Lexicology Lecture Notes

LEXICOLOGY.
Interpreters’
Department
Lecture I. Lexical units: their properties and specific features

1. Lexicology; a myth or reality. The object and the subject matter of lexicology.
2. Lexical units: their properties and specific features.
3. The description of the lexicon in generative grammar.
4. The function of lexical units. Nomination (verbalization) processes: causes, ways, types and results.
5. Motivated versus non-motivated lexical units.
6. The word – why? Why is the word a necessary condition of language?

Recommended Reading

1. Arnold I.V. The English Word/ И.В. Арнольд. Лексикология современного английского языка. Изд. 3-е – М. : Высшая школа, 1986. – C. 9 – 26
2. Ginzburg R.S., Khidekel S.S., Knyazeva G.Y., Sankin A.A. A Course in Modern English Lexicology – M. : Higher School Publishing House, 1979. – P. 5 – 11
3. Смирницкий А.И. Лексикология английского языка. – М.: Изд-во литературы на иностр. языках, 1959. – С. 5 – 47.
4. Харитончик З.А. Лексикология английского языка. – Минск: Вышэйшая школа, 1992. – С. 5– 26.
5. Языковая номинация (Общие вопросы). – М.: Наука, 1977.
6. Языковая номинация (Виды наименований). – М.: Наука, 1977.
7. Weinreich U. Soviet and East European Linguistics. Current Trends in Linguistics. In: Readings in Modern English Lexicology) C.С. Хидекель, Р.З.Гинзбург, Г.Ю. Князева, А.А.Санкин. Английская лексикология в выдержках и извлечениях. – Л.: Просвещение Ленинградское отделение. 1969. – P. 6 – 8.
8. Quirk R. The Use of English. – In: Readings in Modern English Lexicology. C.С. Хидекель, Р.З.Гинзбург, Г.Ю. Князева, А.А.Санкин. Английская лексикология в выдержках и извлечениях. – Л.: «Просвещение» Ленинградское отделение. 1969. – P.56 – 62 .
9. Weinreich U. Languages in Contact. – In: Texts on Lexical Semantics. Reader in English Lexicology. Minsk State Linguistic University, 1998. – P. 61– 65
10. Spencer A. Morphological Theory. An Introduction to Word Structure in Generative Grammar. – Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1993. – Part I. Ch. 1. The domain of morphology. Ch.2 Basic concepts and pre-generative approaches. – P. 3 – 61.
11. Beard R. The Indo-European Lexicon. A Full Synchronic Theory. Amsterdam, N.Y., Oxford:North-Holland Publishing Company. 1985. – Ch.1. Evidence of Words and Lexicons. Ch.2. The Functions and Properties of the Lexicon. – P. 11– 51.

Key words: lexicon (vocabulary, word-stock, lexis), lexicology, word, morpheme, sentence/ utterance, production/ reproduction, motivation, arbitrariness, dictionary, naming (nomination, verbalization).

