Words and Meaning Essay Sample

Peoples sometimes play games with words. Peoples may besides declaim or memorize lists of words. for illustration when seeking to larn the words of another linguistic communication or to retrieve proficient footings. And they may on occasion flick through a dictionary looking at words more or less indiscriminately. These are legitimate activities. gratifying or utile as they may be. But they are non typical utilizations of words. Typically. human existences use words for their significance. in context. as portion of communicative discourse. As Halliday has made clear ( see particularly 1. 6 above ) . vocabulary can be seen as portion of lexicogrammar. a lexicogrammar that represents the picks which users of a linguistic communication brand. a lexicogrammar that represents our ability to intend. For. finally. linguistic communication is about intending. The chief map of linguistic communication – and hence of words used in linguistic communication – is to intend.

This portion of the book is peculiarly concerned with researching the semantics of words. Section 2. 2 offers some remarks on significances as presented in lexicons. This is followed by brief treatment of potentially deceptive impressions about ‘original meaning’ ( 2. 3 ) and ‘correct meaning’ ( 2. 4 ) . In 2. 5 we try to explicate what we mean by a societal position on linguistic communication and significance. followed by some background on the theorising of Saussure and Firth ( 2. 6 ) and Chomsky

and cognitive linguists ( 2. 7 ) . We so look at the deductions of our speculating for linguistic communication and world ( subdivision 2. 8 ) and. to open up a multilingual position. we talk about the diverseness of linguistic communications in the universe ( subdivision 2. 9 ) and about the procedure of interpreting from one linguistic communication to another ( 2. 10 ) .

2. 2 Wordss and significance
A dictionary seems the obvious topographic point to happen a record of the significances of words. In many parts of the English-speaking universe. lexicons 24 COLIN YALLOP have achieved such prestigiousness that people can advert ‘the dictionary’ as one of their institutional texts. instead in the same manner that they might mention to Shakespeare or the Bible. Such position means that a printed lexicon may easy be seen as the theoretical account of word-meanings. We may so. uncritically. presume that a dictionary in book signifier is the appropriate theoretical account of words as a constituent of linguistic communication or of wordmeanings stored as an stock list in the human encephalon or head.

In fact a lexicon is a extremely abstract concept. To make the occupation of showing words more or less separately. in an accessible list. the dictionary takes words off from their common usage in their customary scenes. While this is in many respects a utile occupation. the listing of words as a set of stray points can be extremely deceptive if used as a footing of speculating about what words and their significances are.

There is of class no such thing as ‘the dictionary’ . For a linguistic communication such as English there are many lexicons. published in assorted editions in assorted states to accommodate assorted markets. The definitions or accounts of significance in a dictionary have been drawn up by peculiar lexicologists and editors and are accordingly capable to a figure of restrictions. Even with the benefit of entree to corpora. to big measures of text in electronic signifier. lexicologists can non cognize the full use of most words across a big community. and may be given to convey single or even idiosyncratic positions to their work. In the yesteryear. lexicons were rather frequently evidently stamped by the position of an single. We have already mentioned Samuel Johnson’s definition of excise as ‘a hateful tax’ ( 1. 7 above ) . and. as another illustration. here is Johnson’s definition of frequenter:

frequenter. one who countenances. supports or protects. Normally a wretch who supports with crust and is paid with flattery. Modern lexicologists by and large aim to avoid this sort of tendentiousness. Surely today’s lexicons tend to be promoted as utile or dependable instead than as personal or provocative. However. despite the obvious drawbacks of a dictionary that represents an single editor’s position of the universe. it is too bad that dictionary users are non reminded more frequently of the extent to which dictionary definitions are distilled from discourse. and frequently from switching. combative discourse. In any event. lexicologists can ne’er claim to give a complete and accurate record of significance. A squad of adept lexicologists may by their really age and experience tend to overlook recent alterations in significance ; or they may be given to compose definitions which are elegant instead than accurate or simple ; or they may follow conventions of definition WORDS AND MEANING 25 which are merely that – lexicographical conventions – instead than semantic rules.

Dictionaries frequently tend to favor certain sorts of proficient designation. definitions that describe Canis familiaris as Cam’s familiaris. or acetum as ‘dilute and impure acetic acid’ . While this sort of information may sometimes be exactly what the dictionary-user is looking for. it is problematic whether it constitutes a realistic history of intending. Many of us communicate easy and merrily about many subjects. including domestic animate beings. nutrient. cookery. and so on. without cognizing the zoological categorization of animate beings or the chemical composing of things we keep in the kitchen. Possibly people ought to cognize information like the proficient names of animate beings or the chemical composing of things they buy and consume. whether as general cognition or for their wellness or safety. But it would be a bold move. and a semantic deformation. to claim that people who don’t cognize such information don’t know the significance of the words they use.

