. Each of the viewpoints listed apparently has its rational kernel (we have not dealt with obsolete points of view or those which in our opinion are patently false). 77 But what conclusions can be drawn based on the interpretations of meaning we have listed? (1) Despite the enormous number of interesting works on semantics in our country and abroad, semantics still remains an insufficiently developed area of linguistics. This branch of linguistics cannot boast of such impressive achievements as phonology has realized in the discovery of distinctive features, morphology in the descriptive treatment of languages, and syntax in the description of the structure of languages in the formal aspect. (2) The enumeration, description, and comparison of viewpoints shows the variety of opinions concerning the content of the word. What has given rise to such a great number of diverse views? Such a 78

F. M. Berezin, "K postanovke problemy jazykovyx universalij" [Toward a Statement of the Problem of Language Universale], 115. 77 This in no way means that the conceptions we have not examined are false.

APPROACHING THE MEANING OF THE WORD

33

phenomenon can be explained solely by the nature of the object itself, the apparent simplicity of which is illusory. In fact, the word and its content contain many intersecting linguistic and extralinguistic features, the number and composition of which are different for different words and different conceptions. (3) The terms pertaining to the phenomenon being described, on account of its multilayered and multileveled nature, are polysemantic. A prime example of this is the term "meaning". Concentrated within this term is the content of the word, which makes the physical sound cluster an instrument of human intellectual intercourse. 78 The term "word" itself is not monosemous either. The polysemantic nature of the meaning which is a component of the term "word" makes the latter even more multivalued and multileveled than the term "meaning". The same thing can also be said about LANGUAGE as a whole, which includes a system of words-as-meanings, the ability of people to make use of this system, the very act of using it, and a number of other ingredients and "aspects". The study of these aspects requires its own methods and procedures, as well as approaches from the positions of different sciences. But since these aspects are component parts of the same object, and if one of them were excluded, the subject of linguistics would not be adequate for the object of reality, we must take into account all the known components of the object (of language, word, and meaning). 79 The importance of taking into account this multiaspectuality of language was correctly stated by W. Porzig in the foreword to the second edition of his book Das Wunder der Sprache: "I am convinced that no serious scientific experiment can be useless, no point 78

Ν. N. Amosova, "K voprosu ο leksiöeskom znacenii slova" [Toward the Question of the Lexical Meaning of the Word]; O. S. Axmanova, "Nekotorye voprosy semanticeskogo analiza slova" [Some Questions of the Semantic Analysis of the Word], pp. 63-73; G. S. Klyökov, "ZnaCenie i polisemija slova" [Meaning and Polysemia of the Word], 100-21. 79 J. J. Katz and P. M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Descriptions; Μ. M. Bryant, Modern English and Its Heritage, 305-14; U. Weinreich, "On the Semantic Structure of Language".

34

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

of view completely false. It is quite in keeping with human nature that every investigator is, as it were, in love with the phenomenon of the object which appears before him for the first time, or especially if he is the first to discover it, and he accentuates its details in a one-sided manner. But merely a collection of one-sided views constitutes our present-day knowledge of the subject of language." 8 0 The first step toward such a consideration of aspects is the semantic aspectation of language, which is examined in chapter two of this book.

80

W. Porzig, Das Wunder der Sprache, 9.

2 THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

2.1. PRINCIPLES OF ASPECTATION

2.1.1. Language Language as the object of linguistics possesses a number of characteristics belonging to it alone and making it a unique phenomenon. Its adequate and complete scientific representation requires data from various sciences. This requirement becomes obvious upon accepting the initial working definition of language as the object of linguistics. We define language for linguistic purposes as a final series of sound-types recurring with a definite frequency, which have a common DIFFERENTIAL value and which, appearing in regulated clusters, possess a common INFORMATIONAL value. Value is not a characteristic of sounds-as-signs themselves nor even of information as such, but rather a characteristic of a sender and a receiver at a given moment in a certain situation. Consequently language passes beyond the limits of specific materialized signs into the social realm. 1 At the same time, language as an abstraction and as a specific speech event is usually presented to us as a phenomenon remote from man; it is materialized, objectified, substantivized and denoted by a noun in all European languages. Many contemporary linguists restrict the scope of linguistics to just this remote object.

1

T. Rutt, Vom Wesen der Sprache; W. Wartburg, Von Sprache und Mensch.

36

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

They establish immanent laws only for this system of sounds-assigns.2 Such an approach to language is one-sided, and by using it in linguistic investigation we obtain merely a fragmentary view of the object. We are likewise far from asserting that the definition given above completely exhausts all the characteristics of language. The greatest adequacy of description can be attained only on the basis of a multiaspectual approach to language. 2.1.2.

Analysis

Each individual object, as we know, is an element of numerous classes and is covered by concepts which vary accordingly. Any unit of language is by nature syncretic. The distinguishing of the parts, the aspects of it which will permit us to assign the language unit or language itself to different classes is made possible by abstraction. By means of abstraction we segment language too into different aspects.3 The number of these aspects is indefinitely large, just like the number of characteristics and components of a phenomenon according to which it can be assigned to different classes of objects. Yet it is true that the number of the most productive aspects for certain purposes of investigation is usually limited. Here is a simple example of the polysemantic, the multiaspectual nature of language. Three Englishmen are trying to establish contact: one SPEAKS English but cannot read; another can only READ English but cannot speak; the third can neither read nor speak; at the same time he can THINK quite well and draw con2 The works of Bühler and Bloomfield contributed considerably to the exclusion from linguistics of psychological, "mentalistic" features. This school of linguistics, as we have already mentioned, is termed structural, functional, and the like. L. Zawadowski suggests that it be called textual. L. Zawadowski, "Glowne cechy j^zykoznawstwa funkcjonalnego" ["The Basic Features of Functional Linguistics"], p. 15. 3 See G. V. Koläanskij, Logika i struktura jazyka [Logic and Language Structure]; W. Durrer, Zum Problem der Sprache; S. Melchinger, "Das Netz der Sprache", 419-28; Β. Μ. Η. Strang, Modern English Structure, 1-16; L. Weisgerber, Die vier Stufen in der Erforschung der Sprache.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

37

elusions. All three know English and have identical information about the same code, but the manifestation of the code or the exponents of its signs are different, and consequently the act of communication does not occur. As a result of a thorough study of the separate aspects, the particular realms of the object of investigation, progressive specialization is taking place in the sciences, particularly in linguistics. 2.1.3.

Synthesis

The history of scientific knowledge could provide many examples of how one science synthesizes other disciplines and without fully assimilating them includes them within the sphere of its laws. At present many scientists consider their chief task to be "overcoming the lack of communication between the sciences" 4 which stands in the way of a correct understanding of phenomena. We frequently have occasion to hear objections raised against the use within linguistics of categories from other sciences. In language there are actually many aspects which are studied not only by linguistics, but also by psychology and logic. But do we really have the right to disregard data concerning our subject or parts of it? Does not every teacher resort to an explanation of the emotional nuances of words or their psychological value? Logic, in its turn, teaches correct thinking, its methods naturally being used outside logic as well. 5 Logic explains how concepts are related to each other and how on the basis of these relationships they can be grouped together to form systems of concepts. 6 The necessity of the aspectation method in linguistics is suggested to us by the very polymorphic nature of language. This method permits us to consciously connect the different aspects of the phenomenon 4

Ν. I. Zinkin, Mexanizmy reci [Speech Mechanisms]. See, for example, J. Pilich, "Sylogizm jako pomoc w nauczaniu skladni" [Syllogism As an Aid in the Teaching of Syntax], 76-77; C. H. Vivian, Β. M. Jackson, English Composition, 11 ff., 304 ff. 8 E. Wüster, "The Structure of the Meaning", 671-76; also by him, "Die Struktur der sprachlichen Begriffswelt und ihre Darstellung in Wörterbüchern", 415-43. 5

38

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

and contributes to the integration of science, a trend which forms a dialectical counterpoint to the specialization and dissociation of scientific knowledge. 2.1.4. Aspect and Level In linguistics the term "level" is used to distinguish individual aspects of a linguistic phenomenon. "The choice of criteria fixes the LEVEL of analysis", writes the American linguist C. F. Hockett. "In linguistics there are ... two basic levels, phonological and grammatical, each with subdivisions." 7 Ju. S. Stepanov sees three levels in linguistic analysis. 8 Although this term is extremely prevalent, although it has become essentially international and is used within the same terminological limits in French, English, German, and Polish, its use is devoid of any scientific unity of sense. In linguistics the term "level" appears sometimes as an abstracting device, sometimes as a synonym for a "section of grammar", and again sometimes as a device for studying language material. 9 At the scientific conference held in Moscow in 1967, which dealt specifically with the question of levels in language, 10 many linguists voiced criticism of the traditional use of this concept and proposed other terms, such as "sphere", "degree", and "aspect". Most of the speakers correctly pointed out the hierarchical nature of the term "level". 1 1 The phonological, morphological, and syntactic levels 7

C. F. Hockett, "A System of Descriptive Phonology", 3; also by him, A Course in Modem Linguistics. Cf. also Ju. D. Apresjan, "O ponjatijax i metodax strukturnoj leksikologii" [On the Concepts and Methods of Structural Lexicology], 149. 8 "We regard it as necessary and sufficient to establish the following levels: the system, speech, and an intermediate level between them — the norm" (Ju. S. Stepanov, "K obäcej lingvisticeskoj teorii znaöenija" [Toward a General Linguistic Theory of Meaning], 11). 9 Cf. also N. S. Cemodanov, "Znakovost' i urovni jazyka" [The Sign Nature and Levels of Language], 79-80. 10 Urovni jazyka i ix vzaimodejstvie [Language Levels and Their Interaction]. 11 "Systems which are in a hierarchical relationship are called levels". See the article by G. S. Klyckov in the collection Urovni jazyka i ix vzaimodejstvie [Language Levels and Their Interaction], 77.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

39

can actually be conceived in the form of layers, inasmuch as units of one are built on units of the other. Stefan Ullmann represents them as follows: 12

Fig. 3

We have proposed that this term be replaced by the more precise and purposeful term "aspect", 1 3 while retaining the term "level" for its former meanings. The term aspect presupposes that DIFFERENT points of view may apply to the SAME object, whereas level contains no such indication. But the concepts we are analyzing and the terms for them (language, word) belong simultaneously to several planes which, as it were, coincide and intersect in these concepts. 14 To the founder of the psychological school of linguistics, H. Steinthal, language presented itself as "the expression of realized internal mental and spiritual movements, states, and relationships by means of articulated sounds". This, in his opinion, constitutes "language in general". He distinguishes THREE ASPECTS of language: (1) speech, speaking, the manifestation of language occurring at the 12

Quoted from F. H. George, Semantics, 12. See N. G. Komlev, Komponenty soderzanija slova [Components of the Content of the Word], 6 ff. 14 Cf. the article by Ε. M. Verescagin in the collection Urovni jazyka i ix vzaimodejstvie [Language Levels and Their Interaction], 42-44. 13

40

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

present moment; (2) the ability to speak, including the "content of the inner world ... expressed by means of language"; (3) language material, the elements of speech which are constantly being used. Then Steinthal distinguishes the specific language or individual language, i.e., the totality of language material belonging to a people. 1 5 In Russian linguistic literature the term "aspect" (in just such a meaning) was used by the distinguished Soviet linguist L. V. Söerba. The processes of speaking and understanding he calls speech activity (according to his terminology, the first aspect of language phenomena); language dictionaries and grammars created as a result of human deduction he terms language systems (the second aspect of language phenomena); and, finally, the product of speaking he calls language material. By the latter term Scerba means any kind of written material (the third aspect of language phenomena). "It goes without saying", Söerba writes further, "that all these are somewhat artificial distinctions, since it is obvious that a language system and language material are merely different aspects of the only thing given to us by experience: speech activity, and since it is no less obvious that language material without the processes of understanding would be lifeless, and understanding itself without language material organized in some way (i.e., a language system) is impossible." 16 The so-called planes of H. Glinz are also aspectual in nature. All the language "planes" (parts of speech, word paradigms, parts of the sentence, word order, and "pure content"), in Glinz's opinion, must not be thought of as standing side by side; they penetrate and intersect each other. He represents their relationship in the form of the following figure:

15

H. Steinthal, Grammatik, Logik undPsychologie. Quoted from Xrestomatija po istorii jazykoznanija XIX-XX vekov [Reader in the History of Linguistics in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries], edited by V. A. Zvegincev, 108. 16 L. V. Scerba, "O trojakom aspekte jazykovyx javlenij i ob eksperimente ν jazykoznanii" [On the Threefold Aspect of Linguistic Phenomena and on an Experiment in Linguistics].

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

41

The planes represented in the sketch form a model of the aspects of grammatical and semantic meanings, at the center of which is found the sound element manifested in speech. Speech is thus, if it can be so expressed, the natural focus of all the aspects of meaning. 17 2.1.5. Dichotomy

and

Trichotomy

The typical form of division in structural investigations, beginning with De Saussure, is the dichotomous division into two opposed characteristics, of the phoneme for example (short-long, fricativenonfricative, voiceless-voiced, etc.). This system of division has 17 H. Glinz, "Über die Struktur der Bedeutung", 684. The aspectual approach to the phenomena of language can be found in a number of other theoretical works. See, for example, W. J. Entwistle, Aspects of Language; S. M. Lemb, "Stratifikacionnaja lingvistika kak osnova masinnogo perevoda" [S. M. Lamb, "Stratificational Linguistics as the Basis of Machine Translation"].

42

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

demonstrated its value in phonemic analysis, 18 especially in the classification of the distinctive features of phonemes. 1 9 Attempts are being made to extend the dichotomy theory to all linguistics in general, to the analysis of language elements of all aspects and levels. 20 R. Jakobson and M. Halle, for example, are convinced that the dichotomous system "beyond any doubt, may be regarded as an inherent feature of a linguistic system". 21 However, the dichotomous division does not exhaust all aspects of language phenomena; 2 2 particularly in the semantic analysis of complexes it can have only limited application. Dichotomy is really necessary for certain precise informationtheory methods of analysis, but so long as it describes the details of the object and not their totality, it is insufficient. Language may be described in several aspects, but within each individual aspect a description from three directions appears to be sufficient. This is explained by the nature of the language phenomenon, which we shall endeavor to show below. It is precisely trichotomy which proves necessary and sufficient to give a more adequate view of language in the aspects we are describing.

18

Cf. A. Kuznecova and V. Murat, "Osnovnye principy fonematiceskogo analiza ν deskriptivnoj lingvistike" [The Basic Principles of Phonemic Analysis in Descriptive Linguistics]; see also Sirokov (1965). 19 Cf. A. A. Reformatskij, "Dixotomiceskaja klassifikacija differencial'nyx priznakov i fonematiceskaja model' jazyka" [The Dichotomous Classification of Distinctive Features and the Phonemic Model of Language]; S. K. Saumjan, "Panxroniceskaja sistema differencial'nyx elementov i dvuxstupencataja teorija fonologii" [The Panchronic System of Distinctive Elements and the Two-Stage Theory of Phonology]. 20 See C. F. Hockett, Language, Mathematics and Linguistics, 134-54; G. Hammarström, Linguistische Einheiten im Rahmen der modernen Sprachwissenschaft. 21 R. Jakobson, M. Halle, Grundlagen der Sprache, 74; in Polish: Podstawy jazyka [Fundamentals of Language], 101. 22 Cf. I. I. Mescaninov, "Razlicnye vidy klassifikacii jazykovogo materiala" [Different Ways to Classify Language Material]; M. W. Dixon, What Is Language ?; N . L. Wilson, The Concept of Language.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

43

2.2. LANGUAGE IN ASPECTS

2.2.1. Brief List of Aspects Linguistic analysis is usually carried out through the simultaneous use of different logical methods. The first approach is made partially by advancing certain hypothetical assumptions which originated within the consciousness of the investigator in his overall acquaintance with language and language theory, often intuitively. Then these assumptions are investigated and verified in language material. After empirical substantiation and corroboration with appropriate examples, by proceeding inductively from this analysis he draws conclusions which in turn can be applied (deductively now) to the analysis of specific acts of speech activity. On the basis of a preliminary analysis of a great number of utterances containing the term "language", we can distinguish in the semantic description of this object of our investigation nine aspects. In each aspect we describe language from three directions. Hence we can construct (find in the stock of fixed utterances of Russian) twenty-seven sentences in which the word-as-sign jazyk 'language' will have a different type of meaning (not counting the meaning of jazyk as a speech organ and metaphorical variants of the word in this sense). [Translator's note: Russian jazyk means both 'language' and 'tongue'.] In presenting the aspects and subaspects of language, we shall attempt to render them concrete with utterances and examples containing the term "language". But first we shall briefly enumerate the aspects themselves and their subaspects. I . GENERAL ASPECT ( L )

(1) Language on the whole, any language, the abstract complex of all languages (L!). (2) The language of a nation, a specific ethnic natural language (L2).

(3) The language of an individual, of a specific speaker (L 3 ).

44

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

II. SOCIOINDIVIDUAL ASPECT ( S ) .

(1) Language as a system of signs, an inventory of lexemes and the rules for their use (S (2) Speech, the use of signs (actualization) in an act of communication, an interweaving of the individual and the social (S 2 ). (3) The individual's style of speech, the nature of the choice of the forms of an utterance, the specific character of the individual's perception of linguistic content, the nature of the individual's thinking (S 3 ). III. PSYCHOPHYSICAL ASPECT ( P ) .

(1) The physical subaspect of language, the phonetic expression of speech, including the neurophysiological level of the generation and reception of speech (P^. (2) The psychophysical subaspect of language, i.e., language activity in its process, the sensorially perceived manifestation of the intellectual processes (P 2 ). (3) Verbal thinking, the purely mental subaspect of language, the senses of language that may remain, irrespective of the form of expression (P 3 ). I V . ABSTRACT-CONCRETE ASPECT ( A ) .

