1. Lexicology as a science. The object of Lexicology.

Main lexicological
problems.

The term unit means one of the elements into which a whole may be divided or
analyzed and which possesses the basic properties of this whole. The units of a
vocabulary or lexical units are two-facet elements possessing form and meaning. The
basic unit forming the bulk of the vocabulary is the word. Other units are
a morpheme that is parts of words, into which words may be analyzed, and set
expressions or groups of words into which words may be combined.

Words

Words are the central elements of language system, they face both ways: they are the
biggest units of morphology and the smallest of syntax, and what is more, they
embody the main structural properties and functions of the language. Words can be
separated in an utterance by other such units and can be used in isolation. Unlike
words, morphemes cannot be divided into smaller meaningful units and are
functioning in speech only as constituent parts of words. Words are thought of as
representing integer concept, feeling or action or as having a single referent. The
meaning of morphemes is more abstract and more general than that of words and at
the same time they are less autonomous.

Set expressions

Set expressions are word groups consisting of two or more words whose

combination is integrated so that they are introduced in speech, so to say, ready-made
as units with a specialized meaning of the whole that is not understood as a mere sum
total of the meanings of the elements.

Ability to segment speech

In the spelling system of the language words are the smallest units of written
discourse: they are marked off by solid spelling. The ability of an average speaker to
segment any utterance into words is sustained by literacy. Yet it is a capacity only
reinforced by education: it is well known that every speaker of any language is
always able to break any utterance into words. The famous American linguist E.
Sapir testified that even illiterate American Indians were perfectly capable of
dictating to him — when asked to do so — texts in their own language "word by
word". The segmentation of a word into morphemes, on the other hand, presents
sometimes difficulties even for trained linguists.

Choice of the basic unit

Many authors devoted a good deal of space to discussing which of the two: the word
or the morpheme is to be regarded as the basic unit. Many American linguists (Ch.
Hockett or Z. Harris, for instance) segmented an utterance into morphemes ignoring
words. Soviet lexicologists proceed from the assumption that it is the word that is the
basic unit, especially as all branches of linguistic knowledge and all levels of
language have the word as their focal point. A convincing argumentation and an
exhaustive review of literature is offered by A. A. Ufimtseva (1980).

Fluid boundaries

If, however, we look now a little more closely into this problem, we shall see that the
boundaries separating these three sets of units are sometimes fluid. Every living
vocabulary is constantly changing adapting itself to the functions of communication
in the changing world of those who use it. In this process the vocabulary changes not
only quantitatively by creating new words from the already available corpus of
morphemes and according to existing patterns but also qualitatively. In these
qualitative changes new morphemic material and new word-building patterns come
into being, and new names sometimes adapt features characteristic of other sets, those
of groups of words, for instance.

Orthographic words

Orthographic words are written as a sequence of letters bounded by spaces on a

page. Yet, there exist in the English vocabulary lexical units that are not identical
with orthographic words but equivalent to them. Almost any part of speech contains
units indivisible either syntactically or in terms of meaning, or both, but graphically
divided. A good example is furnished by complex prepositions: along with, as far
as, in spite of, except for, due to, by means of, for the sake of, etc.

Phrasal verbs

The same point may be illustrated by phrasal verbs, so numerous in English: bring

up 'to educate', call on 'to visit', make up 'to apply cosmetics', 'to reconcile after a
disagreement' and some other meanings, put off 'to postpone'. The semantic unity of
these verbs is manifest in the possibility to substitute them by orthographically
single-word verbs. Though formally broken up, they function like words and they are
integrated semantically so that their meaning cannot be inferred from their constituent
elements. The same is true about phrasal verbs consisting of the
verbs give, make, take and some others used with a noun instead of its homonymous
verb alone: give a smile, make a promise, take a walk (cf. to smile, to promise, to
walk).

Compound words

Some further examples are furnished by compound nouns. Sometimes they are not
joined by solid spelling or hyphenation but written separately, although in all other
respects they do not differ from similar one-word nominations. By way of example
let us take some terms for military ranks. The terms lieutenant-
commander and lieutenant-colonel are hyphenated, whereas wing
commander and flight lieutenant are written separately. Compare also such
inconsistencies as all right and altogether, never mind and nevertheless.
All these are, if not words, then at least word equivalents because they are indivisible
and fulfil the nominative, significative, communicative and pragmatic functions just
as words do.

Formulaic sentences

It is worth while dwelling for a moment on formulaic sentences which tend to be

ready-made and are characterized by semantic unity and indivisibility: All
right, Allow me, Nothing doing, Never mind, How do you do, Quite the contrary.
They are learned as unanalyzable wholes and can also be regarded as word
equivalents.

