Navigation bar
  Print document Start Previous page
 10 of 178 
Next page End  

10
composition); the dental suffix is immediately related to the stem of the verb and together with the stem
constitutes the temporal correlation in the paradigmatic system of verbal categories.
Thus, in studying the morpheme we actually study the word
in
the necessary details of its composition and
functions.
§ 2. It is very difficult to give a rigorous and at the same time universal definition to the word, i.e. such a
definition as would unambiguously apply to all the different word-units of the lexicon. This difficulty is
explained by the fact that the word is an extremely complex and many-sided phenomenon. Within the
framework of different linguistic trends and theories the word is defined as the minimal potential sentence, the
minimal free linguistic form, the elementary component of the sentence, the articulate sound-symbol, the
grammatically arranged combination of sound with meaning, the meaningfully integral and immediately
identifiable lingual unit, the uninterrupted string of morphemes, etc., etc. None of these definitions, which can
be divided into formal, functional, and mixed, has the power to precisely cover all the lexical segments of
language without a residue remaining outside the field of definition.
The said difficulties compel some linguists to refrain from accepting the word as the basic element of
language. In particular, American scholars - representatives of Descriptive Linguistics founded by L.
Bloomfield - recognized not the word and the sentence, but the phoneme and the morpheme as the basic
categories of linguistic description, because these units are the easiest to be isolated in the continual text due to
their "physically" minimal, elementary segmental character: the phoneme being the minimal formal segment of
language, the morpheme, the minimal meaningful segment. Accordingly, only two segmental levels were
originally identified in language by Descriptive scholars: the phonemic level and the morphemic level; later, a
third one was added to these-the level of "constructions", i.e. the level of morphemic combinations.
In fact, if we take such notional words as, say, water, pass, yellow and the like, as well their simple
derivatives, e.g. watery, passer, yellowness, we shall easily see their definite nominative function and
unambiguous segmental delimitation, making them beyond all doubt into "separate words of language". But if
we compare with the given one-stem words the corresponding composite formations, such as waterman,
password, yellowback, we shall immediately note that the identification of the latter as separate words is greatly
complicated by the fact that they themselves are decomposable into separate words. One could point out that
the peculiar property distinguishing composite words from phrases is their linear indivisibility, i.e. the impos-
sibility for them to be divided by a third word. But this would-be rigorous criterion is quite irrelevant for
analytical word-forms, e.g.: has met-has never met; is coming-is not by any circumstances coming.
As for the criterion according to which the word is identified as a minimal sign capable of functioning alone
(the word understood as the "smallest free form", or interpreted as the "potential minimal sentence"), it is
irrelevant for the bulk of functional words which cannot be used "independently" even in elliptical responses (to
say nothing of the fact that the very notion of ellipsis is essentially the opposite of self-dependence).
In spite of the shown difficulties, however, there remains the unquestionable fact that each speaker has at
his disposal a ready stock of naming units (more precisely, units standing to one another in nominative
correlation) by which he can build up an infinite number of utterances reflecting the ever changing situations of
reality.
This circumstance urges us to seek the identification of the word as a lingual unit-type on other lines than
the "strictly operational definition". In fact, we do find the clarification of the problem in taking into
consideration the difference between the two sets of lingual phenomena: on the one hand, "polar" phenomena;
on the other hand, "intermediary" phenomena.
Within a complex system of interrelated elements, polar phenomena are the most dearly identifiable, they
stand to one another in an utterly unambiguous opposition. Intermediary phenomena ate located in the system
in between the polar phenomena, making up a gradation of transitions or the so-called "continuum". By some of
their properties intermediary phenomena are similar or near to one of the corresponding poles, while by other
properties they are similar to the other, opposing pole. Either of the two poles together with the intermediary
elements connected with it on the principle of gradation, forms a "field". The polar elements of this field
constitute its "centre", the non-polar elements, respectively, its "periphery".
The analysis of the intermediary phenomena from the point of view of their relation to the polar phenomena
reveal their own status in the system. At the same time this kind of analysis helps evaluate the definitions of the
polar phenomena between which a continuum is established.
In this connection, the notional one-stem word and the morpheme should be described as the opposing polar
phenomena among the meaningful segments of language; it is these elements that can be defined by their
formal and functional features most precisely and unambiguously. As for functional words, they occupy
Сайт создан в системе uCoz