(1) The phonetic expression as a concrete subaspect (A J . (2) The sign subaspect; it contains elements of the concrete (sound, material sign) and the abstract (differential or informational content) (A 2 ). (3) The sense subaspect (content) (A 3 ). V . TEMPORAL ASPECT ( T ) .

(1) The language before (any given) moment (period) of investigation (Tj). (2) The language at the moment (period) of investigation (T 2 ). (3) The language after the moment (period) of investigation (T 3 ). V I . INTERSUBJECTIVE ASPECT ( I ) .

(1) Speech formation from the point of view of the individual

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

45

speaker, the generation of speech, the egocentric subaspect of language (Ij)· (2) Physically manifested speech itself — the intercentric subaspect of language (I 2 ). (3) The understanding of speech, i.e., speech in the form in which it is perceived by the individual hearer — the exocentric subaspect (I 3 ). V I I . GENOSEMIOTIC ASPECT

(G).

(1) The everyday language of a people (G x ). (2) A special language within a national, natural language; linguistic genres, including the languages of the sciences (the combination of a natural language with artificial signs and their systems) (G 2 ). (3) An artificial language, a purely artificial semiotic system (G 3 ). VIII. METAASPECT ( M ) . (1) Language of the first degree, language (L), any language which is the subject of discussion in any specific case, objectlanguage (M j). (2) The language in which discourse about another language (language M t ) is conducted — language of the second degree, or metalanguage (M 2 ). (3) The language in which discourse about another metalanguage (language M 2 ) is conducted — language of the third degree, or metametalanguage (M 3 ). I X . FUNCTIONAL ASPECT ( F ) .

(1) Language as an instrument of communication among people (Fi)· (2) Language as a means of signification (F 2 ). (3) Language as a means of cognition, as an instrument of thinking (F 3 ). 2.2.2. Description of Aspects

Let us explain the aspects of language in somewhat more detail and illustrate them with examples.

46

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

I. GENERAL ASPECT ( L ) .

This includes the entire complex of man's communicative and thinking activity, and it can be divided into three parts. (1) Language on the whole (L t ), i.e., language which includes everything belonging to individual languages. We have in mind both the universal features and characteristics which are inherent in any language, i.e., the so-called language universale,23 and the complex of all special resources. EXAMPLES:

"It will not even be erroneous to assert that there exists one human language at all latitudes which is essentially the same. It is precisely this idea which forms the basis of experiments in general linguistics" (J. Vendryes). Man's LANGUAGE is too poor to express all the beauties of nature; the culture of LANGUAGE; the origin of human LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE is one of the features that distinguish man from the animals; LANGUAGE is the organ that forms thought. (2) The language of a nation (L 2 ), of a specific people. When a national language appears as the object of analysis, of study, for the purpose of establishing a relationship with other types of languages or, generally speaking, in order to compare the units and structure of one language with those of another, 24 the investigator is dealing with language in precisely this aspect — L 2 . 2 5 EXAMPLES:

"One of the delusions of science is the identification of language

23

See O. S. Axmanova (1961), F. M. Berezin (1967), I. F. Vardul' (1967), B. A. Uspenskij (1962, 1965), B. W. and E. G. Aginsky (1948), W. Cowgill (1963), C. A. Ferguson (1963), J. H. Greenberg (1963, 1964), J. H. Greenberg, C. Osgood, J. Jenkins (1963), E. Koschmieder (1965), P. Hartmann (1961), C. F. Hockett (1963), Η. M. Hoenigswald (1963), R. Jakobson (1963), R. Linton (1952), C. E. Osgood (1963), S. Saporta (1963), U. Weinreich (1963). 24 R. A. Budagov, Sravnitel'no-semasiologiceskie issledovanija [Comparative Semasiological Investigations]; J. Ellis, Towards a General Comparative Linguistics. 25 O. Jespersen, Mankind, Nation and Individual Front a Linguistic Point of View; A. Borst, "Der Turmbau von Babel"; J. M. Planta, Unsere Sprachen und wir.

47

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

with race ... between race and a specific language there is not the slightest connection" (J. A. Baudouin de Courtenay). Moet — now there's a famous writer! A poet accessible to all — Translates quite easily into All the living languages.

(P. A.

Vjazemskij)

Related LANGUAGES; one's native LANGUAGE, a foreign LANGUAGE; an ancient LANGUAGE, a dead LANGUAGE; to know (master) some LANGUAGE or other; to converse in some LANGUAGE; to translate from the Polish LANGUAGE into Russian; the mixing of LANGUAGES; the influence of LANGUAGES on each other. (3) The language of an individual (L 3 ). We have in mind the stock of linguistic resources and the specific nature of their use by each specific speaker of any specific language, language as the property of an individual, as an idiolect, 2 6 the language which can be investigated by stylistics, the psychology of the personality, medicine, anthropology, 2 7 etc. EXAMPLES:

"Gogol's language is motley and irregular, but colorful, strong, and expressive" (Dal'); "Lermontov knew how to write in the language of each of our best poets" (Dal'); John's language; flowery language; to perfect one's language. II. IN THE SOCIOINDIVIDUAL ASPECT (S) language is divided into the following subaspects. (1) Language as a system of socially meaningful signs (an inventory of lexemes and the rules for their use) (S,). This is the purely social, the societally-conditioned subaspect, which is not dependent on the individual. Nor is the social character of this ae R. Jakobson, Μ. Halle, Podstawy jfzyka [Fundamentals of Language], 119, and also O. S. Axmanova et al., Obscelingvisticeskie aspekty optimalizacii reöevogo soobscenija [General Linguistic Aspects of the Optimalization of Speech Communication], 33. 27 A. Hofstadter, "The Linguistic Person"; G. H. Miller, Language Communication, 140-73.

48

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

subaspect of language altered by the fact that language, in the opinion of some authors, in its later stages develops more under the influence of individual personalities than under that of the group. 28 EXAMPLES:

"Language is indisputably a social phenomenon" (A. Meillet); "The system itself — the language — is not given to the investigator; he is obliged to deal only with the results of its functioning, with speech" (I. A. Mel'öuk); "A language is any system of signs fit to serve as a means of communication between individuals" (J. Marouzeau); " A language is a system of arbitrary vocal symbols by means of which a social group cooperates" (B. Bloch and G. Trager). A nation is united particularly by a common LANGUAGE. (2) The second subaspect (S2) is speech, i.e., the use of a system of signs (actualization) in an act of communication or of discourse. In this sense language now depends on the individual, though this dependence is not absolute. The dependence is expressed in the active use of language elements by the speaker, who enjoys the freedom to use (or not to use) the means of communication (signs), the freedom to select certain units of the linguistic repertory, the value of which is fixed by society. 29 EXAMPLES:

"Let us 'resettle' a newborn Zulu child in China, and a Chinese child in Africa among the Zulus ... In their language they will be absolutely identical to the people around them" (A. A. Reformatskij). The LANGUAGE has a rather high degree of redundancy; to understand a LANGUAGE, to decipher a LANGUAGE. (3) As the third subaspect (S 3 ) we distinguish the purely individual aspect of language use, of language activity — thinking. Thinking, in the opinion of many experts, 30 can also be studied from the linguistic point of view. 28

See, for example, B. Collinder, "Remarks on the Origin of Speech"; cf. also J. Jordan, "Individual and Collective Innovations". 29 R. Jakobson, Μ. Halle, Podstawy fezyka [Fundamentals of Language],

110-12. 30

See Ν. I. 2inkin, ' Ό kodovyx perexodax vo vnutrennej reci" [On Code Transitions in Inner Speech], 33-35; A. N. Sokolov, "Dinamika i funkcii

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

49

It depends to the utmost degree on the individual, who can make substitutions for the generally meaningful (social) signs, who can switch over to thinking in the signs of another ethnic language known to him or of a scientific language, who can transform the "syntactic" units of thought and partially or wholly replace signs with individual ideas, who can switch the linguistic code over to so-called figurative thinking. At any rate the process of verbal thinking is undoubtedly subjective in nature and is hidden in the laboratory of the individual's brain. We know of it almost exclusively through introspective observation, while objective data concerning the form of the development of this process are still extremely scarce. The examples of the use of the term "language" in the third plane of this aspect emphasize the individual quality of the language of a specific speaker. EXAMPLES:

To think in a LANGUAGE; to recognize someone by his LANGUAGE; while working on a mathematical problem, I catch myself thinking in the LANGUAGE of numbers. I I I . PSYCHOPHYSICAL ASPECT ( P ) .

(1) Language as a physical phenomenon (P t ) can be studied by physics, acoustics, 31 mechanics, mathematics, and phonology, and can also be examined from the neurophysiological point of view, from the point of view of the mechanisms of formation (generation) and deciphering (understanding), of the encoding and decoding of sensorily perceived stimuli. The acoustic and neurophysiological aspects of language, since they are physical in nature, can in principle be measured with instruments and studied using methods of the exact sciences.

vnutrennej reci" [The Dynamics and Functions of Inner Speech]; G. P. Scedrovickij, "Jazykovoe myälenie i ego analiz" [Linguistic Thinking and Its Analysis]; H. Henle, Language, Thought and Culture; G. Lienhardt, "Modes of Thought"; H. G. Rahskopf, Basic Speech Improvement. 31 O. von Essen, Allgemeine und angewandte Phonetik, 140-63.

50

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD EXAMPLES:

They are sounds of some language unknown to me; language is "a set of neural patterns in the speech center" (M. Joos). (2) Language as a psychophysical phenomenon (P 2 ); this phenomenon is indeed usually termed language (and it is precisely this "language" which is the traditional object of linguistics). EXAMPLES:

"Language is the immediate reality of thought" (K. Marx); "Language is any deliberate utterance of sounds as mental states" (A. Marty). (3) Language as thinking (P 3 ). This phenomenon is also individual, just like the third subaspects of the two preceding aspects, but here the emphasis is not on the individuality of language but on its "inner" life, the psychological nature of language in the individual linguistic thinking process, its existence in the psyche of the individual. 32 (Nor is the nature of this aspect of language disturbed by the fact that thinking, owing to its reliance on the intersubjective physical subaspect, may be not only individual but also collective.) EXAMPLES:

There is no tax on LANGUAGE; children are born without a LANGUAGE; is it possible to record technically the LANGUAGE a person uses when he considers some problem? In some definitions of language, the term contains not one subaspect of the corresponding aspect, but sometimes two or three. 32 See G. A. Gabinskij, "Ob abstrakcii ν jazykovom mySlenii" [On Abstraction in Linguistic Thinking]; V. I. Koduxov, Metody lingvisticeskogo analiza [Methods of Linguistic Analysis]; R. B. Liz, "O vozmoznostjax proverki lingvistiCeskix polozenij" [R. B. Lees, "On the Possibilities of Verifying Linguistic Propositions"]; P. F. Protasenja, "O slovesnom myälenii kak specificeskoj osobennosti soznanija" [On Verbal Thinking As a Specific Feature of Consciousness]. In addition see: Psixologija myslenija [The Psychology of Thinking; P. Fress and Z. Piaze, fcksperimentaVnaja psixologija [P. Fraisse and J. Piaget, Experimental Psychology]; J. B. Caroll, Language and Thought; W. Krajewski, "Gtowne zagadnienia i kierunki filozofii" [Basic Problems and Trends of Philosophy], 129-32; F. J. McGuigan, Thinking; A. Harris, J. Cross, The Language of Ideas; T. Thass-Thienemann, The Subconscious Language.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

51

Such definitions appear broader, while at the same time remaining narrow, inasmuch as they are confined to one aspect. Here are some examples of the definition of language in the psychophysical aspect as a whole: "Language is the activity of the theoretical mind in the strict sense, since it is its outward expression" (Hegel). "Language ... is the expression of realized internal mental and spiritual movements, states, and relationships by means of articulated sounds" (H. Steinthal). "Language is ... a form of thought, but one that is not found in anything but language" (A. Potebnja). "Language consists of words, and words are speech sounds, which serve as signs to represent our thinking and to express our thoughts and feelings" (F. F. Fortunatov). I V . ABSTRACT-CONCRETE ASPECT ( A ) .

(1) The division of language activity on the basis of "concreteness — abstractness" corresponds logically to the division "sound — sense". The phonetic subaspect ( A ^ , which stands closest to the substance (being its immediate manifestation), can be strictly controlled by the sense organs and studied by the exact sciences. 33 When speaking of the PHONETIC subaspect of language, it must be kept in mind that we also include other forms of the material actualization of human language in this subaspect (A t ), namely: writing, the language of gestures, raised lettering, and tactile speech. 34 33

V. A. Artemov, fcksperimentaVnaja fonetika [Experimental Phonetics]; V. A. Bogorodickij, Kurs iksperimental'noj fonetiki primeniteVno k literaturnomu russkomu proiznoseniju [A Course in Experimental Phonetics in Conformity With Literary Russian Pronunciation]; Ν. I. Dukel'skij, Principy segmentacii reöevogo potoka [Principles of Segmentation of the Spoken Chain]; L. V. Zlatoustova, Foneticeskaja struktura slova ν potoke re6i [The Phonetic Structure of the Word in the Spoken Chain]; N. S. Trubeckoj, Osnovy fonologii [Fundamentals of Phonology]; W. Jassem, E. Pulgram, "Introduction to the Spectrography of Speech". 34 We can make the assumption that ordinary speaking, writing, tactile speech, and other ways of communicating thoughts have various degrees of accuracy and adequacy for the inner "language". Adequacy may depend, for example,

52

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD EXAMPLES:

"Language is thinking in sound. Language is the phonetic expression of thought" (A. Schleicher); the problem of LANGUAGE and thinking; the influence of LANGUAGE on thought; the dependence of thinking on LANGUAGE. (2) Next we distinguish the sign subaspect (A 2 ), in which elements of the concrete and the abstract are interwoven. The sign is not only a phonetic form, 35 but also a content phenomenon. This second subaspect of aspect (A) is in fact one of signs36 and not of sounds (though in a natural language it exists in phonetic form as well). Of course a sign may be not only a sound, but also the absence thereof: a pause, a silence. 37 EXAMPLES:

"Language as the sum total of everything produced by speech is not the same as speech itself in the mouths of the people" (W. Humboldt); "Language is neither a mechanism nor an organism, neither a dead nor a living thing. It is no thing at all, if by this term we understand a physical object. It is — language, a very specific human activity, not describable in terms of physics, chemistry, or biology. The best and most laconic expression of this fact was given by W. von Humboldt, when he declared that language is not on the degree of development of the outer (Ai) and the inner language (A3) of the individual. Both can be developed by training (exercises, instruction). Training the outer language develops the inner language, but by no means completely coincides with it. 35 See A. G. Volkov, Jazyk kak sistema znakov [Language As a System of Signs]; A. G. Volkov, I. A. Xabarov, "K voprosu ο prirode jazykovogo znaka" [Toward the Question of the Nature of the Linguistic Sign]; V. A. Zvegincev, Elementy znakovosti ν jazyke [Elements of Sign Nature in Language]; T. P. Lomtev, "O prirode znaienija jazykovogo znaka" [On the Nature of the Meaning of the Linguistic Sign]; C. W. Morris, Signs, Language, and Behaviour. 36 See G. V. Koläanskij, "Ο prirode lingvisticeskogo znaka" [On the Nature of the Linguistic Sign]; E. Kurilovic, Lingvistika i teorija znaka [Linguistics and Sign Theory]; Ju. S. Maslov, "Kakie lingvistiöeskie edinicy celesoobrazno scitat' znakami ?" [Which Linguistic Units Is It Advisable to Regard As Signs ?]; E. Koschmieder, "Heteromorphe Zuordnung von Zeichen und Funktion in der Sprache"; Η. Rombach, Substanz, System, Struktur. 37 See I. Rizesku, "Zametki ο nulevom znake" [I. Rizescu, "Notes on the Zero Sign"]; Η. Weinrich, "Phonologie der Sprechpause".

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

an ergon but an energeia" (E. Cassirer); human and non-instinctive method of emotions, and desires by means of a system symbols" (E. Sapir); LANGUAGE has its aspects; signs are not yet LANGUAGE.

53

"Language is a purely communicating ideas, of voluntarily produced ideal and its material

(3) The third subaspect — the abstract (A 3 ) — is the sense subaspect of language; it is not identical with any phonetic or other physical manifestation of the code. The phonetic actualization ("manifestation") of meaning and sense, and meaning and sense themselves, are not one and the same. EXAMPLES:

"Language is ... a structure of pure relationships ... a form or scheme which does not depend on practical realizations" (L. Hjelmslev). "The existence and development of language are not subject to the laws of nature" (A. A. Reformatskij). V . TEMPORAL ASPECT ( T ) .

