The object of lexicology

Lexicology (from Gr

lexis

‘word’ and

logos

‘learning’) is the part of linguistics dealing with thevocabulary of the language and the properties of words as the main units of language. The term v o c a b ul a-r y is used to denote the system formed by the sum total of all the words and word equivalentsthat the language possesses. The term word denotes the basic unit of a given language resulting from theassociation of a particular meaning with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammaticalemployment. A word therefore is simultaneously a semantic, grammatical and phonological unit.Thus, in the word

boy

the group of sounds [

bOI

] is associated with the meaning ‘a male child up tothe age of 17 or 18’ (also with some other meanings, but this is the most frequent) and with a definitegrammatical employment, i.e. it is a noun and thus has a plural form —

boys,

it is a personal noun andhas the Genitive form

boy’s

(e. g.

the boy’s mother),

it may be used in certain syntactic functions.The term word will be discussed at length in chapter 2.The general study of words and vocabulary, irrespective of the specific features of any particular language, is known as general lexicology. Linguistic phenomena and properties common toall languages are generally referred to as language universals. Speciallexicology devotes its attention to the description of the characteristic peculiarities in the vocabularyof a given language. This book constitutes an introduction into the study of the present-day English wordand vocabulary. It is therefore a book on special lexicology.It goes without saying that every special lexicology is based on the principles of general lexicology, andthe latter forms a part of general linguistics. Much material that holds good for any language is thereforealso included, especially with reference to principles, concepts and terms. The illustrative examples areeverywhere drawn from the English language as spoken in Great Britain.A great deal has been written in recent years to provide a theoretical basis on which the vocabularies of different languages can be compared and described. This relatively new branch of study is calledcontrastive lexicology. Most obviously, we shall be particularly concerned with comparingEnglish and Russian words.The evolution of any vocabulary, as well as of its single elements, forms the object of historicallexicology or etymology. This branch of linguistics discusses the origin of various words, their change and development, and investigates the linguistic and extra-linguistic forces modifying their structure, meaning and usage. In the past historical treatment was always combined with the comparativemethod. Historical lexicology has been criticised for its atomistic approach, i.e. for treating every wordas an individual and isolated unit. This drawback is, however, not intrinsic to the science itself. Historicalstudy of words is not necessarily atomistic. In the light of recent investigations it becomes clear that there isno reason why historical lexicology cannot survey the evolution of a vocabulary as an adaptive system, showing its change and development in the course of time.Descriptive lexicology deals with the vocabulary of a given language at a givenstage of its development. It studies the functions of words and their specific structure as a characteristicinherent in the system. The descriptive lexicology of the English language deals with the English word inits morphological and semantical structures, investigating the interdependence between these two aspects.These structures are identified and distinguished by contrasting the nature and arrangement of their elements.It will, for instance, contrast the word

boy

with its derivatives:

boyhood, boyish, boyishly,

etc. It willdescribe its semantic structure comprising alongside with its most frequent meaning, such variants as ‘ason of any age’, ‘a male servant’, and observe its syntactic functioning and combining possibilities. Thisword, for instance, can be also used vocatively in such combinations as

old boy, my dear boy,

andattributively, meaning ‘male’, as in

boy-friend.

Lexicology also studies all kinds of semantic grouping and semantic relations: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, semantic fields, etc.Meaning relations as a whole are dealt with in semantics — the study of meaning which isrelevant both for lexicology and grammar.The distinction between the two basically different ways in which language may be viewed, thehistorical or diachronic (Gr

dia

‘through’ and

chronos

‘time’) and the descriptiveor synchronic (Gr

syn

‘together’, ‘with’), is a methodological distinction, a difference of approach, artificially separating for the purpose of study what in real language is inseparable, becauseactually every linguistic structure and system exists in a state of constant development. The distinction

between a synchronic and a diachronic approach is due to the Swiss philologist Ferdinand de Saussure(1857-1913).

