Lexicology is the study of the (mental) lexicon, i.e. of the signs (e.g. words and morphemes) of a language and the relations between them. As defined in Chapter 2, signs are associations between a form and a meaning. We have looked in detail at form in terms of phonetics and phonology (Chapters 3 and 4) and we have also looked at signs in terms of their morphology, i.e., their internal structure and their ability to combine (Chapter 5). Morphology required us to pay attention to both form and meaning, but the meaning did not play a major role in our discussion. It is now time to change this and to take a more detailed look at meaning as such.
There are a number of issues to consider. The first issue concerns the nature of meaning itself. In Chapter 2 we introduced the idea that signs can “mean” in two ways. First, they can be associated with a particular concept. This is what we mean when we say “What does tree mean?” We expect an answer that describes the associated concept, e.g. “any perennial woody plant of considerable size and growing with a single trunk”. We call this sense. Second, they can be used to refer to a particular entity. This is what we mean when we say “Which tree do you mean (when you say the tree)?” We expect an answer that points out a particular tree. We call this reference. In Sections 6.2 and 6.3, we will look more closely at these different ways in which words can mean. In doing so, we will discuss the relationship between language and the world in more detail than we have done so far.
The second issue concerns the question how to represent meaning in linguistic descriptions of signs. So far, we have used dictionary-like definitions to do so, and in many contexts, this is a reasonable thing to do. However, there are certain problems that we need to keep in mind in doing so. Section 6.4 will discuss these and introduce an alternative way of representing meaning that has been tried in linguistics: semantic features. Although this alternative way has failed, there are some lessons we can learn from it.
The third issue concerns the relationship between the meaning of words and our knowledge about the referents of words. Is it part of the meaning of the word tree that trees are tall, or is that just something we know to be true of (most of) the trees that we observe in our environment? And what about knowledge that not all speakers have about trees — such as the fact that they remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere? Can such knowledge be part of the meaning of a word? Finally, what about properties that we associate with the referents of a word but that not all of them share, such as the knowledge that trees can bear fruit? Can such knowledge be part of the meaning of a word? All these issues will be discussed in Chapter 6.5.
The fourth issue concerns the fact that words are not always neutral descriptions of entities, processes or properties. We can refer to a particular smell as an aroma or an odor — the first word implies a positive evaluation, the second word implies a negative evaluation. Such evaluative aspects of meaning are discussed in Section 6.6.
The fifth issue concerns the fact that the relationship between forms and meanings is not always straightforward: the form /triː/ tree can refer to a tall plant or to a chart listing the ancestors of a particular individual, and the word /bæŋk/ bank can refer to the edge of a river, or to an institution that keeps your money for you. While we may see a certain resemblance between the plant tree and a family tree, there is no resemblance between riversides and financial institutions. Section 6.7 will deal with this and related phenomena.
The sixth and final issue concerns the relationship between words. Many words do not seem to be inherently related, for example, tree and bank. We can easily imagine sentences where they occur together, such as Trees grew along the bank of the river or The director of the investment bank was very proud of his family tree, but the relationship between the words is created by the context that these sentences evoke. In contrast, tree and bush or tall and high are inherently related: tree and bush both refer to a type of plant, and tall and high both refer to a large vertical extent. Sections 6.8 and 6.9 will deal with such relationships between words.
A final note: We will be concerned with nouns, verbs and adjectives in this chapter. This is not to suggest that words from other word classes — prepositions, articles, pronouns, auxiliaries etc. do not have meaning. But there is a qualitative difference between the types of meanings expressed: nouns, verbs, adjectives and adverbs have very rich meanings that are related to the content of our communicative acts — we can use them to talk about objects, animals, humans, places, actions, states, relations, etc. They are often referred to as content words because of this. They form a very flexible part of the lexicon, that can easily be extended if humans need words for new entities, new actions, new relationships. Because of this, they are also referred to as open-class words. In contrast, prepositions, articles, pronouns, auxiliaries etc. have very general and abstract meanings — we use them not so much to talk about the world, as to relate content words to each other or modify them in particular ways. They are often referred to as function words, we will see many of them in action in Chapter 8. It is very difficult to add new words to these word classes, even if a speech community decides that it would be useful, as in the case of non-gendered pronouns. Because of this, they are often referred to as closed-class words.
CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0, Written by Anatol Stefanowitsch