In British or American universities students who major in linguistics study no such science as lexicology. In textbooks on linguistics widely used there (see, e.g. [], []) there is no chapter which can be attributed as having to do with lexicology. Though this does nor indicate by all means any lack of interest in the study of the lexicon on the part of our British and American colleagues, lexicology as a science seems to be an invention of the Soviet school of thought, of the Soviet tradition within which one can easily find a diversity of lexicologies: e.g. lexicology of the Russian language by N.N. Shansky [], lexicology of the German language by I.I.Chernysheva and M.D.Stepanova [], lexicology of the French language by Z.N.Levit [], lexicologies of the English language by A.I.Smirnitsky [], I.V.Arnold [], R.S. Ginzburg, S.S.Khidekel, G.Y.Knyazeva, A.A.Sankin [], Z.A.Kharitonchik [], L.M.Lescheva [] to name but a few.
Recently the idea of a special discipline which aims at the all round description and study of the vocabulary of a language, its development, structure and use has caught up and today we are witnesses to an Outline of English Lexicology [] written by an outstanding German linguist Leonard Lipka [], to a course in lexicology at Exeter University in England and many other suchlike developments in various corners of the world. But with or without lexicology as a special discipline, no science of the language can do without the study of the central part of the language – its lexicon, its vocabulary since no language description can ever be complete without the description of the lexicon.
This study can be oriented in many ways:
– towards the synchronic description of the vocabulary of a particular language,
– towards the study of diachronic or historical processes and laws which govern the development of the vocabulary,
– towards the comparative or contrastive analysis of the lexicon of particular languages,
– towards the research of the functional properties of the vocabulary units. The description of the lexicon can have applied purposes. The major domains of application are lexicography, or the science of compiling dictionaries, teaching languages, especially the domain of second language acquisition, computerization.
The study of the language lexicon is closely related, or intertwined with phonetics, phonology, grammar – morphology and syntax, stylistics, history of the language, the subject matter of which is the study of various aspects of vocabulary units – their sound form, combinability, usage as elements of an utterance or discourse, spheres of usage, etc. One might say that the lexicon, being the centre or the core of any language, forms a focal point at the crossroads of the above mentioned sciences and brings various branches of linguistic research into one closely tied science known as linguistics.
Sharing its object with other linguistic disciplines lexicology nevertheless concentrates on its own aspects of analysis, mainly, structure, semantics, function, development of the lexicon, thus forming a special branch of linguistic science with its own aims, object of research and its own subject matter.
This lecture opens a course in Modern English Lexicology, the aim of which is the study and systematic description of the vocabulary of Present-Day English .
2. As soon as we have defined the object of our study we have to interpret what is meant by the term lexicon, or vocabulary. What kind of units does the vocabulary of a language, the English language in particular, embrace? To answer the question we have to view general problems of the systemic structure of the language. It has become a widely accepted assumption that a language system comprises several types of units, the total of which form sub-systems within the language usually described as language levels. These units, according to the most widely spread representation of the language system by Emile Benveniste, are roughly as follows: sentences which make up the communicative, or syntactic level, words,which constitute the lexical level, or subsystem, morphemes, which form the morphological level, or subsystem, phonemes, which are the consituents of the phonological level, or subsystem [].
It seems natural enough to deduce on the basis of the etymology of the term lexicology (lexicology (Gk) – lexicos ‘having to do with words’, logos ‘science, branch of science’) that the major and, perhaps, the only concern of lexicology is the subsystem of words.
But our lexicographic experience prompts us a different answer. One of the most developed branches of applied linguistics – lexicography, the aim of which is to register and systemically represent the vocabulary of a language, does not restrict its object to words only. Dictionaries also contain morphemes, e.g. word-building suffixes and prefixes. We make ample use of dictionaries of phrasal verbs, of proverbs and sayings, of phraseological units, quotations, etc. The lexicon, or the vocabulary as described by lexicographers contains morphemes and certain types of word combinations and sentences.
The need to account for the lexicographers’ decision to embrace various types of linguistic units leads us to the necessity of a closer inspection (view) of linguistic units.
The major properties against the background of which linguistic units can be viewed are form and meaning. All of the above mentioned linguistic units possess formal properties and all, with the exception of phonemes, are characterized by meaning. On this basis we can postulate the first rule by which we can draw the borderlines of the lexicon: lexical units are multi-faceted linguistic units, which are characterized at least by 2 features: meaning and form. This leads to the phonemes being ousted out of the vocabulary as they don’t bear any signifiсation but fulfill only a differentiating function, signalling by the differences in sound form the existence of sense differences and never defining what the differences in meanings are.
Another possible approach to delimit the lexicon and set it apart from the other language subsystems is based on the communicative role and performance of linguisitc units in communication.