Summary: Vocabulary as a field

To sum up: the vocabulary of a language is not homogeneous. If we view it as a kind

of field, we shall see that its bulk, its central part is formed by lexical units possessing
all the distinctive features of words, i.e. semantic, orthographic and morphological
integrity as well as the capacity of being used in speech in isolation. The marginal
elements of this field reveal only some of these features, and yet belong to this set
too. Thus, phrasal verbs, complex prepositions, some compounds, phraseological
units, formulaic expressions, etc. are divided in spelling but are in all other respects
equivalent to words. Morphemes, on the other hand, a much smaller subset of the
vocabulary, cannot be used as separate utterances and are less autonomous in other
respects but otherwise also function as lexical items. The new term recently
introduced in mathematics to describe sets with blurred boundaries seems expressive
and worthy of use in characterizing a vocabulary — such sets are called fuzzy sets.

2. Links of Lexicology with other branches of knowledge

Lexicology is closely connected with other branches of linguistics, such as phonetics,

grammar, stylistics, which also study words from various angles. Lexicology is
connected with Phonetics because the word is a two-facet unit which has both a form
and meaning.

The main object of lexicology is the word. But the word is not the object only
and exclusively of lexicology. It is also studied by many other branches of
linguistics, such as phonetics, grammar (including Morphology and Syntax),
Stylistics, Sociolinguistics, Dialectology, Phraseology, Derivatology and
Etymology.

Phonetics investigates, in particular, the outer sound form of the word, its

phonetic structure. These data are important for Lexicology to delimitate
words in utterances.
 Morphology studies the morphological composition of words and such
information is significant for Lexicology to differentiate simple words from
derived and compound ones and ascertain word-formation elements of the
latter and distinguish world-building affixes from inflectional morphemes.

Syntax explores the relations of words in word-combinations and sentences.

Syntactic information is necessary for distinguishing compound words from
free or set combinations of words and reveal syntactic relations between
constituent parts of compounds or composites.

Stylistics is concerned with the study of the nature, function and structure of
stylistic devices and language styles; therefore, it provides Lexicology with
certain data about the stylistic content of words, their emotional and evaluative
charge and helps classify vocabulary into different stylistic layers.

Sociolinguistics explores the relationship between society and language, their

interinfluence; therefore, it supplies information for ethnic, national,
demographic, cultural, social and professional classification of vocabulary and
its usage by language-speakers of different classes and groups of society.

Dialectology reveals the differentiation of vocabulary into regional, territorial

and local forms as well as national varieties.

Phraseology is now an autonomous branch of linguistics that helps reveal the

meaning and function of a separate word in set expressions and idioms.

Derivatology is a modern young science that studies the process of derivation

of any linguistic unit from other linguistic units; therefore, it helps reveal the
formation of words, their structural and semantic changes, the process of
borrowing from other languages.

Etymology and History of Language helps restore the prototype form and

meaning of the word and trace the morphological and semantic changes which
this word has undergone from the hypothetical root up to the present form.

So, as a conclusion, we may say that Lexicology is an integral part of the

Science of Language, along with the above mentioned ones.

3. The definition of the word/lexeme. Internal and external structure of a word

Lexicology as a branch of linguistics. Its interrelations with other sciences.
Lexicology (from Gr lexis “word” and logos “learning”) is a part of linguistics
dealing with the vocabulary of a language and the properties of words as the main
units of the language. It also studies all kinds of semantic grouping and semantic
relations: synonymy, antonymy, hyponymy, semantic fields, etc. In this connection,
the term vocabulary is used to denote a system formed by the sum total of all the
words and word equivalents that the language possesses. The term word denotes the
basic unit of a given language resulting from the association of a particular meaning
with a particular group of sounds capable of a particular grammatical employment. A
word therefore is at the same time a semantic, grammatical and phonological unit. So,
the subject-matter of lexicology is the word, its morphemic structure, history and
meaning. There are several branches of lexicology. 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 to all languages
are referred to as language universals. Special lexicology focuses on the description
of the peculiarities in the vocabulary of a given language. A branch of study called
contrastive lexicology provides a theoretical foundation on which the vocabularies of
different languages can be compared and described, the correlation between the
vocabularies of two or more languages being the scientific priority. Vocabulary
studies include such aspects of research as etymology, semasiology and
onomasiology. The evolution of a vocabulary forms the object of historical
lexicology or etymology (from Gr. etymon “true, real”), discussing the origin of
various words, their change and development, examining the linguistic and extra-
linguistic forces that modify their structure, meaning and usage. Semasiology (from
Gr. semasia “signification”) is a branch of linguistics whose subject-matter is the
study of word meaning and the classification of changes in the signification of words
or forms, viewed as normal and vital factors of any linguistic development. It is the
most relevant to polysemy and homonymy. Onomasiology is the study of the
principles and regularities of the signification of things / notions by lexical and
lexico-phraseological means of a given language. It has its special value in studying
dialects, bearing an obvious relevance to synonymity. Descriptive lexicology deals
with the vocabulary of a language at a given stage of its evolution. It studies the
functions of words and their specific structure as a characteristic inherent in the
system. In the English language the above science is oriented towards the English
word and its morphological and semantic structures, researching the interdependence
between these two aspects. These structures are identified and distinguished by
contrasting the nature and arrangement of their elements.

