Word (language): Difference between revisions
imported>John Stephenson (phrases are not constituted of words, rather a range of forms including words, non-word particles (especially in other languages), clitics (e.g. 've in I've) etc., so I deleted this too) |
imported>John Stephenson (rewrite of introduction to include more examples, and also added subtitling) |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
{{dambigbox|the unit of language|Word}} | {{dambigbox|the unit of language|Word}} | ||
A '''word''' is a unit of [[language (general)|language]] which exists in contrast to other forms such as [[phrase]]s and [[sentence]]s | A '''word''' is a unit of [[language (general)|language]] which exists in contrast to other forms such as [[phrase]]s and [[sentence]]s, and which language users intuitively recognised as such. However, an exact definition of 'word' is difficult since it depends on what aspect of language, and and indeed what specific languages, are being discussed. | ||
In normal discourse, a word is regarded as a ''meaningful'' unit of language,<ref>'''Note:''' So-called ''nonsense words'' exist ("all mimsy were the borogroves") that have no meaning.</ref> but this definition does not account for disagreements about what is a word and what is not (e.g. whether ''table'' and ''tables'' are one word or two, or whether ''the'' is a word in the same way that ''table'' is a word). In some [[culture]]s, words may also appear to be more [[psychology|psychologically]] real than others: for example, people who are [[literacy|literate]] in a [[writing system]] which demarcates units of language by spacing (e.g. most [[alphabet]]s) may more readily identify such units as words: compare ''flowerpot'' and ''flower pot'', where the presence of a space seems to confer word status on each of the two elements, even though any difference in meaning is negligible and the sounds blend into one another in the speech stream. | |||
Despite these problems, for many language users there is initially little doubt as to what constitutes a word: ''cat'' is a word, and it does not become two words by adding the [[plural]] ''-s''; whereas ''the cat'' is certainly two words, making a phrase. In other languages, such as [[Swedish language|Swedish]], ''the cat'' can be expressed as a single word by the application of an [[inflection]]al ending: ''kat'' and the [[definiteness|definite]] marker ''-en'' combine to form ''katten''. Other cases are more difficult: for example, there might be some confusion over whether ''fridge-freezer'' is one word or two. | |||
==Lexemes== | |||
Because of the ambiguity of what counts as a 'word', [[linguistics|linguists]] often employ the term ''[[lexeme]]'' to refer to a 'minimally distinctive', abstract unit in language, and reserve 'word' as a more general term. For example, ''eat'', ''ate'', ''eaten'', ''eats'' and ''eating'' are all different words, but also variants of a single lexeme.<ref>[[Idiom]]atic expressions would be single lexemes as well, even though they consist of several separate words that can be modified, e.g. ''Keep it under your hat'' or ''[He] kept it under his hat''.</ref> 'Minimally distinctive' might mean, as the linguist [[Leonard Bloomfield]] argued, that the unit can stand alone as an [[utterance]] in its own right, forming a single-word sentence (e.g. ''Eat!''); or at least that [[native speaker]]s somehow come to the [[intuition]] that such units are distinct from other units of language. Such attempts at a definition of 'word' are problematic, as they do not account for exceptions such as ''the'' and ''a'', for which it is difficult to come up with acceptable contexts for these as single-word sentences; and they do not really explain what a word ''is'' in a satisfactory manner. Then again, linguists may also point out that language itself has so far eluded a satisfactory, explicit description of how it really works. | Because of the ambiguity of what counts as a 'word', [[linguistics|linguists]] often employ the term ''[[lexeme]]'' to refer to a 'minimally distinctive', abstract unit in language, and reserve 'word' as a more general term. For example, ''eat'', ''ate'', ''eaten'', ''eats'' and ''eating'' are all different words, but also variants of a single lexeme.<ref>[[Idiom]]atic expressions would be single lexemes as well, even though they consist of several separate words that can be modified, e.g. ''Keep it under your hat'' or ''[He] kept it under his hat''.</ref> 'Minimally distinctive' might mean, as the linguist [[Leonard Bloomfield]] argued, that the unit can stand alone as an [[utterance]] in its own right, forming a single-word sentence (e.g. ''Eat!''); or at least that [[native speaker]]s somehow come to the [[intuition]] that such units are distinct from other units of language. Such attempts at a definition of 'word' are problematic, as they do not account for exceptions such as ''the'' and ''a'', for which it is difficult to come up with acceptable contexts for these as single-word sentences; and they do not really explain what a word ''is'' in a satisfactory manner. Then again, linguists may also point out that language itself has so far eluded a satisfactory, explicit description of how it really works. | ||