When we view words and morphemes from this angle it becomes obvious that their function in communication is to serve as ready-made units which happen to be at the speakers’ disposal, words and morphemes performing a very significant role, or function as elements of the input, elements of the knowledge of language without which no communication is possible. They are prerequisites of communication which is a process of generating utterances in order to express one’s thoughts, attitudes, emotions, etc. Commmunication is a creative process based on a system of rules which dictate how we can operate with ready-made language units. The results of the process are an unbounded scope of utterances springing forth in accordance with rules to answer our diverse communicative needs: the expression of ideas, the presentation of information, the desire to amuse, etc. The majority of utterances are novel, and though they are perfectly comprehensible it is extremely unlikely that people have ever heard or seen them before, as they are produced by the speakers under the impact of an infinite number of communication situations in which a speech act takes place.
The distinction drawn on the basis of the produced versus reproduced character of linguistic units forms another basis on which border lines between the lexicon and syntax can be defined. Each of them embraces a different type of language phenomena pertaining to the form and organization of sentences. Lexical units are reproduced ready-made linguistiuc units which possess both form and meaning. According to this definition one should classify not only words but morphemes as well as units belonging to the the lexical system of the language.
At the same time one cannot but notice the existence of fixed expressions: greetings, proverbs, sayings, quotations, etc. which are sentences in structure but are reproduced in speech alongside fixed, non-variable set expressions which are word-combinations in form. According to the two rules we have worked out in order to delimit the vocabulary we cannot limit the lexicon to words and morphemes only. On the basis of the two criteria chosen and discussed above the lexicon of a language must necessarily include words, morphemes, ready-made word combinations and utterances, thus becoming a system of various types of lexical units. A trite metaphor which represents the lexicon as an entity of bricks necessary for building communicative structures helps us better understand the stability and the established character of the vocabulary, on the one hand, and its openness as a system to which new items can be easily added, on the other. Being a reproducible set of lexical units the lexicon of a language must be, first, a limited system, and second, an open system able to easily receive new items which appear in the course of communication and to get rid of old laxical units which are no longer used by the speakers. The dynamic character of the vocabulary with its dialectic interrelationship of stability, permanence and constant change is one of the striking properties of the lexicon which enables the speakers cover all their cognitive and communicative needs.
The total vocabulary of English is immense and runs about to approximately half a million items. None of us as individuals of course, knows more than a fairly limited number of these and uses even less. One cannot but agree with R.Quirk (an eminent British scholar) that the greater personal knowledge of vocabulary is (the more words we recognize and the more we know how to use), the better we are able to enjoy our environment and describe our experience of it ( R.Quirk. The use of English). No matter though how languages, or rather linguists who describe them and laymen who talk of them, can boast of the vastness and versatile character of the lexicon, at a definite moment of its existence the vocabulary is a bounded collection of items to register and count which and present in the form of arranged lists seems fairly impossible. One basic reason that underlies this impossibility is the never-ending process of change of the lexicon. The «noiseless machinery»(Otto Jespersen «A modern English Grammar on Historical Principles») of derivation, i.e. of creating new items as soon communicative necessity demands it, and borrowing names from other languages turn the lexicon of any language into an open system in which we find two broad categories of lexical units: closed and open. The closed categories are the function words: pronouns, conjunctions (and, if, because), determiners (a, the) and a few others. The major lexical categories: noun (N), verb (V), adjective (Adj.) and adverb (Adv.) are open as new units may be easily added to these classes.
The category of fixed, or set expressions is also open as some word-combinations or utterances may acquire the necessary stability and become an established member of the lexicon.
The count of the number of lexical units in the vocabulary is also impossible due to constant flow of lexical items out of the present-day word stock. A great number of names become obsolete and obsolescent, or tend to acquire an archaic flavour and disappear out of usage. Comparison of the second and third editions of Webster’s New International Dictionary of the English language unabridged, edited in 1940 and in 1961 correspondingly, shows a drop in the number of vocabulary items almost by 50 000 units: 500 000 in the 2nd edition and 450 000 in the 3rd , all archaic and obsolete words being dropped off.
There is one more, purely scientific reason why consideration of a definite number of units within the lexicon becomes a misleading and simplified intent. It concerns the processes of identifying lexical units as one word or expression or as different ones and thus describing them as individual non-identical items (homonyms) or uniting them as forms of one polysemantic unit (a more detailed treatment see in Problems of Lexicography). It also concerns the procedure of drawing a rigid enough line between a compound word and a free word combination, as well as the necessity to predict the future of a nonce-word, or an expression created for the occasion.