In the temporal aspect three subdivisions are distinguished: language before the moment of discourse, at the moment of discourse, and after discourse. (1) The first subaspect of this section ( T J , before a given moment, before the moment of writing (reading) these lines, implies language (L) since the moment of its conception. Naturally, establishing the moment of conception of any language is impossible. Therefore we can speak only of the prolonged period during which it was conceived. Apart from this, the problem of language ( T J in the historical, diachronic plane implicitly includes the difficulty of distinguishing the identity of language in different historical sections which are considered synchronically. Diachronically it is possible to describe the connection between the language observed in a certain period and the language observed in another period, but the states of affairs which are being compared here and which appear consecutively in time, are not elements of the same language, though this may not be taken into consideration by everyday terminology, which uses the same name, for example, the term "Polish

54

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

language" to designate the language in the fifteenth century and to designate the language in the eighteenth century. A diachronic description cannot be carried out without a preliminary synchronic investigation of each of the periods being considered.38 EXAMPLES:

An ancient LANGUAGE; the Russian LANGUAGE of the nineteenth century. (2) Language in subaspect T 2 is considered as a kind of object in its synchronic description. We know that "a synchronic analysis describes the speech habits of an individual or a relatively homogeneous group at a particular time". 3 9 A diachronic analysis describes the same linguistic object, sometimes even in the same period, but in a diachronic analysis the history, evolution, and change of that object are emphasized. 40 At present it is regarded as indisputable that both approaches to language (L) are equally scientific. 41 Thus in subaspect T 2 we may deal with both synchrony and diachrony. EXAMPLES:

The contemporary Russian LANGUAGE; neologisms in the after the Great Patriotic War. (3) Language after the moment of discourse, after the "period" of investigation (T 3 ), is the object of the attention of the linguist

LANGUAGE

38 L. Zawadowski, "Glowne cechy j§zykoznawstwa funkcjonalnego" [The Basic Features of Functional Linguistics], 11. 39 C. F. Hockett, "Implications of Bloomfield's Algonquian Studies", 119. 40 Cf. Β. V. Gornung, "Edinstvo sinxronii i diaxronii kak sledstvie specifiki jazykovoj struktury" [The Unity of Synchrony and Diachrony As a Consequence of the Specific Nature of Language Structure]; V. M. 2irmunskij, "O sinxronii i diaxronii ν jazykoznanii" [On Synchrony and Diachrony in Linguistics]; A. Boguslawski, "W sprawie synchron» i diachronii w analizie morfologicznej" [On the Question of Synchrony and Diachrony in Morphological Analysis], 321 ff. 41 L. Zawadowski, for example, states: "The thesis that the synchronic description of a language is its chief description and may be equally scientific, just as the diachronic may be unscientific, is one of the principal tenets of contemporary (functional) linguistics". L. Zawadowski, "Glöwne cechy j^zykoznawstwa funkcjonalnego" [The Basic Features of Functional Linguistics], 11.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

55

who studies the development of the language of an individual, a group of people, or an entire nation. Foreseeing the future of the national language, perfecting and standardizing its individual units in science, engineering, and other fields42 — all this helps to correctly implement linguistic policy, to contribute to the elevation of the people's linguistic culture. 4 3 EXAMPLES:

The Russian of the future.

LANGUAGE

in the twenty-first century; the

LANGUAGE

V I . INTERSUBJECTIVE ASPECT ( I ) .

In this aspect language is regarded as a mechanism used by two individuals, one of whom is the center of speech. Speech is always egocentric, while the hearer acts as the exocenter of speech. Speech, having reached the hearer, having attained his comprehension, becomes the fact of language (S), for it has become the property of two people: it has become social. Now, as far as the speaker is concerned, the speech uttered by him (it may be recorded by means of some device) and directed toward the hearer, is already something exocentric. Once he begins to speak, the hearer himself becomes the egocenter of speech, 44 its generator, 4 5 and thus the axis of speech shifts from one to the other as long as the dialogue continues. What comes into being is something accessible not only

42

This was pointed out by P. S. Ray in Language Standardization, 11. F. Bodmer, The Loom of Language, 448-521 (this book should be approached critically because, together with its great informational value, it contains many inaccuracies and unfounded assertions. Cf., for example, the statements concerning the archaic nature of Russian); see also Ju. V. Rozdestvenskij, "Teorija jazyka i problema suscestvovanija jazyka" [The Theory of Language and the Problem of the Existence of Language]; C. Barber, The Story of Language, 256-67; E. Haugen, "Linguistics and Language Planning"; M. Wandruschka, "Die Zukunft der Sprachwissenschaft". 44 I. I. Revzin accordingly calls the egocentric and the exocentric aspects synthetic and analytic. I. I. Revzin, "Transformacionnyj analiz i transformacionnyj sintez" [Transformational Analysis and Transformational Synthesis], 57. 46 W. Mötsch, "Grundgedanken der generativen Grammatik", 2-8. 43

56

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

to them but to any third person, something absolutely objective, 46 something intercentric and intersubjective — audible (or in general physically perceptible) speech. As Jakobson and Halle noted, the separation in space, and often in time, between two individuals, the addresser and the addressee, is bridged by an internal relation: there must be a certain equivalence between the symbols used by the addresser and those known and interpreted by the addressee. "Without such an equivalence the message is fruitless — even when it reaches the receiver it does not affect him." 4 7 Linguistic communication between two individuals was graphically illustrated by W. Entwistle in the following diagram: 4 8

The entire generative process (after the reception of stimuli from outside) is carried out only from the ego-center (ego is I, the speaker), and not from the iw-center (tu is you, the hearer).

46

T. Czezowski, Giowne zasady nauk filozoficznych [Basic Principles of the Philosophical Sciences], 61; Ν. I. Konrad, "O 'jazykovom suscestvovanii'" [On 'Linguistic Existence']; J. W. M. Verhaar, Some Relations Between Perception, Speech and Thought. 47 R. Jakobson, Μ. Halle, Podstawy fezyka [Fundamentals of Language], 114. See also V. D. Arakin, "Recevaja edinica i recevoj obrazec" [The Speech Unit and the Speech Model], 109 ff.; V. A. Kozevnikov, L. A. Cistoviö, Rec\ Artikuljacija i vosprijatie [Speech. Articulation and Perception]; J. A. Meerloo, Conversation and Communication. Cf. also Hockett's thesis concerning the initial grammar when both interlocutors are silent. C. F. Hockett, Language, Mathematics and Linguistics, 216-19. 48 W. J. Entwistle, Aspects of Language, 10.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

57

The transmission of a text, according to Jakobson, presupposes the following scheme: DESIGNATUM TRANSMISSION SENDER

RECEIVER CONTACT CODE

EXAMPLES:

I t . The LANGUAGE of this page from the point of view of the author at the moment of writing; the actualization of LANGUAGE material; a mute without any LANGUAGE. 1 2 . "We can define language as a system of isoglosses connecting individual linguistic acts" (V. Pisani); "The totality of utterances that can be made in a speech-community is the language of that speech-community" (L. Bloomfield); "The essence of language consists in communication" (H. Schuchardt). 1 3 . Perfect understanding of each other by those taking part in a conversation depends primarily on the absolute adequacy of the LANGUAGE of the speaker and the LANGUAGE of the hearer. VII.

GENOSEMIOTIC ASPECT

(G).

In this aspect we look at language from the point of view of the form and nature of language as a semiotic system, a system of signs, from the point of view of the homogeneity, of the autonomy of a system, of a genotype, and of the purity of its sign system. (1) A natural language ( G t ) without elements of conscious influence on the system from specific individual speakers. EXAMPLES:

Studying the

LANGUAGE

of the people; the everyday spoken

LANGUAGE.

(2) Within a natural language there exist several subsystems of a lexical nature containing elements of somewhat artificial sign systems which create, as it were, special languages (G 2 ). Here we include the languages of the sciences, 49 which are notable for their 49

K. Schlechta, "Philosophische und wissenschaftliche Sprachen der Gegen-

58

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

originality in the use of elements of the common language, and which introduce into the common language a number of their elements of structure — as, for example, in the language of physics or linguistics — or which include in their semiotic subsystems elements of the common language — for example, in the language of mathematics. Similar subsystems are dialects, 50 different kinds of slang, the languages of age groups, professional languages, language styles, and other microsystems based almost totally on the grammatical structure of the national common language. 51 This same area probably also includes the so-called mixed languages, which form a kind of jargon that may become the principal means of commercial intercourse between people of different nationalities. Bloomfield writes that such a jargon "is nobody's native language but only a compromise between a foreign speaker's version of a language and a native speaker's version of the foreign speaker's version, and so on, in which each party imperfectly reproduces the other's reproduction". 5 2 EXAMPLES:

The LANGUAGE of the Bavarian; the LANGUAGE of the sailor, the merchant, the hunter; the child's LANGUAGE; thieves have their own LANGUAGE; the LANGUAGE of belles-lettres; bureaucratic LANGUAGE; the mixing of LANGUAGES (styles); the LANGUAGE of chemistry.

wart", 1185-94; B. W. Evert, "The Relationship Between Formalised Languages and Natural Language", 66-81. 50 N o t in all languages are dialects contrasted with a standard language. There are nations in which a common national "literary" language is absent altogether, and in which the whole of the national language is formed from separate dialects enjoying equal status. Thus it was for a long time in Germany, in Italy, and in other countries. T. Elwert speaks of the vestiges of this phenomenon in "Das zweisprachige Individuum", 75. In addition see J. O. Hertzler, A Sociology of Language, 300-16. 51 I. R. Gal'perin, "K probleme differenciacii stilej reci" [Toward the Problem of Differentiating Styles of Speech]; Ju. S. Stepanov, Francuzskaja stilistika [French Stylistics]; E. Riesel, Stilistik der deutschen Sprache; Η. Moser, "Zur Situation der deutschen Gegenwartssprache"; E. R. Rothacker, "Die Sprache der Geisteswissenschaften". 52 L. Bloomfield, Language, 473.

59

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

(3) An artificial language (G 3 ), as a system created by the conscious will of man, has no direct connection with the common language, though undoubtedly an awareness of its structure has helped in creating artificial languages as well. 53 Examples of such languages are various kinds of signal systems in transportation, signal systems for communication between machines, etc. In these languages one cannot discern any elements common to natural, human languages, 54 except for certain semiotic laws of functioning which are universal for all languages. EXAMPLES:

The

of formulas; the ALGOL LANGUAGE of flowers. LANGUAGE

LANGUAGE;

the

VIII. METAASPECT ( M ) . We all use language quite without knowing its mechanisms or having recourse to this knowledge. "Language", W. Porzig correctly wrote, "is so directly associated with consciousness that it is very difficult to imagine it objectively and to take a detached view of it. Just as a naive person calls a vessel filled with air 'empty' since the presence of air everywhere is taken for granted, in the same way he cannot see language as a problem either, because it (language) is the already accepted basis of his thinking and at the same time of the very wording of the question." 5 5 In most linguistic investigations language is both the object of investigation and the instrument for describing, 56 for determining

53

G. L. Trager, "The Field of Linguistics", 2. See G. V. Kolsanskij, "V cem razlicie znakovyx sistem?" [What Is the Difference Between Sign Systems ?]. 55 W. Porzig, Das Wunder der Sprache, 78. 56 "The ability to speak in a given language implies the ability to speak about that language." O. S. Axmanova et al., Ο tocnyx metodax issledovanija jazyka [On Precise Methods of Investigating Language], 21; cf. also Ju. S. Martem'janov, "K postroeniju jazyka lingvisticeskix opisanij" [Toward the Construction of a Language of Linguistic Descriptions]. See in addition Ju. D. Apresjan, Idei i metody sovremennoj strukturnoj lingvistiki [Ideas and Methods of Modern Structural Linguistics], 265-79; Ju. K. Lekomcev, "Nekotorye voprosy meta-jazyka dlja opisanija jazykovyx elementov" [Some Questions of 54

60

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

certain theoretical results of the investigation. A distinction between the levels of this order is necessary so as to avoid mistakes (such as semantic antinomies) when analyzing and describing the properties of language. Many antinomies, including those of mathematics and logic, 5 7 are of a purely linguistic nature and in theoretical linguistics often assume the form of paralogisms which make it more difficult to successfully solve problems of general linguistics. In language (L 2 ), from the point of view of its relation to the object we can distinguish not two but three levels or three planes, depending on the use of its function at any given moment: language as a tool for thinking and communicating (1); language as the object of investigation (2); language as a tool for investigating itself (3). EXAMPLES:

Let us take the following sentence (A):"The sun, as though reluctantly, hid itself behind the young forest" (B). The first six words (A) represent language in meaning (1). We have used these words first as a tool for thinking and then as a tool for communicating, beginning our statement with an argument for the reader. Sentence (B), which was used by the author of a newspaper essay, is also language in meaning (1). This same sentence has served as the object of investigation (2), since it has undergone thorough analysis. As language in meaning (3), i.e., as a tool for investigating itself, we can cite this entire paragraph including the sentence which the reader of these lines is now reading. In other words, we are speaking (writing) in the common English [Russian] language about a sentence expressed in that same language. F. George represents this situation with circles: 58

a Metalanguage for Describing Linguistic Elements]; J. B. Caroll, The Study of Language, 43-48. 57 F. Kutschera, "Die Antinomien der Logik". 58 F. Η. George, Semantics, 30.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

61

hvictat ΑΝΙΠΤ TAGF. Τ .mm

Fig. 6

Let us dwell briefly on the more complicated question of the language (P 3 ) in which we think at the same time that we utter aloud the words of language (M). We can speak of one and think of the other. Such a parallelism between two forms of intellectual activity is especially obvious when the spoken material is to a great extent mechanical, for example, when reciting poetry or other texts from memory. Some individuals can communicate a newly created text and at the same time be thinking of a different one, sometimes a rather complicated one; it is also well known that some people, because they do not know how to express their thoughts, often say what they do not mean to say, or sometimes deliberately say something different from what they are thinking. An analogous relationship also exists between the consciousness, the imagination, of the artist and the language of his work of art (whether graphic, literary, or musical). However, the sources of will and consciousness, of the intention of the speaker (or artist) are not yet amenable to precise analysis. 5 9 Thus, in the metaaspect we include: (1) Language of the first degree (M,), language-as-object. 59

E. Grodzmski, Znaczenie slowa w jqzyku naturalnym [The Meaning of the Word in a Natural Language], 333-36.

62

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD EXAMPLES:

The verb in the sentence Der Brief wird geschrieben is in the Präsens Passiv form (the German sentence is object-language); the LANGUAGE of this work is familiar to us. (2) The language in which a discussion of another language is conducted is metalanguage (M 2 ). 6 0 EXAMPLES:

The sentence The whale is a mammal contains two nouns; the LANGUAGE of this utterance is language of the second level. (3) The language in which another metalanguage is discussed is metametalanguage (M 3 ). As an example of language (M 3 ) we may cite all the preceding material on metalanguage. I X . FUNCTIONAL ASPECT ( F ) .

"Language is one of the functions of the human organism in the broadest sense of this word", wrote J. I. Baudouin de Courtenay. But language itself also possesses a whole range of functions. 6 1 R. Jakobson distinguishes six such functions, according to the following scheme:

EXPRESSIVE

COMMUNICATIVE POETIC PHATIC METALINGUISTIC

APPELLATIVE

In our aspectation we distinguish THREE basic functions of language. (1) The conception of language as an instrument of communication among people (F,) enters into many definitions of language 80 See Ju. S. Stepanov, "Metaopisanie ν istoriöeskoj grammatike" [Metadescription in Historical Grammar]. 61 A. Martinet, A Functional View of Language; see also the review of this book in the International Journal of American Linguists 3 (1963), 274; W. Schmidt, Grundfragen der deutschen Grammatik. Eine Einführung in die funktionale Sprachlehre; L. Zawadowski, "Gtöwne cechy j^zykoznawstwa funcjonalnego" [The Basic Features of Functional Linguistics]; also by him, Lingwistyczna teoria jfzyka [A Linguistic Theory of Language], 59-162; C. Barber, The Story of Language, 25-26; T. S. Chang, A Chinese Philosopher''s Theory of Knowledge, 203-26; J. O. Hertzler, A Sociology of Language, 38-57; D. H. Hymes, "Functions of Speech: an Evolutionary Approach"; G. A. Laguna, Speech, Its Function and Development; M. Pei, Voices of Man: the Meaning and Function of Language.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

63

and at present is considered its chief function. The first thing that distinguishes language from other forms of human activity is that it carries informational value. If, however, we take into consideration the importance of the two other functions of language listed below, the attribute "chief" will seem relative. It appears to us more correct to say that language has THREE CHIEF functions: communicative, significative, and heuristic; for only these three functions are necessary and sufficient to define language in the functional aspect. All other functions can in fact be reduced to the three we have named. EXAMPLES:

"Language is the most important means of human communication" (Lenin); "She lies there speechless [literally, without LANGUAGE], speaking with her hands" (Turgenev); clever LANGUAGE will get you anywhere; to lose one's LANGUAGE [i.e., one's speech], (2) The significative function (F 2 ) consists in the ability of language to denote extralinguistic facts, to give them names, 6 2 and in this way to reinforce our knowledge of the outside world. Language can fix and embody in signs psychological phenomena, intellectual constructs, and also purely linguistic facts which correspond to nothing in the real world except themselves (in the physical aspect these are certain material processes or traces of processes of a neurophysiological nature in man's brain, conditioned on the one hand by purely biological features and on the other hand by verbal stimuli from outside). Language in this subaspect acts as an instrument of individual and collective memory. EXAMPLES:

"In each specific language, a sound cluster is only assigned to some object or phenomenon" (B. A. Serebrennikov); Standards of law and legislative acts are consolidated in LANGUAGE; LANGUAGE is the first standard that a person gets to know after he is born.

82

See T. A. Degtereva, "O leksiöeskom znacenii i nazyvnoj funkcii slova" [On the Lexical Meaning and the Nominative Function of the Word]; T. Witkowski, Grundbegriffe der Namenkunde.

64

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

(3) As we said, language carries informational value. Language (Pj) has no direct semantic connection with the surrounding world; there is only a mediated connection representing the reflection of the outside world in the consciousness of the participants in communication. Finally, through language one can obtain conclusive knowledge of the surrounding reality, which constitutes the third function of language. The third chief function is the thinking or heuristic function of language, language as a means of cognition (F 3 ) 6 3 and a tool for thinking. 64 We justify the term "heuristic" on the grounds that it is more definite than "thinking". EXAMPLES:

"Languageis the organ which forms thought" (W. von Humboldt); "Language is the most reliable guide to the attainment of historical truth" (A. P. Sumarokov); Through LANGUAGE we arrive at conclusions. 2.2.3. On the Number of Aspects Do the nine aspects of language presented here completely describe a natural human language? We are obliged to answer this question in the negative. Nevertheless, this description should satisfy the requirements of contemporary linguistic analysis, since the problem of aspectation entails a description of the object only from points of view that are relevant to linguistic analysis and to linguistic and pedagogical needs in general. To conclude the description of the aspects of language two other circumstances may be mentioned. In the first place, all these "subaspects" of as well as the aspects themselves are abstractions of the same SINGLE but many93

See D. P. Gorskij, "RoF jazyka ν poznanii" [The Role of Language in Cognition]; P. Bernays, "Zur Rolle der Sprache in erkenntnistheoretischer Hinsicht"; G. Klaus, Semiotik und Erkenntnistheorie; W. Doroszewski, Wsröd stow, wrazen i mysli [Among Words, Impressions and Thought], 44-50. 44 See B. Ardentov, "Jazyk — orudie myälenija" [Language Is a Tool for Thinking], 69-71.

