1

CONTENT
INTRODUCTION........................2
CHAPTER I GENERAL PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF THE WORD.......3
1. The problem of isolation and identity of a word3
Word boundaries in spoken language.5
2. The connection between words and objects of reality6
CHAPTER II MOTIVATION..9
BIBLIOGRAPHY...................14














2

INTRODUCTION
Since the beginning of lexicological study, the concept of the word has been
considered to be of central importance. But since we do not fully understand the
phenomenon called language, of which word is a fundamental unit, there are, of
course, some uncertainties about a word theory.
To begin with, there a several ways of defining words, and these are not
equivalent, therefore we need to examine the several definitions, and to understand
the differences among them. Otherwise, we will have no chance of providing
sensible answers to such questions as the following: How many words are there in
English? Are English dog and dogs the same word or different words?
We also know very little about the nature of the word-referent relations. What
connection there is between the word and the object, quality or phenomenon it
denotes?
Moreover, when studying the vocabulary of the language, a problem of motivation
appears. Sometimes its hard to say why each word possesses these or those
meanings or why it has acquired them.
In this premises we can define some general problems of the theory of the word:
1) problem of defining the word; 2) the connection between words and objects of
reality; 3) motivation of a word; 4) the problem of separateness of a word
(
[1]
); 5) the problem of identity of a word (
[1]
).






3

CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROBLEMS OF THE THEORY OF THE WORD
1. The problem of isolation and identity of a word
One of the tenets of Russian linguistics has always been the assumption that it is
the word which is the basic unit of language. The theory of the word was created
by V.V. Vinogradov, L.V. Scerba, A.I. Smirnitsky and other Soviet linguists in the
1940s and was based mainly on the written form of language.
[2]

To figure out what is a word as a language unit, it is necessary to clarify the
question and to properly divide it.
According to Professor Alexander Smirnitskiy
[1]
, some more specific issues
related to the objective definition of the word as a unit of language, lie in the plane
of one of the following two problems: (1) isolation of a word and (2) identity of a
word.
In the most general form these problems can be formulated as follows: (1) what is
one single word in each case of its use in connected speech, (2) what is the same
word in different cases of its use.
The difference between these problems can be shown by the example: This boy
took another boys candy cane. The first problem problem of separateness of a
word examines whether there are 6 or 7 (if candy cane is considered to be one
word) words in this sentence. But, on the other hand, boy and boys are perceived
as a form of the same word. Whether these two units are the same word is a
specific question, relating to the second problem problem of the identity of a
word.
The problem of separateness of a word, in turn, is divided into two main questions:
(a) the question of separability -- distinguishing words from its parts (part of a
compound word, suffix, etc.), and (b) the question of integrity of a word
difference between words and word-groups.
4

Professor Smirnitskiy describes different criteria of a word:
Phonetic criteria (cant be principal)
For example, the lack of stress on the notional unit having substantive value
(not pronominal character) in the Germanic languages is usually an
indication that we are dealing with only part of the word
e.g. to distinguish the English blckboard and blck bard
Whole-formedness
If we compare shipwreck and (the) wreck of (a) ship, which includes the
same root elements, then it is easy to see that they denote the same
phenomenon of objective reality and not significantly differing in meaning,
essentially differ in relation to the grammatical structure, by the way they
are formed. This difference lies in the fact that in the first formation - the
word - both components are formed once: cf. ship - wreck - (), ship - wreck -
s, etc. (same as in the corresponding verb (to) shipwreck: ship - wreck - (),
ship - wreck - ed, ship - wreck - ing, etc.), whereas in the second formation
word-group - there is an independent grammatical processing for each
component: (the) wreck-s of (the) ship-s, (the) wreck of (the) ship-s and t.
g.). In other words, shipwreck is whole-formed and (the) wreck of (a) ship
separately-formed. So as contrasted to a word-group the word is
semantically and grammatically indivisible. It is grammatically shaped as
one unit and whatever changes it undergoes it functions as an indivisible
whole.
Indivisibility/Inseparability
Nothing can come between the parts of a word while the structure of a
wordgroup admits of the insertion of other units between the parts, cf. the
word account and the word-group a correct / incorrect account, or the word
arrange and the word-group a wide / narrow range.
[3]