Due to the above mentioned causes the lexicon of a language is a vast enough subsystem of lexical items of various types which being bounded on the time axis is unbounded in its ability to embrace new items produced by the unlimited creative capacity of the language community.
3. The creative potential of the lexicon brings about another possibility of defining what kind of a structural entity the lexicon might be. The definitions given above help pinpoint the elementary units, or constituents of the system. But these same items can function as the starting point for the generation of other units, also lexical by nature. Henceforth a question arises: does the lexicon also embrace the rules, or operations on lexical units to generate novel lexical units in reply to the communicative needs. This brings to light various theories of the lexicon within a fairly new school of thought known as generative grammar. In order to comprehend the intricate design according to which the lexicon is woven into the language structure one has to keep in mind that in the generative tradition grammar embraces the whole of the language system: elements, sets of rules and conditions that allow people to speak and understand a language (Contemporary Linguistics, p. 270). Grammar in this sense of the term consists of the following components: Phonetics, the function of which is the articulation and perception of speech sounds, Phonology aimed at the patterning of speech sounds, Morphology, concerned with word and word-formformation, Syntax, or sentence formation, and Semantics the interpretation of words and sentences. P. 4 (Cont. Ling-ics).
This understanding of grammar goes as far back as the 1960-s when N.Chomsky, an outstanding American linguist, published his dissertation, titled as «Syntactic Structures» in which he made an attempt at modeling the language system to find answers to the following problems which he worded in the following way:
The 1st version of this Grammar as construed by Chomsky consisted of the syntactic component, phonological component, semantics and the transformational component the rules of which were to map the generated structures onto the surface, i.e. phonetic level. The lexicon, as one can clearly see, had no place in the grammar and constituted merely a list of ready-made units each of which was assigned some categorial and sub-categorial features, like Countable/Uncountable, Animate/Unanimate for nouns, Transitive/Intransitive for verbs, etc. The lexicon happens to be a list of units introduced at a definite syntactic level. 1960 saw the rise of dissident theories: with the publication of N.Chomsky’s “Notes on Nominalization” and R.Lees’s “The Grammar of English Nominalizations”. The first became the manifesto of the lexicalist approach to the lexicon, the other – of the transformationalist school of thought.
The main idea of the lexicalist treatment of the lexicon is that due to the idiosyncratic nature of complex lexical units (cf. worker, writer, transmission, etc. which develop specific senses not predicted by the rules of their formation) or admission, permission, the phonological forms of which turn to be alternating and specific as compared to split - splitting, sit - sitting, (for details see L.Bauer), the whole lexicon should be entered into the generative model in the form of a list. The gist of the transformationalist approach lies in the fact that a great number of lexical units are patterned according to some derivation rules which are very much similar to syntactic rules (see R.Lees’s description of the syntactic nature of compound words, or Selkirk’s syntax of words). This allows a more economical treatment of the lexicon where complex units are generated on the basis of simple forms via rules of derivation while non-derived forms and rules are presented in the form of a list.
The strife between the lexicalist and the transformationalist approaches gave birth to a great number of theories of the lexicon within generative grammar, morphology – both flectional and derivational – appearing as a crucial point in all these descriptions. A few examples are given below.
Halle’s latest version is oriented towards a solution of the major problem of grammar which is to describe the inventory of all the words really existent in the language, the order of arrangement of morphemes within words and idiosyncratic properties of individual words. His theory is a model in which the lexicon is a list of morphemes, on the basis of which via derivation rules all the words of the language are derived. To prevent the generation of non-existent or ungrammatical words Halle introduces a filter with the help of which all idiosyncratic properties of a lexical unit (which include semantic, morphological and other peculiarities of a unit) are assigned.
A list of ----------------------- derivation rules ------- filter --------Lexicon morphemes
Output ---------------------------- Phonology -------------------------------Syntax Fig.1. Halle’s latest version of grammar
M.Aronoff’s version differs from that of Halle in one crucial feature. The starting point for all derivation processes is not a list of morphemes but that of words. The lexicon for M.Aronoff is a list of words, which function as bases. Word composition is a part of syntax, there is no list of morphemes nor is there a filter just as regular patterns devoid of idiosyncratic features are not part of the lexicon.
There are variations in the treatment of morphemes – morphemes as things in which morphemes are autonomous units which in the processes of affixation, compounding, etc. are combined; 2) morphemes as rules in which rules, or operations play a predominant role.
A variety of theories within the generative trend is great. One can name but a few: Hockett’s Stem-and-Arrangement theory, Stem-and-Process theory and Word-and-Paradigm-theory by Robins and Mathews, Siegel’s Level Ordering Hypothesis, Natural Morphology by Dressler, Wurzel and Meiertaler, Syntax of words by Selkirk, S.Anderson’s Split Morphology and Extended Word-and paradigm theory. Two of the latest presentations are R.Beard’s Lexeme. Morpheme Base Morphology and Andrew Spencer’s Morphological Theory.