THE ASPECTS OF LANGUAGE

65

sided object called language. These aspects are inferred from the specifics of language usage and of the use of the word "language" itself in literature and science. The second observation concerns the examples illustrating the aspects and their subaspects. The word "language" is used in the senses of the respective subaspects, which are obtained as a result of omitting certain characteristics, features, or relationships of the object, i.e., by means of abstraction. The examples were selected in order to show the variety and the multiaspectual nature of the meaning of the term "language" and to reinforce these aspects. The differentiation of the aspects was also achieved on the basis of an analysis of language material. Some definitions of language included two or three aspects. A number of widely known definitions of language in general could not be included in the proposed aspects on account of their metaphorical nature. They probably cannot be called definitions in the strict sense at all: "Language is, as it were, the outward manifestation of the spirit of a people; the language of a people is its spirit"; "Language is the soul in its entirety" (W. von Humboldt); "Language in its origin and development is a human acquisition made quite naturally. ... Our language is also our history" (J. Grimm); "Language is a spiritual expression. ... The history of language is none other than the history of spiritual forms of expression..." (K. Vossler). Finally, it appears necessary to state, with regard to the content of the word, that the aspectation of language helps us to examine in a different way the units of language, the elements of an utterance. The aspectual approach to language can also be applied, with some modification, to the word for the purpose of studying its nature, particularly its content, its semantic structure.

3 ASPECTS OF THE W O R D

3.1. GENERAL PROPOSITIONS 3.1.1. What is the

Word?

When we speak of the meaning of "meaning", we have in mind the lexical meaning, the meaning of the WORD. A description of the semantic components of the word should be preceded by a definition of the word as a unit of language. Most attempts to provide such a definition suffer from onesidedness. 1 There are well-known phonetic, semantic, morphological, and syntactic definitions, and combinations thereof. 2 The units of language can be more or less clearly outlined as a result of investigating and surveying the whole system of previously defined units. "By a unit", L. S. Vygotskij emphasized, 1 In this connection see: O. S. Axmanova, "Eäce raz k voprosu ο slove kak osnovnoj edinice jazyka" [Once Again the Question of the Word As the Basic Unit of Language]; R. A. Budagov, "K kritike reljativistskix teorij slova" [Toward a Criticism of Relativist Theories of the Word]; P. S. Popov, "Esce raz k voprosu ο slove" [Once Again the Question of the Word]; A. I. Smirnickij, "K voprosu ο slove" [Toward the Question of the Word]; A. A. Ufimceva, "K voprosu ob izucenii slova" [Toward the Question of the Study of the Word]; N. Girdansky, The Adventure of Language; J. Goldberg, The Wonder of Words; H. Day, Thirty Days to a Super-power Vocabulary; K. Knauer, Grenzen der Wissenschaft vom Wort; T. Segerstedt, Die Macht des Wortes. 2 See: I. E. Anickov (1963), Β. N. Golovin (1961), P. S. Kuznecov (1964), Μ. V. Panov (1956,1961), V. Z. Panfilov (1963), Ju. S. Stepanov (1966), Ν. A. Janko-Trinickaja (1959), S. A. Jaxontov (1963), F. Hiorth (1958), C. F. Hockett (1959), W. Jassem (1960), S. Jodlowski (1960), W. Manczak (1952), N. Morciniec (1960), N. Porzig (1959), M. Rudnicki (1955), K. Togeby (1949).

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

67

"we mean a product of analysis which ... possesses all the fundamental properties inherent in the whole, which properties are then the indivisible living parts of this whole." 3 Therefore without a survey of the object as a whole it is impossible to understand the essence of the unit and to distinguish it, and it is precisely for this reason that we first had to describe the semantic aspectation of language as a whole. A preliminary phonological analysis of a given language (L 2 ) has ascertained which phonetic series (chains of phonemes) appear in the given language. The basis of the search for the word is the utterance, the phrase, i.e., the segment of fixed speech (I 2 ) included between two successive natural pauses. When defining the word, we do not proceed from the sentence, since it is impossible to define its structure without first defining the word. 4 So the word is the minimal linear unit of language (Pj), which consists of a short series of distinctive sound-types of speech (P 2 ) (with a virtually infinite number of allophones) and which can be pronounced in the language (T 2 ) separately from other units, 5 3

L. S. Vygotskij, "Myslenie i reö' " [Thinking and Speech], 48. Cf. L. V. Scerba's definition: "We shall call the word that part of the sentence which we can use independently without changing its meaning." L. V. Söerba, "Ο dal'se nedelimyx edinicax jazyka" [On Units of Language Which Cannot Be Further Separated] (italics ours — N.K.); Ο. V. Pletner and E. D. Polivanov, Grammatika japonskogo razgovornogo jazyka [Grammar of Spoken Japanese], 144; cf. also: Ν. I. Dukel'skij, Principy segmentacii recevogo potoka [Principles of Segmentation of the Spoken Chain]; L. I. Ilija, "Metody clenenija sintaksiceskogo celogo" [Methods of Segmenting the Syntactic Whole]; I. P. Raspopov, Aktual'noe clenenie predlozenija [The Actual Division of the Sentence], 5 B. F. Korndorf, "Estestvennye ograniienija ..." [Natural Limitations ...], 33. Separate words are pronounced in the form of a sentence, and separate phonemes in the form of a syllable (cf. T. Frank, Wörter für Satzinhalte). Cf. also: Τ. A. Bertagaev, "Ο granicax slova" [On Word Boundaries]; G. Κ. Danilov, "Ponjatie slova i predmet leksikologii [The Concept of the Word and the Subject of Lexicology]; A. A. Leont'ev, Slovo ν recevoj dejatel'nosti [The Word in Speech Activity], 133; Κ. E. Majtinskaja, "Ob otgranicenii slova ot casti slova" [On the Delimitation of the Word From the Word Part]; A. M. Peskovskij, "Ponjatie otdel'nogo slova" [The Concept of the Individual Word]; E. D. Polivanov, Esce ο kriterijax edinogo slova [More About the Criteria of the Single Word]; R. O. Sor, "K voprosu ο ponjatii otdel'nogo slova" [Toward the Question of the Concept of the Individual Word]; F. Goldman-Eisler, "Die 4

68

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

while retaining the referent function 6 known to every speaker of the language (I). For some units (1) this function of correlation is limited by the language (S itself, while for others (2) it transcends language, inasmuch as words are used for cognition, to fix in one's consciousness and to communicate to other members of society data concerning true reality. The unit defined above is taken as the minimal one; there are no referentially meaningful units with specified independence in the language smaller than the word. By the linearity of the unit we mean its extension in time, the sequence of phones, the sound-types — in this case they are phonemes. Next the definition emphasizes the discreteness of the units. On the basis of transformation it is ascertained that in the sentence zaftravdvacdt'cisofonvszvratitcddamoj there are seven words (zavtra ν dvadcaf casov on vozvratitsja domoj 'tomorrow at eight p.m. he will return home')· The preposition ν 'at' is also a word (of the first order) with referential correlation limited only by language as an immanent system ( S J . Vozvratitsja 'will return' [literally, 'will return h i m s e l f ] is also a word, though the component sja 'self' in some languages (L 2 ) is represented separately and is a word, because upon transformation it can be pronounced separately, for example: er interessiert"sich" dafür— wer "sich" dafür interessiert, weiss ich (Ger.); or On powinien zwröcic "sie" — on powinien "sig" zwröcic 'he must turn (himself)' (Pol.). 7 The unit on 'he' is a word, while its forms ego 'him', emu 'to him', etc., as well as oni 'they', ix 'them', etc., are also forms of the same word, 8 despite the complete

Vorhersagbarkeit von Wörtern im Kontext und die Pausenlänge im Sprechen"; H. Sweet, "Word, Logic, Grammar". 6 By "referent function" we mean the lexical meaning, but until it is described in the system of word content, we shall not use it in the definition. 7 Cf. O. S. Axmanova (1954), V. P. Grigor'ev (1963), V. M. 2irmunskij (1961), B. A. Il'jaä (1963), Vjaö. Vs. Ivanov (1962), M. G. Kravöenko and Τ. M. Stroeva (1962), A. M. Muxin (1963), R. G. Piotrovskij (1957), B. A. Serebrennikov (1963), O. P. Sunik (1963), V. N . Jarceva (1960), F. P. Filin (1960), D . Krallmann (1966). 8 Ο. S. Axmanova does not perceive any fundamental difference between ja-

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

69

violation of its physical constancy. The basis for accepting such a principle is given us by invariant referentiality. A word of minimal length may be a single phoneme that no longer allows any linear division, for example, the utterance: a? 'eh?'. The average length of the semantic units (words-as-morphemes) depends on the number of phonemes in the language: the length is inversely proportional to the number of phonemes in the phonological system of the given language.9 And the number of words in different languages is not equal either: the size of the vocabulary depends on the immanent structures of the language and on extralinguistic causes. It depends particularly on the number of words-as-synonyms for the expression of the same or analogous realia. Professional groups, 10 age groups, 11 and especially dialects have their own words-as-signs to denote the same lexical concept. The richness of the vocabulary depends on the people's level of material culture. However, the size of the word stock should not be identified with the number of words in dictionaries and lexicons. Information theory, particularly the so-called quantization method, may be used to distinguish the units of language. However, principles for the quantization of lexical-semantic units have

menja Ί'-'me' and, for example, Ιβν-Γνα 'lion (nom.)'-'lion (ace.)\ O. S. Axmanova, Oierki po obscej i russkoj leksikologii [Essays on General and Russian Lexicology], 66. Cf. Α. V. Isaöenko, "Ο sintaksiceskoj prirode mestoimenij" [On the Syntactic Nature of Pronouns]; F. P. Filin, "O slove i Variante slova" [On the Word and the Word Variant], W. Porzig considers that ich and wir are different words because they express different realia, but ich, mir, and mich are forms of the same word. W. Porzig, Das Wunder der Sprache, 128. 9 Μ. Jurkowski, "Teoria informacji a lingwistyka" [Information Theory and Linguistics], 54-55. 10 See the literature on this question: V. D. Devkin, Praktikum po leksikologii nemeckogo jazyka [Practicum in German Lexicology], 167-88. 11 See, for example, S. N. Karpova, Osoznanie slovesnogo sostava reci doskoVnikami [Preschool-Age Children's Awareness of the Verbal Composition of Speech]; K. P. Patrina, "O ponimanii znacenija slov doskoFnikami" [On Preschoolers' Understanding of the Meaning of Words]; F. M. Potusnjak, "Dytjacyj slovnyk" [A Children's Dictionary], Slovar' russkogo rebenka [The Vocabulary of the Russian Child], 112.

70

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

not yet been found even for the phonemic level. 12 Nevertheless, the application of information theory to the investigation of the nature of language does yield some hopeful results. The concept of entropy, for example, is widely used. The concept of entropy can also be employed to define the boundaries of elements of text, i.e., of units of language (P 2 ) (sentences, word groups, words, morphemes, and syllables as well). Their boundary is the place of juncture of minimal entropy with maximal entropy (the so-called crests or peaks of entropy) between individual elements in the text. Such a method was first employed by Harris. 1 3 This method consists in guessing successive letters (phonemes) of an unfamiliar text. The end of a morpheme or a word is distinguished by very slight entropy and the beginning by greater entropy; the boundary passes between these two quantities. Thus the definition of a word can be given (with a specified degree of precision) only for a specific language (L 2 ), 1 4 a special language G 2 , or for an artificial language G 3 if the latter has any words as such. L. Zawadowski reduced words to semantemes 15 (morphemes), taking the "morpheme" as a semantic unit and using an apparatus specially created for his own investigation. He abstracted himself from other aspects of the word, operating with the morpheme as an exclusively SEMANTIC unit. Words, however, are not only semantic units, but also grammatical ones, i.e., "semantic-syntacticmorphological". 1 6 12

See Ε. V. Paduceva, "Vozmoznosti izucenija jazyka metodami teorii informacii" [Possibilities of Studying Language With Information-Theory Methods], 110. 13 Z. S. Harris, "From Phoneme to Morpheme". See also Ε. V. Paduceva, "Vozmoznosti", 140-42. 14 See A. Wierzbicka, Ο jgzyku dla wszystkich [On Language For Everyone], 64. 15 Cf. O. S. Axmanova's and I. I. Revzin's statements on this question: O. S. Axmanova et al., Ο tocnyx metodax issledovanija jazyka [On Piecise Methods of Investigating Language], 17; 1.1. Revzin, Modell jazyka [Language Models], 53. See also Ju. S. Maslov, "O nekotoryx rasxozdenijax ν ponimanii termina 'Morfema' " [On Certain Differences in the Interpretation of the Term 'Morpheme'], 140-52; E. A. Kubrjakova, "Ob osnovnyx edinicax lingvisticeskogo analiza" [On the Basic Units of Linguistic Analysis], 182. 18 S. Jodlowski, "Kryteria klasyfikacji wyrazow na cz^sci mowy" [Criteria of

71

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

No less inadmissible as the minimally significant unit is the sentence. Proponents of this conception deny the word 1 7 any semantic independence, inasmuch as separate words supposedly have no meanings. The recognition of the sentence as the minimal semantic unit contradicts the entire line of development of cultural languages, in which it is the word and not the sentence that was formed as the semantic unit. Furthermore, the SENTENCE cannot be the minimally significant unit for us because these units are infinite in number, and it would be difficult to understand or distinguish a sentence encountered for the first time, even one consisting of words familiar to us.

3 . 1 . 2 . On the Divisibility

of Word

Content

On the basis of the views stated above and from the semantic aspectation of language there follows the question of how to express, describe, and systematize the meaning of the word. For this we shall have to break down the phenomenon of content. The content of the word resolves itself into separate elements, breaks down, and, in the words of A. M. Peskovskij, these parts, "by analogy with the material world and the corresponding phonetic segments of the word", must be called "parts of the meaning of the word". 1 8 But the fact of recognizing such a connection between the word-as-sign and its content may impose on us the idea of isomorphism of the structure of the sign and of meaning. Yet

the Classification of Words Into Parts of Speech], 53. W. A. Coates sees in this a typical example of the mixing of levels. "If the morpheme is the unit of morphemics, then it cannot be the unit of lexicology. The unit of lexicology must be a unit in its own right, which may be called the lexical unit. ...A morpheme as such need not have lexical meaning. This principle clearly has important consequences for morphemic analysis" (W. A. Coates, "Meaning in Morphemes and Compound Lexical Units", 1046). Cf. also A. A. Leont'ev's position (Slovo ν recevoj dejateVnosti [The Word in Speech Activity], 154). 17 K. Ajdukiewicz, Zarys logiki [Outline of Logic], 14. 18 A. M. Peskovskij, "Ob"ektivnaja i normativnaja toöka zrenija na jazyk" [The Objective and the Normative Viewpoint With Regard to Language], 7.

72

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

complexity of the structure of the object of thought is not synonymous with complexity of word structure. 19 3.1.3. Structure

or

System?

The content of the word, when broken down, forms a certain structure. The elements of the structure are reduced to a single focus of word-as-sound and are perceived as a single signal. In conformity with this structure the description must also be structural. The need for such a description is found in the writings of representatives of many schools of linguistics. 20 Structure in this sense is conceived here as being identical to "system". Structure in modern linguistics has come to be understood as "a combination of elements in which each element is conditioned by all the others. ... The structure of a language is its hidden base. The study of it is quite removed from the real existence of language." 2 1 At the same time, in Russian both these words have different meanings. D. N. Usakov's dictionary interprets system in the first sense as "an order conditioned by the correct, regular arrangement of parts in a definite relationship", whereas structure is merely composition. That the content of words possesses a certain structure can now be considered indisputable, but the existence of a system, i.e., the regular arrangement of components, their definite interdependence, must be proven. 19

E. Wüster distinguishes two structures of meaning in language: explicit and implicit. The EXPLICIT is given to us, though not completely, in the morphological elements of the word. Among the explicit meanings he also includes conceptual relations between expressed elements. "The implicit structure of meaning (of the concept) is defined by markers — and those are also concepts — and by the place which the concept occupies in the world of concepts (Begriffswelt) of the given language." E. Wüster, "Die Struktur der sprachlichen Begriffswelt", 416. Cf. Τ. P. Lomtev, "Ο nekotoryx voprosax struktury predlozenija" [On Some Questions of Sentence Structure], 5; in addition see L. Antal, Questions of Meaning, 282-83. 20 See, for example, L. El'mslev, "Mozno li scitat', cto znacenija slov obrazujut strukturu ?" [L. Hjelmslev, "Can One Consider That Word Meanings Form a Structure?"]. 21 Ju. S. Stepanov, Osnovy jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Linguistics], 61.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

73

3.1.4. Basic Elements of Word Structure Let us analyze the words in the following sentence: Student polucil pis'mo ot brata '(The) student received (a) letter from (his) brother'. On the basis of the methods described on pages 68-70, we find five discrete elements in the sentence. It is a set of certain SIGNS to determine a certain content, which for the time being we shall call information. Furthermore, every speaker of the Russian language (L 2 ) finds in this utterance three objects of reality, the real and separate nature of which are at first glance not subject to doubt (student, letter, brother). At the same time, these objects are not concrete; they are object types, typified ideas, a certain thought content, which we shall call the LEXICAL CONCEPT — LEXICAL (and not logical) because it is developed and transmitted in communication acts only in the "quanta" of a given national language (L 2 ). The lexical concept can also denote a specific person — Smith. Then the object itself, as it were, will appear in the word. But it is merely the speaker's or hearer's idea of the object; hence we can no longer term it the object. Moreover, we do not have the right to call the referent an object in such words as receive.22 Therefore we shall call the object of denotation the DENOTATUM. In diagram form it would appear as follows:

Let us now turn to a detailed analysis of these three basic components of the word. 22

The word from also has content, also has its lexical concept, though the denotatum for such kinds of words-as-signs is in some way modified, which will be shown below.

