COMPONENTIAL ANALYSIS
Product of structural linguistics
*
*
*
*
*
beginning of the 20th ct.-firm belief in structuralism
1916-1930: attempts at semantic fields (rigidly structural)
1930s-how to define the m. of a word?
C.A.-breaking down the m. of a word into components (term from
chemistry)
Presupposes that the m. of each lexeme can be analyzed by a comb.
of more general MEANING COMPONENTS (SEMANTIC FEATURES)
*
m. components- atomic; m. of lexemes-molecular (concepts)
e.g. m. of the lexeme MAN combines the atomic elements: male, adult,
human and differs from the m. of the lexeme WOMAN by only 1
component: female (not male)
Hjelmslev & Jakobson-earliest and most influential supporters; believed that
the principles that Trubetzkoy introduced into phonology should be
applied to grammar and semantics
*
*
*
*
•
•
representatives of the European version:Greimas, Pottier, Prieto,
Coseriu
American version: independent development, proposed by
anthropologists: Goodenough, Lounsbury, Wallace, Atkins; but later
accepted by linguists: Lamb, Nida, Weinreich, Katz & Fodor
Each row is supposed to constitute a definition of the m. of the word
Major problems:
sb. who doesn’t understand the components wouldn’t understand
the d. (Marsian)
MAN can be used in 2 senses
•
•
+/- notation and limited nb. of comp.
choice of comp.-completely arbitrary
m. is provided by OPPOSITION between lexemes
Examples used in criticism
man-woman
cow-bull
dog-bitch
duck-drake
male comp. is generic
female comp. is generic
2nd part of pairs:SEMANTICALLY MARKED LEXEME:entering a sphere
other than conceptual, used less
TYPES OF LINGUISTIC MARKEDNESS
•
•
FORMAL M.: suffix in the 2nd lexeme is a formal mark of
opposition; markedness is based on the presence/absence of
particular element of form (morpheme). L. whose forms contain
such an element are formally marked: host-hostess; countcountess; lion-lioness
DISTRIBUTIONAL M.:formally marked element has a more limited
distribution (number of contexts in which it appears); lion-wider
distribution. Acceptable: male lion, female lion; not acceptable:
female lioness (tautological), male lioness (contradictory)
3. SEMANTIC M.: sem. marked lexeme is the one which has a more
specific m.(lioness, bitch have a more specific m. than lion, dog)
all sem. marked l. are at the same time distributionally marked
*
*
fly, snail, fish: are they + or – for male?
kinship term analysis allows disjunction and conjunction of
components:
brother-in-law: male, spouse-of-sibling-of V sibling-of-spouse-of
*
C.A. started out as a theory; today-only a method. Theory- provides a
detailed and complete answer to how sth. functions. Method-aux.
means to get close to sth. with which we support a theory
*
*
Regarded as an attempt to set the theory of s. fields on stronger
theoretical and methodological foundations (but do not presuppose
each other)
Lyons:”C.A. leaves unexplained at least as much as it explains”
Further proposals of C.A.
*
*
Pottier (1964): +/- notation, but introduction of descriptive components
(not represented by only one lexeme)
also belongs to traditional approaches but better than man-woman
analysis in 1930s: more detailed as it uses descriptive comp.
*
no breakthrough innovations because of remaining rigidness
G. Sampson: “Meaning will escape any cage you put it in!” (+/- notation
is a kind of cage)
Coseriu- 2 types of semantic components:
•
•
*
*
SEMES- minimal distinguishing features of m. that function within a
single semantic (lexical) field. Function- structuring a field by means
of various opposition (between chair, armchair, stool...)
CLASSEMES- more general comp. Common to lexemes belonging
to various lexical fields (animate/inanimate; male/female)
Semes and classemes distinction-roughly corresponds to Katz and
Fodor’s distinction of DISTINGUISHERS and MARKERS
That part of m. which is systematic is presented by markers and the
rest by distinguishers
*
Classemes CLASSIFY, semes DESCRIBE
*
Eugene Nida- approximately the same approach as Pottier
*
Keeps pluses and minuses, Pottier’s descriptive components, but also
adds numbers
C.A. and universalism
*
most extreme form of universalism holds:
a) there is a set of s. comp. which are universal (lexicalized in all
languages) (substantial universals)
b) formal principles by means of which comp. are combined are universal
(formal universals)
c) m. of all lexemes in a l. can be decomposed without residuals into comb.
of sem. comp.
Criticism of C.A.
*
*
*
*
what has been done up to now is incomplete and unconvincing
analyses are limited to a small portion of vocabulary and carried out in
a relatively small number of l.
in analysis of kinship terminology a number of different, equally
plausible answers were given. Which is the correct one?
also at question- universality and psychological reality of semantic
components
Lexeme meaning in cognitive semantics
*
*
1980s- rigorous approaches put aside, return to mentalism;
fundamental notions: mental picture & concept
the way we think and our mental images are not arbitrary; share similar
m. images-through discoveries in psychology & neuroscience
LABOV
*
*
*
LABOV: linguistics is a science investigating categories; word m. can
be analyzed only empirically (experiments) by analyzing informants’
answers to a series of drawings depicting various cups, mugs and
similar containers-quantitative (measurable) approach to m.
But: average speaker of E. wouldn’t define or understand such a
definition; too mathematical and sophisticated
What is missing: cause & effect (relationship between l. form and
use)
WIERZBICKA
(“Lexicography and Conceptual Analysis”)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
criticizes Labov-applicable only to a small portion of vocabulary
gives definitions to describe most fully the concept of mental image,not
for dictionaries
long definitions; exhaustive descriptive components
major components on the right & exhaustive components on the left
prototypical cups and mugs
prototypical cups: have saucers for stability, easy to spill liquid, made of
fine porcelan, elegant, to drink with family, friends, etc.
prototypical mugs: no saucers, more stable, bigger, with flat bottom,
easy to carry around,usually to drink out of individually
have a different social function
meaning-not analyzed only by describing what we see, but also by
investigating concept structures and cultural background
best approach: not by using interviews or lab experiments but through
methodological introspection and thinking
*
*
expands Labov’s definitions of cups and mugs by adding to
descriptions of visual nature their social and cultural function- identified
best by means of comparison
approach similar to Fillmore’s SCENES and FRAMES: both include
KNOWLEDGE OF A CULTURE