3. Methods of Lexicological Research

a) The diachronic approach;

b) The synchronic approach;

c) Statistical methods;

Diachronic approach.

The research methods used in Lexicology have always been closely connected with the general trends in Linguistics. The principles of comparative linguistics have played an important role in the development of a scientific approach to historical word study.

They have brought everything in order and classified information about the English vocabulary in their proper perspective.

The methods applied consisted in observation of speech, mostly written, collection and classification of data, hypotheses and systematic statements. Particular stress was put on the refinement of methods for collecting and classifying facts. The study of vocabulary became scientific.

The 19^th century language study has recognized variety and change in language. Comparative philology insisted on reconstruction of the fundamental forms and meanings which have not come down to us. It was realized that the only basis for correctness is the usage of the native speakers of each language. They destroyed the myth of a Golden Age when all the words had their primary “correct” meaning and when the language was in a state of perfection from which it has deteriorated. It became clear from intensive work on the great historical dictionaries that multiple meaning for words is normal, not an “exception”. Comparative studies show that, save for specific technical terms, there are no two words in two languages that cover precisely the same area.

The greatest contribution, as far as English is concerned, were the Oxford English Dictionary and Data on the English vocabulary in works by H.Sweet, O.Jesperson, H.Poutsma, and others. Most of them were published in the 20^th century but the main principles on which they were based were worked out in the 19^th century.

In the beginning of the 20^th century vocabulary study was still mainly concentrated on historical problems. In connection with the so-called word-and-thing method the study of words became a tool for the study of civilization.

A wide historical context was, in its turn, found indispensable in explaining vocabulary changes. In the process of studying some words or work, the linguists collected accurately chosen examples of usage, and arranged them according to the periods of language history (and for OE and ME according to dialects). These data were compared. As to conclusions about the meaning, they were drawn from the context and from what was known about the realia of the period.

Comparing words and morphemes with those from which they were derived it was possible to describe the processes at work in vocabulary development.

The synchronic approach.

The centre of interest has shifted to the synchronic level, the spoken utterance and structure. Lexicologists are now describing what the vocabulary of the language is like, rather than how it came to be that way.

The new trend has received the name structural (descriptive) linguistics. Its methodological principles can be summarized as follows: Language is to be analyzed by specifically linguistic methods, according to the specifically linguistic criteria, not as a combination of psychological, physiological and physical phenomenon. This analysis arrives at a definite number of discrete units, interdependent parts of relational structure, and each language is characterized by an internal structure of its own.

Descriptive linguistics can not be simply a list of elements, it must show how these elements are combined.

Structural linguistic has many varieties and schools. The main schools are those of Prague, the United States, Copenhagen, and more presently, London and Moscow.

A major achievements of the Prague school is represented in N.S.Trubetzkoy’s classical work, and means in the first place a particular approach to phonology (the theory of oppositions).

The typically American developments of linguistic theory resulted from practical tasks: the study of the America Indian languages, teaching of foreign languages, and recently, machine translation. Books by L.Bloomfield, E.Nida, B.Bloch, Z.Harris and others mark stages in the development of structuralist theory in the United States.

The main achievements of the American schools are the analysis into immediate constituents, substitution, distributional and transformational analysis.

Immediate constituents (IC) are the two meaningful parts forming a larger linguistic unity. The IC of bluish are blue- and –ish.

Substitution is testing of similarity by placing into identical environment:

It is reddish – it is some what red.

Substitution is also necessary for determining classes for words.

E.g. the words family, boy, and house all belong to different classes of nouns, as they are differently substituted:

I like this family – I like them

I like this boy – I like him

I like this house – I like it.

This linguistic feature and not the difference between the objects the words serve to denote, is the basis for their subdivision into collective, personal and object nouns.

The term distribution is used to denote the possible variants of the immediate lexical, grammatical and phonetical environment of a linguistic unit.

According to Z.Harris, “the distribution of an element is the total of all environments in which it occurs, i.e. the sum of all the positions of an element relative to the occurrence of other elements”.

E.g. she made him a good wife – she made a good wife for him.

Statistical methods

Modern structural ways of analysis are often combined with statistical procedures. Statistics describes how things are on the average. For a modern linguist it is not enough to know that it is allowable for a given structure to appear, he is interested in its frequency, in how often it appears.

Every lexicological research is based on collecting linguistic evidence, i.e. examples.

Having determined the object of research, the problem to be investigated and the set of units or phenomena to be described, the linguist proceeds to choose his method and collect and classify his data. He must have at hand a sufficiently wide choice of contexts so that his results might be statistically reliable. To know how many examples are necessary to make the conclusion, one must determine the relative frequency of the phenomenon or unit studied.

Mathematical statistics supplies the research workers with formulas showing the necessary scope of material depending on the amount of error they are prepared to tolerate.

When using a statistical method, it is true that some details are lost because statistical study is necessarily simplifying and abstract. G.Miller gives a clear picture of the situation when he says “At one time we look at the talker as generator of sound waves, and at another time he seems a fountain of prepositional phrases. The choice depends upon the interest”.