During the workshop organized by the Emerging Linguists and verbal at the ÖLT 2024, I had the honor to presented the results of two pilot studies conducted as a part of my PhD project. In my research I explore various aspects of word meaning in the German, Polish, and Ukrainian languages. Unlike many semantic studies that focus on e. g. the diachronic analysis of meaning structures (cf. Anstatt 1995, 1996) or the influence of culture on meaning (cf. Goddard et al. 2016; Wierzbicka 1992), my research concentrates on the role of associative meaning for lexical word meaning. In both pilot studies, participants took part in individual experimental sessions involving conversations and free association tests with selected target words. While earlier studies used association tests to examine, for instance, the mental lexicon (cf. Aitchison 1987) or cultural semantic networks (cf. Sharifian 2001), I applied the method to compare word meanings emerging from participants’ associations with those in dictionary definitions, in order to explore the role of associative meaning for the lexical one.

A common question of my participants was, why I decided to study meaning at the first place. As a language enthusiast who speaks six languages, I noticed that the meaning of a word as described in a dictionary didn’t always match how native speakers used it. Interestingly, this discrepancy wasn’t limited to foreign languages or dictionary definitions — even in conversations with fellow native speakers, I observed slight differences in how the same word was used, perceived and understood. One of the possible ways to research on word meaning perception was association testing, which I decided to test in my pilot studies.

As often the case in studies involving people, I couldn’t predict what kind of responses I would receive – and I was both surprised and delighted by the variety. Participants’ associations were rich and multifaceted: they included not only words and collocations, but also physical sensations, colors, visual images, idioms, metaphors, personal experiences, and contextual explanations. My first step in analyzing this material was to compare the meanings derived from participants’ associations with those found in dictionary definitions. This led me to quite a few discoveries, some of which I presented at the ÖLT 2024 and will briefly describe here.

The following examples come from the Ukrainian pilot study. I found that some dictionary definitions rely heavily on synonyms and tautological explanations. For instance, the definition of zasmučenyj (upset) often includes smutok (sadness) or smutnyj (sad) – words sharing the same root. Similarly, spil’nota (community) is defined via the synonym spil’nist (commonality), and očikuwaty (to expect) is equated with ždaty (to wait), despite their nuanced differences. Participants’ associations also raised questions about the adequacy of some definitions, such as “lively and agile” for cikavyj (interesting), “confidence in the possibility of fulfillment of something desired” for nadija (hope) and “successfully realize an intention” for “poščastyty” (get lucky). Moreover, associative responses revealed cultural nuances that could enrich dictionary definitions. For instance, the words korysnyj (useful) and potribno (necessary, needed) were linked by participants to socially expected behavior. According to them, the words are socially shaped and represent the expectation to attend to others‘ needs and offer help without expecting anything in return. Thus, even being individualized the participants’ associations revealed shared perceptions of specific words, including meanings that are not represented in formal definitions.

For those interested in more details, the conference presentation and the audio recording are available on the Emerging Linguists Association’s website (https://emerginglinguists.org/de/48-oesterreichische-linguistiktagung/). I’m truly grateful to the workshop organizers for creating such a supportive space for early-career researchers. I also warmly encourage students of linguistics to take part in future events organized by the Emerging Linguists – it’s a great opportunity to share ideas, gain feedback, and connect with fellow scholars.

By Galyna Orlova

References:

Aitchison, J. (1987). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon. Basil Blackwell.

Anstatt, T. (1995). Die Bedeutung von Bezeichnungen für „Zeit“. In H. Dippong (Hg.), Linguistische Beiträge zur Slavistik (S. 3-18). Otto Sagner.

Anstatt, T. (1996). “Zeit”: Motivierung und Strukturen der Bedeutung von Zeitbezeichnungen in slavischen und anderen Sprachen. Otto Sagner.

Goddard, C., & Wierzbicka, A. (2016). Words and Meanings. Lexical Semantics Across Domains, Languages, and Cultures. Oxford University Press.

Sharifian, F. (2001). Association-Interpretation: A research technique in cultural and cognitive linguistics. Proceedings The 6th Annual Round Table of the Centre for Applied Language and Literacy Research. Edith Cowan University. https://web-archive.southampton.ac.uk/cogprints.org/5543/