In general. it is unwise to presume that significance is captured in dictionary entries. in the definitions or accounts given against the words. Dictionary definitions can and should be enlightening and helpful. and. when good written. they provide a paraphrasis or account of significance. But the significance is non needfully to the full contained or thoroughly captured within such a definition. This is non to state that significances are obscure or ethereal. Within the conventions of a peculiar linguistic communication. significances contrast with each other in established and frequently precise ways. Speakers of the same linguistic communication can convey significances to each other with considerable preciseness. Wordss do non intend whatever we want them to intend. but are governed by societal convention. However. we can non presume. without making. that the diction of a dictionary definition is an ideal representation of what a word means.

Widening this point. we usually use and respond to significances in context. As users of linguistic communication we know that someone’s reference of a recent telecasting programme about large cats in Africa implies a different significance of cat from a mention to the figure of isolated cats in the metropolis of New York. And if person negotiations about ‘letting the cat out of the bag’ or ‘setting the cat among the pigeons’ . we know that the significance has to be taken from the whole look. non from a word-by-word reading of Felis catus leaping out of a bag or trailing Columbidae. Any good lexicon recognises this by such schemes as naming different senses of a word. giving illustrations of use. and handling certain combinations of words ( such as parlances ) as lexical units. But it is of import to recognize that this contextualisation of significance is in the really nature 26 COLIN YALLOP

of linguistic communication and non some unfortunate divergence from an ideal state of affairs in which every word of the linguistic communication ever makes precisely the same semantic part to any vocalization or discourse. For grounds such as these. we should be cautious about the position that words have a basic or nucleus significance. surrounded by peripheral or subordinate significance ( s ) . For illustration. the really ordination of different definitions or senses in a lexicon may connote that the first sense is the most cardinal or of import. In fact there are several grounds for the sequence in which different senses are presented. Some lexicons. particularly modern 1s intended for scholars of the linguistic communication. may utilize a principal to set up which are the most frequent utilizations of a word in a big measure of text. and may name senses of a word in order of frequence. Some lexicologists follow a historical order. giving the oldest recorded senses foremost ( even if these are now disused and mostly unknown ) . Or a compiler may order the senses in a manner that makes the specifying easier and more concise ( which is likely of aid to the reader. even though it intends no claim about the centrality of the first sense listed ) .

For case. the word season is normally used in phrases like the football season. the rainy season. the tourer season. the cockamamie season. a season ticket. in season. out of season. These uses taken together likely outnumber what many people may believe of as the cardinal significance

of season as ‘one of the four seasons. spring. summer. fall and winter’ . But the lexicologist may judge it reasonable to get down the entry with the ‘four seasons of the year’ sense. non merely because this is possibly what most readers expect. but besides because the subsequent definitions of season as ‘a period of the twelvemonth marked by certain conditions’ or ‘a period of the twelvemonth when a peculiar activity takes place’ . and so on. may look easier to hold on if preceded by the purportedly basic sense. To take another illustration. see the first four senses listed for the noun rose in the Macquarie Concise Dictionary ( 1998 ) . Some of the definitions have been abbreviated for this illustration:

1. any of the wild or cultivated. normally prickly-stemmed. showy-flowered bush representing the genus Rosa …
2. any of assorted related or similar workss.
3. the flower of any such bushs …
4. an decoration shaped like or proposing a rose …
The sequence of these senses is non random and the entry has been written or edited as a whole. The 2nd sense. utilizing the words ‘related’ and ‘similar’ . assumes the reader has read the first definition ; WORDS AND MEANING 27

the 3rd ( ‘any such shrubs’ ) presupposes the first and 2nd ; and so on. The Macquarie Concise entry for rose besides demonstrates that lexicons are obliged to order points at more than one degree. There are of class two rather distinguishable roses. the one we have merely been speaking about. and the one which is the past tense of rise. The Macquarie Numberss these distinguishable significances. as many lexicons do. with a superscriptl and2. giving all the senses of the flower or shrub ( and the rose-like objects ) under the first rose. and so merely bespeaking that the 2nd rose is the past tense of rise. Probably most dictionary users find this the reasonable order.