Lexico-grammatical criteria
5

When used in actual speech the word undergoes certain modification and
functions in one of its forms.
The system showing a word in all its word-forms is called its paradigm. The
lexical meaning f word is the same throughout the paradigm, i.e. all the
word-forms of one and the same word are lexically identical. The
grammatical meaning varies from one form to another (cf. to take, takes,
took, taking or singer, singers, singers, singers). Therefore, when we
speak of the word singer or the word take as used in actual utterances we
use the term w o r d conventionally, because what is manifested in the
speech event is not the word as a whole but one of its forms which is
identified as belonging to one definite paradigm.
[4]

The paradigm is exactly characterizes any word as the word, as a whole unit,
which preserves its identity in a variety of word-forms representing it. That
is why from a lexical point of view it is not the difference between
individual grammatical morphemes involved in the formation of the certain
word-forms which is important, but what is common to them: how they
equally belong to the same paradigm and the related definition of the word
they form as a word of a certain grammatical class and of a certain
grammatical category.

Word boundaries in spoken language
The task of defining what constitutes a "word" involves determining where one
word ends and another word beginsin other words, identifying word boundaries.
There are several ways to determine where the word boundaries of spoken
language should be placed.
Potential pause. A speaker is told to repeat a given sentence slowly, allowing for
pauses. The speaker will tend to insert pauses at the word boundaries. However,
6

this method is not foolproof: the speaker could easily break up polysyllabic words,
or fail to separate two or more closely related words.
Indivisibility. A speaker is told to say a sentence out loud, and then is told to say
the sentence again with extra words added to it. Thus, I have lived in this village
for ten years might become My family and I have lived in this little village for
about ten or so years. These extra words will tend to be added in the word
boundaries of the original sentence. However, some languages have infixes, which
are put inside a word. Similarly, some have separable affixes; in the German
sentence "Ich komme gut zu Hause an", the verb ankommen is separated.
Phonetic boundaries. Some languages have particular rules of pronunciation that
make it easy to spot where a word boundary should be. For example, in a language
that regularly stresses the last syllable of a word, a word boundary is likely to fall
after each stressed syllable. Another example can be seen in a language that has
vowel harmony (like Turkish): the vowels within a given word share the same
quality, so a word boundary is likely to occur whenever the vowel quality changes.
Nevertheless, not all languages have such convenient phonetic rules, and even
those that do present the occasional exceptions.
[5]

2. The connection between words and objects of reality.
Another question related to the theory of the word: what is the relation of words
to the world of things, events and relations outside of language to which they
refer? How is the word connected with its r e f e r e n t ?
The account of meaning given by Ferdinand de Saussure
[6]
implies the
definition of a word as a linguistic sign. He calls it signifiant (signifier) and what
it refers to signifie (that which is signified). By the latter term he understands
not the phenomena of the real world but the concept in the speakers and
listeners mind. The situation may be represented by a triangle (see Fig. 1).
7


Here, according to F. de Saussure, only the relationship shown by a solid line
concerns linguistics and the sign is not a unity of form and meaning as we
understand it now, but only sound form.
Originally this triangular scheme was suggested by the German mathematician
and philosopher Gottlieb Frege (1848-1925).

Well-known English scholars C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards adopted this three-
cornered pattern with considerable modifications. With them a sign is a two-facet
unit comprising form (phonetical and orthographic), regarded as a linguistic
symbol, and reference which is more linguistic than just a concept. This approach
may be called referential because it implies that linguistic meaning is connected
with the referent. It is graphically shown by there being only one dotted line. A
solid line between reference and referent shows that the relationship between them
is linguistically relevant, that the nature of what is named influences the meaning.
This connection should not be taken too literally, it does not mean that the sound
form has to have any similarity with the meaning or the object itself. The
connection is conventional.

Several generations of writers, following C.K. Ogden and I.A. Richards, have in
their turn taken up and modified this diagram. It is known under several names: the
s e ma n t i c t r i a n g l e , triangle of signification, Frege semiotic triangle,
Ogden and Richards basic triangle or simply basic triangle.
It should be used again to illustrate how it can show the main features of the
8

referential approach in its present form. All the lines are now solid, implying that
it is not only the form of the linguistic sign but also its meaning and what it refers
to that are relevant for linguistics. The scheme is given as it is applied to the
naming of cats.

