Review of different definitions of the word

The word has always been a sort of focus for the problems of phonology, morphology, syntax and lexicology as it has a sound form because it is a certain arrangement of phonemes, it has its morphological structure being also a certain arrangement of morphemes, when used in actual speech, it may occur in different word forms, different syntactic functions and signal various meanings. But not all words seem to have the same kind of meaning. A very familiar distinction is that made by the English grammarian Henry Sweet (" A New English Grammar, Logical and Historical.” Oxford, 1940) between " full" words and " form" words. Examples of full words are tree, sing, blue, gently and of form words it, the, of, and. Only full words seem to have meaning of the kind we are interested in. The form words seem to belong to grammar. They can still be said to have meaning, but meaning of a grammatical kind.

Thomas Hobbes, one of the great English philosophers, revealed a materialistic approach to the problem of nomination when he wrote that words are not mere sounds but names of matter. Three centuries later the great Russian physiologist I.P. Pavlov examined the word in connection with his studies of the second signal system, and defined it as a universal signal that can substitute any other signal from the environment in evoking a response in a human organism.One of the latest developments of science and engineering is machine translation. It also deals with words and requires a rigorous definition for them. It runs as follows: a word is a sequence of graphemes which can occur between spaces, or the representation of such a sequence on morphemic level.

A purely semantic treatment will be found in S. Ullmann’s explanation: with him connected discourse, if analysed from the semantic point of view, “will fall into a certain number of meaningful segments which are ultimately composed of meaningful units. These meaningful units are called words.”

Within the scope of linguistics the word has been defined syntactically, semantically, phonologically and by combining various approaches.

It has been syntactically defined for instance as “the minimum sentence”by H. Sweet and much later by L. Bloomfield as “a minimum free form”. This last definition, although structural in orientation, may be said to be, to a certain degree, equivalent to Sweet’s, as practically it amounts to the same thing: free forms are later defined as “forms which occur as sentences”.

E. Sapir takes into consideration the syntactic and semantic aspects when he calls the word “one of the smallest completely satisfying bits of isolated ‘meaning’, into which the sentence resolves itself”.

The semantic-phonological approach may be illustrated by A.H. Gardiner’s definition: “A word is an articulate sound-symbol in its aspect of denoting something which is spoken about.”

The eminent French linguist A. Meillet combines the semantic, phonological and grammatical criteria and advances a formula which underlies many subsequent definitions: “A word is defined by the association of a particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment.”

S. Potter, who writes that “unlike a phoneme or a syllable, a word is not a linguistic unit at all." ³ He calls it a conventional and arbitrary segment of utterance, and finally adopts the already mentioned definition of L. Bloomfield.

Thus the word is one of the fundamental units of language. It is a dialectical unity of form and content. Its content or meaning is not identical in notion, but it may reflect human notions and in this sense may be considered as the form of their existence. Notions fixed in the meaning of words are formed as generalized and approximately correct reflections of reality, therefore in signifying them words reflect reality in their content. The acoustic aspect of the word serves to name the objects of reality, not to reflect them. In this sense the word may be regarded as a sign. This sign, however, is not arbitrary, but motivated by the whole process of its development. That is to say, when a word first comes into existence it is always built out of the elements already existing in the language and according to the existing patterns, otherwise it cannot be understood and will be useless in the process of communication. So the word is the basic unit of language which directly corresponds to the object of thought (referent) and which is a generalized reverberation of a certain “slice”, “piece” of objective reality (concept) – and by immediately referring to it names the thing meant.