Possibly nouns seem more of import. particularly 1s which have several different senses. Possibly the 2nd rose seems as though it is here by chance – it truly belongs under rise. Evidence from corpora suggests that the verb signifier rose ( as in ‘the sea degree rose by 120 metres’ or ‘exports rose 2 per cent’ or ‘the evil jinni rose from the jar’ ) is used far more often than the noun ; but this greater frequence does non look to give precedence to the verb in the heads of dictionary compilers and users.

It sometimes seems to be mere convention to name certain significances foremost. Definitions of the word have frequently begin with the sense of ‘possess’ or ‘own’ . and many people may so believe of this as the cardinal or ordinary significance of the word. In fact. principal grounds

indicates that the utilizations of have as an subsidiary verb ( as in ‘they have shown small interest’ ) and in combinations like have to ( as in ‘we have to make better following time’ ) are more frequent than utilizations like ‘they have two cars’ or ‘we have a little house’ .

Impressions of what is a basic or cardinal significance of a word may therefore be encouraged and perpetuated in a assortment of ways. including common beliefs about words ( which may or may non fit existent use ) every bit good as lexicographical tradition. Sometimes such impressions may be given formal acknowledgment. For illustration. it is common to separate indication from intension. If taken as a serious semantic or philosophical claim. the differentiation tends to divide what a word refers to from the associations that the word conjures up in the head. More popularly. and sometimes simplistically. the differentiation becomes a manner of dividing a nucleus significance from peripheral or variable facets of significance. But the differentiation is by no agencies straightforward. It is complicated by the fact that what a word refers to in a peculiar context ( as when speaking to you I mention ‘your cat’ ) is non what is normally intended by indication ( which is more like ‘any cat’ or ‘the category of cats’ ) . The impression of indication besides runs the hazard of placing intending with a category of objects or some idealized version thereof. as if significance can be 28 COLIN YALLOP

anchored in a universe of concrete objects. This is clearly non really helpful in the instance of many words. such as abstract nouns in general or verbs like believe. dream. believe. concern or names like good. sort. cryptic. hapless. And even where a indication can be satisfactorily identified. it is non axiomatic that this is an appropriate manner of characterizing significance. The term intension tends to steal awkwardly between something like ‘peripheral meaning’ and ’emotive meaning’ and ‘personal associations’ . The impression of peripheral significance merely raises the inquiry of what is cardinal or nucleus significance and why it should be so. It is clear from illustrations already given that the most often used sense of a word is non ever the 1 that strikes most people as the nucleus significance. And it is every bit clear that the older senses of a word are frequently neither the most frequent in current use. nor the most basic by any other imaginable standard.

Even ’emotive meaning’ . which might look a good campaigner for the borders of significance. can non ever be considered peripheral. If I say to you ‘Did you hear what happened to hapless Sid? ’ . the semantic part of hapless must certainly be ’emotive’ : the word says nil about Sid’s deficiency of wealth. but seeks to set up and arouse sympathy towards Sid. And this is barely peripheral. since my inquiry to you is most likely intended to present. and prosecute your involvement in. a narrative of Sid’s misfortune. Similar things can be said about the usage of adjectives like lucky and unstylish. which normally serve to signal the speaker’s attitude. and even about the verb think when used in vocalizations like ‘I think the meeting starts at noon’ ( in which the words ‘I think’ service to do the message less important or dogmatic ) or ‘I think these are your keys’ ( as a polite manner of stating person they are about to go forth their keys behind ) . Thus what might be termed ’emotive meaning’ or ‘attitudinal’ significance may sometimes be an built-in portion of discourse.

On the other manus. if ‘associations’ truly are personal or idiosyncratic. so they barely qualify as significance at all. since they can non lend to regular meaningful exchanges. Suppose. for illustration. I have a fancy for a peculiar sort of flower. state. clove pinks. possibly because of some valued childhood memory of them or other such personal experience. This may good hold some effects in my behavior. including my discourse: I may frequently purchase clove pinks. whereas you ne’er do. I may advert clove pinks more than you do. and so on. But does it follow from any of this that you and I have a different significance of the word clove pink? Both of us. if we speak English. understand what is meant when person says ‘carnations are beautiful flowers’ . ‘carnations are good value for money’ and ‘most people like WORDS AND MEANING 29 carnations’ . whether we agree with the truth of these claims or non. Indeed. to differ with these statements requires an apprehension of what they mean. merely every bit much as holding with them does.