74

COMPONENTS OF THFI CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD 3.2. S I G N

3 . 2 . 1 . Functions

of the

Sign

The physical aspect of the word with its so-called inner aspect (morphological inner form) constitutes the sign. As is generally known, there are various interpretations of the linguistic sign. 23 Modern linguists are of the opinion that from the ontological point of view the sign is not an object in the classic sense, but is a functional or to some degree a relational formation, the separate aspects of which must constantly be taken into consideration. At the same time, the concept of the word is considerably broader than the concept of the sign. The sign is only a PART of the word, one aspect of it. So then the concept of the semiotic system concerns only this aspect of language ( P ^ . But since the sign constitutes an essential part of the word, the idea of sign nature in linguistic research is extremely fruitful.

3.2.2.

Substance

The sign serves to express some content, some meaning. In linguistics this has become a truism. Let us analyze the structure of the linguistic sign. The prelinguistic, the real form of existence of the sign is the 23 Cf. Ε. M. Galkina-Fedoruk, "K voprosu ο znakovosti ν jazyke ν svete leninskoj teorii otrazenija" [Toward the Question of the Sign Nature in Language in the Light of the Leninist Theory of Reflection]; Α. V. Zvegincev, Oierki po obscemu jazykoznaniju [Essays on General Linguistics], 12-53; G. V. Kolsanskij, "O prirode Iingvisticeskogo znaka" [On the Nature of the Linguistic Sign]; E. Kurilovic, Ocerki po Ungvistike [J. Kurytowicz, Essays on Linguistics], 9-20; T. P. Lomtev, "O prirode jazykovogo znaka i jazykovogo znaöenija" [On the Nature of the Linguistic Sign and of Linguistic Meaning]; S. K. Saumjan, "O ponjatijax lingvisticeskoj sistemy i Iingvisticeskogo znaka" [On the Concepts of the Linguistic System and the Linguistic Sign]; W. Doroszewski, "O poj^ciu znaku" [On the Concept of the Sign], 1 ff.; S. Jünger, "Wort und Zeichen", 77-108; S. Ε. Mason, Signs, Signals, and Symbols; C. Morris, Foundations of the Theory of Signs. See also Ε. M. Galkina-Fedoruk and N. S. Cemodanov, "Lingvisticeskij simpozium ν Erfurte" [The Linguistic Symposium at Erfurt].

75

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

s o u n d 2 4 as the m o s t effective m e a n s o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n . T h e s o u n d i m a g e is j u s t as e a s y t o e v o k e in the i m a g i n a t i o n as the visual image. T h i s places t h e m , in o u r i m a g i n a t i o n — a n d i m m e d i a t e l y thereafter in o u r t h i n k i n g as well — o n a single base, a single plane. L a n g u a g e in the f o r m in w h i c h it is m a n i f e s t e d , in w h i c h it is revealed,

may

be a u d i t o r y

(phonetic),

visual

(gesticulative),25

written (tactile — f o r e x a m p l e , the Braille alphabet) a n d even o l f a c t o r y ( a m o n g blind d e a f - m u t e s ) . 2 6 T h e s e f o r m s o f existence o f language m a y appear in certain acts o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n separately, in groups, or together. language

27

Auditory

appears especially o f t e n a c c o m p a n i e d by other f o r m s .

Theoretically all the sense o r g a n s can serve as a basis f o r the creation a n d f u n c t i o n i n g o f language. H o w e v e r , auditory l a n g u a g e pred o m i n a t e s o v e r the other diverse f o r m s o f the expression

and

actualization o f t h o u g h t . 2 8 O n e c a n n o t fail to e m p h a s i z e that writing, w h i c h has b e c o m e especially w i d e s p r e a d in o u r age, is also l a n g u a g e (S), n a m e l y a visual l a n g u a g e . 2 9 It is also a s y s t e m o f signs; it requires that they 24

" A sound may be either a speech sound, a phone, or a phonetic fraction; the term is ambiguous but convenient" (K. L. Pike, quoted in E. Hamp, A Glossary of American Technical Linguistic Usage, 1925-1950; see also S. Ellenberg, "Zur Lautstruktur des Wortes"). 28 Ζ. Μ. Volockaja, Τ. Μ. Nikolaeva, D. Μ. Segal, and Τ. V. Civ'jan, "Zestovaja kommunikacija i ee mesto sredi drugix sistem celovedeskogo obscenija" [Gestural Communication and Its Place Among Other Systems of Human Intercourse]; E. Hall, The Silent Language; H. Rugg, Imagination; H. Strehle, Mienen, Gesten, und Gebärden. 26 Ε. Jezierska, Obserwacje nad rozwojem gluchoniemnej Krystyny Hryskiewicz [Observations of the Development of the Deaf-Mute Krystyna Hryskiewicz]. 27 Cf. Τ. M. Nikolaeva, B. A. Uspenskij, "Jazykoznanie i paralingvistika" [Linguistics and Paralinguistics]; Ausdruckspsychologie; D. Crystal, R. Quirk, Systems of Prosodic and Paralinguistic Features in English; G. L. Trager, "Paralanguage". 28 Cf. 2. Vandries, Jazyk [J. Vendryes, Language], 21. 29 Some linguists do not recognize the written form of expression as the same language in the sense of L or S. L. Zawadowski writes, for example: "The written text of the 'Danish language' is not set forth in Danish: it is actually a text of the Latin alphabet, a text which transposes the text of one of the languages. Thus the glossematicists' thesis that the spoken and the written text are texts of the same language ... is incorrect" (from a note to his translation of Jakobson and Halle's Fundamentals of Language [Podstawy j^zyka], pp. 4-5).

76

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

be studied and mastered according to the same principles as auditory language. 30 The written language (P), transposed from the oral, functions according to the principles of the former, though the encoding of speech sounds in the written language is not identical with the encoding of thoughts into auditory words-assounds. This difference consists not only in the greater economy of sound-types as compared with sets of signs-as-graphemes, but it resembles ciphering rather than coding. 3 1 In recent times many experts theoretically equate both these sign substances. F. Whitfield, for example, writes: " ... Experience confirms ... that a linguistic theory will be inadequate for many of our purposes if it assumes that the phonetic substance is the only 'real' expression-substance of language and that all other candidates must, in some sense, be derived from it and remain dependent on it. ... This view ... has a venerable tradition." 3 2 There are cases in which visual language functions to completely replace auditory language. Between the oral (auditory) and the written (visual) language there exists a difference which is not only substantial in nature. They differ also in the frequency of occurrence of individual signs, forms, and constructions in such communications. 3 3 There are reasons for supposing that the mastery of these two chief forms of sign-generating activity is controlled by different 30 See Ζ. M. Volockaja, T. N. Molosnaja, Τ. M. Nikolaeva, Opyt opisanija russkogo jazyka ν ego pis'mennoj forme [An Attempt to Describe the Russian Language in Its Written Form]; V. A. Istrin, "Nekotorye voprosy teorii pis'ma" [Some Questions of the Theory of Writing]; A. R. Lurija, Ocerki psixofiziologii pis'ma [Essays on the Psychophysiology of Writing]; Τ. M. Nikolaeva, "Cto takoe grafema?" [What Is a Grapheme?]; See also J. L. Dolby, H. L. Resnikoff, "On the Structure of Written English Words"; B. Havranek, Studie ο spisovnem jazyce [A Study of the Literary Language]; J. Vachek, "Zum Problem der geschriebenen Sprache"; also by him, "Written Language and Printed Language". 31 See A. M. Liberman et al., "Nekotorye zamecanija otnositel'no effektivnosti zvukov reci" [Some Remarks Concerning the Efficiency of Speech Sounds], 30, 44. 32 F. Uitfild, "Kriterii dlja modeli jazyka" [F. Whitfield, "Criteria for a Language Model"], 10. 33 See A. Wierzbicka, Ο jqzyku, 128, and also W. Winter, "Styles As Dialects".

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

77

mechanisms. The language in which a person writes best is not necessarily the language in which he speaks best: one can write well but speak poorly and vice versa. Interesting evidence of this is given by T. Elwert: The written language is such a subtle and complex phenomenon that it can be mastered only through reading and active writing: oral speech may be the point of departure, but by no means necessarily ... An impeccable command of the written language depends not on the auditory language but on the printed language and on the level of education, on literacy. This ability may be acquired and perfected. That writing and the creation of a work of literature are possible only in one's so-called native language, is nothing more than a prejudice of nineteenth-century European nationalism.34 Auditory language has two advantages: (1) it carries considerably more information owing to the wealth of its phonetic parameters; (2) for mankind it is more natural and habitual. It is through the phonetic aspect (with or without regard for the sense content) 3 5 that most linguists study language material. Yet the word is not only a phonetic but also an enunciatory, an articulation complex. 36 If all the organs of speech formation were observable, it would be possible with some training to learn to understand speech without hearing a sound. For active pronunciation and clear enunciation training is necessary, because if we have studied the semantics of words and expressions and the structure of sentences but have not learned how to pronounce them, we cannot be said to have mastered the language. This is one of the basic facts in the methodology of language teaching. Linguistic 34

T. Elwert, "Das zweisprachige Individuum", 63. V. Ε. McGee, "Semantic Components ..."; A. E. Kibrik, "K voprosu ο metodax opredelenija differencial'nyx priznakov pri spektral'nom analize" [Toward the Question of the Methods of Determining Distinctive Features in Sound Spectrography]; L. Dukiewicz, "Analiza mowy nagranej wstecz" [An Analysis of the Speech of Reverse Recording]; H. Kurath, Phonology and Prosody; J. Mahnken, Die Struktur der Zeitgestalt des Redegebildes; R. J. McDavid, "Some Social Differences in Pronunciation"; W. Meyer-Eppler, "Die Spektralanalyse der Sprache". 36 F. Panse, "Sprache als Bewegung". 35

78

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

semantics cannot abstract itself from it and take only the sound as the immediate linguistic reality, which is easier to fix (on magnetic tape, for example). According to Saussurian division, articulation would pertain to speech, just as articulated sounds do. All the phonetic resources of modern languages number from forty to sixty phonemes. But not every phoneme can be combined with just any phoneme. In every language (L 2 ) there exist basic rules for introducing sound-types into structural contact with each other, as well as strictly defined and very limited syllable structures. B. F. Korndorf, who carried out a special project to elicit all the syllables in the speech of Englishmen, found about 1400 syllables in English. 37 Of all the linguistic units the syllable merits special attention as the characteristic segment of the spoken chain. 3 8 Communication engineering, in investigating problems of the intelligibility of linguistic transmissions, attaches important significance to the syllable. In communication engineering the syllable is called a speech atom or logatom, and the intelligibility of syllables is used as a measure of the quality of the transmitting system. 39 Finally, one last point concerning the phonetic, the presemantic aspect of the sign. Man has a biological and genetically conditioned predisposition toward language (L); yet there exists no predisposition whatever toward a specific ethnic language (L 2 ). Therefore the so-called basis of articulation of one's native language can be altered through deliberate training. 40 This fact means that in reality not only correct sentence construction, correct word usage, but also pronunciation, are of exceptional importance. If in constructing sentences and selecting words we have a relatively free choice and are in a position to avoid 37 See B. F. Korndorf, "Estestvennye ograniöenija — neobxodimoe uslovie organizacii reci" [Natural Limitations Are a Necessary Condition of the Organization of Speech], 25. 38 G. Laziczius, "Geschichte der Silbenfrage". 39 W. Fucks and J. Lauter, "Mathematische Analyse des literarischen Stils",

110. 40

Τ. Elwert, "Das zweisprachige Individuum", 51.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

79

the lexical and syntactic difficulties that we may encounter in speech, then this cannot be done with pronunciation. 3.2.3. Sound-Type Analysis of the phonetic part of language shows that even purely acoustic features (intonation, 41 stress, 42 rhythm 4 3 ) carry informational, significative, or some other content load. To completely abstract oneself from content features is difficult even in the quantitative investigation of the phonetic form of language activity. 44 Thus the sign is not only a formally physical sound. In a linguistic relationship sounds appear in type complexes, in sound images. The sound image is an acoustic invariant associated with a definite idea (meaning). For example, the word voda 'water', which has no etymologically clear inner form, can be pronounced loud or soft, with varying vowel length, etc., but all the same that will not alter the hearer's conception of the correlation of this sound cluster with its usual content. V. K. Porzezmski was of the opinion that the "idea of the phonetic aspect of the word is for us a symbol, a sign of our thinking". 4 5 As Saussure noted, the acoustic image "is not a material sound, a purely physical thing, but the mental imprint of the sound, the idea that we obtain of it through our sense organs; it is a sensory image, and if we happen to call it 'material', then it is so only in that sense and by contrast with the second feature of 41 V. A. Artemov (1965), L. I. Ilija (1962), T. A. Kanyäeva (1961), Ε. I. MuraSeva (1961), E. Krenek (1960), K. L. Pike (1965), M. Steffen-Batogowa (1966), H. Strehle (1956), P. W. Woodward (1966). 42 P. S. Kuznecov(1961), P. S. Popov (1961), R. Brauer (1964), Chatman (1965). 43 T. Georgiades (1959), F. G. Jünger (1966), F. Mayer (1959), Ε. MeierMenzel (1959). 44 Β. Α. Artemov (1958), P. Μ. Frumkina (1964), J. Fucks (1955), Κ. Budzyk (1966), G. Herdan (1964, 1966), R. Jakobson (1961), W. Koch (1964), P. Lorenzen (1962), W. Maüczak (1959), Η. Meier (1964), Μ. J. Milner (1961), A. H. Roberts (1965), H. Schnelle (1966), J. Tokarski (1961). 45 See V. Porzezinskij, Vvedenie ν jazykovedenie [V. Porzezinski, Introduction to Linguistics], 7 (italics ours — N.K.).

80

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

association, the concept, which is on the whole more abstract." 4 6 The order of emphasis of a certain sign unit in linguistics is predetermined by the approach or the aspect of the study of language material. Units are assigned a place and a name in the terminology of each specific aspect or branch of linguistics. Sound units are emphasized in phonetics (in its various subdivisions: acoustic, physiological, 47 articulatory, psychological), phonemics, phonematics, 48 phonomechanics, phonology, etc. 4 9 However, in a real language (L 2 ) sign units exist only in the form of syllables, words, word groups, and sentences (utterances). In language (Pj) one may also encounter sound clusters which in a limited sense can be called words but which have neither notional nor denotative reference. An example of such words-assounds might be one of the varieties of children's counting-out rhymes, where the element of representation or action, the element of meaning, is absent. They possess relevance thanks to their original combinations of sounds resembling language, but they do not carry within them any referential information at all. Of course there are counting-out rhymes in the standard national language as well, in the form of sensible rhymed utterances, but meaningless counting-out rhymes also enjoy great popularity. They most likely create the illusion of impartiality in those taking part in a game. 5 0 44 F. de Sossjur, Kurs obscej lingvistiki [F. de Saussure, Cours de linguistique giniral]. 47 Η. H. Wängler, Atlas deutscher Sprachlaute, 11-25. 48 Phonematics does not exclude phonemics. Phonematics, understood as the sum total of the physical, physiological, and psychological basis of speech, exists side by side with phonetics and phonemics. E. Crowell, Popular Account of the Kiowa Indian Language, 77. 49 Cf. also P. K. Vaarask, Voprosy fonematiki [Questions of Phonematics], Cf. £ . Koseriu, "Sinxronija, diaxronija i istorija" [E. Coseriu, "Synchrony, Diachrony, and History"], 335. 50 Incidentally, not everyone knows that genuine counting-out rhymes, which have been transmitted from generation to generation, are examples of original literary creation by the people, verbal pearls which have come down to us from remote antiquity. See the highly subtle analysis of more than two hundred Polish counting-out rhymes recently published in a certain popular Polish weekly: K. Pisarkowa, "Ele-mele".

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

81

Furthermore there are a number of words having no lexical meaning. They are formed from phonological and prosodic elements of a given language, often have grammatical form, and are therefore capable of becoming a part of the grammatical system. An example of this might be the phrase "the 86th of Marchember" (Ν. V. Gogol', Diary of a Madman). We can also include here the famous "glokaja kuzdra" 'glocky chudzer' of L. V. Söerba (which "steko budlanula bokrenka" 'steckly boodled the bacranack'). 51

3.2.4. Inner Form Another component of the word-as-sign is the so-called inner form. For example, the word molnienosnyj [literally, 'lightning-bearing]' evokes the idea of a flash of molnija 'lightning', though the word itself has the meaning 'very fast, instantaneous', i.e., a meaning not directly associated with lightning, etc. This "inner form" (after the finding of the virtual sign, i.e., the sound image, the phonetic invariant, in two or several real words-as-signs) might be called meaning 5 2 upon one's first approach to the word. The inner form makes language more expressive, more vivid, and richer. The inner form, together with the syllabic-phonemic structure and the grammatical structure, is the main thing that lends national color to a language (L 2 ). 5 3 In Russian a student 51

Cf. A. Liede, Dichtung als Spiel. Studien zur Unsinnpoesie an den Grenzen der Sprache. The author analyzes certain elements of the poetry of Mörike, Carroll, Morgenstern, Chesterton, Arp, and the "dadaists". Cf. also B. S. Rogovoj, "Lingvopsixologiceskie eksperimenty s degrammatikalizovannymi tekstami" [Linguopsychological Experiments With Degrammaticalized Texts]. 52 See M. D. Stepanova, Slovoobrazovanie sovremennogo nemeckogo jazyka [Modern German Word Formation], 17. 53 Frequently some word roots travel from language to language, but they just as frequently lose their former meaning there. Cf. F. I. Simkevic, Korneslov russkogo jazyka, sravnennogo so vsemi glavnejsimi slavjanskimi narecijami i 24 inostrannymi jazykami [The Root Words of the Russian Language Compared With All the Principal Slavic Dialects and Twenty-four Foreign Languages]; Deutsche Wortforschung in europäischen Bezügen; Μ. Η. Volm, Indoeuropäisches Erbgut in den germanischen und slawischen Sprachen.