This scheme is still over-simplified and several things are left out. It is very
important, for instance, to remember that the word is represented by the left-hand
side of the diagram it is a sign comprising the name and the meaning, and these
invariably evoke one another. So we have to assume that the word takes two
apexes of the triangle and the line connecting them. In some versions of the
triangle it is not the meaning but the concept that is placed in the apex. This
reflects the approach to the problem as formulated by medieval grammarians; it
remained traditional for many centuries.
In the modification of the triangle given here the referent belongs to extra-
linguistic reality, it is reflected in our mind in several stages (not shown on the
diagram): first it is perceived, then many perceptions are generalised into a
concept, which in its turn is reflected in the meaning with certain linguistic
constraints conditioned by paradigmatic influence within the vocabulary. When it
is the concept that is put into the apex, then the meaning cannot be identified with
any of the three points of the triangle.
The diagram represents the simplest possible case of reference because the
word here is supposed to have only one meaning and one form of fixation.
Simplification, is, however, inherent to all models and the popularity of the
semantic triangle proves how many authors find it helpful in showing the essence
of the referential approach.
[7]


9

CHAPTER II
MOTIVATION
When a word is at first introduced into a language it is always composed out of
elements, which already exist in the language and follows certain word-building
patterns of the language. Otherwise it would be not only useless but also
detrimental to communication. This brings us to the problem of motivation, which
is one the crucial problems of the theory of the word.
Motivation is the connection between the form of the word (its phonetic
composition, its morphological composition and its structural pattern) and its
meaning.A word may be motivated either phonetically or morphologically or
semanticcally.
[3]

When there is a certain similarity between the sounds that make up the word and
those referred to by the sense, the motivation is phonetical. Examples are: bang,
buzz, cuckoo, giggle, purr, etc. Here the sounds of a word are imitative of sounds
in nature because what is referred to is a sound or at least, produces a characteristic
sound (cuckoo). Although there exists a certain arbitrary element in the resulting
phonemic shape of the word, one can see that this type of motivation is determined
by the phonological system of each language as shown by the difference of echo-
words for the same concept in different languages. St. Ullmann
[8]
stresses that
phonetic motivation is not a perfect replica of any acoustic structure but only a
rough approximation. This accounts for the variability of echo-words within one
language and between different languages. E.g. cuckoo (Engl), Kuckuck (Germ),
(Russ). Within the English vocabulary there are different words, all
sound imitative, meaning quick, foolish, indistinct talk: babble, chatter, gabble,
prattle. In this last group echoic creations combine phonological and
morphological motivation because they contain verbal suffixes -le and -er forming
frequentative verbs. We see therefore that one word may combine different types
of motivation.
10

Words denoting noises produced by animals are mostly sound imitative. In English
they are motivated only phonetically so that nouns and verbs are exactly the same.
In Russian the motivation combines phonetical and morphological motivation. The
Russian words v and n are equally represented in English by bleat.
Also: purr (of a cat), moo (of a cow), crow (of a cock), bark (of a dog), neigh (of a
horse) and their Russian equivalents.
The morphological motivation may be quite regular. Thus, the prefix ex- means
former when added to human nouns: ex-filmstar, ex-president, ex-wife.
Alongside with these cases there is a more general use of ex-: in borrowed words it
is unstressed and motivation is faded (expect, export, etc.).
The derived word re-think is motivated inasmuch as its morphological structure
suggests the idea of thinking again. Re- is one of the most common prefixes of the
English language, it means again and back and is added to verbal stems or
abstract deverbal noun stems, as in rebuild, reclaim, resell, resettlement. Here
again these newer formations should be compared with older borrowings from
Latin and French where re- is now unstressed, and the motivation faded. Compare
re-cover cover again and recover get better. In short: morphological motivation
is especially obvious in newly coined words, or at least words created in the
present century. f. detainee, manoeuvrable, prefabricated, racialist, self-
propelling, vitaminise, etc. In older words, root words and morphemes motivation
is established etymologically, if at all.
From the examples given above it is clear that motivation is the way in which a
given meaning is represented in the word. It reflects the type of nomination process
chosen by the creator of the new word. Some scholars of the past used to call the
phenomenon the inner word form.
In deciding whether a word of long standing in the language is morphologically
motivated according to present-day patterns or not, one should be very careful.
Similarity in sound form does not always correspond to similarity in
11