Of class to the extent that an association is shared throughout a community. it does lend to talk about and go portion of significance. If a name like Hitler or Stalin is non merely widely known but widely associated with certain sorts of evil behavior. so it becomes possible for people to state things like ‘what a calamity the state is being run by such a Hitler’ or ‘the new foreman is a existent Stalin’ . And if people do state things like this. the names are on their manner to going meaningful words of the linguistic communication. along a similar way to that followed by words like boycott and sandwich. which had their beginnings in names of people associated with peculiar events or objects. ( Note how boycott and sandwich are now written with initial lower-case letters instead than the capitals which would tag them as names. We might likewise anticipate to see the signifiers Hitler and Stalin looking in print. if these names were to go echt lexical points depicting sorts of people. )

There may besides be differences of experience and associations within a community which have systematic lingual effects. If. for illustration. some talkers of English love domestic cats while others detest them. this may good stay fringy to lingual systems. But there may be little but regular lingual differences between the talkers: for illustration some people may ever mention to a cat as ‘he’ or ‘she’ while for others a cat is ever ‘it’ . and some people may utilize cat as the histrion of procedures like Tell and think ( as in ‘my cat Tells me when it’s clip for bed’ or ‘the cat thinks this is the best room in the flat’ ) whereas others would ne’er utilize this sort of building. To that extent we may hold ( somewhat ) different lingual systems. say one in which a cat is quasi-human in contrast to one in which a cat is steadfastly non-human. In that instance. it is legitimate to recognize two slightly different significances of cat and two minor discrepancies of English lexicogrammar.

For significance is finally molded and determined by communal use. A dictionary definition of a word’s significance has authorization merely in so far as it reflects the manner in which those who speak and write the linguistic communication usage that word in echt communicating. In this sense. significance has a societal quality. and while it is sometimes convenient to believe of the significance of a word as a construct. as ‘something stored in the human mind’ . this is legitimate merely to the extent that the construct is seen as an abstraction out of discernible societal behavior. An overview of issues to make with word significance. and mentions to authoritative treatments such as Lyons ( 1977 ) . can be found in the first two 30 COLIN YALLOP subdivisions of Chapter 3 of Jackson and Ze Amvela ( 1999 ) . We will return to the issues in the undermentioned subdivisions of this chapter. both to lucubrate our ain positions of linguistic communication as societal behavior and of significance as a societal phenomenon. and to contrast our positions with others.

2. 3 Etymology
In this subdivision we look briefly at the relevancy of historical development. Changes in linguistic communication – specifically changes in intending – are inevitable. but they are sometimes decried. as if linguistic communication ought to be fixed at some period in clip. In fact. efforts to repair significances or to bind words to their ‘original’ significances deny the societal world of lingual use. ( In the undermentioned subdivision. 2. 4. we will look more by and large at efforts to order and modulate meaning. )

Warburg tells the narrative of a attorney who disputed a witness’s usage of the word hysterical ( Warburg 1968. pp. 351-2 ) . The informant had described a immature man’s status as ‘hysterical’ . But. the attorney pointed out. this word was derived from the Grecian hystera. intending ‘uterus’ or ‘womb’ . The immature adult male didn’t have a womb. so he couldn’t perchance be ‘hysterical’ . Would a good attorney truly anticipate to hit a point by this sort of entreaty to etymology? Few of us are likely to be persuaded to alter our position of the current significance of the word hysterical It is true that the word is based on the Greek for ‘uterus’ ( and the Grecian component appears in that sense in English medical footings such as hysterectomy and hysteroscopy ) . But it is besides true that words may alter their significance and that the modern significance of hysterical has more to make with uncontrolled emotional behavior. by work forces or adult females. than with the womb as a bodily organ.

Sometimes an older sense of a word survives in limited contexts. while the most frequent significance has changed. The word meat. for illustration. now has the common significance of ‘animal flesh used as food’ . but its Old English ancestor was a word that had the more general significance of ‘food’ . Traces of the older more general significance can be seen in phrases and expressions like meat and drink ( i. e. ‘food and drink’ ) and one man’s meat is another man’s toxicant ( i. e. ‘one man’s nutrient is another man’s poison’ ) . The word sweetmeat besides demonstrates the older sense. Other than in these restricted contexts. the older significance of the word has become non merely disused but irrelevant to modern use. If you ask today whether a certain supermarket sells meat. or speak about the sum of meat consumed in Western Europe. or have an statement about what sort of meat is in a meat pie. no WORDS AND MEANING 31 1 who speaks English intermissions to inquire whether you truly intend meat to intend ‘food in general’ instead than ‘animal flesh’ .
Indeed. older significances become lost from position. and phrases and expressions may even be reinterpreted to accommodate the new significance.

