204 – Analytical language 2: rhetorical strategies
By contrast, many attempts at defining the word have tended to
concentrate on one or two of these criteria. Some linguists particularly
exclude semantic properties of the word from its defining characteristics.
Lyons (1968: 197–200), for example, defines a word purely
grammatically, distinguishing it from a ‘lexeme’, which has properties of
meaning. But there is, I believe, no good reason to exclude semantic or
phonological criteria. A word is best viewed as a complex linguistic
‘cluster concept’, whose meaning can vary according to the context in
which it is being used.
What we have here is not so much a definition as the opening to
a discussion of what needs to be considered in order to arrive at a
definition. Each of the points raised above would need to be elaborated
in the ways you will now be familiar with. This discussion could
conclude (though it might not have to, depending on the wording of
the essay topic) with your own attempt at a definition.
You will have noticed that the discussion above introduces
the question of whether a word should be distinguished in some
fundamental way from a lexeme. Some essay topics will ask you quite
explicitly to make such distinctions. As an example, here is a topic
from anthropology:
What is the difference between trade and exchange? Illustrate your
answer with ethnographic examples.
The problem posed by a topic such as this is fundamentally the same
as that we have just examined in connection with the word. You
will, however, have to compare the characteristics of trade and
exchange in order to arrive at a conclusion about which of them best
distinguishes the one from the other. When you read the literature you
will no doubt find that trade and exchange are not mutually exclusive terms but have certain overlapping characteristics in common –
the non-defining characteristics (in the Euler circles in chapter 2,
p. 45, these are A × B in Figure 3.2). Alternatively, you might find
that trade is a subclass of the more general class exchange (A in
By contrast, many attempts at defining the word have tended to
concentrate on one or two of these criteria. Some linguists particularly
exclude semantic properties of the word from its defining characteristics.
Lyons (1968: 197–200), for example, defines a word purely
grammatically, distinguishing it from a ‘lexeme’, which has properties of
meaning. But there is, I believe, no good reason to exclude semantic or
phonological criteria. A word is best viewed as a complex linguistic
‘cluster concept’, whose meaning can vary according to the context in
which it is being used.
What we have here is not so much a definition as the opening to
a discussion of what needs to be considered in order to arrive at a
definition. Each of the points raised above would need to be elaborated
in the ways you will now be familiar with. This discussion could
conclude (though it might not have to, depending on the wording of
the essay topic) with your own attempt at a definition.
You will have noticed that the discussion above introduces
the question of whether a word should be distinguished in some
fundamental way from a lexeme. Some essay topics will ask you quite
explicitly to make such distinctions. As an example, here is a topic
from anthropology:
What is the difference between trade and exchange? Illustrate your
answer with ethnographic examples.
The problem posed by a topic such as this is fundamentally the same
as that we have just examined in connection with the word. You
will, however, have to compare the characteristics of trade and
exchange in order to arrive at a conclusion about which of them best
distinguishes the one from the other. When you read the literature you
will no doubt find that trade and exchange are not mutually exclusive terms but have certain overlapping characteristics in common –
the non-defining characteristics (in the Euler circles in chapter 2,
p. 45, these are A × B in Figure 3.2). Alternatively, you might find
that trade is a subclass of the more general class exchange (A in