Indebted as we are to him for this important dichotomy, we cannot accept either his axiomthat synchronic linguistics is concerned with systems and diachronic linguistics with single units or therigorous separation between the two. Subsequent investigations have shown the possibility and thenecessity of introducing the historical point of view into systematic studies of languages.Language is the reality of thought, and thought develops together

Saussure F. de.

Cours

de linguistique gé né rale. Paris, 1949.

with the development of society, therefore language and its vocabulary must be studied in the light of social history. Every new phenomenon in human society and in human activity in general, which is of any importance for communication, finds a reflection in vocabulary. A word, through its meaning renderingsome notion, is a generalised reflection of reality; it is therefore impossible to understand its developmentif one is ignorant of the changes in social, political or everyday life, production or science, manners or culture it serves to reflect. These extra-linguistic forces influencing the development of words areconsidered in historical lexicology. The point may be illustrated by the following example:

Post

comes into English through French and Italian from Latin. Low Latin

posta — posita

fern. p.p.of Latin

ponere, posit,

v. ‘place’. In the beginning of the 16th century it meant ‘one of a number of menstationed with horses along roads at intervals, their duty being to ride forward with the King’s “packet” or other letters, from stage to stage’. This meaning is now obsolete, because this type of communication isobsolete. The word, however, has become international and denotes the present-day system of carryingand delivering letters and parcels. Its synonym

mail,

mostly used in America, is an ellipsis from

a mail of letters,

i.e. ‘a bag of letters’. It comes from Old French

male

(modern

malle)

‘bag’, a word of Germanicorigin. Thus, the etymological meaning of

mail

is ‘a bag or a packet of letters or dispatches for conveyance by post’. Another synonym of

bag

is

sack

which shows a different meaning development. Sack isa large bag of coarse cloth, the verb

to sack

‘dismiss from service’ comes from the expression

to get the sack,

which probably rose from the habit of craftsmen of old times, who on getting a job took their owntools to the works; when they left or were dismissed they were given a sack to carry away the tools.In this connection it should be emphasised that the social nature of language and its vocabulary is notlimited to the social essence of extra-linguistic factors influencing their development from without.Language being a means of communication the social essence is intrinsic to the languageitself. Whole groups of speakers, for example, must coincide in a deviation, if it is to result in linguisticchange.The branch of linguistics, dealing with causal relations between the way the language works anddevelops, on the one hand, and the facts of social life, on the other, is termed sociolinguistics.Some scholars use this term in a narrower sense, and maintain that it is the analysis of speech behaviour in small social groups that is the focal point of sociolinguistic analysis. A. D. Schweitzer has proved thatsuch microsociological approach alone cannot give a complete picture of the sociology of language. Itshould be combined with the study of such macrosociological factors as the effect of mass media, thesystem of education, language planning, etc. An analysis of the social stratification of languages takes intoaccount the stratification of society as a whole.Although the important distinction between a diachronic and a synchronic, a linguistic and anextralinguistic approach must always be borne in mind, yet it is of paramount importance for the studentto take into consideration that in language reality all the aspects are interdependent and cannot beunderstood one without the other. Every linguistic investigation must strike a reasonable balance betweenthem.The lexicology of present-day English, therefore, although having aims of its own, different fromthose of its historical counterpart, cannot be divorced from the latter. In what follows not only the presentstatus of the English vocabulary is discussed: the description would have been sadly incomplete if we didnot pay attention to the historical aspect of the problem — the ways and tendencies of vocabularydevelopment.Being aware of the difference between the synchronic approach involving also social and placevariations, and diachronic approach we shall not tear them asunder, and, although concentrating mainly onthe present state of the English vocabulary, we shall also have to consider its development. Much yetremains to be done in elucidating the complex problems and principles of this process before we can present a complete and accurate picture of the English vocabulary as a system, with specific peculiaritiesof its own, constantly developing and conditioned by the history of the English people and the structure of the language.