LECTURE 2
In modem linguistics, Saussure was the first
scholar to consider language as a structural
system of signs. In Saussure's view of
language as a system of signs, a sign and a
system are mutually conditioning, since a
sign only derives its value from within the
system on the basis of its relation to other
signs.
For him the linguistic sign itself has two sides: a given notion
("concept") that is associated in the brain with a certain phonic
image ("image acoustique"). Both are mutually conditioning and
evoke each other mutually.
Saussure stresses repeatedly that the linguistic sign is a mental
unit and doesn't link a thing and a name but a concept and a
phonic image. This image is for him nothing material, physical
but a mental impression of a sound.
Saussure postulated two principles:
• 1. the arbitrariness of the sign, and
• 2.linear character of the signifiant (the term which was
introduced by Saussure and replaced the term "image
acoustique"). For him the relation between the two sides of
the linguistic sign is fundamentally arbitrary, non-motivated,
or conventional.
For Saussure the linguistic sign is binary or
bilateral, since it consists of two parts. Its
meaning, its content is defined as a concept and
therefore as a psychological or mental entity.
Saussure consequently uses a binary, mentalistic
model of the sign abstracted from the users and
the functions of the sign. In his model the
extralinguistic object denoted by the linguistic
sign is not included.
There is no direct relationship between the word or
'symbol' and the extralinguistic thing or "referent”
denoted by it. This is symbolized by the broken line
connecting two corners, which Ogden/Richards
characterize as "an imputed relation", saying that the
"symbol" "stands for the "referent”. The relationship
between the two corners is indirect and mediated by a
concept or thought, which Ogden/Richards also label
reference, since in this schema a psychological or
mental entity, and namely thought, plays a role, we have
a mentalistic model here too.
Saussure's binary model of the sign is expanded in
the semiotic triangle into a triadic model with the
corners symbol, thought and referent. However, this
model still excludes the speaker and the hearer.
Thus, both models, the ""Saussurean egg" and the
triangle, are non-pragmatic as they are abstracted
from the users of the sign.
It was as late as 1934, when Кarl Buhler in his organon
theory ("Organon Model") included the speaker and
the hearer in his theory as well as the extralinguitic
referent.
Diagram has to be understood in the following way. The sign in
the centre links a sender (normally the speaker) with an
addressee (normally the hearer) and the represented objects
and relations. The connecting lines between the sign and the
three elements symbolizе the three most important functions
of the complex sign, i.e. language, and namely, Expression
(also called "emotive function"), Representation (also called
"referential function"), and Appeal (also called "conative or
vocative function"). Language as well as the individual
linguistic sign, is an "organon", i.e. an instrument or tool for its
users, hence the name of Buhler's linguistic model.
Semasiology
• The branch of Lexicology that is devoted to the
study of meaning is known as Semasiology.
• Meaning is one of the most controversial terms
in the theory of language and there is no
universally accepted definition of meaning.
REFERENTIAL APPROACH
• All major works on semantic theory have been based on
referential concepts of meaning. The essential feature of
this approach is to distinguish correlation between the three
components closely connected with meaning: the soundform of the linguistic sign, the concept underlying this
sound-form, and the actual referent, i.e. that part or that
aspect of reality to which the linguistic sign refers.
• The complex relationships between these 3 components
(referent, concept and word) are traditionally represented
by Ogden and Richards' triangle.
The common feature of any referential
approach is the implication that meaning is
in some form or other connected with the
referent. It is easily observed that the soundform of the word is not identical with its
meaning.
• e.g. [dog] is the sound-form used to denote domestic animal.
There is no inherent connection between this particular soundcluster and the meaning of the word "dog". The connection is
conventional arbitrary (произвольное). This can be easily
illustrated by comparing the sound-forms of words in different
languages conveying one and the same meaning: [dog],
[sobaka], [hunt].
• It can also be proved by comparing almost identical soundforms that possess different meaning in different languages, The
sound-cluster [beg] in the English language means "to ask smb to
do smth", but in Russian almost the same sound-cluster denotes
the meaning "the process of movement".
• The arbitrary nature of the connection between soundform and meaning is also proved by comparing
homonyms (e.g. ball).
• Besides, if meaning were inherently connected with the
sound-form of a linguistic unit, it would follow that a
change in sound-form would evoke a change of
meaning. But we know perfectly well, that even
considerable changes in the sound-form of a word in
the course of its historical development do not
necessarily affect its meaning. [husband]
Meaning and concept
There is also no full identity between meaning and
concept. Concept is a category of human cognition.
Concept is the thought of the object that singles out its
essential features. Our concepts abstract and reflect the
most common and typical features of the different
objects and phenomena in the world. All concepts are
almost the same for the whole humanity in one and the
same period of its historical development. The meanings
of words in different languages are different. E.g. дом
house (home)
The difference between meaning. and concept can also
be observed by comparing synonymous words and
word-groups expressing essentially (пo существу) the
same concepts but possessing linguistic meaning which
is felt as different in each of the units of those groups (big,
large, huge).
Referent and meaning
• There is also no identity between meaning and referent.
Meaning is a linguistic phenomenon but the denoted
object or the referent is beyond the scope of language.
• We can denote one and the same object by more than
one word of a different meaning. For instance, in a
speech situation a table can be denoted by the words
table, furniture, something, this and all these words may
have the same referent.
Functional approach to Meaning
An entirely different approach to meaning known as the
functional approach was introduced in structural linguistics. The
functional approach maintains that the meaning of a linguistic
unit may be studied only through its relation to other linguistic
units and not through its relation to either concept or referent. In a
very simplified form this view may be illustrated by the following.
As the distribution of the two words is different, it may be stated
that not only do they belong to different classes of words, but that
their meanings are different too.
• The same procedure may be used for analyzing
polysemantic words. E.g. we can observe the difference
of the meanings of the word "take" if we examine its
functions in different linguistic contexts: take the tram
(bus, cab) as opposed to '"take to smb" (привязаться к
к-л).
• To sum up we may say that in the functional approach
1) semantic investigation's' confined to the analysis of
the difference or sameness of meaning;
• 2) meaning is understood essentially as the function of
the use of linguistic units.