Other definitions involve the degree to which one can acceptably modify or distort the structure of the unit in question: if it remains 'cohesive', or its 'constituent' parts do not readily allow rearrangement, then the unit could be a word. For example, unlike the units in a sentence such as ''He ate the cake'', the [[morpheme]]s in ''antidisestablishmentarianism'' cannot be rearranged. Of course, this does not help when a single word is also a single morpheme, such as ''cat'', and 'cohesion' in particular does not explain examples of [[infixation]] such as ''Abso-blinking-lutely!''<ref>This is known as ''expletive infixation'' and usually involves stronger language than the 'family-friendly' usage of this article.</ref> | =='Cohesion'== | ||
Other definitions of 'word' involve the degree to which one can acceptably modify or distort the structure of the unit in question: if it remains 'cohesive', or its 'constituent' parts do not readily allow rearrangement, then the unit could be a word. For example, unlike the units in a sentence such as ''He ate the cake'', the [[morpheme]]s in ''antidisestablishmentarianism'' cannot be rearranged. Of course, this does not help when a single word is also a single morpheme, such as ''cat'', and 'cohesion' in particular does not explain examples of [[infixation]] such as ''Abso-blinking-lutely!''<ref>This is known as ''expletive infixation'' and usually involves stronger language than the 'family-friendly' usage of this article.</ref> | |||
==The 'word' in different fields of linguistics== | |||
'Word' can also mean different things depending on what aspect of language is examined. For example, in [[phonology]] (the study of the abstract units used to represent language, such as /k/ in ''cat''), a ''[[phonological word]]'' may not be the same unit as a word in [[syntax (linguistics)|syntax]], the study of how such units combine into larger structures such as [[sentence (linguistics)|sentence]]s. Syntax also identifies units which are in some ways like words and in other respects more like inflections: [[clitic]]s such as ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>ve'' in ''I've'', for example, popularly known in English as 'contractions', are phonologically dependent on other units (i.e. because they cannot stand separately from them: ''Have I?'' is possible but *'''Ve I?''<ref>'*' indicates that what follows is unacceptable in the language of the example.</ref> is not) but syntactically occupy the position of a full word, e.g. ''have''.<ref>Some analyses treat ''the'' and ''a'', the English [[article (linguistics)|article]]s, as clitics because they are dependent on a following noun, though [[adjective]]s can stand between them.</ref> In [[writing]], units of language are often separated in a way that does not reflect the facts of [[phonetics]]; for example, [[English language|English]] uses spacing to break up sequences of [[letter (alphabet)|letters]] even though there are rarely physical pauses in running [[speech]]. A 'word', then, may be identified on phonological, [[orthography|orthographic]], syntactic or [[semantics (linguistics)|semantic]] grounds. | 'Word' can also mean different things depending on what aspect of language is examined. For example, in [[phonology]] (the study of the abstract units used to represent language, such as /k/ in ''cat''), a ''[[phonological word]]'' may not be the same unit as a word in [[syntax (linguistics)|syntax]], the study of how such units combine into larger structures such as [[sentence (linguistics)|sentence]]s. Syntax also identifies units which are in some ways like words and in other respects more like inflections: [[clitic]]s such as ''<nowiki>'</nowiki>ve'' in ''I've'', for example, popularly known in English as 'contractions', are phonologically dependent on other units (i.e. because they cannot stand separately from them: ''Have I?'' is possible but *'''Ve I?''<ref>'*' indicates that what follows is unacceptable in the language of the example.</ref> is not) but syntactically occupy the position of a full word, e.g. ''have''.<ref>Some analyses treat ''the'' and ''a'', the English [[article (linguistics)|article]]s, as clitics because they are dependent on a following noun, though [[adjective]]s can stand between them.</ref> In [[writing]], units of language are often separated in a way that does not reflect the facts of [[phonetics]]; for example, [[English language|English]] uses spacing to break up sequences of [[letter (alphabet)|letters]] even though there are rarely physical pauses in running [[speech]]. A 'word', then, may be identified on phonological, [[orthography|orthographic]], syntactic or [[semantics (linguistics)|semantic]] grounds. | ||
==Footnotes== | ==Footnotes== | ||
{{reflist|2}} | {{reflist|2}} |
Revision as of 01:04, 23 October 2009
A word is a unit of language which exists in contrast to other forms such as phrases and sentences, and which language users intuitively recognised as such. However, an exact definition of 'word' is difficult since it depends on what aspect of language, and and indeed what specific languages, are being discussed.