The word silly had an older sense of ‘happy’ ( compare German selig. ‘blessed’ ) but this sense has been ousted by the current significance of ‘foolish’ or ‘absurd’ . A phrase sometimes applied to the county of Suffolk in eastern England. silly Suffolk. day of the months from the yearss when Suffolk was one of the wealthier counties. and hence ‘happy’ or ‘fortunate’ . But if the expression is quoted at all these yearss. either it has to be explained. as we have merely done here. or it is taken to be an allegation of folly or retardation.

The word prove one time had the sense of ‘try’ or ‘test’ but the most common modern significances are of class ‘show beyond doubt’ ( as in ‘we all suspect him of corruptness but no 1 has been able to turn out it’ ) and ‘turn out’ ( as in ‘the book proved to hold tonss of utile information in it’ ) . The stating that the exclusion proves the regulation shows the older sense – an exclusion so ‘tests’ whether a regulation is truly valid or needs to be reformulated. But the expression is frequently reinterpreted. with prove taken in its modern sense. to intend that an uneven exclusion really confirms a regulation. This is clearly non true – an exclusion doesn’t support a regulation. it challenges it – but such is the power of current significance to obliterate the old.

There is a long history of involvement in etymology. in ‘where words have come from’ . and many big lexicons of English include etymological information ( see McArthur 1992. pp. 384-6. Landau 1989. pp.

98-104. Green 1996. clairvoyance. pp. 337-48 ) . Unfortunately. until the development of methodical historical linguistics in the 19th century. much etymology was extremely bad and frequently erroneous. Misguided guessing about the beginnings of words can be found in ancient Europe. for illustration in the work of Varro. a Roman grammarian active in the first century BC ( Green 1996. p. 41 ) . and the pattern of seeking to associate as many words as possible to a comparatively little figure of allegedly simple or basic words was common until the mid-nineteenth century. Green cites a authoritative illustration from the late 18th century. in which a whole array of English words were claimed to be derived from or based on the word saloon: therefore a saloon is a sort of defense mechanism or strengthening. and a barn is a covered enclosure to protect or support what is stored in it. a flatboat is a strong boat. the bark of a tree is its protection. the bark of a Canis familiaris is its defense mechanism. and so on ( Green 1996. p. 353 ) . In fact. careful historical research indicates that the word saloon. as in the bars in a fencing or across a window. came into English 32 COLIN YALLOP

from Old French. while barn is from an Old English compound significance ‘barley store’ . flatboat is related to an Old Gallic word for a sort of boat. the bark of a tree is a word of Norse beginning. and the bark of a Canis familiaris goes back to the Old English verb beorcan. ‘to bark’ . which is non related to the other bark. These assorted words are of different beginnings. there is no grounds that they are all based on saloon. and the thought that they are all clustered around the impression of defense mechanism is pure guess. Occasionally. an erroneous beginning has become enshrined in the linguistic communication by a procedure of ‘folk etymology’ . in which the pronunciation or spelling of a word is modified on a false analogy. The word bridegroom. for illustration. has no historical connexion with the groom

employed to be given Equus caballuss. The Old English ancestor of bridegroom is brydguma. where guma is a word for ‘man’ . The word ought to hold become bridegoom in modern English. but as the word guma fell out of usage. the signifier goom was popularly reinterpreted ( with a alteration in pronunciation and spelling ) as groom. A similar procedure of seeking to do the uneven seem familiar sometimes applies to words adapted from other linguistic communications. The groundhog. or ‘ground hog’ . has a name taken from a North American Algonquian word which. in its nearest anglicised pronunciation. might be something like otchek or odjik. The word has nil to make with either wood or chow. but was adapted to look as if it did.

There is nil incorrect with being interested in where a word has come from. and many people who use modern lexicons expect historical or etymological information to be included. For much of the 19th and 20th centuries. most lexicons gave considerable prominence to historical information. The first complete edition of what is now normally referred to as the ‘Oxford dictionary’ was entitled A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. and it set out to enter the history of words. non merely their current significances ( see 1. 5 above ; but non all subsequent Oxford lexicons. including assorted abridged editions and lexicons for scholars. hold had the same historical precedence ) . It barely needs to be said that modern professional lexicologists try to avoid guess and guessing and to give lone information based on good research.

It is so frequently interesting to cognize something of a word’s history and its blood relations in other linguistic communications. and many ( though non all ) modern lexicons still include etymological information. English happens to portion with most European languages a moderately welldocumented Indo-germanic heritage.
Languages like Greek. Latin