82

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

who studies without quitting his job is called a za-ocn-ik 'correspondence-course student' [literally, 'beyond-eye-er'], and in German a Fernstudent (which emphasizes the distance separating the student from the university). Instead of the word vodolaz '(deep-sea) diver' [literally, 'water-climber'] the Poles and Germans have chosen the image of the nyrjaVscik 'diver' (nurek in Polish; Taucher, recently also Froschmann, in German). The inner form of many words does not correspond to ordinary usage. For example, Russian zastreVscik 'initiator, pioneer, leader' [literally, 'shooter'] or belka 'squirrel' [literally, 'white one'] (squirrels are not white), 54 etc. Most often the vivid picturesqueness helps one to remember the words-as-signs: plasc-palatka 'waterproof cloak' [literally, 'tentcloak']; Butterblume (Ger.), oduvancik 'dandelion' [literally, 'around-blower']; spaceman (Eng.), kosmonavt 'cosmonaut' [literally, 'cosmos-sailor']; beisetzen (Ger.), poxoroniV 'to bury' [literally, 'to hide'], etc. For the most part, the etymology of the figurative vocabulary is quite inexplicable: boz'ja korovka 'ladybug' [literally, 'God's little cow'], morskaja svinka 'guinea pig' [literally, 'little sea-pig'], etc. Sometimes the inner form leads to some interference, to some influence on the meaning or the use of the word. Thus the peredovaja stafja 'leading article, editorial' [literally, 'front article'] in a Soviet newspaper can be carried only on the front page, analogously with the Polish term (artykul wstgpny or wstgpniak). In Germany the Leitartikel and in the Anglo-Saxon countries the editorial are also more often found on the front page, but the name itself, in case of necessity, allows the article to be inserted on any page. In the Anglo-Saxon and German cultural milieu a sneznaja baba 'snow woman' is designated by a word of masculine gender (Eng. snowman, Ger. der Schneemann), and usually this detail of the name alters accordingly the appearance of the snow sculpture built by children in these countries. 54

Yet M. Vasmer considers the connection between belka 'squirrel' and btl" 'white' to be proven. M. Fasmer, ktimologiceskij slovar' russkogo jazyka [M. Vasmer, An Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language], 148.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

83

The excessive (albeit unavoidable) figurativeness of the terminology of physics is pointed out by S. Reiss. 55 The use of such terms as power, pressure, tension, mass, energy attraction, inertia, etc., is suggested by the ordinary nontechnical figurative word usage. The invisible and still insufficiently studied electrical and magnetic forces are described in the terms current, permeability, resistance, charge, particle, etc. Examples of undesirable interference from the inner form can be drawn directly from the science of linguistics. Beginning with A. Potebnja, in Russian linguistics the term "sound envelope" 5 6 has been used for the phonetic aspect of the word. The excessively three-dimensional image of the envelope calls to mind some kind of container. The German term used to denote the acoustic aspect (Klangkörper) appears to be more precise in its "inner form" because it contains the expression for sound (Klang) and for a physical, sounding body (Körper); furthermore in its morphological motivation it resembles other similar words, for example Heizkörper 'heating battery', Sprengkörper 'blasting charge', and others. Yet the preciseness of the term is further determined by a number of other factors. Specifically it depends on the clarity, strictness, and definiteness of its lexical concept, and on the latter depends the sense. The inner form is only a point for fixing one's view, a pivot for attaching the true, the principal, and not merely the apparent meaning. But transferring the theoretical-cognitive center of gravity to the inner form creates insurmountable difficulties in the problem of translation, 57 and imposes a certain attitude toward the world (see below). By no means every word has such a "meaning", since often its

55

S. Reiss, Language and Psychology. See A. Potebnja, Iz zapisok po russkoj grammatike [From Notes on Russian Grammar], Cf. also an etymological interpretation in phonetic terminology: I. Fönagy, Die Metaphern in der Phonetik; also his "Der Ausdruck als Inhalt". 57 Η. G. Adler, "Ubersetzbarkeit und Unübersetzbarkeit". 58

84

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

etymology is unknown. 5 8 For example, we do not know why the liquid with the chemical formula Η 2 0 is called water, and branchiate animals with scales are called fish. The inner form is entirely transformed or else disappears in clipped forms (even if they are formed from words with a clear etymology) and abbreviations. 59 One can postulate the existence of a language in which all the meanings would be expressed in simple (etymologically vague, unmotivated) words. However, natural languages do not entirely follow this course, since it is hard for a person to retain in his memory an enormous number of linguistic meanings without resorting to etymological associations.

3.2.5. Motivation Motivation implies the methods, reasons, and motives for choosing certain linguistic signs to fixate linguistic concepts. K. Ammer distinguishes four forms of linguistic motivation: (1) phonetic-morphological; (2) etymological; (3) morphological; (4) motivation conditioned by the semantic field.60 Let us assume this classification as a basis and illustrate it with examples. The first motivation — the PHONETIC, the IMITATIVE6 1 — is the least convincing, though many regard it as fundamental and productive. 62 Most often such a false conclusion is reached through an analysis of well-known languages, in which the investigator 58

See the book by E. Rossi, in which he specifically cites the basic primary words having a rather detailed and reasoned motivation: E. Rossi, Die Entstehung der Sprache und des menschlichen Geistes, 117 ff. 59 See R. I. Mogilevskij, "O vnutrennej forme sokraäöennogo slova" [On the Inner Form of the Clipped Word]; Ν. A. Janko-Trinickaja, "Processy vkljucenija ν leksike i slovoobrazovanii" [Processes of Inclusion in Vocabulary and Word Formation]. 80 K. Ammer, Einführung in die Sprachwissenschaft, pp. 70 ff. 61 See A. Rosetti, "Zametki ob upotreblenii onomatopei" [Notes on the Use of Onomatopoeia"]; H. Gipper, "Der Inhalt des Wortes und die Gliederung des Wortschatzes"; W. Porzig, Das Wunder der Sprache, pp. 20-30; L. Weisgerber, Vom Weltbild der deutschen Sprache, Vol. 2, pp. 123-126, 131; Η. Wissemann, Untersuchungen zur Onomatopöie. 62 K. Ammer, Einführung.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

85

perceives the words being analyzed as acoustic copies of actions. Yet Russian xrjukat'1 'to grunt' or kukuska 'cuckoo' are intelligible only to those who perceive grunting and cuckooing in a similar manner. Even in related languages (L 2 ) a different perception of these sounds is observed. In Polish xrjukaf sounds like kvicet'1 (kwiczec), and in German like quieken (kvikat''). To an Englishman this sound appears as oink-oink, while the verb itself, grunt, sounds like Russian grant. The Italians perceive this sound as fron-fron, and the Finns as snerf-snerf. Different peoples have different notions of the language of sheep, ducks, roosters, donkeys, and the like. The barking of a dog is perceived by Russians as tjaf-tjaf or gav-gav, and by Germans as wau-wau. The English represent a dog's bark in writing as bow-bow but pronounce it bow-wow, whereas the French convey this as oua-oua, and the Italians as bu-bu. Even the mooing of cows, which coincides in its expression in German, English, Russian, Polish, and certain other languages, nevertheless differs, for example, in Finnish (uhmuh) and Hungarian (mu-bu). K. Ammer is wrong in believing that certain words by their very sound represent the corresponding noise. The examples he gives (rauschen, splittern [Ger.], rumble, clatter, totter [Eng.]), in a person who knows neither English nor German, do not evoke any definite thoughts or associations at all. Phonetic motivation (apart from the few cases mentioned above) has merely a suprasegmental, prosodic character. It has been noted that the names of small objects are uttered in a higher voice, and those of big ones in a lower voice. This is especially evident in dealing with children. For example, slonenok 'baby elephant' and slonisce' big elephant' are more often pronounced with a correspondingly higher and lower voice. However, this is not always relevant. The second kind, ETYMOLOGICAL MOTIVATION, assumes that the word-as-sign rests on previously existing or currently existing words. 6 3 Certain languages are noted for a special partiality 83

L. A. Coates, "Meaning in Morphemes and Compound Lexical Units", 1048; A. A. Beleckij, "£timologiöeskaja strukture slova" [The Etymological

86

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

toward the "self-explanatory" nature of compound words, toward a preference for compound derived (i.e., purely "motivated") words over simple indivisible ones. According to the data of experts, German is richer in such formations 6 4 than, say, French. In many cases a simple indivisible word in French corresponds to a compound expression in German: de — Fingerhut 'thimble', gant — Handschuh 'glove', patin — Schlittschuh 'skate', etc. This motivation also contains a great deal of conditionality; it rests on the habit of connecting a given linguistic complex with a certain content. For example, in K. Sedyx's novel Otcij kraj [The Fatherland] the horse is called Ljaguska 'frog' [inner form: 'kicker'] (from IjagaV 'to kick'). In M. Gor'kij's "Vassa 2eleznova" the little girl who asks what a rasputnyj 'licentious person, libertine' [inner form: 'untangled one'] is, receives the explanation: "somebody who untangles what's tangled". An enormous number of such examples might be cited (zakrojscik 'cutter' — not from zakryt' 'to close'; zadusevnyj 'sincere' — not from zadusiV 'to strangle', etc.). MORPHOLOGICAL MOTIVATION is conjecture by morphological analogy. 6 5 If on the morphological basis of the already existing

Structure of the Word]; V. A. Nikonov, "fitimologija kak sistema" [Etymology As a System], 33. Some general principles and the nature of etymology are pointed out in the works: V. I. Abaev, "O principax etimologiceskogo slovarja" [On the Principles of the Etymological Dictionary]; Μ. N. Peterson, "O sostavlenii etimologiceskogo slovarja russkogo jazyka" [On the Compilation of a Russian Etymological Dictionary]; V. Pizani, Etimologija. Istorija—problemy— metody [V. Pisani, Etymology. History — Problems — Methods]', Ο. N. Trubacev, "Principy postroenija etimologiceskix slovarej slavjanskix jazykov" [Principles of Construction of Etymological Dictionaries of the Slavic Languages]; Ν. M. Sanskij, "Principy postroenija russkogo etimologiceskogo slovarja slovoobrazovatel'no-istoriceskogo xaraktera" [Principles of Construction of a Derivational-Historical Etymological Dictionary of the Russian Language]; G. Suxardt, Izbrannye stat'i po jazykoznaniju [H. Schuchardt, Selected Articles on Linguistics]·, L. Mackensen, Deutsche Etymologie; Μ. Wandruschka, "Etymologie und Philosophie"; Η. Maas, Wörter erzählen Geschichten; L. M. Meyers, The Roots of Modern English. 64 See Μ. D. Stepanova, Slovoslozenie ν sovremennom nemeckom jazyke [Compounding in Modern German]. 65 See R. I. Avanesov, "Kratcajsaja jazykovaja edinica ν sostave slova i

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

87

words mütterlich, väterlich, brüderlich we f o r m the word lehrerlich, which does not exist in G e r m a n , it will be understood without particular difficulty on the basis of the identical meaning of the suffix. 6 6 This motivation has a structural limitation. Knowing the words poboisce 'slaughter', posmesisce 'laughingstock', etc., f r o m bW 'to beat, kill' and smejafsja 'to laugh', we cannot say popoisce f r o m pit' 'to drink'. According to Ju. S. Stepanov, this is explained by the action of the structural and the normative aspects. The system (or structure) of language is described as a system of structural possibilities indicating 'open roads' and 'closed roads' ... However, on the level of the norm some of the roads opened by the system are closed; in other words, only some of the possibilities contained in the system are realized. Thus theoretically, from the point of view of the system, the words razgruzka 'unloading' and razgruzenie, razgruzanie 'unloading'; pogruzka 'loading; submerging' and pogruzanie, pogruzenie 'loading; submerging' are all possible. But the norm, the tradition, has made use of these possibilities — and even then not completely — only in the second case to distinguish between the two meanings of the verb pogruzat' 'to load; to submerge': pogruzka tovarov 'the loading of cargo' but pogruzenie podvodnoj lodki 'the submerging of a submarine'. 67 F i n a l l y , i n MOTIVATION CONDITIONED BY THE SEMANTIC FIELD, t h e

speaker of the language realizes the word together with its place by its relation to other words in some semantic group, as well as by taking into account the relation of the word to extralinguistic morfemy" [The Shortest Language Unit in the Composition of the Word and the Morpheme]; N. D. Andreev, "Morfemnoe clenenie slova ..." [The Morphemic Segmentation of the Word ...]; V. A. Zemskaja, Kak delajutsja slova [How Words Are Made]; Τ. M. Nikolaeva, "Opyt algoritmiceskoj morfologii russkogo jazyka" [An Attempt at an Algorithmic Morphology of Russian]; A. L. Davis, "Phoneme and Morpheme"; Gestalt und Gedanke; G. Kramer, "Zur Abgrenzung von Zusammensetzung und Ableitung"; V. Lejnieks, Morphosyntax of the Homeric Greek Verb; R. Thiel, "Die Bedeutung der Wörter"; Ο. Thomas, Transformational Grammar and the Teacher of English, 48-73; L. Zawadowski, "Podzielnosc morfologiczna a znaczenie wyrazu" [Morphological Divisibility and Word Meaning]. 64 The example is borrowed from Ammer (Einführung, 73). 67 Ju. S. Stepanov, Osnovy jazykoznanija [Fundamentals of Linguistics], 61.

88

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

realia. The section on the semantic field (pp. 139-142) deals with this in greater detail. 3.2.6. Distribution The inner form carries within itself morphological contours, but it bears a grammatical imprint indicating the place of this sign in the system of linear distribution. 68 The distribution is further determined by a semantic connotation, often not formally expressed in the image of the word-as-sign itself. Language, possessing hundreds of thousands of words, has a great number of their combinations available in sentences. Obtaining statistical data on the probabilities of syntactic combinations is almost impossible. 69 But the combinability of words is nevertheless subject to definite rules comprising three groups: distributive, logical, and denotative. In the sign aspect we can speak only of the distributive rules, which take into account the structural valence of the words. There are words that can be combined — from the right, i.e., to form a so-called syntagma — with an infinite number of words, with several words, with one word (ugryzenie 'remorse' [literally, 'gnawing away'] only of one's so vest' 'conscience'), and there are those that cannot combine at all (uvy 'alas'). The logical rules of combinations are constructed on the basis of the valence of words-as-concepts, and the denotative rules with regard for the connection with and interdependence on phenomena of reality. The so-called grammatical rules include two aspects 68

See V. I. Grigor'ev, "Cto takoe distributivnyj analiz?" [What Is Distributive Analysis?]; A. Makaev, "K voprosu ο sootnosenii foneticeskoj i grammaticeskoj struktury ν jazyke" [Toward the Question of the Correlation Between the Phonetic and the Grammatical Structure in Language]; I. I. Revzin, "O nekotoryx voprosax distributivnogo analiza i ego dal'nejsej formalizacii" [On Certain Questions of Distributive Analysis and Its Subsequent Formalization]; B. S. Xajmovic, "O leksiceskoj, morfologiceskoj i sintaksiceskoj socetaemosti slov" [On the Lexical, Morphological, and Syntactic Combinability of Words]; S. K. Saumjan, "Strukturnye metody izucenija znacenij" [Structural Methods of Studying Meanings]; cf. also J. Chmielewski, "Logiczna czy j^zykoznawcza analiza struktur skladniowych ?" [Is the Linguistic Analysis of Semantic Structures Logical?]; W. S. Cooper, Set Theory and Syntactic Description. 69 S. R. Levin, "Statistische und determinierte Abweichung in poetischer Sprache", 46-47.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

89

(the distributive and the logical) and cannot be formulated without regard for content. In the opinion of structuralist descriptivists, 70 distribution constitutes the lexical meaning of the word, and linguistic utterances can be precisely analyzed only from the point of view of pure form. However, the distributive-syntactic model is only one of the possibilities for describing language; moreover it describes only one aspect of language — that of the sound-as-sign. Thus the sign as the unit of phonetic material constitutes the first component of the word in any language. The sign may be effectively studied in the phonetic aspect, in the aspect of the sound-type (phonetic and phonological), and on the level of the so-called inner form and of linear intervocable structures. The study of the sign in these aspects need not affect the lexical meaning of the word, i.e., the categories we have named may be the object of analysis in abstraction from the lexical meaning. An illustration of the possible separation of sign from meaning is given us by the experience of everyday life, especially when we deal with nonlinguistic sign systems. But in an ethnic language too words-as-signs may, for example, be forbidden or protected by moral or even legal standards — given the absence in such cases of an equal interest in the meanings and in the objects of their denotation. There have also been instances of the reification of wordsas-signs, including pathological ones, when, for example, an insane person has eaten words written on paper which denoted food. 7 1

3.3. LEXICAL CONCEPT

3.3.1. What is the Lexical Concept (LC) ?

Appearing as the next component in the semantic picture of the word is the lexical concept (see the diagram on p. 73). 70 71