morphological pattern. Agential suffix -er is affixable to any verb, so that V+-er
means one who V-s or something that V-s: writer, receiver, bomber, rocker,
knocker. Yet, although the verb numb exists in English, number is not one who
numbs but is derived from OFr nombre borrowed into English and completely
assimilated.
The third type of motivation is called semantic motivation. It is based on the co-
existence of direct and figurative meanings of the same word within the same
synchronous system. Mouth continues to denote a part of the human face, and at
the same time it can metaphorically apply to any opening or outlet: the mouth of a
river, of a cave, of a furnace. Jacket is a short coat and also a protective cover for a
book, a phonograph record or an electric wire. Ermine is not only the name of a
small animal, but also of its fur, and the office and rank of an English judge
because in England ermine was worn by judges in court. In their direct meaning
neither mouth nor ermine is motivated.
As to compounds, their motivation is morphological if the meaning of the whole is
based on the direct meaning of the components, and semantic if the combination of
components is used figuratively. Thus, eyewash a lotion for the eyes or headache
pain in the head, or watchdog a dog kept for watching property are all
morphologically motivated. If, on the other hand, they are used metaphorically as
something said or done to deceive a person so that he thinks that what he sees is
good, though in fact it is not, anything or anyone very annoying and a watchful
human guardian, respectively, then the motivation is semantic.
An interesting example of complex morpho-semantic motivation passing through
several stages in its history is the word teenager a person in his or her teens. The
motivation may be historically traced as follows: the inflected form of the numeral
ten produced the suffix -teen. The suffix later produces a stem with a metonymical
meaning (semantic motivation), receives the plural ending -s, and then produces a
new noun teens the years of a persons life of which the numbers end in -teen,
namely from 13 to 19. In combination with age or aged the adjectives teen-age
12

and teen-aged are coined, as in teen-age boy, teen-age fashions. A morphologically
motivated noun teenager is then formed with the help of the suffix -er which is
often added to compounds or noun phrases producing personal names according to
the pattern one connected with....
The pattern is frequent enough. One must keep in mind, however, that not all
words with a similar morphemic composition will have the same derivational
history and denote human beings. E. g. first-nighter and honeymooner are personal
nouns, but two-seater is a car or an aeroplane seating two persons, back-hander is
a back-hand stroke in tennis and three-decker a sandwich made of three pieces
of bread with two layers of filling.
When the connection between the meaning of the word and its form is
conventional that is there is no perceptible reason for the word having this
particular phonemic and morphemic composition, the word is said to be non-
motivated for the present stage of language development.
Every vocabulary is in a state of constant development. Words that seem non-
motivated at present may have lost their motivation. The verb earn does not
suggest at present any necessary connection with agriculture. The connection of
form and meaning seems purely conventional. Historical analysis shows, however,
that it is derived from OE (ze-)earnian to harvest. In Modern English this
connection no longer exists and earn is now a non-motivated word. Complex
morphological structures tend to unite and become indivisible units, as St.
Ullman
[8]
demonstrates tracing the history of not which is a reduced form of
nought from OE nowiht <no-wiht nothing. When some people recognise the
motivation, whereas others do not, motivation is said to be faded.
Sometimes in an attempt to find motivation for a borrowed word the speakers
change its form so as to give it a connection with some well-known word. These
cases of mistaken motivation received the name of folk etymology. The
phenomenon is not very frequent. Two examples will suffice: A nightmare is not
13

a she-horse that appears at night but a terrifying dream personified in folklore as
a female monster. (OE mr an evil spirit.) The international radio-telephone
signal may-day corresponding to the telegraphic SOS used by aeroplanes and ships
in distress has nothing to do with the First of May but is a phonetic rendering of
French m'aidez help me.
Some linguists consider one more type of motivation closely akin to the imitative
forms, namely sound symbolism. Some words are supposed to illustrate the
meaning more immediately than do ordinary words. As the same combinations of
sounds are used in many semantically similar words, they become more closely
associated with the meaning. Examples are: flap, flip, flop, flitter, flimmer, flicker,
flutter, flash, flush, flare; glare, glitter, glow, gloat, glimmer; sleet, slime, slush,
where fl- is associated with quick movement, gl- with light and fire, sl- with mud.
This sound symbolism phenomenon is not studied enough so far, so that it is
difficult to say to what extent it is valid. There are, for example, many English
words, containing the initial fl- but not associated with quick or any other
movement: flat, floor, flour, flower. There is also nothing muddy in the referents of
sleep or slender. [7]









14


BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. .. . ., 1956
2. . English Lexicology and Lexicogfaphy/
. ., 2003
3. .., .. .
. - . ,
2010
4. .. [ .] :
- . . . . : , 1979
5. What is a word? Linguistics and English Language working papers.
University of Sussex.
6. Saussure, Ferdinand de (1916), "Nature of the Linguistics Sign"
7. . . :
- . . . / .. . - . :
, 1986
8. Ullmann St. The Principles of Semantics. New York: Philosophical Library.
1957.
9. .. / English lexicology :
,
. . : , 2001