4. Formal and semantic unity of a word

c) The word possesses both external, formal and internal, semantic unity. Formal
unity implies that no other elements can be inserted between the component
morphemes of the word which are permanently linked together (a blackbird vs a
black bird – a black night bird). The word’s semantic unity consists in the fact that it
conveys only one concept. For example, the word “blackbird” conveys only one
concept: the type of bird. The word-group “a black bird” conveys two concepts: a
colour and a type of animal.

5. Syntagmatic and paradigmatic levels of studying a word.

Paradigmatic and syntagmatic relations are understood as basic linguistic

relationships describing the complex structure of a language system. This distinction
is relevant to all levels of description. It was introduced by the Swiss linguist
Ferdinard de Saussure in 1916 as a generalisation of the traditional concepts of a
paradigm and a syntagm.

Paradigm (Gr. parádeigma ‘pattern, model’) is a set of homogeneous forms opposed

to each other according to their semantic and formal features.

Syntagm (Gr. sýntagma ‘that which is put together in order’) is a structured syntactic

sequence of linguistic elements formed by segmentation which can consist of sounds,
words, phrases, clauses, or entire sentences.

Paradigmatic relations exist between units of the language system outside the

strings where they co-occur. They are based on the criteria of selection and
distribution of linguistic elements. Paradigmatic relations determining the vocabulary
system are based on the interdependence of words within the vocabulary: synonymy,
antonymy, hyponymy, meronymy.

F. de Saussure called paradigmatic relationships associative relationships, because

they represent the relationship between individual elements in specific environment.

It was the Danish linguist Louis Hjelmslev who replaced the term associative
relations for paradigmatic relations.

Syntagmatic relations are immediate linear links between the units in a segmental

sequence. Syntagmatic relations are horizontal since they are based on the linear
character of speech.

In psycholinguistics these terms are used in a different sense.

The term paradigmatic relations denotes the mental associations between words

which form part of a set of mutually exclusive items, e.g. black responds with white.

The term syntagmatic relations refers to mental associations between words which

frequently occur together, e.g. black magic / tie / sheep.

6.Studying words synchronically and diachronically

Synchrony and diachrony are two different and complementary viewpoints
in linguistic analysis. A synchronic approach (from Greek συν- "together" and χρόνος
"time") considers a language at a moment in time without taking its history into
account. Synchronic linguistics aims at describing a language at a specific point of
time, usually the present. By contrast, a diachronic approach (from δια- "through"
and χρόνος "time") considers the development and evolution of a language through
history. Historical linguistics is typically a diachronic study.[1]
The concepts were theorized by the Swiss linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, professor
of general linguistics in Geneva from 1896 to 1911, and appeared in writing in his
posthumous Course in General Linguistics published in 1916. In contrast with most
of his predecessors, who focused on historical evolution of languages, Saussure
emphasized the primacy of synchronic analysis of languages to understand their inner
functioning, though never forgetting the importance of complementary diachrony.
This dualistic opposition has been carried over into philosophy and sociology, for
instance by Roland Barthes and Jean-Paul Sartre. Jacques Lacan also used it
for psychoanalysis.[2] Prior to de Saussure, many similar concepts were also
developed independently by Polish linguists Jan Baudouin de Courtenay and Mikołaj
Kruszewski of the Kazan school, who used the terms statics and dynamics of
language
Synchronic linguistics is descriptive linguistics, such as the study of how parts of a
language (morphs or morphemes) combine to form words and phrases and how
proper syntax gives a sentence meaning. In the 20th century the search for a universal
grammar, that which is instinctive in humans and gives them the ability to pick up
their native language as an infant, is a synchronic area of study.

Studies of "dead" languages can be synchronic, as by definition they are no longer

spoken (no native or fluent speakers) nor evolving and are frozen in time.