Z. S. Harris, Structural Linguistics. P. R. Hofstätter, Psychologie, 278.

90

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

The lexical concept is a certain thought content of a linguopsychological nature accompanying the word-as-sign, the latter having no direct cause and effect relation to objects of extralinguistic denotation. We regard this relationship as linguoassociative and hereupon base our conclusions concerning the semantic structure of the word in general. The description of the LC given above may remind the reader of a logical concept. Indeed there is a regular parallel between the two. Nevertheless, the lexical concept is not identical with the logical concept. We use the LC in the system of the science of linguistics, which studies the laws of language activity, the laws of real OPERATIONS WITH LANGUAGE (regular and irregular — either one). What is the relation between meaning and concept? This is a question which for many years has appeared on the pages of linguistic literature (see above). In our model there is a semasiological bond between the sign and the LC:

Sign

Semasiological

Lexical

bond

concept

Fig. 8

We can say that the sign has meaning, for it indicates some LC. To answer the question of what meaning the sign possesses, we name the given LC, but it cannot be said that the sign possesses the LC. Thus meaning proves to be a broader term than LC and includes, in addition to the LC, the semasiological bond with the sign. The LC is in part included in the logical concept but contains a number of elements not characteristic of the latter, for example: the presence of emotional nuances, of the possibility of reference to a wider range of denotata, the presence of an indication of membership in a semanticogrammatical class, as well as the presence of a different connotation. 7 2 A combination of two or several words 73 Cf. J. P. Firth, The Tongues of Men and Speech, 175. See also A. Hoppe, Inhalte und Ausdrucksformen der deutschen Sprache.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

91

may express a single logical concept, 7 3 but it contains as many lexical concepts as there are words. In all probability, the only exception is idiomatic expressions, the sum total of the elements of which corresponds to one LC (ugryzenie sovesti 'remorse' [literally, 'gnawing away at one's conscience'], bit' baklusi 'to fritter away one's time' [literally, 'to beat chips'], spustja rukava 'in a slipshod manner' [literally, 'having let down one's sleeves']). 74 Meaning contains only the minimum of DISTINCTIVE features sufficient to represent just the given concept. As for the concept (in the system of logic), it includes the minimum of the ESSENTIAL features of an object of reality, though practically speaking it includes all the features, all knowledge of the object, because it assumes a knowledge of the depth, the essence, the nature of the object. Hence the concept is merely a certain representation of our knowledge of the object. "What is the 'meaning' of the word?" asked A. Potebnja. "Obviously linguistics, without deviating from the attainment of its goals, examines word meaning only within certain limits. ... Without this limitation linguistics would include, in addition to its own undeniable substance — of which no science is the judge — the content of all the other sciences besides." 75 The conception of the sign expounded above allows us to include sign and meaning in the same system, establish a logical relationship between them, and overcome the heteromorphic nature of sound and meaning, inasmuch as the sign as a sound-type and the LC are units of the same level. What was said above allows us furthermore to speak not only of the meaning of the word but of linguistic meaning in general. This 73 See Ν. M. Sanskij, "Frazeologiceskie oboroty s tocki zrenija ix leksiceskogo sostava" [Phraseological Units From the Point of View of Their Lexical Composition], 74-77. 74 See F. G. Ferens, "Ob otnosenii slovosocetanija i slova s dvumja ili bolee kornevymi morfemami k ponjatiju" [On the Relation of the Word Combination and of the Word With Two or More Root Morphemes to the Concept]; W. Schmidt, Lexikalische und aktuelle Bedeutung, 68-84. 75 Α. Α. Potebnja, Ιζ zapisok ρο russkoj grammatike [From Notes on Russian Grammar], 19.

92

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

is confirmed by the fact that there exist LC's which can be expressed, which can be fixed, by different signs (in rare cases even by words-as-signs of different languages L 2 ). The words-as-meanings thus formed express and fix the denotata and point them out, as a result of which the so-called senses are obtained. Lexical concepts, being units of a specific language (L 2 ), are national, 7 6 while logical concepts — the units of logic — are essentially international. 7 7 Words-as-meanings broaden the range of experience but do this, as it were, at the expense of depth. They allow us to understand many things with a minimum of effort and concentration and fix reality in our consciousness in the form of certain unified and socially standardized fragments. Consequently, they form a connecting link between the consciousness of individuals. In pathological cases (among schizophrenics, for example) the individual uses his own meanings, 78 which of course severs this connecting link. 3.3.2. On the "Indissolubility"

of Sign and

Meaning

Many semasiological works emphasize the indissolubility of sign and concept. Absolute indissolubility, however, does not exist, inasmuch as signs often have more than one meaning, and meanings may be expressed by more than one sign. The connection between the sign and its meaning is dialectal, labile, and mobile, which is confirmed by the existence of different names for the same object in different languages 79 (say, for the sun, sky, and others). Even within the same language (L 2 ) a concept is not confined to a single sign. Thus in German, according to data from the word atlas of W. Mitzka and L. Schmitt, 80 the concept 76

L. Durovic, "Lexikälni vyznam slova" [The Lexical Meaning of the Word], 193-97; W. M. Rivers, The Psychologist and the Foreign-Language Teacher. 77 See T. Kotarbin'skij, Izbrannye proizvedenija [T. Kotarbinski, Selected Works], 637. 78 Language Behavior in Schizophrenia, 32. 79 Cf. E. Leisi, "Englische und deutsche Wortinhalte", 140-50. 80 W. Mitzka, L. Schmitt, Deutscher Wortatlas.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

93

Kartoffel (potato) has 150 denotations, Distel (thistle) 250, Pilz (mushroom) 200, Rinde (bark) 300, and Hagebutte (sweetbrier) has over 700 names. These synonymous names almost always denote the same species of plant and not some different varieties of it, i.e., absolutely the very same concept. It is correct to speak only of the inseparability of the inner form from the acoustic "body", which together creates the sign. From the word-as-sign poduska 'pillow, cushion' it is impossible to separate its generally accepted etymology and its connection with the words pod 'under' and uxo 'ear', though its meaning (the lexical concept, as an object pertaining to the bed) can easily be transferred (for example, in engineering: vozdusnaja poduska 'air cushion'). The facts of the development of the meanings of words-as-signs, of their acquisition of new meanings, and of their partial or complete loss of old meanings, are well known. 8 1 Mobility of language in the realm of vocabulary means precisely the lability of sign and meaning. 3.3.3. Kinds of Lexical Concepts Among the numerous LC's (meanings) a number of varieties can be distinguished. 81

S. A. Allendorf, "Znaöenie i izmenenie slov" [Meaning and Change in Words]; I. V. Arnol'd, "Traktovka problemy izmenenija znacenij slov ν rabotax russkix uöenyx XIX veka" [The Treatment of the Problem of Change in Word Meanings in the Works of Russian Scholars of the Nineteenth Century]; R. A. Budagov, Problemy razvitija jazyka [Problems of the Development of Language]; K. Zeleneckij, Issledovanie znaienija, postroenija i razvitija slova celoveieskogo i prilozenie sego razvitija k jazyku russkomu [An Investigation of the Meaning, Structure, and Development of the Human Word and the Application of This Development to the Russian Language]; B. Kazanskij, Prikljucenija slov [Word Adventures]; L. Borovoj, Put' slova [The Way of the Word]; L. Uspenskij, Slovo ο slovax [A Word About Words]; I. I. ternyseva, "Izmenenija znacenija slov kak put' razvitija slovarnogo sostava" [Change in Word Meaning As a Way of Development of the Vocabulary]; D. N. Smelev, "O semanticeskix izmenenijax ν sovremennom russkom jazyke" [On Semantic Changes in Modern Russian]; J. Copley, Shift of Meaning; G. S. Schönmann, "Bedeutungswandel in der Gemeinsprache der letzten beiden Jahrhunderte"; L. Przemski, Na tropie siöw i rzeczy [In Search of Words and Things].

94

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

A. EXPANDED AND CONTRACTED LC's. Concepts in logic contain a description of the properties of the objects being reduced to classes. "The descriptions of these properties are 'reduced' by means of common names for corresponding classes; the knowledge of these distinctive properties ensures the classification of objects for the purpose of distinguishing them one from another." 8 2 By the expanded meaning of a certain sign we mean the complex of judgments about existential 83 properties, the complex of thoughts about an object or phenomenon of true reality (or about its construct). By the contracted name we are to understand the individual's thought about the object or phenomenon, the thought which the individual experiences at the moment of actively using the wordas-sign or when perceiving another's speech. 84 The expanded meaning is the generally authorized use of wordsas-meanings with the content which the defining dictionaries include in them. The contracted name does not replace, does not discard, the expanded name, but rather reduces it and implies it. B. IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT ELEMENTS OF THE LC. The contracted meaning cannot express all or even most of the features of the object denoted. The various elements of content in the word-asmeaning become explicit only in different contexts. For example, at hearing or reading the word buy, the ideas of salesman, price, etc., may be brought to the foreground. Although all these and many other elements of meaning besides pertain to buying, in the context one or several of them are expressed accordingly. "This projection of parts of the content of the word on the surrounding environment makes possible in the end the monosemization of that word in its context." 8 5 C. POTENTIAL AND ACTUAL LC. The question may arise as to what the relation of the LC is to language and speech. Many 82

D. P. Gorskij, Problemy obidej metodologii tiauk ... [Problems of the General Methodology of the Sciences ...], 169. 83 E. Grodzmski, Znaczenie slowa w jqzyku naturalnym [The Meaning of the Word in a Natural Language], 103. 84 Grodzinski, Znaczenie, 102-03. 85 M. Fischinger, "Zur Systematisierung von Bedeutungseinheiten", 559.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

95

linguists are of the opinion that the lexical meaning of the word on the language level is the potential for the actual meanings in speech. In other words, the actual meanings — as W. Schmidt writes — are the realization of possibilities contained in the LC (word meaning on the language level). 86 Other authors 8 7 do not make a distinction between these phenomena. In actual speech the LC is experienced by the individual and clearly exists (in the form of neurophysiological activity in the individual's brain); but does the LC exist in words-as-signs written on paper or impressed on a phonograph record, and if it exists, then where, in what form, etc.? The words-as-signs of language (I 2 ) ought to be regarded as fixed signals containing nothing but substance and form. In speaking of the LC in language aspect P, we can also put the question another way: does a word have meaning if the word is not pronounced by anyone and is not written down anywhere (or not yet written down)? 8 8 In the opinion of E. Grodzmski, one cannot speak of differentiating between the actualization and the predisposition toward the actualization of meaning, because those who have such a predisposition are not aware of it, or else they no longer experience a predisposition toward thinking about a certain object: instead they experience the thought of the object itself. Meaning in the narrow sense is exclusively actual meaning or, else otherwise, the thought of the object denoted, this thought being associated with the use of the word. 8 9 We think that in this respect Grodzmski is quite right. Yet it must be supposed that even at the moment of not using a certain word-as-meaning which the individual knows on the basis of previous experience and which he may at any moment reproduce in

88

W. Schmidt, Lexikalische und aktuelle Bedeutung, 28; see also Κ. Schippan and Ε. Sommerfeldt, "Wort und Kontext", 541. 87 G. F. Meier, in Zeichen und System der Sprache, 250. 88 M. Kokoszyriska, "Z marksistowskiej semantyki" [On Marxist Semantics],

181. 89

Ε. Grodzmski, Znaczenie slowa w jgzyku naturalnym Word in a Natural Language], 118-19.

[The Meaning of the

96

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

the act of speech, the word-as-meaning exists in his brain. This does not deny the existence of a common type of thought which has been experienced by individuals, by members of a speech community, upon pronouncing the word chalk, for example. On the basis of many years of language experience, people have formed a certain standardized idea when using the word chalk; therefore we can abstract from the set of individually experienced LC's a meaning for chalk common to the entire group. Such an abstraction is not only necessary; it is a fact. 3.3.4. The Existence of Meaning Words-as-signs, on account of their association with definite LC's, possess a certain transparency of meaning, i.e., in perceiving wordsas-signs, we concentrate our attention only on the words-asmeanings, the words-as-concepts. In the consciousness of each member of a language community in the course of his social experience, there has been formed on the basis of language (L 2 ) an indefinitely long series of LC's, each of which is easy to evoke upon presenting the word-as-sign to a given member of the language community. The associative reaction takes effect if the individual has previously: (a) obtained an explanation of that lexical concept, (b) received minimal training in coupling the sign with the lexical concept, thus reinforcing the associative reaction, and (c) repeated that word (sign plus LC) in practice in order to retain the given unit in his memory. Words-as-signs, spoken or written, evoke actual meanings whenever they are presented to the hearer. Thereafter the words or literary works composed of such words need not be presented; yet they will exist in the individual's consciousness independently. For example, if a poem should disappear, its existence could be proven by the fact that there are people who know it by heart. Menander, in the words of Montaigne, says of his unwritten comedy: "It is entirely composed and ready; all that remains is to set it forth in verse." 9 0 90

M. Monten', Opyty [M. Montaigne, Ewoyj], vol. 1, 221.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

97

As for the ascribing of independent existence to meaning beyond consciousness, that is an expression of the Platonic conception that, apart from the psychological meanings of language experienced by the people who use them, there are "ideal" meanings as well. When describing the LC, as well as other components of the semantic content of the word, it should be kept in mind that absolute independence (with respect to the brain and the biomental processes of the individual) is an illusion. "For if one comes to believe in the ideality of meanings, then further questions on the subject of what meaning is have already become pointless." 91 The existence of the word-as-meaning may be described from the point of view of (a) certain substantial structures (physiology) and (b) certain mental mechanisms with which the individual in question sees the world (psychology). These two aspects — they correlate, as it were, with the objective and the subjective — are still studied in complete isolation from one another, and that is why, despite the considerable progress made by the physiology of the brain 92 and the well-known achievements of psychology during the last two or three decades, the study of the nature of the intellect must necessarily remain in its infancy.

3.4. DENOTATUM

3,4.1. The Thing

Meant

The last aspect of the content of the word (diagram, p. 73) is the denotatum. In much of the vocabulary the materiality of the objects of denotation is illusory. Sometimes the LC corresponds to nothing in true, nonlinguistic reality, but even this "zero object" can be called a denotatum, since the denotatum is the link with true (or imaginary) reality, which can be expressed in words. 93 91

E. Grodzifiski, Znaczenie, 38. M. Maruszewski, Mowaamdzg [Speech and the Brain], See also the bibliography, which lists the most recent literature on this subject. 93 Cf. the system of speech activity in the works of G. P. Mel'nikov, who 92

98

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

Sometimes words-as-signs mark objects directly, for example, the labels on merchandise. These signs denote not sets, not classes of objects, but the concrete objects themselves. In the present instance the words-as-signs name material entities which leave no grounds for imagination. Here the object is not implied but perceived directly. But most situations are of a different kind. A person perceives verbal information without the objects ofinformation themselves.94 The material of communication is only words-as-signs, words-asconcepts. 95 Most often the object is implied and determined by the situation. The difference between the LC and the thing meant can be shown in various kinds of definitions, particularly in the nominal and the real definitions. The nominal definition for the word strait in English is the THOUGHT of the person using this word to denote a narrow body of water separating two land masses. The real definition of strait is as follows: a strait is a narrow body of water separating two land masses. 96 In studying language the objects meant are often disregarded, for in linguistic investigations it is convenient to take the word not in its entire extent, but only the

assumes the interaction of three levels in speech: "the level of denotata, i.e., of the objects of external reality capable of being reflected in consciousness; the level of significata, i.e., of conceptual, more or less precise structural models, the originals of which are elements and bonds of the denotative level; and, finally, the level of linguistic signs". G. P. Mel'nikov, "SuSönost' predikacii i sposoby ee jazykovogo vyrazenija" [The Essence of Predication and the Methods of Its Linguistic Expression], 117. 84 Cf. Gellner, Slova i veSii [E. Gellner, Words and Things]·, E. W. Count, G. T. Bowles, Fact and Theory in Social Science; J. Mackaye, The Logic of Language; C. Morris, Signification and Significance. 95 J. Lötz, Linguistics; Symbols Make Man, 4. See also W. J. Richardson, Heidegger. Through Phenomenology to Thought. Cf. M. Heidegger, Unterwegs zur Sprache; also his Was heisst Denken ? ββ The example is taken from E. Grodzuiski, Znaczenie slowa w jqzyku naturalnym [The Meaning of the Word in a Natural Language], 159. In the same passage the author writes: "A definition of normative meaning has a more complex structure, inasmuch as the meaning of a word is itself not the thought of an object; therefore a definition of meaning is not a thought of an object, but a thought of the second degree, as it were."

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

99

word-as-concept. However, in practical language instruction it is more effective to use words together with their denotata. 3.4.2. Reality and Construct When analyzing speech activity, we must take into account: (a) true reality; (b) language expressions; (c) thinking; (d) the person himself, the individual with all the subtleties of his psyche engendered by his social life, by the standards of behavior in society. Reality is not the creation of the cognizing subject, but all the words pertaining to reality are the product of the cognizing subject. At the same time they are a social product, the result of selection and social standardization. Reality is consolidated in the LC; as cognition develops, the number of LC's (and words-as-signs), which sometimes denote the same reality, increases. A member of a linguistic community is obliged to communicate his thoughts in the words-as-concepts which are already available to his partners in communication, though he perceives reality through the prism of HIS psyche. Words are knowledge of the world such as we see it; we select and group words in order to learn about reality from them. Among the numerous words that make up language there are many which denote not real objects of the outside world but details of our attitude toward the world. Kaufmann is correct when he says that circle and tiger differ from one another in that there is no such object in our sensory experience which could really be a circle, whereas there do exist objects which are really tigers.91 J. Hertzler's conception is an interesting one. 98 There are in language, apart from meanings, so-called facts — the products of experience, the fundamental elements with which man thinks, evaluates, and makes decisions. Sometimes Hertzler calls these facts conceptions of those parts of reality which are already somehow realized, which are revealed out of the mass of surrounding 97 98

W. Kaufmann, Religion und Philosophie, 101. J. Ο. Hertzler, A Sociology of Language.

100

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

objects and phenomena, which are denoted (named), classified, standardized, distinguished from other phenomena, and defined, i.e., their nature and characteristic features have been described." "Effective reality is, for us, essentially a language-made affair: we catch it and encircle it comprehensively by means of words. ... the world offacts exists for us only in the world of words which describe their existences." 100 Language not only contributes to the shaping of and plays a part in the formation of a fact; it is in the real sense of the word the corpus of our facts. Hertzler has noted one of the most important properties of the word, that it names not an object but a certain idea of the object, which we call the denotatum. Denotata are an individual phenomenon, but their individuality is limited by a number of circumstances. In the first place, denotata are the result of the sensory perception of what is a common natural reality for inhabitants of the earth (air, land, night, dying) or of what are common national and cultural realia for all the members of a linguistic community (bread, courtship). Secondly, the mechanism of the apparatus of perception in each person is biologically identical, this being ensured by genetic continuity, by the hereditary stability of organisms having an approximately identical predisposition to language activity. 101 Thirdly, the existence of words-as-concepts to some extent somehow helps the individual to form and construct an idea of objects. The social and to some degree collectivized character of individual denotata is confirmed by the everyday practice of linguistic communication. After reading a book, after hearing a certain message, we remember on the whole not words-as-signs, not LC's, but denotata, the ideas of some objects contained in the message, story, or conversation. Thus the translator must imagine the realia being described, the denotata, in order to operate in reverse order when translating: to select words-as-concepts (LC's) and words-as-signs 99

Hertzler, Sociology, 45. Hertzler, Sociology. 101 Ε. H. Lenneberg, New Directions of the Study of Language.