In normal discourse, a word is regarded as a meaningful unit of language,[1] but this definition does not account for disagreements about what is a word and what is not (e.g. whether table and tables are one word or two, or whether the is a word in the same way that table is a word). In some cultures, words may also appear to be more psychologically real than others: for example, people who are literate in a writing system which demarcates units of language by spacing (e.g. most alphabets) may more readily identify such units as words: compare flowerpot and flower pot, where the presence of a space seems to confer word status on each of the two elements, even though any difference in meaning is negligible and the sounds blend into one another in the speech stream.
Despite these problems, for many language users there is initially little doubt as to what constitutes a word: cat is a word, and it does not become two words by adding the plural -s; whereas the cat is certainly two words, making a phrase. In other languages, such as Swedish, the cat can be expressed as a single word by the application of an inflectional ending: kat and the definite marker -en combine to form katten. Other cases are more difficult: for example, there might be some confusion over whether fridge-freezer is one word or two.
Lexemes
Because of the ambiguity of what counts as a 'word', linguists often employ the term lexeme to refer to a 'minimally distinctive', abstract unit in language, and reserve 'word' as a more general term. For example, eat, ate, eaten, eats and eating are all different words, but also variants of a single lexeme.[2] 'Minimally distinctive' might mean, as the linguist Leonard Bloomfield argued, that the unit can stand alone as an utterance in its own right, forming a single-word sentence (e.g. Eat!); or at least that native speakers somehow come to the intuition that such units are distinct from other units of language. Such attempts at a definition of 'word' are problematic, as they do not account for exceptions such as the and a, for which it is difficult to come up with acceptable contexts for these as single-word sentences; and they do not really explain what a word is in a satisfactory manner. Then again, linguists may also point out that language itself has so far eluded a satisfactory, explicit description of how it really works.
'Cohesion'
Other definitions of 'word' involve the degree to which one can acceptably modify or distort the structure of the unit in question: if it remains 'cohesive', or its 'constituent' parts do not readily allow rearrangement, then the unit could be a word. For example, unlike the units in a sentence such as He ate the cake, the morphemes in antidisestablishmentarianism cannot be rearranged. Of course, this does not help when a single word is also a single morpheme, such as cat, and 'cohesion' in particular does not explain examples of infixation such as Abso-blinking-lutely![3]
The 'word' in different fields of linguistics
'Word' can also mean different things depending on what aspect of language is examined. For example, in phonology (the study of the abstract units used to represent language, such as /k/ in cat), a phonological word may not be the same unit as a word in syntax, the study of how such units combine into larger structures such as sentences. Syntax also identifies units which are in some ways like words and in other respects more like inflections: clitics such as 've in I've, for example, popularly known in English as 'contractions', are phonologically dependent on other units (i.e. because they cannot stand separately from them: Have I? is possible but *'Ve I?[4] is not) but syntactically occupy the position of a full word, e.g. have.[5] In writing, units of language are often separated in a way that does not reflect the facts of phonetics; for example, English uses spacing to break up sequences of letters even though there are rarely physical pauses in running speech. A 'word', then, may be identified on phonological, orthographic, syntactic or semantic grounds.
Footnotes
- ↑ Note: So-called nonsense words exist ("all mimsy were the borogroves") that have no meaning.
- ↑ Idiomatic expressions would be single lexemes as well, even though they consist of several separate words that can be modified, e.g. Keep it under your hat or [He] kept it under his hat.
- ↑ This is known as expletive infixation and usually involves stronger language than the 'family-friendly' usage of this article.
- ↑ '*' indicates that what follows is unacceptable in the language of the example.
- ↑ Some analyses treat the and a, the English articles, as clitics because they are dependent on a following noun, though adjectives can stand between them.