Morphology as an autonomous The Lexicon module a list of lexemes, idioms,
Derivational morphology idiosyncratic word forms
Paradigmatic word-formation Syntax
Lexical Compounding D-structure (deep structure)
Incorporation S-structure (surface structure)
Syntactic Compounds Empty Category Principle
Regular flections Theory of Government and Binding
Passive Constructions etc. Phonology Prosodic Domains
Fig.2. A.Spencer’s version of grammar

4. It seems proper that to solve the problem of the constituents of the lexicon we have to view it from the functional or dynamic point of view, i.e. from the angle of what lexical units are functionally destined for and of how they arise in the language system. The theory that discusses these problems is known as the theory of naming, or nomination, or verbalization, i.e. giving a name to a class of objects, properties, processes, events, etc. The roots of the naming theory go as far back as ancient times. One can easily quote Plato’s Cratylus as a very clear expression of ideas of those times on the processes of naming and correlation of names, or signs and things named, or signifieds.
To keep in mind one’s experience of the environment and to communicate one’s ideas to other human beings one has to give expression to those psychic constructs that appear in our brain/mind.)
The ever changing world, whose economic, social, political, scientific, etc. aspects are in the state of permanent change makes it an ever present necessity, a permanent cause for processes of naming to take place.
It is not only the world that changes, our knowledge of the world, of nature of things, of their interrelations and interdependencies changes too, and this change in our cognitive, conceptual, world predetermines another, also permanent, need of names to register our new ideas of our environment and its properties.
Together with our understanding of the surrounding world our emotional attitudes towards things, events, or their properties may change thus creating a need for verbalization to express our changed emotions. All in all we have at least four types of causes that predermine the fact that naming is an ever present and regular enough process in the life of a language. These causes can be summed up as: 1) social, or objective; 2) cognitive, or epistemological and 3) psychological, or emotional; 4) linguistic causes.
There exist universal ways to appease the community hunger for names:
1) Imitation, known also as Onomatopoeia, when in order to give a name to an object or event, or property or a class of them the speaker who feels the need for a name imitates some property, usually, the one which is connected with sound, thus creating units like: to whisper, roar, bang, murmur in English or шуршать, шептать, бормотать in Russian, свiсцець, звiнець in Byelorussian, etc. The results of imitation naming processes pose a very serious linguistic problem, namely, that of arbitrariness, or conventionality of a name, or the form of a lexical unit: the animal world gives us numerous examples:
Crows caw - карр - карр- кают
Ducks quack-quack- кря-кря- кают
Frogs croak-croak- ква-ква-кают
Cocks co-de-doodle-do- кукарекают
Horses neigh pncamb with a few similarities like
Cats miaou - мяукают
Cows mooh - му-му (мычат)
Cuckoos cuckoo - кукуют
People sneeze in English and чихают in Russian producing sounds different enough: atishoo in English, апчхи in Russian.
2) Semantic derivation, or Transfer of Things which seem to have no likeness are given the same name. E.g. eye is a name for an organ of sight, and eyes of a potato, eye of a needle, the eye of the tornado, etc., an eye of a peacock (a private eye): a detective. Though first it appeared as the name of a human organ later on the name was transferred to other objects and other spheres. (See for detailed treatment Semantic change).
3) Word derivation, i.e. creation of novel names on the basis of names already existent in the word stock, a most vivid example being word composition. E.g. a room – a living room, a bedroom, a sitting-room, a bathroom, a guest-room to express various function of rooms.
Milk-milkman, milkmaid, milk-shake, to milk and many more.
Here we face the same problem of arbitrariness: a living-room-гостиная, a bed-room-спальня.
Creation of various types of derived names and even terminological expressions is the result of combining names in order to give rent to a new name, complex in nature.
4) Borrowing. No lang. is free of borrowings which militia (fr. L. military service), might come in different ways, method (fr. M F. or L., scholar, Gk. schole – directly or indirectly and in different shapes: in the form of lexical items, shaped according to the phonetic, grammatic norms of the language (assimilation of borrowings), record (f.OF, fr.L), or in the form of tranlation (vodka in E. Vodkas, malchiks, etc.), loans (no-good-nicks), Fr. tete a tete or sella vie. Of all the four techniques of verbalization semantic derivation and word composition are by far the most productive in the life of established languages. Analyzing units used for naming, scholars distinguish at least 3 types of verbalization:
1. lexical - naming is fulfilled with the help of lexical items, w.w in particular.
2. propositional - when speakers try to name a situation they might use a word-combination or a sentence to name it. «Speak of the devil and he is sure to appear.» «Don’t trouble trouble until trouble troubles you.»
3. discourse - when a text serves as a name for some usual complex situation, or a series of situations.