100

101

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

of the foreign language. This process once again demonstrates the existence of denotata as a linguopsychological phenomenon. The description and systematization of denotata is the concern of onomasiology, and we call the bond between words-as-concepts and denotata the onomasiological bond.

Lexical concept

Onomasiological bond

Denotatum

Fig. 9

So if by the LC we mean the thought corresponding in language (L 2 ) to the word-as-sign, then the denotatum is any individual idea of a real or imaginary object which has or can have some linguistic correspondence in the form of a word-as-concept (LC). 3.4.3. Kinds of

Denotata

In order to classify and study the nature of the semantic structure of the word, it is also necessary to study the nature of the objects of denotation — the denotata. OBJECTS OF A LINGUISTIC NATURE. The sole object of their denotation is other language expressions or their relationships. For the denotation or expression of these objects in languages (L 2 ) there is a special vocabulary, which can be divided into two groups: (a) the metavocabulary, the words-as-signs which signify linguistic facts, for example, "word", "sentence", "true", "false", "intonation", "letter", etc. Among them there are also universal words taken from outside the metalinguistic vocabulary and at the same time retaining their nonlinguistic reference, for example, hazy (expression and air), coarse (word and behavior), beautiful (language and country), etc.; (b) the functional vocabulary, the words-as-signs which signify exclusively linguistic relationships. They include prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, and others. The denotata of these words are linguistic facts or relationships.

102

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

Among the objects of extralinguistic reality which can be denotata, we can distinguish three groups: the corporeal (A), the phenomenal (B), and the construct (C). A. CORPOREAL OBJECTS. Between the realms of language and object there are numerous bonds which are established by semantics. 102 The word-as-sign corresponds to one or several LC's; each word-as-concept (i.e., sign plus LC) corresponds to one or a set of denotata reflecting linguistic and extralinguistic reality. Chief among the latter are corporeal objects, which are the undeniable and obvious equivalents of certain words-as-signs. Among the material objects there are individual objects and their sets, their classes. 103 Both individual objects and their classes have the same verbal denotation. In the context we reconstruct the denotatum from the environment of other words-as-meanings, from situations, or through associative imagination. Denotata are, as it were, meanings in context; they are not equivalent either to the LC or to the dictionary meaning of the word. It is significant that individual objects-as-denotata, on account of their socially distinctive importance, are denoted by what is for them a constant number of words-as-signs or even a single word-assign — a proper name. 1 0 4 A proper name is more convenient and more concise in comparison with an individual description (for example, Aristotle instead of: the tutor of Alexander the Great, the founder of scientific logic, the ancient Greek, etc.). It is a debatable question whether individual (proper) names have meanings. The most widely held opinion is that a proper name has no meaning until it refers to a definite person or thing, and only at the moment of reference does the proper name become a meaningful word. "Proper names", writes J. D^bska among others, OBJECTS OF EXTRALINGUISTIC REALITY.

102

H. Stonert, J^zyk i nauka [Language and Science], 171. In modern set theory, among the infinite number of categories three groups of ontological categories are distinguished as well — individuals, classes, and relations. Cf. H. Stonert, J?zyk i nauka [Language and Science], 182-83. 104 E. C. Smith, "The Significance of Name Study". 103

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

103

"considered in isolation from context ... have neither definite meanings nor designata [i.e., denotata — MAT.]".105 Proper names (surnames or given names of persons) are easily recognized and identified as specimens of the class of names. They consist of sound-types (phonemes, syllables) and are formed according to the morphological and grammatical rules of a specific language (L 2 ). They also have LC's, for upon hearing, for instance, the name Marfa, we already recognize not only the word-as-sign but also quite a number of other features (a Russian woman's name, somewhat archaic). The individual name assumes enormous significance when we know which denotatum (for example, which person) it refers to. It can become richer than any general concept. "The individual names of people (given names and surnames) function in a dual role: as general names — until they refer to a specific designatum — and also in their principal role as individual names — when reference to a specific designatum occurs." 106 In connection with proper names it is worthwhile to dwell on an important semantic phenomenon, namely the temporal identity of the LC's of proper names (of the second kind). For example, we associate the same word-as-sign and the same expression P. I. Cajkovskij with the child Petr Il'iö Cajkovskij, with the composer in his prime, and with P. I. Cajkovskij after his death (since 1893 any use of the expression P. I. Cajkovskij pertains only to his imageas-denotatum). When we use an individual name and we suppose that we are speaking of the very same object, we are essentially, as it were, using that name in a different meaning each time. Yet in fact the meaning remains the same; we are merely distinguishing in the name now one aspect of the denotatum, now another. Some authors, mostly representatives of American general semantics, urge that the change in meaning even of common names during the evolution of the object of their denotation be stated. 105

J. D^bska, "Z filozofii imion wtasnych" [On the Philosophy of Proper Names], 248. 104 E. GrodzMski, Znaczenie, 323.

104

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

Thus, S. Hayakawa suggests: "Use index numbers and dates as reminders that no word ever has exactly the same meaning twice. Cow x is not cow 2 , cow 2 is not cow 3 . . . " . 1 0 7 B. PHENOMENAL OBJECTS. Phenomenal objects include certain properties of corporeal objects, their actions, qualities, and relations. They are not things or objects in the classic sense, but they are facts of reality which cannot only be empirically studied but can also be subjected to precise measurement in space and time. For example, flight can be described in terms of speed in kilometers per hour; probability can be denoted by the adjective probable and defined by the nth degree; a spatial relationship by the prepositions with, over, under, etc. C. CONSTRUCT OBJECTS. This group of extralinguistic objects is composed of imaginary constructs which do not exist in nature, including the so-called empty classes of linguistic names. We call them objects because, having been constructed from fragments of reality, they form a thought which serves as the object of linguistic denotation. Such words as centaur, devil, witch, and brownie perform a certain semantic function in language. Construct objects, having originated on the basis of language (A 3 ), can also exist as extralinguistic ideas, as the thoughts of individuals and of a language community. For example, such expressions as "natural lunar satellite" have no real object, no designatum, whatsoever, because there are no objects for which they might be used. The denotatum of this name is an empty class. But, as Grodzinski notes, a name with an empty class also has meaning. 1 0 8 Objects of the introspective mental life occupy an uncertain place in this classification. We shall assign the description of our thoughts and our inner state (expressed by the words think, sure, intend, feel, I, myself, guess, etc.) to objects of the outside — in relation to our

107 108

S. Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, 293. E. Grodzinski, Znaczenie, 283.

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

105

consciousness — real world, although they belong to the subject. That is to say, everything that is not consciousness is the outside world, even if it is our own body and its states. Those are the kinds of denotata and the corresponding classes of words which denote them.

3.4.4. Denotata

and LC's

Each kind of denotatum has a certain type of language expression which corresponds to it.

LC's

Objects of reality, denotata

Metavocabulary

Units of language

Functional vocabulary

Relations between units of language

Linguistic sphere

LC's of corporeal objccts Corporeal objects (individuals, classes) LC's of phenomenal objects

Phenomenal objects (actions, qualities, relations)

LC's of construct objects

Construct objects (imaginary ideas and empty classes)

Extralinguistic sphere

Fig. 10

The parallelism between the system of LC's and the system of denotata is relative. All the lexical (as well as logical) concepts correspond to true reality as a whole; yet in their specific use, in the application of words-as-concepts to objects-as-denotata, shifting, transfers, and erroneous combinations are possible. Often the LC's of corporeal objects for example can be used to denote phenomenal objects; LC's are highly mobile in the scale of denotata. As new phenomena are drawn into the denotative sphere, they are denoted by words-as-concepts which previously correlated with other classes. To a considerable extent, such couplings are

106

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

temporary and figurative in nature; they create vivid metaphors. 1 0 9 The basis for distinguishing a new meaning is the presence of a new lexical concept with which a given sign is associated. [Translator's note: Russian pero means both 'feather' and 'pen'.] Thus the pero (of a bird) formerly signified only the skin covering of a bird, even if the feather was used for writing. The appearance of metal pens gave the word-as-sign pero a second meaning. The metal writing instrument served as the basis for the elaboration of the new meaning. Often it is difficult to ascertain whether a new lexical concept has appeared or whether it is an old meaning used metaphorically. Before 1957 the word sputnik was used in the meanings: (1) fellow traveler, traveling companion, and (2) a planet revolving around another heavenly body. But in the third meaning, that of a manmade apparatus (rocket, payload) revolving around the planet earth, the expression artificial sputnik was used. After some time the word sputnik acquired a new meaning (even without the addition of artificial). If a child now asks someone to buy him a sputnik, this means only a sputnik in the third meaning; ships, movie theatres, and Young Pioneer camps are named "Sputnik" in the third, independent meaning of the word, the name of the apparatus which symbolizes the progress of the technology of our age. It is precisely in this meaning that the word sputnik has been borrowed by many of the world's languages. The Germans, for example, call Soviet artificial satellites der Sputnik, and not Satellit or Trabant. The existence of a new meaning can be determined only on the basis of an analysis of linguistic usage. Of the three main components of the content of the word, the phonetic form of the sign appears to be the most stable. 1 1 0 The 109 Cf. M. Black, Models and Metaphors; Η. H. Lieb, "Was bezeichnet der herkömmliche Begriff 'Metapher'?"; Η. Meier, Die Metapher; J. Pelc, "Zastosowanie funkcji semantycznych do analizy poj^cia metafory" [The Application of Semantic Functions to the Analysis of the Concept of the Metaphor]; Β. M. Strang, Metaphors and Models. 110 Though the history of some languages testifies to the fact that the sound of many words has changed rather significantly while their lexical meaning has

107

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

denotatum is subject to the greatest lability. Denotata associated with social life undergo especially great changes. When the denotatum undergoes change or when a new denotatum (or object of denotation) appears, it is also possible that there will be change in the corresponding LC or that a new LC will appear. Now that we have described the components of the word, let us summarize what has been said. The content of the word may be examined in the following aspects: (1) the physical (acoustic, phonetic, or other sensorially perceptible) aspect. (2) the sound-typological aspect (the representation of the sound, of the word-as-form, of the inner form). (3) the socioinformational (the content aspect proper). (4) the object-typological, the denotative aspect. (5) the extralinguistic aspect (it is not a part of the semantic structure of the word, but in connection with the preceding aspect it must be kept in mind). Let us represent word content in aspects in the following diagram: a Aspects

physical (acoustic)

c

b

d

e

soundextra socio-inform objecttypological ational typological linguistic semasiology

Fields of semantic investigation

onomasiology sign

Elements of semantic structure

discrete sound cluster

inner form (sound imag< 0

lexical denotatum concept

elements of true reality

meaning sense 1 Fig. 11

remained the same. R. A. Budagov, "K Probleme ustojcivyx i podviznyx elementov ν leksike" [Toward the Problem of Stable and Mobile Elements in

108

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD 3.5. SENSE

3.5.1.

What

is Sense ?

The diagram on p. 107 shows that the lexical concept and the denotatum are combined in the sense. The word "sense" is rather polysemantic. Among the known meanings 1 1 1 of this word, logicians distinguish the following: (1) Reasonableness, logicality. For example, " '2 χ 2 = a stearin candle' is an expression which does not make sense". (2) The applicability of some operation in order to obtain useful results. For example, "Some laws which are true for classical mechanics do not make sense for the microworld." (3) Determining that a word is used in one of its meanings, i.e., the use of SENSE in the capacity of MEANING. For example, "First you used the word 'law' in one sense and then in another." (4) A point of view, an aspect, a relation. For example, "You say he is good, but in what sense ?" (5) The denotation of one of the possible totalities of the features of an object. The same object may be considered from different points of view. For example, our knowledge of the sun has changed throughout history, and despite the invariability of the meaning (the reference to the same object) the word sun at various stages has acquired a different SENSE. Sense makes an utterance intelligible. Nonobservance of the rules of sense leads to vagueness, to a failure to achieve the effect of speech. 1 1 2 "Our interlocutor may speak banally, cachetically, unimaginatively, long-windedly, even inaccurately — we resign

Vocabulary]; Ν . I. Filiceva, Istorija nemeckogo jazyka [A History of the German Language]; A. A. Ufimceva, Opyt izu£enija leksiki kak sistemy [An Attempt to Study Vocabulary As a System]. 111 See D . P. Gorskij, Logika [Logic], 43-44. 112 Υ. N . Findlay, Language, Mind, and Value; F. G. Jünger, Sprache und Denken; J. Ν . Mohanty, Edmund HusserVs Theory of Meaning; E. A. Nida, "A System for the Description of Semantic Elements"; H. Regneil, Semantik; W. Stegmüller, Das Wahrheitsproblem und die Idee der Semantik; P. Henle, "Meaning and Verifiability".

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

109

ourselves to all this. But if he speaks unintelligibly, we shall simply break off the conversation." 113 But what components of word structure create sense? L. S. Vygotskij is of the opinion that the sense of a word is the sum total of all the psychological facts which appear in our consciousness because of the word ... Meaning ... is the fixed and invariable point which remains stable in spite of all changes in the sense of the word in different contexts. A word considered in isolation in the vocabulary has only one meaning. But this meaning is no more than a potential to be realized in living speech, in which this meaning is only a stone in the edifice of sense ... A word acquires its sense only in a phrase. 114 From our description and from the diagram it is evident that sense is formed from the sum of the LC's and the denotata, and from the linear bonds of words. The first kind of sense we shall call onomasiological, the second linear.

3.5.2. Onomasiological Sense The idea of the scientific differentiation between meaning and sense originated long ago. The outlines of a certain differentiation between these two levels of word content are found more than a hundred years ago, for example, in the writings of Humboldt: The word is not the representative of the object itself ... but the expression of our own view of the object. Here is the chief source of the variety of expressions for the very same object. If, for example, in Sanskrit the elephant is sometimes called the one who drinks twice, sometimes the double-toothed one, and sometimes the one who is provided with a hand, then each of these names obviously contains a special concept, though they all stand for the same object. 115 113

A. M. Peäkovskij, "Ob"ektivnaja i normativnaja toika zrenija na jazyk" [The Objective and the Normative Viewpoint With Regard to Language], 26. 114 L. S. Vygotskij, "Myälenie i re£' " [Thinking and Speech], 369-70. 115 V. Gumbol'dt, "O razliöii organizmov celoveceskogo jazyka i ο vlijanii £togo razliöija na razvitie öelove&skogo roda" [W. von Humboldt, "On the Distinction Between the Organisms of Human Language and on the Influence of This Distinction on the Development of the Human Race"], 92.

110

COMPONENTS OF THE CONTENT STRUCTURE OF THE WORD

The logician G. Frege notes, for example, that in the expressions morning star and evening star we are interested in the OBJECT which is denoted by these expressions — their meanings are identical. But if we are interested in the CONTENT of these expressions, then their meanings are different. Frege gives each of these meanings its own name: the first one is BEDEUTUNG (Russell translates this term as CONNOTATION, and Black as REFERENCE) and the second is SINN (MEANING in Russell's translation, SENSE in Black's). In the first instance we are interested in the object, in the second instance in the content of the name, in the name. Therefore Frege asserts: "The name itself (word, sign, combination of signs, expression) expresses its meaning, substitutes for something, or denotes what it pertains to. By means of the sign we express its meaning and denote its object." 1 1 6 An interesting point of view concerning sense is found in the works of A. Church. Concerning himself specifically with an analysis of proper names, he writes: "We shall say that a name denotes or names its denotation and expresses its sense. ... Of the sense we say that it determines the denotation, or is a concept of the denotation. Concepts we think of as non-linguistic in character — since synonymous names, in the same or different languages, express the same sense or concept — and since the same name may also express different senses, either in different languages or, by equivocation, in the same language." 117 The facts show that it is indeed possible to speak of the definitive role of one of the inner elements of content with respect to the denotatum. This element is, according to our results, not sense but the meaning of the word itself. Meaning defines the denotatum, arranging it in some system, relating to it as subject to predicate. This idea was expressed by A. M. PeSkovskij: "If the word, which possesses form, is equated with the sentence ... then the

114

G. Frege, "Vom Sinn und Bedeutung". Α. Cerö, Vvedenie ν matematiöeskuju logiku [A. Church, Introduction ίο Mathematical Logic], 19. 117

ASPECTS OF THE WORD

111

material part of the word may be called the subject of this microscopic sentence." 118 On the basis of these facts we can recognize the existence of a predicative relation between all three of the basic elements of word content: sign