Lexical verbalization is the major source for the lexicon thought to discard names created in the form of propositions or discourse units would be snobbish and wrong for though to a lesser degree their outcome might become established ways of expression, especially in the form of questions. Naming processes can be viewed on the basis of interrelations between units created. Guided by this criterion primary and secondary naming units are distinguished, the range of which in the naming process leads to differentiation between primary and secondary types of verbalization or naming processes, direct or indirect types of verbalization.

V. The application of naming techniques which bring about the existence of complex or derived units of various types results in the creation of 2 radically different groups of lexical units:
1. motivated ones, the form or the structure of which is correlated with their meaning. The semantics of those units is deducible with the help of their components. It is transparent enough, like in: theatergoer, or childish, or gentlemanlike

2. non-motivated or arbitrary signs, the form of which gives no clue as to their meaning. These units have to be learnt and remembered by speaker and hearer.

The lexicon of any language, English being no exception, consists mainly of motivated names, which enables the speaker and the hearer find a necessary form to encode one’s thoughts and gives the key to relating accurate decoding of our speech. Names appear as motivated units. They become demotivated. However, 70 % preserve their motivated character.

1. The word must be a universal of human language, because it is depicted as a central part in the mechanism of the tongue one is speaking. It must be found in every act, every manifestation of language.

Sassure, and earlier von Humbaldt, L. Vygotsky and Jean Aitchison, to mane but a few, emphasized the key role of a word in the structure and function of language. George Miller (1991)... words- the fundamental units of language. This, then, is a well-established tradition... and any approach aiming at a general theory of language must accord the word a central place. Such is not the case, however, in many contemporary theories; few theories attribute to the word a truly central position in the language, and more than one approach either peripheralizes it or dispenses with it altogether as a linguistic entity. Why is the word a necessary condition of language? Their role as the elements of discourse, the building blocks of meaning from which sentences are constructed. Dwight Bolinger: «... the meaning of the sentence must be discussed in terms of the meaning of the component words and traffic-rule morphemes...word meaning has a bind of priority and to that extent is unique.»
L. Bloomfield viewed the word as a minimal free form. But it is not completely satisfying. What is it in the word tat permits it to fulfill this function?
Allan Garchner: «The word is the unit of tongue.» A word has its own make-up and somehow has an existence prior to, and even independent of that of any particular sentence. Constituents of the word must be examined. Meaning cannot be approached by competent observers in a coherent way, it cannot be treated scientifically. The fact that a word can express different senses thus raises a serious problem for anyone who would view it as a unit and describe the raison d’etre of the word in terms of meaning. No generally acceptable principle of the word unity has been formed. Smirnitsky has unity of all its forms and meanings. If the word is a necessary condition for language as we know it, what is the reason for this? Why are all languages wordy? Why are words - universal design features of languages? It is words in general, not scientific words, that are scientifically important (Miller, 1991) Guillaume: « A word consists of meaning and its physical sign.» It is primarily a meaning construction and its inherent unity that lie in the mental component (of go-went as 1 word) The human principle underlying language is that expression is possible only if smth has first been represented. The necessity of representing smth before expressing it is universal in space and time. It is this that makes the word a necessity in every act of language. Definitions of a word are plentiful. Method as a major tool of scientific analysis borderlines criteria of a word: phonological morphological semantic syntactic

Thus, the boundaries of the lexicon also vary depending each time on the way we delimit words.

Emile Benveniste,
Шанский Н.Н. Лексикология русского языка, []
Шмелев Н. Современный русский язык. Лексика.,[]
Чернышева, Степанова Лексикология немецкого языка,[]
Левит Лексикология французского языка [], lexicologies of the English language [] to name but a few.
Contemporary Linguistics. An Introduction Outline of English Lexicology